Bill Wells, the Republican mayor of El Cajon, is running for Congress representing the 51st Congressional District, which stretches from Lemon Grove north to Mira Mesa and from Clairemont east to El Cajon. To help inform voters, the San Diego Union-Tribune asked all the candidates a series of the same questions about their priorities, positions and campaigns. Their emailed answers have been lightly edited for clarity. Why are you running, and what makes you the best candidate? I am running for Congress in the 51st Congressional District because I, like 75% of the country, believe that our nation is going in the wrong direction. This grand experiment with the border, the economy, energy, defunding the police and allowing people to die on the sides of the road in their addictions is a pathetic failure. I believe I can provide more rational, sane and effective solutions to where we are currently as a nation and a district. I’ve had great success in El Cajon fighting the homeless industrial complex, keeping a fully staffed police department and having a balanced budget with a nearly $70 million reserve. I also think that San Diegans want a leader who is like them, a product of this district, who has been educated and raised his family here and knows how to relate to them. What are the top 3 issues facing this district and California generally? The three issues that people tell me they’re most concerned about are the open border, the failed economy with out-of-control prices and the safety of their streets. Unlike a hurricane, this disaster is a product of naïve policy narratives that disregard all that we have learned as a society as to how things work and get done. The good news is that common-sense values and solutions are still available to us if we have the courage to vote our way out of this mess. What are the first 3 things you would do in your first/next term in Congress? I would work with Congress to secure the border by redirecting the Border Patrol to protect it. Then we must identify the nearly 500,000 criminals who have crossed our border and deport them. We must find the 300,000 children lost to sex trafficking and rescue them and then make sure that the system is geared up to quickly hear all of the cases of asylum. I would work to withhold federal grants until the state of California was willing to give up its obsession with letting the streets be overrun with homeless people and criminals. My mantra would be that if California wants to commit suicide, it must be done on its own dime. I would encourage Congress not to assist with the systematic abuse of those on the streets and those trying to live comfortable lives in the cities. What would you do to curb climate change and its effects on California? I do not believe climate change poses the immediate danger some claim, nor do I support policies that harm the economy and reduce Americans’ quality of life. We should embrace natural gas and cleaner combustion engines instead. From my 11 years at SANDAG, I’ve seen Green New Deal advocates push to force people out of cars, regardless of cost or consequence, which I cannot support. The government’s role is not to lower living standards. Instead, we should follow the lead of countries like France and South Korea, which safely use nuclear power. Policy should be based on facts, not ideology. How should U.S. migration and asylum policy change, what should guide it, and what specifically will you pursue in Congress? We welcome good people into our country through a fair and dignified process, but the border must be closed to unrestricted immigration. Entry should require applying, going through a process and balancing what is humane with what benefits America. Most immigrants should be self-sufficient, not dependent on welfare. We should not provide housing down payments or healthcare benefits like sex change operations. Immigrants should demonstrate a commitment to making America their home and a willingness to assimilate. It’s been nearly a year since Hamas attacks in Israel sparked the ongoing war in Gaza, which has recently escalated conflicts between Israel and Hezbollah that threatens another war. What is your stance on the war in Gaza and what the U.S.’s role in the region should be? For nearly 80 years, Israel has offered peaceful solutions, but Palestinian leadership has rejected them, aiming for the destruction of the Jewish state. The events of Oct. 7 showed that Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran do not seek peace or compromise. In this context, a ceasefire without the full surrender of these terrorist groups is unjustifiable. While Israel will determine how to proceed, it is in the global interest for the U.S. to stand firmly with Israel. Though I hope for minimal destruction, this is an existential crisis, requiring the same commitment to defeating evil as in past global conflicts. Would you support federal statutory restrictions on, or protections of, abortion rights? Which, and to what extent? I understand that around 75% of people support some form of legal abortion, but as someone who is pro-life, I respect that the Supreme Court has rightfully left this decision to the states. In California, those who champion unrestricted abortion can rest assured — it’s protected in our state’s constitution. The outrage over other states’ policies is a political tactic meant to stoke fear, even though no abortion rights are in jeopardy here. A national abortion ban is both unrealistic and impractical. California’s laws are already among the most liberal in the world. It’s time to focus on real, pressing issues that actually affect the people of California. No one here has lost any rights, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise. Would you support or oppose stricter federal gun laws and background checks? Which, and to what extent? The gun law debate is a straw man argument aimed at disqualifying candidates who support the Constitution. If I believed more laws would keep people safer, it might be compelling, but these restrictions seem designed to erode constitutional rights. As a mental health professional, I do support keeping firearms away from those who are psychotic, homicidal or suicidal. However, it’s hard to believe in the sincerity of preventing gun deaths when the same people show little concern for the 100,000 annual deaths from fentanyl poisoning. This inconsistency makes their argument less credible.