jackson33

IMO; The California case was more about FORCED change by the courts and the overthrow of the wishes of a society. To start with issues to rights are normally the responsibility of courts/legislatures, not the public. California had rejected 'recognition' previously and the courts ruling over the public. That is the California Congress still holds the right to over rule that referendum. In turn they simply AGAIN affirmed their original decision. Again though, it has nothing to do with 'sexual orientation' which remains legal to practice and does nothing to any laws protecting those rights. If you disagree, please give me one example, other than benefits, where that referendum changed anything. They can or again any group, can enter into a contract covering anything the religious concept of 'Sacred Union' or governments 'Marriage Contract' establishes.

American Law is based on precedent. Acceptance in any court of any State can be used in any other US State Court and OFTEN is the deciding factor in decision. The Union of two individuals, under law with the benefits has by nature, have its limitations. Tax law, testifying against a spouse, to inheritance and all benefits provided by any government must establish a base. Any exceptions are to the reverse...A father is liable for his children or a spouse having certain rights granted are covered under common law and every STATE has laws to cover these exception, whether there is an acceptable recognition by the State to there union or not and will add if two same sex people have lived under common law, with or without even a legal contract are subject to laws of their State. One other point; The Federal government, RECOGNIZED only one man/woman for benefits only. There are no laws or ever have been on who can live in a union, again as two same sex or a group. Marriage itself is a purely religious concept... To your answer on Alaska Law; No, the fact Stevens was tried in Federal Court has no bearing on what State Law dictates to replacement, or under any scenario. The Federal Court has no authority over the Senate and the Senate does NOT have to expel Stevens, even if in jail. Since Impeachment proceedings must be public and require an additional hearing for expulsion, from what as been mentioned, Stevens would probably then resign allowing the several scenarios offered. Riogho; Suppose you joking, but we just elected a Senator with less than two years in the Senate. Palin's very presence in the Senate would be a distraction for Polosi and company and they would do anything to prevent this. iNow; Americans traditionally have been slow to change and regardless how you observe this issue, they (gay/lesbian) have taken many steps forward and no steps backward. Sexual orientation, under US law (above all States) has firmly made them equals in all areas, including the right to practice their lifestyle in public. In both Florida and California were talking nearly a 50-50 (Arizona a little more opposed) which will change by generation. The eventual outcome however IMO, will come from the Congress in years to come out of necessity. The Federal Supreme Court could step in, but any final outcome to give rights on a National Level (only practical approach) has to come from Congress and/or the amendment process. I don't see this for at least 50 years or when possibly 38 States would ratify...

When High School kids are bussed to register and vote (Florida), during school hours, when the homeless are given anything to register and/or vote or when the Military continuously are denied rights...at best its manipulating the vote. The founders must be sore from turning over in the graves and would never have sanctioned, much less amended the constitution to allow 18 yo to vote. (I know the arguments, don't bother). Technically today any State that does not have a minimum age for voting could allow 16 yo or younger to vote. I am surprised this has not already been tried, with all the movements out there to do just that. The 26th Amendment only says that 18-20 yo CANNOT BE REFUSED THE RIGHT, not that any other age could be. If as a society we agree with the Constitution and a person should be 25 years old to serve the people, why should the people who choose those people also be at least 25. The Constitution wasn't set up for public vote of Senators (30) or the P/VP (35) however were chose by legislatures assumed knowledgeable to their States needs or the relation to Common Interest of all States.

