I agree! Here are some figures.

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

14 reasons why we need to get control of illegal immigration:

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries.

12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.

14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.”

• Illegal aliens - sm
  • I don't know if this is still in the...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • LOL....oh no...a dem with a good idea. - sm
  • I agree! Here are some figures. - sm
    • Why have we let this go on and grow for so long??? Did we need slave labor that badly?....nm - Cyndiee

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

So that means you have chosen to disrespect the moderator’s rules and come here (now suddenly on purpose) when you choose to, but you still post things such as:  “Well, really, you ain’t supposed to be here and don’t tell me you’re a moderate conservative cause I ain’t buying it. <<<<<Liberal board's that way...if you can stay awake more than five minutes there” when a liberal visits your board?  Figures.  Fits perfectly in line with the rules only applying to some and not others.

I can’t believe you wrote *I understand that some of the terrorists may have worked or dealt with the UAE, but they did not carry out any attacks through them* and act as if that’s okay.  The Kool-Aid must be especially tasty today.

Do I advocate racial profiling?  I advocate historical profiling.  Historically, they were tight with bin Laden before, and there is nothing to suggest they don’t have the capacity to be tight with him again. 

In short, the REAL kind of profiling I would endorse is limiting this kind of deal countries who has NEVER had ties to terror in the past.

You may consider the below too long to read.  I’ve bolded and underlined the important points in case you give up after the first 3 words.  I truly feel that Dubya is selling out every American’s safety for money, and I don’t understand how you, as an American, can support or trust this.  Of course, you do obviousy still trust and support Bush, so that explains a lot.

Considered an ally now, UAE backed bin Laden

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 23, 2006

The United Arab Emirates has become what the Bush administration calls a reliable partner in the war against Islamic terrorists, but its rulers maintained close ties to Osama bin Laden before September 11, and the cities of Abu Dhabi and Dubai have since served as operations and financial bases for al Qaeda terrorists.
    But the United Arab Emirates, the most Western of Persian Gulf nations, also has become the United States' closest military ally in the region. Its ruling emirs permit Navy warships to dock in the bustling commercial center of Dubai on lengthy liberty calls. It also hosts U.S. Air Force warplanes, refueling jets and spy planes at the sprawling Al Dhafra air base near Abu Dhabi. The base sits across the gulf from U.S. adversary Iran.
    During the Clinton administration, the United States even considered killing bin Laden when he was on a hunting expedition but did not because one of his hunting partners was one of the United Arab Emirates' emirs.
    They have been helpful and supportive and a good partner in the fight against terrorism, said a U.S. counterterrorism official.
    It is these two faces of the Arab nation -- a one-time sympathizer of al Qaeda, yet strong post-September 11 U.S. partner -- that Washington is considering in the debate over the Bush administration's proposal to let United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World run six large U.S. seaports.
    The U.S. September 11 commission's report is replete with accounts of some of the 19 hijackers -- two of whom came from the United Arab Emirates -- using Dubai's permissive banking system and lax passport certification to gain entry into the United States and bankroll a mission that killed more than 3,000 people.
    During bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan -- where he built terror training camps, a personal army and a financial network -- some of the United Arab Emirates' upper crust, known as emirs, visited him. The United Arab Emirates was one of only a handful of countries that recognized the harsh Taliban regime, bin Laden's protector.
    In 1999, bin Laden spent time in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar near the Sheik Ali hunting camp. It was regularly used by visitors from the United Arab Emirates, according to the September 11 commission report. U.S. intelligence detected an official United Arab Emirates government airplane there on at least one occasion.
    According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis, according to the report.
    In fact, the presence of the United Arab Emirates rulers at the camp gave the Clinton administration second thoughts about ordering an air strike to kill bin Laden, more than two years before the attack on the United States.
    According to CIA and defense officials, policy-makers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by, the commission said. The Clinton administration was so concerned about the emirates' cozy ties to bin Laden that one official called a United Arab Emirates political leader to complain.
    Weeks later, the camp was dismantled, and bin Laden disappeared. The implication was clear: Someone in the United Arab Emirates tipped off bin Laden, the United States' most-wanted fugitive, who then was planning the September 11 attacks.

