Mark Andrew Dwyer -THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION ISSUE

The opinions expressed in guest columns posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AmericanPatrol.com. Visit the Alamance Independent to read Mark Andrew Dwyer's weekly column posted every Sunday. -- Click here for more Mark Andrew Dwyer columns. -- Please, send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com

Originally published in the October 11, 2004 issue of the Alamance Independent

THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION ISSUE

By Mark Andrew Dwyer -- October 13, 2004

By accident, I watched the presidential debate on October 8, 2004. The two contenders, Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry, were arguing about all kinds of issues from Iraq war, to North Korea's nuclear threat, to healthcare, corporate taxes and abortion. Even the fact of laying off 150 teachers in St. Louis where the debate took place, and an alleged $100 million education budget shortfall there were brought up for discussion. Conspicuously missing in this verbal duel between the candidates was the issue that a vast majority of Americans ranks as one of their top concerns: mass, unchecked, and mostly illegal immigration.

The absence of the illegal immigration theme in the debate was particularly intriguing if one takes into account Sen. Kerry's desperate attempts to nail Pres. Bush for whatever failures, whether real or perceived, Bush and his administration might be responsible for. He criticized Pres. Bush for the fact that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. He blamed Bush for 1.6 millions jobs lost as a result of slow economy. He even complained about Bush attacking him during election campaign. At the same time, he missed the excellent opportunity to knock Pres. Bush out for Bush and his administration's most spectacular failure of all: a failure to enforce America's border and her immigration laws.

The reason why the above issue was not even mentioned was not because of the small scale of the problem (est. 3 million illegal entrants crossing American-Mexican border just this year), it's negligible economic impact (tens of billions of dollars a year cost to the taxpayers), a lack of serious social ramifications (public health care and education system gradually collapsing as a result of huge overburden caused by illegal aliens and their countless kids), nor was it because prospective voters' approval of the status quo (poll after poll, a vast majority of Americans want illegal immigration halted and illegal aliens deported). If illegal immigration were brought up, the candidates would find really not much to argue about, and there would be no debate at all. Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry may disagree on many issues but are in accord (for different reasons, though) on this one: million man "migration" from Mexico and other Third World countries into the U.S. must not be obstructed, and most of those who managed to sneak into this country should be legalized.

And then we are told that the choice is ours, although we are forced to choose between the candidates whom we sharply disagree on this issue of extraordinary importance for America's national survival and her future as the main pillar of Western civilization. How ironic. Absent Supreme Court nominations (Kerry would nominate Liberal judges while Bush would nominate conservative ones), it's like choosing between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, or between bad and bad, if you will. And this spells out decidedly bad news for us, Americans, and for our country.

Here is why.

If the next President and his administration use their political skills (a.k.a. demagoguery) to have really bad laws passed by the Congress, their party can (and - most likely - will) loose big time in the following elections and the bad laws that have been passed can still be repealed. However, if they let millions of Mexican settlers (a.k.a. reconquistadors or "migrants") into the U.S. or reward those who are already (read: illegally) here with "regularization", which term includes prospect for citizenship, it will be a fatal mistake that is absolutely impossible to reverse. If the latter takes place, we will be stuck forever with these "migrants" and their numerous children forever, as many of them have already made clear that they "are not going anywhere". This mass "migration" begun just a decade ago or so but its devastating effects are already felt across the country. So, imagine what it will be like when ten times as many Mexican nationals (and nationalists) flood America and have their countless "Hispanic" kids here.

Under the current circumstances and in properly functioning political system, where the candidates for presidency and other federal offices stand on the illegal immigration issue, which includes American border enforcement, would be the single most important factor in deciding whom to vote for in 2004 elections. Unfortunately, our ruling elites maneuvered us into this sorry situation where this issue is not an issue at all, at least in the current presidential race. Therefore, we need to let all the hopefuls, presidential and otherwise, know on November 2 how much we disapprove of that, so that their successors can make a conscious choices whose votes, yours or illegals' they wish to court in future elections. They need to realize that they are sure to lose the support of their American electorate base while pandering to Mexicans and their offsprings, euphemistically referred to as "Hispanics". I, for instance, am going to vote for a write-in candidate, and encourage you to consider doing the same. Sen. Kerry may be soft on illegal immigration; Pres. Bush provably will, as he has been. This doesn't leave us with much of a choice, does it?

If some try to dismiss your concerns saying that you are but a single issue voter, tell them this: "Yes, there is a single issue that I put in front of all others. It's called America. And I stand for her."