Keep in mind those are NOT referendums on same sex couples, but the extension of rights prescribed under current law or if you prefer a sanctioned status and recognized by the state. Any two people, or for that matter three to 100 can make agreements under contract law. If two individuals who CHOOSE to live together, for whatever reason then how could the rights granted gay/lesbians (taxes/death benefits/welfare) be denied two sisters of brothers, parent and grown children, even to friends then not be granted the same. Polygamist groups in turn would be justified to demand sanctioning and on down the slippery slope. Religion only come in when a church, grants 'Holy' status to marriage and recognition by the State not necessary, which many Church's have been doing. Neon; Talk about error in polls, Stevens went into the election 15 point down and may have won, recount pending...If it holds and he is sentenced, goes to jail for 5 years each count or life and if the appeals fails...and if Alaska does not have a recall choice (20 States do) it will be up to a Democratic Majority in the Senate to remove him from service on moral clauses. They could leave his seat vacant or remove, allowing the Governor of Alaska to replace him...The Governor being Ms. Palin would no doubt pick a republican that would be seated (not helping Dem's). I don't know if possible, but Ms. Palin could also pick herself or resign and let her Lt. Governor pick her, taking Stevens seat for the next 5-6 years. That would be the Dem's worst scenario possible giving Plain a stage for 2012...

The issue is now mute, but... Obama first campaigned on total withdrawal from Iraq, and since it changed from those early days to the election, pick your favorite time line. Bush has Military Advisor's as have all presidents. Advisor's from each service to help make decisions. After Vietnam, most military people blamed 'politics' for the eventual loss and surely politics did play a roll in that loss. Obama had no such advise to this day or the complicated issues that exist in that area of the world. I am not going back over each comment, but one thing NO leader ever does or should do is give his/her plans, unconditionally. Infinite; What you consider spin, to me may be the facts. On political issues there are obviously going to be disappointments and/or successfully achieved objectives. On Iraq, we have no idea what would have happened if GWB had not toppled the Hussein Government, or followed up on attacking the tracking down terrorist. Historians will determine what is spin and or the truth, the best they can from the results. This will be true for Obama as he take the US in a different direction. I feel this direction is going to be wrong, is not spin, its my OPINION.

Turn out and coat tails....To be honest I fear 59 with Mn. Rep Coleman 1% lead in the poles, while Obama leads by 12%. Looks like Dole will lose, even if McCain takes NC...If you have faith in '538' projections, they base much of their results on the same factors and they are projecting an Obama Landslide (300 EV) If Obama wins (most likely will) their will be a certain element in opposing the first Black President on virtually any issue by several current Senators due up in 2010. Then Collins and a couple others tend to vote with Democrats on Social Issues, which most bills coming from the House are based on. I don't think anything short of 55 Dem's will give problems to their agenda...I expect a complete cleaning of Republicans from the Federal Judicial system (non-tenured,) and most all higher department management, but then most will quit anyway...

About three years ago 'Illegal Immigration' raised its ugly head as a issue for National Concern. Bush, McCain and others realized something needed to be done and the Democratic viewpoint already well known. McCain led a few Republicans in a compromise with the loyal opposition forming what ended up being a failed 'Immigration Reform Act'. It would be true he did not listen very well to the needs of his party, but was certainly listening to the needs of the country and a somewhat realistic approach with both party ideology. In Congress there is no real 'go it alone' mentality and McCain learned this years ago. Might add the political dreaded 'flip/flop' is a result of listening, whether to the public or others. I am aware of McCain's passions on some issues. The 'surge' was one of many he refused to listen to 'public opinion' preferring those generals involved. Being passionate about certain issues IMO is required to lead a society. Frankly whether I agree or not is of no importance. What is important at the 'National Level' is that International leaders know when he speaks, he is going to follow those words. You can't lead and ride the fence at the same time. Obama, has NO firm track record. What he said two years ago and today are all over the road. Understanding his campaign handlers were/are trying to get him elected, I won't fault him for these contradictions. However he has written two books, what is known about him and what he professed prior to politics, indicates to me a very different person to what being presented and a high probability of being a poor leader. Think the word is 'populist' which usually means socialism. I will add being a Harvard Law Graduate and in Constitution Law, leaves no room for compromise or in fact the policies he seems to want for his Nation. Have you ever wondered why so often any Congressional Vote (both chambers) follows party lines. How every member of one party could possibly agree on any issue, much less in the numbers they do. The short answer they are told how to vote, obliging if for no other reason to get some local spending placed in the 'bill' or some future bill. More than once, McCain has stood before the Senator and condemned a 'Bill/Act' and if nothing else has fought 'pork barrel' attachments to them, even on those he eventually votes for. This is his Maverick image (never sponsored pork spending, even for Arizona), not so much his opposition to Bush or his policy. Remember he and Bush were political enemies in 2000 and seemingly agreed on nothing. Rather than questioning 'some' party loyalty, maybe a review of those days is in order. Sneaking expenditures into any bill, even for worthwhile causes is never a good "idea" and not even close to what was intended by the founders and literally the only way Senators can achieve pork for their State. This is the job of House Members in total...and for their district. Note; Until 1914, State Legislatures CHOSE those to represent their State, NOT the electorate.

