Nitrox

I used to live on the Mexican border and Mexican women would cross to give birth and then, assuming there were no complications, would leave. Imagine that, hospital absorbs the cost and now we have a new citizen who later can apply for social services because he/she was born here. Still happens but they don't leave anymore. I agree, the employer is a problem but it isn't the only one. Just slapping a fine on the employer isn't going to fix the problem, it's too big at this point.

Enforcing the border is basically irrelevant. Employers are employers, how they pay is irrelevant. The primary reason immigrants are here is employment - the only way to control illegal employment is to maintain tight control over it. Again, securing the borders is the biggest pipedream of them all and the most ineffective way possible to approach the problem. And you call securing the border some form of rationally 'thinking' about the problem - get a grip. Pretty much every aspect of employment happens in the open, employers are fixed in location and it takes a fraction of the resources to enforce, even the 'cash' businesses - it's the ONLY place to control the problem. Republicans and conservatives no doubt dominate corporate and business ownership and management - and guess what? They are the ones directly fucking the American people in the ass by illegally employing immigrants. They are the ones who show no compunction at all in shifting their legitimate costs onto taxpayers. That they then run their mouths and wave their arms over 'illegal immigrations' is not only the height of hypocrisy, it's a magnificent scam they pull on honest conservative voters. Wrong, the US provides a large amount of free social services to illegal immigrants. Free medical, free public school, welfare, etc. Employment isn't the only reason why people come to this country illegally.

What we need is an actor!

Only when the study ignores that illegal immigration is a felony. I'd like to see your source cited.

Not the ONLY way, just the only way YOU like. We have two problems (in no particular order): -Mexico promotes its citizens to enter the US illegally. -The US does not enforce its borders (for the most part). There is an estimated 40M illegal immigrants in the US and it would be nearly impossible to just kick them out, for a lot of reasons. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to do the deed either (one side wants cheap labor and the other side wants potential voters). Cracking down on employers isn't really enough because there will always be cash jobs. And no, Illegals aren't just doing the jobs Americans won't. The construction industry is a perfect example of this. The only realistic way to fix the problem is to secure the borders (north and south) and begin a process to legalize the immigrants who entered the country illegally (not flat amnesty). The rest is just a pipe dream. Its frustrating to see how little thought people actually put into this issue and obvious why it persists even after all these years. I know I'm wasting my breath though.

It won't happen but that's the point. Arizona is flat out calling LA a bunch of pussies, which they are. Like the AZ law or not, LA wants to stick its nose into something that doesn't involve them but doesn't really want to take the moral high ground.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/18/arizona-dares-los-angeles-to-carry-out-boycott/

Euro Breakup Talk Increases as Germany Loses Proxy

Since you claim to be so confident, why don't you take the assertions you make in the post I said was Glenn Beck's drivel and show us how it relates to the wikipedia entry. I'll be waiting, jackass. No, if you have something to say with some merit then say so, otherwise I've already supported my position and will not further explain it to you.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Attention_Whore

in other words, none of this supports the drivel you posted earlier on. Drivel that wasn't worth a rebuttal, which explains my curt answer. Thank you making my point. I LOL'd. You're a classic.

Ha ha! Where we you when Bush was stomping on the constitution you regressive right wing goon! You are a jackass and moran and quite frankly only Rush or Glenn Beck would believe your corporate tool shenanigans and snake-oil salesmanship. You are both regressive oil shill Neanderthals who helped usher in a oligarchy of corporate regression that resulted in mindless abandon of the working class citizen. Both nitwit imbeciles. [video:youtube]

Hypocrite?

AHEM...

Nope, the difference is the US is largely made up of non government employees that pay a small percentage of taxes. Greece on the other hand is made up largely of government employees and the non government employees pay a very large percentage of tax. The producing citizens are tired of paying for the overpaid government employees (who get tax breaks) and when the tax collector shows up it costs less to pay bribes than to pay the actual taxes. But, since Greece really has very little industry outside of government employees they are in a lot of trouble because they have nothing to sell or borrow against. They are left begging. The German public realizes they are a sovereign nation and do not want to foot the bill for Greece. I'm sure Greece will get the bailout but only because of how greatly their bankruptcy will affect the rest of the EU.

Of course its odd, the producers in Greece are tired of paying for the non producers. Tax evasion has become a national past time in Greece. Its the same as the Germans not wanting to give Euro's to Greeks.

Can't say I blame them, they're paying for freeloaders. Sounds vaguely familiar... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7127621.ece

Bullshit, if there's a "D" next to the name then you vote for it. You are willing to accept bad legislation and make excuses for it just because its written by someone with a "D" next to their name and you like handouts. Your "basic values" are the labor and hard work of other people. We have an idiot in the Whitehouse, and while the last one fucked us something fierce, you're willing to take it balls deep just because he's on the side you identify with. Our current president is pathetically weak on national security and international relations as this thread indicates. Smooth words read from a teleprompter is all it takes to lull you into political comma. Tell me again how those polling numbers are for mid-terms...last time you tried to tell me shit was going right smooth for incumbent democrats(but it isn't, is it). The rest of the country doesn't see it your way...which is a seething hatred for anything short of the far far left. Popular opinion swings and eventually you'll be taking it in the ass from the other side, and while I'll take pleasure in watching you wine like a bitch, it'll be just be another sad turn of events for this country.

The same exact thing could be said for Carter, Clinton, and now Obama (CBO has the Healthcare bill clearly over $1T). Just a matter of perspective. You're too heavily invested in your political beliefs, it makes you a total sucker.

You might consider a water proof enclosure. If you go that route, make sure you buy a camera that has aftermarket support.

I wouldn't approve of my kids being in that teacher's class but I don't condone guests of the school taking things that don't belong to them. Overall I'm pretty skeptical of article because its so heavily tilted to one side. There is an obvious agenda so I'd have to hear the other side before I made a judgement on what really took place. Not saying it isn't true but I have reservations based on the blatant bias of the writer.

They're trying to increase the current penalty retroactively.

Agree on both.

Thats true but retroactive immunity is not the same as a retroactive penalty. The MCA '06 does not make a retroactive crime or retroactive penalty. Your examples are of immunity and not criminality or penalty. The link Rob provided was to a bill that would create an Ex Post Facto penalty which is generally considered unconstitutional unless BP just doesn't pursue fighting it and pays, which they could do. The article claims it is not unconstitutional in some way so I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. BP is going to be under a lot of pressure so they may just pay without saying anything. Dunno at this point.