  The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem the commission wrote. It said President Clinton personally pressed United Arab Emirates leaders to break financial and travel ties with the Taliban, but they refused.
    Hamdan bin Zayid, United Arab Emirates foreign minister, told a U.S. diplomat that his country maintains relations with the Taliban to counterbalance Iranian dangers.
    Those dangers are one reason that the United Arab Emirates stands as the United States' best military ally in the Gulf, opening key parts of its country for U.S. operations.
    Its Mina Jebel Ali port, the largest man-made harbor in the world, hosts more U.S. warships than any other rest stop outside the United States. CIA and FBI agents collect intelligence there on militant Islam. The United Arab Emirates has cooperated with the U.S. Treasury Department in shutting down bank accounts linked to al Qaeda.
    The United Arab Emirates is a country that's been an ally in the global war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on the Michael Reagan radio show this week. We have a port there where they help us. They have an airfield. We share intelligence, and we have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world.

Well I guess he saw how well it worked with the HC supporters (most giving their opinion that we need a woman in there, we are voting cos its time for a woman, etc, etc and some only voting for her only because she's a woman).  Guess he's so concerned with losing he'll stoop to anything.  Talk about calling the kettle black.  He proclaims Obama doesn't have the experience and he's young and new, and then he picks her?  She's not ready to step in as President, she doesn't have any experience whatsoever.  He's going to have a hard time explaining that one. 

Again it goes to show McCain is not in touch with the American people.  He picks a woman thinking that what all the women want, but luckily the women who supported Hillary are coming out saying we supported Hillary because of her position and viewpoints, not just because she was a women.  I just believe he has just lost any chance to win.     

She has no international experience, been governer less than 2 years and has no experience at anything.  Guess he's making it perfectly clear he wants a running mate who will never question him.  His ego is taking over and its going to sink him.  He'll need the Swift Boat Veterans to fish him out of the water.  Never mind her radical christian viewpoints.  Everything he's been attacking Obama for being, he has just picked a running mate who is all that.  How could he have gotten it so wrong?  Any chance I had of electing him flew out the window with that pick. 

Brother...he would have been better to choose Hillary as a running mate.  Hello President Obama.

presidents because they supposedly represent we, the people. It's not just O that is being scrutinized. Past presidents were too, along with movie stars, sports figures, you name it. If you have a big name, are in the public eye, you will have your life spread all over the media.

This same old argument was brought up on Oprah when Moore, a lobbyiest for insurance companies and a professor who is for universal healthcare for all were on her show.  In fact, they even invited CEOs/representatives from the top insurance companies but none would even talk to Lisa Ling.  Moore stated, once again, that his figures/facts come directly from the US figures/facts and the facts used to argue against him come from insurance company facts.  He stated to go to his web site and the information would be there.

I sit back and laugh..if a republican had thought up universal healthcare or was a pioneer on global warming, the right wing would be behind it 100% but since these are essentially positions hardworking thinking caring democrats back, the radical right wing is going to fight these issues no matter what.

I dont care if you call it socialized medicine, which is a knee jerk response..just what is socialized medicine?  What the Congress has?  Then give it to me.  I most certainly would rather have a universal healthplan, backed by our government, than no insurance at all.  To me it is a no brainer.  I would rather have a little bit of medical care and medicines than no medical care and no medicines.

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel.  I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts.  (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC.  I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox.  I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor.  (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder.  And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion.  One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member?  That sick stuff DOES happen in this country.  What if she knows she wants an abortion?  Should she be forced to have the baby?  I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know.  I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion.  That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman.  After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it.  I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they?  I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight.  Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay.  I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country.  As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay.  (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker."  That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."  

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech.  Next, it will be freedom of religion.  What about freedom of "thought." 

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it.  And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people.  A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor.  Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7.  I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them.  All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries.  They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods.  About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.

Let's hope he really is a "good guy" with a heart and a brain.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope.  I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today.  The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."

I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made.  But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy.  Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned.  I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT.  If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters.  Am I painting that picture correctly GT?

I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican. 

As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work.  The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help.  Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency. 

I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work.  If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that.  But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working.  Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.

I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..

I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it.  I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq.  O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there.  I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest:  The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.

And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.

I also agree about Cheney.  He's very scary.  There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own.  And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*.  For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers.  If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example).  Nothing is out of bounds any more.

I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Fitzgerald's investigation.