McCain made his 'surge' policy based on opinions of generals on the field. He had no combat experience or pretended to. No decision is worth more than the acceptance of opinions of others or a discussion of those knowledgeable. GWB error was accepting the idea, the people would embrace an overthrow of Saddam, probably from Powell and/or Chaney, neither understanding the sectarian or the revenge problems. Beyond this the policy has been successful, which credit must go to Bush, not McCain. My point regardless, McCain has listened, has based actions based on procedure or codes of conduct and places his view of American Interest ahead of his own. Whether amnesty, education, Iraq or Afghanistan and would be a LISTENER to advise, where I feel Obama is concerned primarily with Obama. If this had been McCain's philosophy, he would have died in Vietnam years ago, or selling cars in Florida.

Would some one explain to me, what the person income has to do with taxes in the first place. One person with a family of five, house payments, medical expenses, already pays little of nothing on a Gross wage of 250k, where a single person will likely pay the max. Income and tax brackets based on 'Income after deduction' have no commonality. There is nothing rich about a couple earning 250k living in NYC, while 250k in Hobbs NM would be very rich. Might add thats exaggerated by the local taxes paid in NYC or that of Hobbs...

I tend to agree with the idea, McCain would continue the same 'Foreign Policy' as GWB. Frankly IMO there has been much difference in the past 30 years or back to Carter. I would suggest the failures of the Bush policy, had more to do with trial and error where most mistakes have already been made. The first major error was said to be insufficient force when going into Iraq, which McCain basically pushed... Most elected presidents, do not come from the diplomatic profession, but all of them have access to the brightest and most experienced in many areas and can draw on them for their advisor's and of course 'Secretary of State' who does represent the Administration around the world. As with Clinton (Albright), Obama would likely choose someone that he could control or has similar uneducated opinions IMO. McCain on the other hand has met many foreign dignitaries, has a military education, knows a good many qualified people and shows no signs of fearing others opinions.

Skeptic; What you picture is what many people do with their neighbor today. Of course you know there are many broken laws (community/city) in your scenario, but getting past that all people have different ideas what is acceptable/unacceptable behavior. Sticking to my point of a diversified, complex, multi cultural group of States conforming to laws on a National basis considered in the 'Interest' of all States, that difference in your scenario already exist. People in Small Town' Nebraska, traveling through nearly any US urban area, would think the same of many communities as I would that one neighbor. As I mentioned, my opinions of how women or little girls are treated in many places is deplorable but understandable with a little study/interest in their culture. It would not or should it be acceptable to the urban folks or cultural difference, for me to impose my standards on them or that they try and impose theirs on me. Again you mention an administration, knowing your own issue (land mines) was from the previous. Has it occurred to you that the actions/inaction of any administration can in part be from the previous or from those well into the past or even from other than the Executive. We virtually can change governments with in any one, doing just that in 2006, 2004 and 2002. The first attack on even the Twin Towers, happened in 1993 and the decision of government was to treat as a law enforcement problem. I don't blame Clinton and understand he had to submit to the Democratic Congress and the public sentiment of the times. My first comment on this thread, complimented the interest in our election. I do feel the interest is based on the historic value, possibly to some degree on GWB and what I feel is a world wide effort to sell papers or keep ratings up. If Obama does take office in January, your going to be sadly disappointed, as will be many Americans. He will raise taxes on every one, offering only token deduction to a limited few. I don't think he will leave Iraq taking the defeat, but if he did or somehow lets up on keeping order in the Middle East, oil flows will be disrupted and he will be tested by interested parties from several direction. He will raise the other taxes (SS/Capital Gains), yet increase public spending toward his base and obvious voting block and will not need to reach across any isle. Investment that have already stopped will remain stopped, international trade discouraged and trade agreement worth nothing. The very people in the world he wants to help, will be hurt the most. I see nothing good about any of it and fear what I can imagine. To be fair, not a whole lot would be different under McCain. He will maintain a certain portion of the status quo, will leave the Bush Tax Cut alone, but slowly turn the country to the right. He may be doing nothing more than prolonging obvious problems, since IMO the electorate as already turned well right of center...

