What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

[classicman]

Of course, there is a cost to AZ directly related to illegal immigrants.

First time you have made that admission. Thanks.

it is factually incorrect to say that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.

I never said they didn't.

I have provided data that federal expenditures on border security have increased significantly in the last 3-5 years.

You actually stated that Obama had done more than Bush. You are now altering your story to say 3-5 years.
No disagreement on this timeframe.

...the number of illegal immigrants currently in the country is at its lowest point in the last 10 years...having peaked in 2007.

Which is directly related to the economic downturn.

added:
I am not for open borders, as you or others have suggested.
I am not for illegal immigrants having more rights than citizens, as you or others have suggested.

Add this - Take my posts and direct your response to me -
Take other people's posts and direct your responses to them.

the only way to address the issue is to have comprehensive reform that provides more effective border security (not wasting money on a symbolic fence) AND a pathway to citizenship for most of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country....NOT amnesty as it is mischaracterized for political purposes....but a process where they register, go to the back of the line, have a background check, pay taxes and fines, learn english, etc.

Aside from your fence point (I'd prefer a well constructed wall with checkpoints and medical facilities on the Mexican side) I mostly agree - its in the details of how to accomplish this. Additionally, the problem with anything that is seen as "Amnesty" or preferential treatment for the criminals already here is that creates a rush on the borders. Well that and the still lingering question of Who are these 12 million and which ones do we want to allow to stay?
I see no other way to control immigration without actually controlling it. Without a wall/fence or some other means, there is no way.

It would be a pleasant surprise if you could acknowledge any of the data I provided rather than twist what I post or nitpick it or ignore data that you dont like. Somehow, you are never wrong....or never willing to acknowledge the shortcomings in your own posts.

And for the record, I provide cites when requested...certainly more than you or most others.

Finally, it would pleasant surprise if you could even consider the fact that the supporters of the law have politicized the issue as much as anyone. Somehow, from your perspective, its all on one side...ALL those who have issues with the law have political or financial interests.

Then, I might believe you are interested in an honest discussion.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

It would be a pleasant surprise if you could acknowledge any of the data I provided...

????? I acknowledge that you provided data.

...rather than twist what I post or nitpick it or ignore data that you dont like.

?????

Somehow, you are never wrong....or never willing to acknowledge the shortcomings in your own posts.

????? Really? I wish.

And for the record, I provide cites when requested...certainly more than you or most others.

Again lumping people together - I post cites as often, if not more than anyone. Is there somewhere I didn't post a cite that you need?
WTF are you talking about?

Finally, it would pleasant surprise if you could even consider the fact that EVERYONE has politicized the issue. Then, I might believe you are interested in an honest discussion.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

ETA - way to take another post out of context again. I let it go because you made some cogent rational points, but immediately after I reply you attack and get all snarky again. Probably is better we do not communicate anymore.