(04-08-2009 09:30 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Latino leaders are pressuring the White House to set a goal of signing a major immigration reform bill by the end of the year.

I can't stand how they use the word "reform" to mean that we change a policy that they don't like and to create a new policy that allows them easier access to this country along with our health and social benefits. We don't need reform, we need to enforce existing laws.

Didn't McCain have the same thing in mind when it comes to immigration? So no matter who the president would've been, this issue would have come up.

(04-08-2009 09:36 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 09:30 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Latino leaders are pressuring the White House to set a goal of signing a major immigration reform bill by the end of the year.

I can't stand how they use the word "reform" to mean that we change a policy that they don't like and to create a new policy that allows them easier access to this country along with our health and social benefits. We don't need reform, we need to enforce existing laws.

OK, how much will this "reform" cost? to bring in all the illegals, allow them the benefits of legal resident aliens--

Another Trillion down the tubes. I can see why Obama is doing it.. He knows he has to railroad everything through ASAP because he knows he will lose Congress in 2010.

(04-08-2009 09:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Didn't McCain have the same thing in mind when it comes to immigration? So no matter who the president would've been, this issue would have come up.

You don't understand how many conservatives were biting their damn tongues voting for him. I did, and I have a TON of issues with McCain. Many have been expressed here.

(04-08-2009 09:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Didn't McCain have the same thing in mind when it comes to immigration? So no matter who the president would've been, this issue would have come up.

Because we have an extremely large Latino population in this country no politician is going to alienate them over the enforcement of immigration laws. In other words, the candidates are saying vote me in and I'll vote you in.

...but with what the Republicans offered? I went from Hunter to Thompson to Romney to Huckabee to McCain. The Repubs didn't want to win this election.

SMN, those Latinos "shouldn't" be voting.

(04-08-2009 09:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 09:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Didn't McCain have the same thing in mind when it comes to immigration? So no matter who the president would've been, this issue would have come up.

You don't understand how many conservatives were biting their damn tongues voting for him. I did, and I have a TON of issues with McCain. Many have been expressed here.

Oh I saw all of the McAmnesty comments on other boards. My point is that no matter which one of the two were to be president, we would still be looking at the same issue. I for one think that Ron Paul's philosophy of pulling those benefits, such as healthcare and education, from the illegals (I know the idea isn't exclusively his) was a very good idea. It will still be each state's right to extend their own benefits if they want to, but the rest of us will be moving them out.

(04-08-2009 09:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  SMN, those Latinos "shouldn't" be voting.

The ones that were born here 18 years ago do....they have more rights than me.

(04-08-2009 09:55 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 09:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 09:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Didn't McCain have the same thing in mind when it comes to immigration? So no matter who the president would've been, this issue would have come up.

You don't understand how many conservatives were biting their damn tongues voting for him. I did, and I have a TON of issues with McCain. Many have been expressed here.

Oh I saw all of the McAmnesty commits on other boards. My point is that no matter which one of the two were to be president, we would still be looking at the same issue. I for one think that Ron Paul's philosophy of pulling those benefits, such as healthcare and education, from the illegals (I know the idea isn't exclusively his) was a very good idea. It will still be each state's right to extend their own benefits if they want to, but the rest of us will be moving them out.

10 years or so ago California voted in Prop 187 which eliminated all non-emergency services to illegals. It passed by a 2 to 1 margin and some judge struck it down as unconstitutional. If you can't get it at the state level I doubt it will occur at the federal level.

(04-08-2009 09:55 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Oh I saw all of the McAmnesty commits on other boards. My point is that no matter which one of the two were to be president, we would still be looking at the same issue. I for one think that Ron Paul's philosophy of pulling those benefits, such as healthcare and education, from the illegals (I know the idea isn't exclusively his) was a very good idea. It will still be each state's right to extend their own benefits if they want to, but the rest of us will be moving them out.

Want to see a "Red Meat Issue" that will be a quaigmire for Obama? Here it is. "How can Obama call for legal status for Illegal aliens when millions of Americans are out of work"???