Why the CLINTON administration didn't get the treaty signed by the US Congress in 1997 is not the issue. (Dig at GWB unwarranted!!!). Princess Dianna or a multitude of publicity around this issue, was in fact a premise on how to conduct WAR, I assume the US Military with some strange concept of protecting their troops decided against. I do know the US is actively involved in removal of mines around the world, most of which were placed by other than the US and dating back to WWII. I won't bore you with how such a law could be enforced or prosecuted, other than to the victor... My post, was pointed at 'Common Interest' of all Nations, where laws can be enforced. Diplomatic immunity, for instance is a law the US abides by to protect National Interest, whether friendly or not. What goes into space or placed on the Moon, for instance involve all countries whether they ever get into space or the moon. Trade agreements or treaties among two or more Nations can be interpreted by international courts. There are many areas where the United Nations and/or world courts can be useful. What needs to be understood is that added jurisdiction will lead to further jurisdiction, eventually over ridding some National Laws. I don't want US Laws practiced anyplace, they are not wanted and I darn well don't want laws in many Muslims States practiced in the US. I have four grown daughters.... I also tried to show the comparison of the US and our Union of 50 sovereign States and the real differences between all of them to the differences of the 200 Nations on this planet. Were now a rather docile Republic compared to what has been, yet have maintained that sovereignty. Were 200+ years from this being anything close to an international comparison, regardless of international interactivity...

In the US; City law rules to the limitation of the County, County law rules to the limits of the State and the State Law rules to the limits of the Federal. Like it or not (i prefer not) we already bow to many International Laws, pertaining to folks while in the US (diplomats), process in conducting war/attacks, interpretations of treaty and to some degree use the same laws ourselves. Additionally trade agreement are acceptance of current laws in countries involved and Green/Environmental/Human Rights are considered on an international level. We already accept our limitations under International Law and to some extent this may not be a bad thing...but international law should be limited to an acceptable interest of ALL Nations.

