May I see your papers, citizen?

The United States argues, and the federal district court recognizes, "that there are numerous categories of lawfully-present aliens 'who will not have readily available documentation to demonstrate that fact,' including foreign visitors from Visa Waiver Program countries, individuals who have applied for asylum but not yet received an adjudication, people with temporary protected status, U and T non-immigrant visa applicants, or people who have self-petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act." (See the full opinion (PDF), on page 18.)

So Dyslexia's objection still stands.

The job is to encourage them to come with movies of the American way of life and to erect hurdles to make sure only the talent gets through. This ensures that the genetic material is kept at that high pitch which immigrants always bring and which starts degenerating as soon as complacency sets in.

I imagine that's what Darwin would have thought.

The "job" of the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats is to significantly augment their base with tens of millions of voters who will become addicted to federal programs that insure that most of them remain in a reliably Democrat voting underclass.

Not confident of building support among American citizens, they've hit upon a strategy of importing ready made Democrat voters.

How does the strategy work?

Hold border security hostage to amnesty.
Avoid the will of the American people by bypassing their elected representatives and implement de facto amnesty through Executive fiat.

Sue an American state that is actually impacted by illegal immigration and is trying to enforce laws already on the books.

Demonizing opponents of open borders as racists and xenophobes.

You may honestly believe that the State should do more for American citizens who you deem to be unfortunate, but do you really believe it should do so for all of the unfortunate the world has to offer? E-brown I know does but anyone else?

Even if all of the current "rich" Americans are thoroughly soaked to pay to provide benefits to all residing in this country, do you really think the ruling class will ever join us all in a "modest" life-style?

Obama is not only the most powerful individual in the world, he is personally rich. Do you see him contributing his personal wealth to the unfortunate? Why wouldn't he? He doesn't have to personally pay for anything.

How much of the mega speaker fees he reaps after he leaves office do you think he will contribute to the unfortunate? About as much a Bill Clinton has?

Charlie Rangel that champion of the unfortunate has cheated on taxes and lined his silk pockets, but then I guess he, like Obama, Pelosi, Jackson, Sharpton, Dowd, Frank, Kerry et al deserve to live the Good Life as a reward for all they've done for the unfortunate.

It's always easy to feel good spending someone else's money on helping the unfortunate.

Oh and now we'll hear the protestations: "I'm more than willing to pay more taxes," from people who know they will not be expected to.

The hypocrisy of the Left is stunning.

The Rep governments in recent decades has also stood by and did nothing while illegals were pouring into the country. They did this because the illegals provide cheap labor who increase the profits of the farmers and corporations. That is the real reason nothing has been done, and you know it.

The Republican strategy is to keep brown skinned people from becoming voters.

Brown people scare Republicans, brown voters terrify them.

Yes.

I am more than willing to pay more taxes, and rest assured; I would be expected to.

Your opinions are always interesting, Finn, but you really need to remember that scarce few people actually reside wholly in the Right or the Left camp.

When you speak in such generalities, you only display your ignorance, EB. I happen to know many Republicans here in Arizona that are very opposed to SB 1070. And many of those Republicans also happen to have brown skin themselves.

Context Tico. My over the top response was to Finn's over the top charge that Democrats only support CIR because they want (brown skinned) voters.

((I know there are a few brown-skinned Republicans, although I don't really understand why))

To be fair to the republicans, I see this particular issue as internally divisive. I'd not say AZ's immigration law has the full support of republican voters.

My buddy who attends Georgetown law is a big conservative, and a very (sometimes even obnoxiously) proud member of the GOP. He is studying search and seizure law, so I was very interested on his take with the issue. He doesn't support it, and doesn't seem to have any issue resolving this with any of his other beliefs on American policy or politics. In simplest terms, he thinks it's a bad law, and doesn't feel like an apostate for condemning it.

A
R
T

I love it when someone makes this kind of comment. I'll respond now as I always do. So Bill, what is stopping you right now from paying more taxes? On you next tax return, why don't you send the government the amount of money you are willing to pay, regardless of what you owe? Give the government an extra thousand since you are so willing to pay more. No law says you cannot, right? So go ahead.

To everyone else, you wanna take bets on whether Bill sends the extra money that he says he is willing to pay?

Oh come on CR!
Let me explain O'Bill's position in a simpler context.
Say he's living in a 100 unit condo development and the board sees a future shortfall in funds to replace the roofs. Bill's willing to agree to a small raise in the quarterly condo fees as long as every one goes along. He certainly wouldn't send the extra money on his own now would he?

I'm reminded of a certain wall that the GOP wants to build, and I hear it spoke of fondly in the theoretical. Nobody is stopping loyal republican voters from sending and extra check to get it built.

Money paid is a meaningless measure without the associated service or investment it corresponds too. Certainly the the idea that taxes are high or low is only qualified by whether a person is satisfied with the services they receive from said taxes. If a person is generally happy with the services, it's not dishonest to admit that if the price was to go up that they would continue to pay it.

A
R
T

But that's not what Bill said here - that's your argument, not his. Following your own example, his own statement is equivalent to volunteering to pay more taxes regardless of the majority consensus. The majority US consensus on this particular issue is a resounding no, so by analogy in your example, if any condo owner(s) feel so strongly about that roof, but the majority of the condo shares vote against these repairs, then the ones with the strong feelings can band together to raise the money among themselves. Nobody's stopping them. Haven't seen any such volunteerism so far - have you?

Certainly there's a danger when explaining someone else's viewpoint that we get it wrong.

O'Bill

But in this case HS I got it right.
If the raise in fees was voted down there's a tiny sliver of chance that O'Bill would try to make up the shortfall by himself.

You only got it right as far as Coastal Rat's argument goes - I never made any estimate of the probability Bill might volunteer to pay more taxes.

I don't doubt Bill's honesty in expressing his intent to pay more taxes - he can always reconsider, come tax day. Nor have I ever seen him inciting or advocating any breach of law as Eric Brown-Munoz has - the only other party in that discussion is obviously unaware of US law, being overseas:
http://able2know.org/topic/159099-1#post-4294979
There's no legitimate purpose for him to be collecting targets' social security and telephone numbers if his intent is limited to mailing notes.

Clown fight! Clown fight!

I agree Failures. Nobody is stopping anyone from financing it, sending extra money to finance it, or whatever. But what does that have to do with Bill's statement that he for one is willing to pay more in taxes? Absolutely nothing.

Bill never said anything about agreeing to pay more "as long as everyone goes along." He stated he was willing to pay more in taxes himself. Big talk until someone calls you on it, right? Of course, maybe Bill would like to clarify his position and add the qualifier "if everyone goes along." But until Bill comes along to clarify, I'm still taking bets he won't send any additional money, nor would he seriously consider it. But I will admit I could be wrong since I don't know Bill personally.