68 illegals apply for MD license/ID card gave same address-800 sq ft home

[Stormin Mormon]

They are really losing their edge, if only some of the voters were dead.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

That's a result of having organizations paying people a commission for signing people up. Once the registrations were turned in to ACORN, the organization was obligated to pass them on -- and in many cases with notations that they probably were phony.

Even if you don't make voting compulsory, make registration compulsory

-- or automatic by some means or other. Problem solved.

Perce

[metspitzer]

>

I am for giving immigrants coming in the front door an easy way. I am for shooting the ones coming in the back door.

[HeyBub]

We used to have a poll tax. Had to pay to register. AND you had to register in January to be able to vote in November. And you had to own taxable property to be able to vote on bond issues.

No more.

Sniff.

[Kurt Ullman]

I don't know if this has changed, but in the past many insurance companies made you prove the person was uninsured. Your original post (or the original post) indicated it as a hit-skip. That might not qualify for uninsured since you can't prove they were uninsured.

[Kurt Ullman]

The Dems registered a bunch of people in Cleveland to the City Hall.

[Kurt Ullman]

Or you could just make it illegal to pay commissions.

[sligoNoSPAMjoe]

Why the line? It the line were just a matter of getting the records straight, that would be one thing, but it is not a line, it is a quota. So how can you justify a quota that allows 50,000 from country A and 1,000 from country B.

When you start looking at country A's vs country B's you tend to see a pattern. A pattern of hate and fear. If they don't look like us and if they are poor and if they speak a different language, we want to limit them, if they are wealthy and look like us and talk like us, then OK they can come.

For many people that line is longer than their expected life expectancy.

[sligoNoSPAMjoe]

Good Point

?Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to me?

Too bad that the current rules seem to say just the opposit.

[Kurt Ullman]

Because if you let everyone in you get all the hooha that we are seeing now. It needs to be an orderly way of doing things. It is also, by definition, a political thing as to the quotas.

Guffaw.

So that makes it okay to break our laws for their convenience?

[Kurt Ullman]

Look at the history. We are letting more in legally than at any time in our history. When those words were written the bar to get in was much higher.

>

[Larry W]

The courts have ruled that homeless people cannot be denied their right to vote.

[trader4]

=A0 =A0 =A0Because if you let everyone in you get all the hooha that we are

Or maybe because country A has a population of 25 million and country B has a population of 2 million. If you have no limits and no controlled process, then do you want someone chartering 747s and loading them up in Haiti or India with illiterare, unskilled people and bringing them here by the millions? The simple fact is there are hundreds of millions that would hop planes to come here if the door were wide open.

[sligoNoSPAMjoe]

But why is there a bar????

[sligoNoSPAMjoe]

The old I got mine and I don't want to share? I wonder what the Native Americans would have to say about that? What would your ancestors have said if they were told .. Sorry not now, we don't want to share? Where would you be today?

[trader4]

Again, you can't compare the situation from 100 to 200 years ago to today. Back then the US needed people because the country was a wide open territory undergoing huge expansion. Unskilled labor was needed to build railroads, bridges, sow shirts in factories. Anyone could dig a ditch. There was no govt welfare available or free healthcare for the indigent. Today the US is very different and clearly we do not need more uneducated, unskilled people. Having limits on how many people the US will accept is totally reasonable.

To make your comparison, how about I want to build a house or expand my kitchen? At the turn of the century I could generally do that without any govt involvement. Today, I have strict zoning, building codes, safety standards, I must comply with and can't use child labor to build it. I could also freely carry a pistol in public. Can't do that either.

All those things have changed too because the country has evolved. I'm still waiting for an answer as to whether you are in favor of allowing some lib organization that thinks like you to charter 747's and start ferrying people from any third world country on earth here in unlimited numbers? Do you remember what happened when Fidel shoved all the folks he wanted to get rid of out the door in the 70's?

[Kurt Ullman]

Why shouldn't there be?

[Kurt Ullman]

Actually that is what happened. There has almost always been quotas and lines. It took my great-great grandfather almost five years to get the okay to come over. I would be the same place because my GGF obeyed the law at the time. If I really did not want to share, I would be suggesting that the quotas be lowered to nothin', which I am not.

[sligoNoSPAMjoe]

I would guess because there is no "good" reason for having one. Sort of like establishing a minimum income to walk in a park.

[sligoNoSPAMjoe]

So quotas end up keeping those who obey the law out.