It's good most of the World is looking at Americans and our election, but I don't think its new or would be of more interest than for the same reasons Americans are more interested. Historically its been quite a change from the 'all old white males', for some reason Americans have alway chose. We had a strong lady in Ms. Clinton get dissed by her party, who happened to be the wife of another 'said' worldwide loved American President, then a Black man becoming the candidate and now have added another lady. Today the world can be involved, with the same TV 24/7/365 news channels, literally watching every move. However the 'said' worlds disenchantment with our politics has come from a President who led his Nation, made decisions and has changed the world. Most of those Nations have had a rather good 6 years of prosperity and standards of living increasing, along with reasonable peaceful conditions and most certainly have benefited in keeping terrorism at bay. They have and we have benefited in a doubling of Capitalist Activity, even in societies that had before rejected any notion of the system. China/Dubai and Iraq this day just a few examples. Oil has flowed and the engines that drive these advancements has continued in the midst of chaos and threatening leaders tied to their own agenda and interest, opposed to their people. What they don't fear along with many Americans, is the probability of what and how ANY one person, much less Mr Obama can do to continue these beneficial aspects to the World Community. If Obama is elected, taking office in January of 2009, will change nothing over the short period. Some that have been held back may test the man, cause problems that may not have happened if McCain had won maintaining some status quo, and others will be expecting changes (in the world & US) that cannot occur. More important to all the investors around the world that to this day invest in the potential future of a Nation, will be holding back, to wait and see or out of direct fear. Leader of Government know the closest thing to a true 'Free Market Capitalist' society exist only in the US and that system will be tested to the limits of our constitution. Those leaders have depended on the US system for years as their societies have suffered the consequences of socialism and the bleeding of their investment class, which has been held up only by the American Market System where those investors have turned and where most all Industry is based or depend on for sales/service. It's no secret Obama desire to influence world affairs, much more than GWB or any previous US government. No doubt he will push for all government to increase spending in 3rd world Nations, increase spending on their already over taxed population and cut off partial relations or penalize any Nation who disagrees. Maybe it would have been best, if in their enthusiasm with our system and the outcome, they considered how an American President can disrupt their day to day life, and Americans to understand that intentional attitude.

Your questions are hard to address with out understanding the degree from pure socialism you start from, or for that matter from the Federal or State. Today, in the US we have many social programs from SS/Medicare, Welfare Programs, Health care Mandates, laws making every person an equal to obtain or do certain thing (housing/education/voting etc) and we have many more programs granting exemptions for compliance...all socialistic. Good; Pure socialism would be good for half the people or bad for half the people. Under achievers for any reason are elevated and the achievers meeting somewhere the center of the total. Bad; In a Capitalistic Society (US and most the worlds industrialized nations) Tax Collections (pays for socialism) and investments (drives economies and capitalism) and made and paid by the achievers. Where would the incentive come from to maintain that base. Since one major complaint seems to be just where all the wealth currently lies, I might suggest, so has the source any social program advancement or that to reduce the few holding wealth is about at an end, at least in the US...

Think you could have well used the first thread, since both questions have basically the same answer... As your 'Wiki' site mentioned, beyond some simple requirement (age etc) the Constitution allows States the right to choose who is qualified or eligible to vote. In Maine/Vermont for instance, sentencing for a felony does NOT disqualify you for voting. Others have time limits and means to be dropped from the disqualified. Each State also has no laws for persons convicted in other States or may maintain them. Most States however have some means to contest ineligibility and court system can remove them. Governors and/or the President can also pardon a person, which also make the person eligible. In ALL cases, its the process to register in any State, where the person is/is not eligible. Since ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, its the person registering who is responsible, with many other reasons involved (age/citizen, etc). In some States you can be heavily fined, spend up to five years in prison or both. As mentioned all States, have different policy on who is qualified to vote in primaries. Many require no more than being at the voting booth, registered or not, to allowing a vote only if registered in the party the primary is intended for...not even if independent.

Federal Judges are 100% nominated by our 'Executive Branch' and all MUST be confirmed by Congress. On the local level, well they are local people, but even here most people will pick by their party affiliation. Its said up to 30% of each parties members will vote a straight ticket...All the Dem's or Rep's, with very little representation other than those two. Keep in mind, Travis County, Texas alone may have more than one district involved and each district has a different ballot, think 35 in Texas, 53 in California (LA and Orange County alone have about 20 districts) and seven states have only one district. Some State also use the Nomination of their Governors to determine Judgeships, and some are termed, some for life. It like 50 different countries, each with its own system. Top that off with 435 districts and you end up with the confusion you usually see at the end of any Presidential Election...But its worked many times and transfer of power has peacefully occurred 42 times and counting.

Didn't realize I was not to respond to people not from the US!!! Actually figured he was from outside the US, or wouldn't have tried so hard to explain the system...Its actually much more complicated than my explanation and the concept of State (50), Party(appx 6) politics is difficult to explain. No one State operates exactly like any other...

