Amnesty and my membership in the Republican party

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm curious which of the remaining low profile candidates interest you since most of them are frothing religious right types, the support of which seems inconsistent with libertarian leanings.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I'm curious which of the remaining low profile candidates interest you since most of them are frothing religious right types, the support of which seems inconsistent with libertarian leanings.

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).

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Tom Tancredo
Duncan Hunter
Mike Huckabee

I believe all three raised their hands at the debate when the group was asked who does not believe in evolution.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Expect the laws on the books to be adhered to.

Boy, are they adhered to. Immigration appeals command a lot of resources in the Ninth Circuit. As I sit here, I'm working on an appeal from an unlawful reentry conviction. Fellow got 86 months for coming back in to work and see his family. It's his third conviction.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Boy, are they adhered to. Immigration appeals command a lot of resources in the Ninth Circuit. As I sit here, I'm working on an appeal from an unlawful reentry conviction. Fellow got 86 months for coming back in to work and see his family. It's his third conviction.

I disagree. The laws are NOT applied properly. The one law that is not enforced nearly well enough is prevention of keeping people from unlawfully entering our country. The flow of illegal immigrants needs to be stopped.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I was just fine with the concept of policing the world, because I thought America had everything correct, and the rest of the world was backward, ignorant, and in need of some ass-kicking to get on track and away from their bad systems.

AMERICA - - FVCK YEAH!!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

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."

I was raised in a Rebublican household. I firmly believed that the Republicans were the party of lower taxes, smaller government, and more personal responsibility, meaning more freedom to make decisions about my own life. I was anti-gun control, anti-smoking laws, anti-seatbelt/bike helmet laws, anti-censorship. I was anti-welfare, anti-medicare....basically, I thought people could take care of themselves, and if they couldn't, they didn't deserve what they couldn't earn. I read lots of Ayn Rand. I was a big fan of Desert Storm, and was just fine with the concept of policing the world, because I thought America had everything correct, and the rest of the world was backward, ignorant, and in need of some ass-kicking to get on track and away from their bad systems.

I still hold some of these beliefs to some degree, others I have tossed. Mostly what I've learned is the world is not black and white, hence my anger at the two party system.

As the Republicans showed me just how much they loved big gov't, I got disillusioned and moved on. I was a real-deal Libertarian until 9/11 happened. That's when I realized that a) the Libertarians had no idea what real Americans were thinking, meaning they'll never be a successful party and b) real Americans actually loved being safe instead of free, which we're now committed to, forever and ever.

I have no further delusions about the future of America. Like every other country in the history of civilization, we've had our peak, and we're headed downhill. We've peaked in productivity, freedom of expression, and our affect on the world stage, and now we're not leading the world in any aspect of anything. Part of the reason for this is our political system, and our fears. Without the capacity for risk, we're an overblown joke.

I mean.......we bought blinds for our kitchen. Blinds. You pull the cord, they go up and down. These blinds have a yellow and black WARNING LABEL on the bottom. As if we bought something dangerous. Well of course it's dangerous - a child could strangle themselves on the cord. We no longer live in a strong, bold society. We live in fear of everything, we assume that people are stupid enough to let their child get strangled on a cord, and we feel the maker of the blinds is responsible if this happens. What kind of world are we living in?

This is why I do not debate politics at all anymore. In high school I was seriously considering creating a debate club at our school, and eventually becoming a political journalist. By the time I graduated I realized that was all over. If you want to make a difference, you can step up and be a true martyr - all the rest is blowhard armchair BS. I decided I didn't want to exchange my life for a political one, and therefore, I bowed out of the whole deal.

I do wish America the best of luck...it still is home, and I still think I'll stay, at least until I truly feel that my own freedoms are being strangled enough that I have to leave.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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

See, and I thought you were against big government....

National ID cards are pretty big government if you ask me, next thing you know, we'll be legally required to have them on our person at all times, just like the French.

[Alex]

For employment purposes, there is already a national ID card (your social security card, or if you don't have one the appropriate paperwork). So making one that actually fulfills that role isn't much of an increase in big government.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

For employment purposes, there is already a national ID card (your social security card, or if you don't have one the appropriate paperwork).

Annoyingly, it's not supposed to be a form of ID. I remember that the perforated sheet mine came on (my mom's crazy and kept the sheet as well as the card) actually had, "Not a valid form of ID" printed on it. I always use my passport when asked for ID by employers.

[Alex]

No, it is not supposed to be a valid for of ID (that's why I said "for employment purposes" not "for identification purposes"). But it is a valid form of evidence that you are eligible to work in this country. And, as such, it only seems appropriate that it bear the ability to match that eligibility to the person holding the card.

Since the primary goal of illegal immigration is employment (as much as some would like to believe it is terrorism, welfare, anchor babies, and sleeping with our wommins) enforcing that employment eligibility would have a huge impact on the market for illegal immigration.