General News George Soros to give 5 million to democrats

While illegal immigrants may not pay income taxes, they certainly do pay sales taxes. They also contribute to the economy in the form of spending what money they do make (generally much lower than what citizens make) on goods, services, etc.

In terms of the cost-benefit and impact if immigration (legal and none), there are a number of factors and competing effects and studies of those effects as seen HERE.

One of the things that stands out here is that as of 2007, the median household income of unauthorized immigrants was $36,000 compared to the median of $50,000 for US born residents. And that illegal immigrants generally don't qualify for many Federal benefits, or don't try to get them for fear of exposure.

On a more general note, while an illegal immigrant may not be paying Federal income tax, they are also more or less totally at the mercy of their employer and can expect to be paid much less then a citizen while having much reduced or no access to various benefits that citizens of equivalent income can make use of. I'm not aware of anything stopping a citizen from trying to compete for the jobs illegals are doing if they are willing to accept the same conditions (wages, relationship with employer, legal recourse, etc.). So who wants to have a go? Show of hands? After all, if you aren't paying income taxes, life must just be a non-stop party

Beyond that, there is an entire sub-culture, or 'shadow economy' of Americans who work 'under the table' on a cash basis to avoid paying taxes, either by themselves or by their employer. If not paying taxes is justification for not being able to vote, shouldn't these people have their voting rights revoked as well?

Speaking of having things revoked, or otherwise punishing people, why are the employers who hire illegals never at fault? Particularly if they are a major corporation (*cough* Wal-mart *cough*) or a produce grower who keeps fresh veggies on the tables? The illegal is scum who only leaches off the rest of us, but the people who hire them (and pay them much less, and can do whatever they want to them in many ways) are just sharp businesspeople? Why shouldn't they have their voting rights revoked or otherwise be punished (in some fashion that is more than a slap on the wrist)?

There is also the long established principle in American culture of trying to avoid or minimize taxes as much as possible. In fact, our elected officials (some more than others) often go out of their way to make sure that the wealthy pay as little in taxes as possible, either by direct tax cuts or by the creation of various loopholes and provisions in the tax code that those with the means can use to reduce their tax burden to much less (as a percentage of income) than those of more modest means. By the same logic re taxes and voting shouldn't the very wealthy have their voting rights reduced? Aren't all Americans who cheer avoiding taxes actually cheering both breaking the law and 'leaching off the rest of us'?

Incidentally, nearly everyone is paying taxes in some form or other, including the poor and the undocumented. And another.

This is before we get into the issue of using the tax code to ladle on various breaks, credits, etc. to 'encourage' this or that behavior with the result that many people end up paying much less or getting large refunds. If the poor benefit from this in any way they are 'leaching', but if the middle class uses these things they are a divine right that is melded seamlessly with being an American and any attempt to take them away is met with howls of protest.

Should non-citizens be able to vote in our elections? No. But there are better reasons for that than 'not paying taxes' and given the tiny level of confirmed voter fraud going on, it seems unlikely that very many illegals are voting to begin with.

Todd

 

I agree voter's id's are not necessary a bad idea but you do have the problem of people whether they are here legally or not being able to afford a id. Yeah a id should be less than 30 dollars but a poor person like me rather avoid that issue. But since I love my right to vote i would do it anyway. I agree thought people who are here illegally should not be voting but i don't think they are voting anyway. Voter suppression is happening in many other ways too other than the voter id issue.

 

I have a id card and you make a good point everyone should have one anyway. A id is needed for several reasons so why complain about getting one. I agree with that.

 

Why, if voter ID is so important to them do so many conservatives hate the idea of a national ID card.

Why are they pushing through so many measures that have nothing to do with citizenship or voter ID (as detailed in my earlier post) and everything to do with keeping the groups that have tended to support the left away from the polls?

At least be honest, the right wants to make voting as difficult as possible for 'liberals' (actually anyone who is likely to vote for 'liberals' or 'liberal' ideas) because the only way they can win elections is to keep people from voting.

Todd

 

That's a cute link and website. Just for giggles, I did a search on their website re gay marriage and found the following:

Here

Here

Here

And many more.

Then there's what comes up when you search on 'transgender':

Here

Here

Here

And many more.

Truly, the tone and professionalism of these articles gives me an excellent idea about the quality of this particular website as a source of information about anything. :roflmao:

And yes, I understand 'illegal and no right to vote in the first place' perfectly well. And I don't even need to SCREAM about it in caps in order to do so. You might note that at the end of my post, I said that I agreed that non-citizens should not vote in our elections.

Todd

 

I probably would of liked Larry Hogan. I mean he is pro gay for the most part I have to like that kind of republican. I agree only legals should vote and the illegals should be deported anyway.

 

Well, let's see here:

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

And yes, I'm perfectly well aware that these publications are generally considered to be 'left-leaning'. By all means, if you can find a more 'right-leaning' article or reference that explains the rationale for all of these new voting laws (not just the voter ID ones) in a non-nasty and rational manner, please post it.

Understand, I'm perfectly willing and able to have a calm and civil discussion regarding the issue of improving the voting and/or electoral process (because it certainly has a lot of problems). What I am not willing to do is stand by and listen to some of what has been posted here about what 'liberals' supposedly want that is really little more than passive aggressive character assassination, little different from people posting about how all gay/bi men want to molest children or the like.

You want to play nice, I'm happy to do so. You don't want to...well, I can do that too, but really I prefer the former option. Your choice.

Todd

 

Shelby County v. Holder

 

No, I acknowledged that the publications in question were more liberal leaning and suggested that you might find citations from more conservative sources that deal with all of the issues raised re voting, not just voter ID.

The issue is not whether or not it is more taxing for a liberal or a conservative. The issue is that, demographically speaking, the constituencies that generally vote more liberal are also more likely to be negatively impacted by the changes the conservatives are pushing through (I believe one article mentioned the difficulty of handling a large urban population within the reduced voting hours introduced). As more than one of the articles I cited points out. Simply jumping up and down and saying you refuse to acknowledge that the concerns raised could be valid is not a response.

And I'm quite perfectly well aware that it was the Democrats (mainly the Southern Democrats actually - many of whom for a time formed the so-called 'Dixiecrat Party
') who fought against civil rights in the 50s and 60s. This point actually gets brought up in liberal media quite often when discussing the issue of race and voting. However, we're now in the 21st century and not in the 1950s or 60s and the tide seems to have rather turned on that issue, unfortunately. Many of the Southern Dems from the 50s and 60s left the Democratic Party as a result of civil rights being pushed forward (Lyndon Johnson's quote about 'losing the South for a generation' comes to mind) and eventually ended up on the right.

And it used to be that women, non-whites, and younger people couldn't vote in the way they do now and all comparatively recently, historically speaking. I wasn't aware that just because something is comparatively new that it makes it somehow less valid or more acceptable to get rid of it.

I'm assuming you meant to say 'can't vote in state' here. Absentee voting is more time consuming and difficult to do overall and so younger people (such as college students) who are already historically less likely to vote are likely to either run out of time to do it, forget to do it, or just not bother. Which seems to be rather the point.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But since you've yet to come up with anything even remotely legitimate yet (A link to a right-wing site that seems to having nothing but contempt for LGBT people is not legitimate in any measure in my view and I find it very odd that you think they are), I'm not terribly concerned by it.

Todd