Technically, there is no National Election, or is the popular vote of all citizens important to the only truly 2 National Candidates. When a person votes in any of the States they are voting for an 'Elector' which has been chose by a party or legislature of that State. The procedure leading up to the closing of any States voting are different and at that pointed time, NO further casting is allowed. Whatever district you live in (US House) someone has been assigned that will represent the various parties, after the final votes are compiled and confirmed. They in turn meet (usually where State Government convenes) and votes for their district (This year Dec. 15). Those results and from all States are then sent to the US Congress, where they are officially tallied by both chambers, this cycle Jan. 8th 2009. The current electoral system, formed from how the first presidents were picked. The then State Legislatures, chose the electors for President and they met in Washington DC. Second place in the vote was automatically the VP for that first pick. In those days and to today, there is no requirement for the electors or the Congress to confirm the picks, but generally have. Ironically the Senators in the early days were also picked by State Legislatures and no popular vote taken. The short answer then; States and today the parties choose how they pick the the P/VP and are only held to minimal qualifications (35YO etc) and dates to complete, first Tuesday November...All States have adopted that Tuesday for all elections, whether the P/VP is involved or not. For the record the States are not required, except under their laws, to place any one individual party on the ballot and don't...

Pangloss; Sorry for delay in response, either this site offline for awhile or my software deleted the site... Google *Victoria Taft 5 Million Mortgages*, is the 4th item. Since banks were not permitted to link SS Numbers to mortgage applications, I don't think the word 'fraudulent' is applicable, but is her word. She is strongly opposed to Illegals, in the first place.... You do understand, my opinions cannot be proved and if I could prove them, some rather major names would be headed for prison. I laid out my assumptions and that 750 Billion figure fits the scenario. Yes I believe if the Bush 'Immigration Reform Act' had been adopted, there would have been little to no 'financial crisis' or substantially limited. Thats opinion...where no politician could confirm if they wanted to.

When GWB, basically proposed another amnesty bill, allowing a process for illegals in this country to become legal, I have felt there was an alternative reason, other than 'only reasonable solution'. First I felt 'taking the issue' off the table for the future election. When McCain endorsed the idea, I felt sure this was possible. A month ago, Paulson in trying to convince Congress for emergency funding or 'bailout', he admitted to working with his Russian and other equals in their governments on a pending financial problem, for over a year. Victoria Taft, writing an article linking illegals and the meltdown quoted US Department of Housing "some 5 MILLION fraudulent home mortgages are held by illegal aliens". If there are/were 5M such loans made and using a very modest average of 150k per you come up with a very interesting figure...750 Billion, 50 billion over the original requested cost. If the Immigration Reform Act had gone through and if, certainly a logical conclusion, most of those people would have done everything possible to maintain those homes, become legal and continue to have made payments, pay those local taxes and become part of the communities. California today is begging for 12 Billion from Uncle Sam, where 12-13% of all notes in Southern California Inland Empire are now in default. Pangloss; One misconception has been the strain on area economies where social services (medical/welfare/schools/etc) are stress by the influx of people. Where a great deal does happen along truly border towns, where these facilities are stress by legal visitors, further inland most participated in the general economy. Then in urban areas, as LA, where all lower income folks head in hard times, the problems that had been continued with relatively minor increases. In higher income areas, as Las Vegas and parts of Florida, where illegals have high numbers, the problems are less evident...