Savage, Liddy, Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh would have thought they had died and gone to Heaven when presented when an opportunity like this.

(04-08-2009 10:00 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 09:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  SMN, those Latinos "shouldn't" be voting.

The ones that were born here 18 years ago do....they have more rights than me.

Well the ones that were born here are citizens under the current rules. Citizens are given certain rights. I don't agree with the rules but they are the rules nonetheless.

We SERIOUSLY need to get rid of the anchor-baby rule.

I have no problem with Hispanic immigrants. I don't view all of'em as MS-13. Not in the least. Hell, I'd rather increase the slots of them and decrease the slots of those coming from Muslim countries. I do, however, have a SERIOUS problem with ILLEGAL immigration. Hispanic people are my brothers and sisters. They're Europeans who were mixed with the natives. ...as am I.

(04-08-2009 09:36 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 09:30 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Latino leaders are pressuring the White House to set a goal of signing a major immigration reform bill by the end of the year.

I can't stand how they use the word "reform" to mean that we change a policy that they don't like and to create a new policy that allows them easier access to this country along with our health and social benefits. We don't need reform, we need to enforce existing laws.

I agree on this one, I'd put some troops on the border with orders to shoot to kill. If for no other reason that to keep the Mexican Cartel Drug Gangs from crossing the border into the US.

The more aliens legalized, the more people to vote democrat to keep the welfare and freebies coming in. Thus, keeping the dems in charge. Who cares if the country fails? The dems don't. Just another excuse to impose socialism/communism/dictatorship.

I'm not so sure Hispanics automatically fall under the liberal label. Are there liberal Hispanics? Of course. However, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

(04-08-2009 08:47 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 04:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 04:11 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Minnesota, Wyoming, and Hawaii are all under Republican governance and on the list.

MN and HI have long been regarded as politically left states.

HI also has basic universal healthcare, much of which is funded by tourist $. Much of that comes from the Japanese. If the repubs had half a brain they would have asked Linda Lengle to run with mccain instead of caribou barbie, they would have had a much better chance. Lengle is a 2 term gov in HI

Ah, the Howard Dean logical fallacy. That is, what works in a small, uniquely positioned state can readily be extrapolated to the entire country.

No thanks.

(04-08-2009 09:09 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 09:01 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(04-08-2009 04:32 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  TEXAS= #50

Total tax burden (per capita) (most recent) by state

Low taxes yep, but some of the highest electric and energy rates in the nation per my friends in Arlington. Buddy of mine pays $500-$800 per month on average for utilities on a 1200 sf home!

In the summer he must keep his A/C on 60 for it to be that expensive or he has no insulation. When I lived in Texas the most we had was $350 and that was a 2700 square foot house.

Yes energy is high and our summers cause extreme bills. But I am paying 9.9 cents per KWH. I did not fall for the push to sign up for a 24 month plan last summer, when it was 17.0 cents per KWH, so I'm on a monthly rate plan. I have a 1982 built home with 3200 sf and my FEB and MARCH bills were under $100. Natural Gas was ~$45.

Elec. for last 12 months $1,782 -

During IKE - 12 days no Elec.

Lets compare?

(04-08-2009 10:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  We SERIOUSLY need to get rid of the anchor-baby rule.

I have no problem with Hispanic immigrants. I don't view all of'em as MS-13. Not in the least. Hell, I'd rather increase the slots of them and decrease the slots of those coming from Muslim countries. I do, however, have a SERIOUS problem with ILLEGAL immigration. Hispanic people are my brothers and sisters. They're Europeans who were mixed with the natives. ...as am I.

I've often said that we should be back charging Mexico, El Salvador or where ever they come from for services their citizens use in the USA.

(04-09-2009 02:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I've often said that we should be back charging Mexico, El Salvador or where ever they come from for services their citizens use in the USA.

Bulls eye. The costs for their health, crimes, going through the justice and penal system would be so high their native countries would lock them in just like North Korea does.