Aubrey Immelman, Write-in Candidate for 6th Congressional District

Position sought: 6th District U.S. Representative
Age: 52
Residence: 99 Eighth St. N., Sartell
Family: Wife, Pamela; four children.
Occupation: Psychology professor, College of St. Benedict and St. Johns University; military consultant (independent contractor).
Education: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa, Ph.D., 1991, with coursework at the University of Wyoming and the University of Maine, 1986-1988.
Previous government/political experience: None.
Contact information: (320) 240-6828, info@immelman.net, www.immelman.us.

What should Americas diplomatic and military strategy be in the Middle East?

Diplomatically, America should have a vigorous strategy of building coalitions with allies and engaging adversaries in tough diplomacy by punishing behaviors that threaten U.S. national security interests and rewarding behaviors that promote U.S. interests in the region – in other words, the proven carrot-and-stick approach to international politics.

We should have a strong military presence in the region to deter adversaries from threatening vital U.S. security interests in the Middle East and to protect our allies; however, our military footprint should be as small as possible to avoid any perception of the U.S. as an occupying power, which breeds hostility and undermines U.S. national security.

In Iraq, we should reduce our military presence in an orderly manner that does not jeopardize recent security gains or enable Iran to exploit the complex national security predicament created by the removal of Saddam Hussein. U.S. military assets and resources no longer needed in Iraq need to be shifted to counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What should the federal government do to change the nations immigration system?

A cornerstone of a nations sovereignty is the will of its people and the ability of its government to secure its borders and to uphold its territorial integrity.

Our government has failed in its duty to control our borders and to regulate unauthorized access to the United States.

First, as a nation, we must do whatever it takes to secure our borders and ports of entry.

Second, before we even begin to consider changing our nations immigration system, we must start enforcing existing immigration law, which prohibits illegal entry into the United States, overstaying nonresident visas and hiring aliens without legitimate employment authorization.

Third, once we have achieved verifiable border security, we must work to develop a realistic plan for dealing with the estimated 12 million or more people unlawfully present in the United States. That plan cannot involve amnesty. Weve tried that failed policy before, in 1986, when the Reagan administration granted amnesty to 6 million illegal aliens – resulting in a doubling of the number of undocumented aliens two decades later.

In short, because of the ill-conceived immigration policies of the past, lax border security and feeble enforcement of immigration law, we are saddled with a situation that has no good practical solution.

Placing illegal aliens on a path to citizenship will encourage more of the same, while mass deportation will have such a negative impact on the international stature of the United States that it may well have adverse consequences for U.S. national security.

What should the federal government do to affect energy and fuel prices?

As a first order of business, stop printing and borrowing money to fund unnecessary wars. Monetary and fiscal policies that increase the money supply and rely on deficit spending to pay for Iraq contribute to inflation and drive down the value of the dollar, adding to the high price at the pump and the grocery checkout counter for U.S. consumers.

Second, do what it takes to increase the oil supply through expanded drilling and reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and developing alternative energy sources.

What principles guide you on spending, saving, investing and taxing and what new ideas should we try?

My guiding principle in politics is traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatives believe in limited government; in contrast, neoconservatives have given us the most bloated government in the history of our nation. Traditional conservatives want a balanced budget; in contrast, neoconservatives have taken us from surpluses to record deficits. Traditional conservatives dont mire us in unnecessary foreign entanglements. In short, traditional conservative values promote small government, fiscal restraint and a strong military focused primarily on national defense, not nation-building or preemptive war.

Traditional conservatives believe in individual responsibility and not looking to the government to carry us from cradle to grave. They believe in low taxes and balancing tax cuts with spending cuts.

What new ideas should we try?

I humbly suggest we return to an old, time-tested idea: Balance the budget.

On saving and investment, Ill say this: The government should get its priorities straight. We spend hundreds of billions on bombing and rebuilding Iraq while our own critical needs remain unmet.

Should the federal government help people who cant afford their mortgages and the lenders who issued them and how?

The fiscally conservative approach is no bailout, but we face a crisis where relief may be necessary to prevent further damage to the mortgage industry and the real estate market.

Its in our national interest to help homeowners to the extent necessary to avert a market collapse, but we need safeguards that will prevent the enrichment of mortgage lenders on the taxpayers dime.

The two mortgage giants that hold or guarantee about half of the nations home mortgage debt are among the biggest spenders on lobbying and political donations. The industry needs reform and better oversight, so it wont put hardworking, tax-paying Americans at risk again.