To the thread; Short of something dramatic happening in the next few weeks, it looks like the Dem's will pick up 7 seat in the Senate. Eight if Dole loses in NC, which is dead even in todays polls. Your talking about 'Veto proof' which if Obama become the President would make little difference anyway. If McCain wins, they could be very near veto proof on many issue, where four Republicans tend to vote along with Dem's on every issue. Under either condition, the senate minority still has other means to stop legislation, primarily the filibuster or not allowing a quorum. Since you may not realize; Until 1913 when the 17th Amendment replaced the Constitutional System for choosing Senators, State Legislatures picked those two people. The original intent to represent the STATE in the Congress, opposed to the people in the House (Peoples House) became a total branch with aligned interest. I would also add, the President of the Congress or the person designed to PRESIDE over the Senate was supposed to be the Vice President of the US. What you now have is the wishes of Party Rule, which was feared by ALL the founders. For the record the First 8 Congressional Sessions, the Senate was presided over by the VP, then John Adams for the most part and he made the deciding vote over 200 times. Think Chaney has made one vote and presided only during the 'State of the Union Address'.

Its a bit more complicated; We accept applications from every country via our Embassy's for entrance into this country. What is accepted varies according to those groups (ethnic/nationality) that ARE NOW IN THE US. Until 1921, there was no quota and entrance pretty much wide open. There had been restrictions or total denial fro certain groups over the years. Congress is charged with Immigration policy; In 1921 they Passed the 'National Quota Act', which allowed 3% (estimation) of each current US ethnic group from elsewhere to migrate to the US, with the restrictions mentioned. This was reduced to 2% in 1924 and remains that today. Until 1980 (Refugee Act), the US allowed people from ANYPLACE where immanent harm would result if they returned to or were forced to return. Cubans for instance entered this country at will until 1980, from anyplace (Mexico/So America), but after this act could/would be turned back, short of being on US territory, then coming directly from Cuba.

We can never know for sure, but in all likelihood (from what has happened before) a good many banks would have gone under, a good many folks would go back to renting or on to Welfare and price for homes, there equity and unseen savings lost. The then cost to Tax Payers, what ever those decreased values would have to be made up by the rest. Instead were going to have those same outcomes, an increased loss to the tax paying base and pay the governments expenses nearing 2 Trillion. Even the interest on this will cost us next year. And next year is really looking bad. GDP is the total purchase of goods and services, this includes homes, which even if start selling again in those certain areas will be for 20-40% less. Your looking at a loss of 2-5% (possibly much more) in GDP which was headed for 16 Trillion and budgets in every local area, State and Federal Government based on that or possibly more from growth. The current loss in Capital Gains, which is what we all pay, regardless of income, will be -0- and regardless if 15% (now), 39% (Obama Plan and he will make it retroactive to 1-1-08), or 100%. You looking at Bankruptcy in many urban areas, where tax revenues will be fractions of those current 2009 budgets and the exact opposite of all this well intended (?) action.

The US has a limit for Legal Immigration, just over a million per year. The folks are sponsored, a place to go and usually a job lined up. Depending on the country, these are picked from 1 of 5 to as much to 1 of 25 of those applicants to migrate. Illegal Immigration, from those that enter legally and stay or that enter illegally to begin with have many estimations, but probably an additional million per year and usually have an idea where to go for work or simply work the same seasonal jobs year and year, generation after generation, and returning to where ever. I don't doubt there are 12-15 million in this country today that are undocumented, but an accumulation of years (1990-today) and probably less than the legals that have entered. There is no secret that getting segments of society into the economy, has increased the total. The 'Equal Rights' Act's of Johnson (1965-68) added a great deal, the Reagan Amnesty Act in the 1980's added a great deal and the much defiled Illegal Immigration since has had positive effects. The negatives that have happened (Rights of persons) have likewise grown and you will note some of the hardest hit areas (So. California, Florida and Las Vegas) are also home to millions of illegals. IMO; And up front admit its arguable, total amnesty to all current illegals would have prevented or certainly diminished this so called crisis. I don't know the actual stat, but for every 100 new people it creates out of necessity so many jobs. I will also add; Like it or not, the US population is an aging one, under those of 1960-1990. In the next 20 years, if not for immigration, we would soon have more people dependent on less and less of a work force or the producers to economy/society. This already showing up in Social Security or any of the Welfare Programs.