Doh, *kicks self for not previewing* ignore that wall of text.

I do agree a fence would be a far-fetched idea if it were to work, but with different leadership we could amend laws to support honest people that want to come to our country and prosper and be a part of our country instead of taking from it but not giving back. It is not entirely the immigrants' fault of course. Companies hiring people not legally here are just as much to blame if not more so, but when people are working but not part of the tax system, they don't pay taxes on earned wages nor do they pay income tax to state or the fed. gov. This hurts everyone that's legitimately here.

I don't see why it is government's job (federal, state or local) to be making ANY laws that state what grown adults choose to do in the privacy of their own home. Being against the establishment clause has more to do with State's rights being trampled on by the feds then any particular set of laws in a state. As far as Ron's stance on that, I honestly cannot tell you how he feels (though I could take a stab in the dark).

A nation in modern times can still be part of the global economy and not be completely tied into every little aspect of the world, such as the United States is at this time. By involving ourselves in every little mess in the world, we create more bitterness and anger against us then we do good. Being part of the U.N. and letting a foreign group make any decisions hurts us more then it helps us. Our founding fathers had no problems with trade with other countries, they just talked about not going to every little war that Europe and anyone else decided to have (which is exactly what we are doing now, except we are the big dog instead of the start up country).

I think we may be misunderstanding one another with regards to birthright citizenship, probably due more to my previous statement then anything. Immigrants that come to America, apply for proper citizenship and meld into the country are a very different people then those that try and sneak into the country to have a child so that they may stay to reap the benefits of all our social programs. In many previous generations people that immigrated here and generally wanted to assimilate into our culture. Sure they held on to some of their roots, but they did not demand we change for them. Much of our current immigration is not like this, specifically that of the Latinos immigrating north. You see this very often if you live in any of the states boarding along the US-Mexican boarder. Instead of coming here and learning English, appropriately apply for citizenship and working hard to fit in, they demand we place their language on par with English (I know we don't have English as a national language, but nearly everyone here does speak it, it is the common language used in nearly all aspects of American life). By getting rid of birthright citizenship it means only current citizens' children will become citizens and not people who are not legally here having a child become a citizen.

While this will certainly sound very mean-spirited is it really the US government's responsibility to take up moral causes? If so, whose moral should the US government take up? The majorities? If we did that we wouldn't be a very friendly place for a lot of non Christians now would we? For government to take any moral stance dangerous because we all cannot agree on which moral stance to take. Enforcing specific morals onto companies, such as those involved with the Darfur (which I will admit I do not know much about) is not what government is for and would be presumptuous of them (our gov.).

Hmm, your points on what people may put in their will are interesting. I didn't realize that was ever permissible. I looked at it in much simpler context (my mistake I realize now), such as for example: My mother was to pass away and she wanted me to have all the stuff in her home, why should I not get it? As her only son why shouldn't it just go to me and further more, why should the gov get any of that? I mean, she worked for it all and wants her son to at least benefit from her hard work after she is gone.

I can see how if wills are as complex as you say they are (which they probably are, I don't know to be honest) then adjustments to our laws may be in need. Basically I just don't see why the gov should get to tax stuff that's going from a dead relative to a living relative. They certainly don't own the stuff. I don't really see how remaining relatives could be bound by a dead persons will to not sell said property (I mean, if it was given to remaining relatives, is it not theirs to do as they see fit?).

Ok, that was long and drawn out, but you gave me a thought our response and I wanted to do the same.

Brendan

"...That's not true. You cannot give away your constitutional rights, no matter what you sign.

Well, now that's not true, in California at least. Many criminals whom are tried, and convicted, or simply plead guilty, sign a "4th waiver" resigning their fourth amendment constitutional right to freedom from illegal search and siezure in exchange for sentencing leniency. Essentially, the tried and convicted criminal signs away his 4th Amendment rights and the Police from that point on can search his person, car, home, even his business without a court order or search warrant for the duration of that convicted criminals probation period. There are some certain minor restrictions assigned to the Police, all legal mumbo-jumbo stuff, but essentially, the Police can search wherever they want to, whenever they want to, without a warrant, if the person has freely signed a 4th waiver.

In the case of a traffic stop for example, Police can search the vehicle of a 4th waiver convicted criminal during a traffic stop when the sole violation is something as simple as failing to use a turn signal. All the Police are responsible for is knowing before the search that a 4th waiver exists (a simple computer wants & warrants check reveals that information), and they can't destroy any property. So, yes you can sign away your constitutional rights, in exchange for a lenient sentence, or in exchange for the priviledge of attending the school you choose too, I'd imagine.