by Jack Hunter
I'm what you might consider a "double issue" voter, meaning I will not support any candidate who doesn't A. seriously want to stop illegal immigration and B. won't reverse our insane, pro-terrorist foreign policy. Right now, every other issue is at least negotiable with me.
This election year only Ron Paul fit this bill. That Paul is right on just about everything else was refreshing, but if he were only right on foreign policy and immigration he would have had my vote anyway.
Hillary Clinton will not change our foreign policy and will not stop illegal immigration. Barack Obama promises to change our foreign policy, but I honestly don't believe he will "change" anything and once elected, will simply maintain the current status quo, including our non-border policy. And John McCain? He is worse than both Clinton and Obama - he fought for amnesty, thinks Iraq is a success and can't wait to make things worse by bombing Iran. No thanks.
But a little examined aspect of the immigration debate was brought up by Dylan Hales over at The Left Conservative:
"immigration is a much more complex issue than traditional conservatives are willing to admit. While I am deeply sympathetic to efforts to suspend immigration wholesale, I am not willing to allow a totalitarian state on our shores to achieve this goal."
Hales goes on to explain how American military, economic and even CIA influence in Latin America has had an effect on mass immigration, in addition to and perhaps even more so than the obvious magnet of economic opportunities here in the United States.
Kudos to Hales for exploring an important aspect of the immigration debate that is vritually ignored. I recommend reading his blog post to everyone, but especially conservatives: