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.
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.
Hold border security hostage to amnesty.
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.
Quote:I am more than willing to pay more taxes, and rest assured; I would be expected to.
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?
That's a pretty foolish interpretation of what I wrote. After all, I was responding to a theoretical tax-obligation. That being said, however, you are still wrong. My charitable contributions towards these same ends easily exceed your proposed $1,000 and they wouldn't be necessary if my government followed my wishes as to expenditures. Until such time as they do; I see no good cause to pay the lion's share of my additional contribution towards wasteful bureaucracy; rather than funneling it through other entities that distribute the lion's share to the people who need the help.
I am more than willing to pay more taxes, and rest assured; I would be expected to.
Surely then you'll be willing to stop addressing half of my sentence in order to take it out of context as well:
Quote:The italicized portion should have clued you in that I was referencing a proposed obligation; not proposing a gift.....I am more than willing to pay more taxes, and rest assured; I would be expected to.
ebrown p wrote:The Republican strategy is to keep brown skinned people from becoming voters.
Brown people scare Republicans, brown voters terrify them.
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.
...modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net. [...] Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.
Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born..
Illegal immigrants would be barred from driving in the state, enrolling in school or receiving most public benefits. Their children would receive special birth certificates that would make clear that the state does not consider them Arizona citizens.
Some of the bills, like those restricting immigrants’ access to schooling and right to state citizenship, flout current federal law and are being put forward to draw legal challenges in hopes that the Supreme Court might rule in the state’s favor.
Arizona drew considerable scorn last year when it passed legislation compelling police officers to inquire about the immigration status of those they stopped whom they suspected were in the country illegally. Critics said the law would lead to racial profiling of Latinos, and a federal judge agreed that portions of the law, known as Senate Bill 1070, were unconstitutional.
Similar legal challenges are likely to come in response to the latest round of legislation, some of which cleared a key Senate committee early Wednesday after a long debate that drew hundreds of protesters, some for and some against the crackdown.
“This bill is miles beyond S.B. 1070 in terms of its potential to roll back the rights and fundamental freedoms of both citizens and noncitizens alike,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Arizona. She said the measures would create “a ‘papers, please’ society” and that a new crime — “driving while undocumented” — would be added to the books.
Despite boycotts and accusations that the state has become a haven of intolerance, Arizona won plaudits last year from immigration hardliners across the country. On Tuesday night, the Indiana Senate voted to allow its police officers to question people stopped for infractions on their immigration status, one of numerous proposals inspired by Arizona’s law.
“If you are ever going to stop this invasion, and it is an invasion, you have to quit rewarding people for breaking those laws,” said State Senator Russell Pearce, the Senate president, who is leading Arizona’s effort to try to make life so difficult for illegal immigrants that they stop coming, or leave.
And get rid of the damned war on drugs... prohibition didn't work in the 20's and it's not working now.
Why would you want to legalize drugs without legalizing immigrants? It seems to me that the tactics of the war on drugs are the same as the war on immigrants