Gee, I just can't believe that you're not a pro illegal with some sort of agenda. Who would have thought that you weren't a pro illegal. You, of course, wouldn't admit it. This is, of course, an illegal immigration forum. Why would a consumer of statism, whatever that is, who only advocates so called market friendly policy be on an illegal immigration forum? Go figure.

Well, I'm with those Americans who are patriotic and who want to stop the illegal Mexican invasion group.

Why do you consider yourself a patriot? Has the general government of the Union mustered out the various state militias to enforce the laws of the Union? This is not a states' rights issue. The power of the several states over Naturalization expired in 1808. The several states have no Constitutional obligation to care if someone is from out of state, or out of State.

What I am saying is that your objective is too limited to be simply about illegals and illegalities. How can someone who claims to be patriotic not follow the Constitution of the United States? What are you being a patriot to, if not to the supreme law of the land?

Why do you object to market friendly public policy that can lower our tax burden and lower other public and private sector costs?

I am one of those patriotic Americans who wants to improve our standard of living with market friendly public policy by promoting and providing for the general Welfare of the United States instead of lowering our standard of living through the command economics of a warfare-state that was more appropriate last millennium.

So, you oppose free trade.

What would opposing free trade have to do with the illegal Mexican invasion? Do the scumbag employers of illegals have to have the so called cheap illegal labor, subsidized by the American taxpayers, in order to compete?

That would no longer be an issue with market friendly public policy that would simply fine current black market labor participants and collect a fee from foreign labor market participants who want to work in the US.

Why do you have an issue with solving your problem with certain illegals and their form of illegality? It could lower your tax burden, and lower other public and private sector costs; and we don't have to become an evil totalitarian police-state to do it, either.

I've noticed a new pro illegal tactic. Trying to hijack higly successful anti illegal threads. The trick is to pick some obscure asinine idea and repeat the same obscure asinine idea over and over. Be sure to have the last post too. The pro illegal must never stop repeating his asinine ideas over and over and over. Until every one else is tired of the thread. The thread dies. The pro illegal wins.

Of course, anti illegals could always just ignore the pro illegal with his asinine posts.

Yo Clay....

You have all the answers, do ya?

Why not send them to yer Republicant Representives?


That way, you can be a hero instead of a partisan bitch.

Good idea. We all know that the majority of Republican politicians ARE fighting the illegal Mexican invasion, while the majority of the Democratic politicians are fighting the Republican politicians fighting the illegal Mexican invasion.

Really?

Can you substantiate THIS assertion?

When did you ever substantiate anything?

The SAVE Act which among other things requires UNIVERSAL MANDATORY E-VERIFICATION of the legal status of employees by employers. Just common sense. It is currently held up in committee by Nancy Peelosely. The majority of the Democratic politicians don't want universal mandatory e-verification because it works. If it passed it might force too many, future Democratic voters if amnestied, illegals to self deport back to Mexico. A self deported illegal is just one less future Democratic voter if amnestied.

A discharge petition has been started of which 212 signatures are needed to bring the bill out for a vote. So far 188 signature have been reached. To date 178 Republican House members and a whopping 10 Democratic House members have signed the petition. A f**king whole 10 Democratic politicians? Is that enough substantiation for you?