Rasmussen Poll: Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote

Sure, but not enough have that lack of faith, and those that support that ideal do so for their own self indulgence.

Again, at what level are we talking here? federal or state? There are different sets of rights with each state having theirs different then one another and the feds. Each state can limit or remove rights based on their own choices, not all states are the same.

No, my response was to your claim that people are appointed lawyers, and my response is that they are only appointed lawyers if they can not afford one, or they choose to not represent themselves. The "Pretending people are that stupid that they don't know what the laws are is rather dishonest." was in response to your claim that people don't know the law. All you have done is show that you don't seem to know the laws, and when shown that you say it was hypothetical. The rest is nothing but your philosophical bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

Lack of response to Gideon?

And yet my response said exactly that and I provided a link stating specifically that. I even showed that people can defend themselves if they choose, which would indicate that people do know the laws. I've represented myself in the few cases I have been in, I have won all of them.

Or he could simply walk his bike along the sidewalk until he reached a safe point to ride on the street again. Biking on the sidewalk places walking pedestrians into harms way from your stupidity of having to ride a bike where you are not suppose to. If you almost got hit by a car, then the driver should have been paying better attention, its a risk you take when riding.

No it starts with the criminal in his act. The police may have simply caught him in the act or have evidence of an act for which the student may be detained until the facts show otherwise, to which he would be sent to the office for determination or punishment by the school.

You seem to want to blame everybody else but the person who actually did the crime simply because you think the crime is a based on a stupid law that infringes on your rights in some way. Punishments are their to deter crime, some punishments are a little harsh compared to the infraction/violation however that doesn't change the fact that an infraction/violation has been committed.

So you like word games and perceptions.

There is no arguing, society has chosen to not allow those actions and for those actions there are punishments, it is the severity of the punishment that is the issue. Should a felon be able to vote? Should an illegal immigrant be able to vote? Based on the severity of the crime and the punishments for the crimes, the felon can have his rights re-established in almost every state, an illegal immigrant on the other hand is not recognized as actually being domiciled in the US as he is not a member of our society, as a citizen of another country and a resident of another country he should not be allowed any political influence in our society or country.

 

The IRS can only deal with tax situations. If the person didn't file a tax return (report of his earnings) then the IRS can attempt to track him down and require the tax forms and audit the person if they can find him. It isn't an issue of illegal labor.

OK, so how much did they use in services in the states? From your provided link

If they are using more than $84B at the state level and they only paid in $11.8B, that leaves a difference of - $72B they actually cost.

Even if the implementation was done, they would still cost more then they contribute at the state level.

 

All humans have the same basic rights, food, shelter and clothing, being a citizen has no bearing on that.

Of course they do, but you called economic theory, economic policy. It is not economic policy that says that if people had more money to spend then they will spend it and thus stimulate the economy it is economic theory that claims that based on models that interpret the data and are placed into practice becoming economic policy with hopes that those theories are correct.

 

And interpreted, too, with an opinion formed based on that interpretation.

Supported your argument? You're playing word games.

Employers are going to do what the law requires them to do, it is not their responsibility for the employee to know their rights and the states employee/employer laws. The employer knows the laws to cover his ass and to make sure he doesn't do something to put himself in the position to be sued. Not every state has the same laws, some states are right-to-work states others are not. Some states allow for an employee to be fired simply because they are no longer needed.

The people have the right to change their govt representatives and laws with every new election, they don't have a right to create another govt.

 

It won't happen in the near future, mark my words.

So you are now changing your original claim? Just because a person is here doesn't mean they should have every right that is reserved to citizens. The country doesn't have to prove the person lives here, it is the person that must proves he lives here and is recognized by the govt as such.

No, I don't. You need to change enough minds to make your group a majority.

Then lets educate you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

About 3500 miles. Now if you were standing in front of me, it would simply be your attempt to stop me.