Tisha Casida, unaffiliated (independent) candidate for U.S. House, Colorado District Three, signed the Voluntary United States House Term Limits Declaration that limits her service to three terms.
Casida says, “I want to be a Statesman, not a politician – I want to show people that I am coming back to work in my community versus making a living off of taxpayers and lobbyists in Washington, D.C.”.
Casida signed the declaration while turning in her signatures to be on the ballot at the Colorado Secretary of State.
For more information, please visit www.casida2014.com
Not to mention that her stance on immigration is quite lax. She simply uses strong wording in the first sentence, possibly to draw the attention of conservatives and goes on to detail a relatively reasoned and sensible policy:
“Illegal immigration is just that – illegal. It is imperative that we protect Americans and citizens of their respective States. This is two-fold – we must secure the border and we must streamline the process for legal immigration into the United States.
In addition to this, we must end the incentives that allow illegal immigrants to benefit as citizens, but do not contribute to those services. Ending these incentives allows for a free-market approach to ending what may bring people here illegally in the first place.
Individuals who come here to work in this country often do so out of love for their family – and it is our job to make sure there is an efficient way for them to do that, and to become a citizen of this country. Using draconian measures of force against people who are already here won’t solve any of our economic problems – if we fixed those – this would not be such an issue to many people. And, less bureaucracy in the federal government would actually start to solve the immigration problem on its own. There are ways to fix this, and to do good things for Americans and immigrants who want to live and work in this country.”
The AFSP sounds to me like one guy, or maybe a tiny handful. Their (his) endorsements don’t make much sense either. For example, the first thing they state, when they get down to talking about what they stand for, is that they (paraphrasing) stand against poor treatment of immigrants…. Then, in their endorsement of Ms. Casida, they state that they strongly disagree with her stance on immigration, but believe that she’ll fight for fair ballot access laws. Seems like the bar for an endorsement is set pretty low.
I’m also quite sure that the endorsement carries next to zero weight.
The American Free Soil Party (www.americanfreesoilparty.org) has endorsed Ms. Casida.
Bravo! Have any elected Democrats and Republicans signed the same form?