Hey Leo,

I hear ya. Many years ago, when I was still in my 20s, I decided that the Democratic Party was not representing me. I didn't call anyone to tell them to go to hell, I just changed my party affiliation to Libertarian.

Here's the rub: I rarely vote Libertarian for the big offices. There always seems to be too much at stake. And, since the Lib party tends to have fewer potential candidates, the Primaries are pretty much a no-go for me.

If you're really thinking of ditching the Republicans, keep that in mind. In recent history, the primary elections have been more contentious and exciting than the general elections. Making a point today might have an uncomfortable secondary effect on your ability to shape policy as a party member.

I don't love that you're a Republican, but I know that you're "one of the good ones".

Good luck with your decision.

Kudos to all for honesty regarding the major parties. We are not two kinds of people - we are many-faceted. :cheers:

I dumped the Republicans after the Contract with America failed. Never could quit sign onto the other side either. I still hate both parties with a passion and will probably once again stick to my Libertarian stance in the coming election. I've never voted for a Democrat.

The two party system is garbage.

Perhaps this is not the place ... ok, maybe it is.

A question for the Cap'n Jacks and scaeagles of the world:

1) What is it about the immigration situation you'd like to see done?

2) Despite what you'd like to see done, what do you think realistically can be done?

3) Despite what you think can and should be done, in a nation of millions of people, is immigration an issue where you are willing to compromise with the millions of other opinions that should count no more or less than yours?

Well, this is an insight. I am curious, though. The Contract with America was ballyhooed in 1994. How did a 17-year-old Jewish girl come to say, "Yeah, that Newt Gingrich. He speaks for me."

1) use the rules and law already in place to stop one of the primary reasons for the illegal immigration in the first place. illegal alien entries know well in advance of their arrival that american corporations and companies will hire them regardless of the laws in place to prevent it. they even know which companies to apply to and even in some cases, who to talk to. since these corporations use illegally resident workers to enhance their workforces for lower than standard wages, they make profits that they then in turn use as 'incentives' for political figures and those charged with enforcing such laws to turning a blind eye when it comes to enforcement.
stop that, you stem at least some of the flow.

2) yes. there have already been cases where the feds fall on a company rampantly undercutting standard wage rules and using illegally resident workforces to bolster company profits. these companies, despite their cries of 'we cant live without them' have survived and thrived. perhaps not as well as before while raking in massive profits, but nor do they have to line the pockets of those restraining the enforcement of resident labor laws already in place.

3) if its fair and even handed, has no back door adjendas and still works to solve the problem rather than mask it....sure.

Yay! More libertarians!

Come to the dark side.... we have martinis :)

I don't really have a problem with amnesty. With 12 million already here I don't see a truly practical alternative.

But before an amnesty can be implemented we need to have effectively closed the door behind them. Otherwise in 10 years we'll just be arguing about whether to grant amnesty to the 12 million new people who have shown up illegally.

So I'd support an enforcement first approach.

Of course, that is within the existing framework of severely limited caps on immigration. Which I don't support.

And it should be noted that for those considering movement to the Libertarian party over this particular issue that the official party stance is the removal of barriers to movement across borders.

Tom Tancredo
Duncan Hunter
Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is quite religious and vocally so, but I really don't fear any religious overtaking of the government.

I don't know if he is electable, and he certainly doesn't fit in the lesser known category, but I'd love to see Newt in it simply for what he'd add to the debate.

I will admit Romney's reaction to this amnesty plan makes me take more interest in him.

To respond to ISM:
First of all, don't get too excited. I'm discouraged with the party because they aren't enough like Reagan anymore. And yes, I realize that Reagan did the same damn amnesty crap, and it is perhaps my biggest disappointment with him.

What do I think should be done about immigration?
Secure the border. Don't tell me it can't be done. Saudi Arabia is building a very high tech fence along their border with Iraq. It can be done. Once that is done, start the deportation. And add a Constitutional Amendment so that birth on the soil of the US of A doesn't make you a citizen automatically.

What can be done realistically?
The fence and the amendment. Deportations....not going to happen.

I go back and forth with tamper proof national ID cards, which I think could realistically happen.

Question 3 -
Expect the laws on the books to be adhered to. If there is popular support to change them, then change them.
I can compromise. But I don't see this plan as any sort of compromise. I suppose this is what representative government is all about....we elect 100, 435, and 1 to sort through these issues and compromise for us. I am dissatisfied (an understatement) with the elected representatives and it will be difficult to vote for Kyl again. I am not one to cast protest votes, though, so if he's running against someone who would be worse, I will, of course, vote for him again (he isn't up for 5 years....perhaps he expects the anger to subside, and it very well may).