It seems wrong that an amendment which did nothing more than maintain the traditional definition of marriage should be overturned on a technicality. Prop 8 received about 52 % of the vote, and I think the bias should be in favour of keeping the status quo, rather than creating a new "right", unless a substantial majority vote in favour of creating a new institution of "gay marriage".

On the general question of gay marriage, it seems rather pointless anyway. What practical effect does it have on issues like inheritance or shared property which could not be dealt with by private contracts ? I don't see why centuries of tradition should be overturned to suit a minority ( 2 or 3 % ? ) who are not inconvenienced in any significant way by the absence of a right to SSM.

For instance, the percentage of immigrants from countries which drive on the left is probably roughly equivalent to the percentage of gay people. As much as I would prefer to drive on the correct side of the road ( as an ex-pat Brit ), I wouldn't expect the law to be changed to suit me and a few million other Brits, Aussies and Indians !

Very disappointed in Sen Portman if that's his only reason for changing his view of so-called gay marriage.

It's an example of a very shallow mindset which I thought ( hoped ? ) was confined mostly to lefties. If his son had robbed a bank for example, would he change his view on whether armed robbery should be illegal ?

Any law or government policy is going to inconvenience someone in some way. Deciding policy solely on the basis of whether it suits your own particular circumstances, or those of your friends and relatives is always wrong. Hard to avoid of course, since that's just human nature, but I wish more people could take a more objective view of right and wrong.

"Yes, dear readers, I am exaggerating for comic effect."

But, unfortunately, you're not exaggerating all that much.

Question for the panel: how about this for an amnesty. Suspend the 3 and 10 years bars to re-entry for anyone who leaves within, say, a six month period, and allow them to re-apply for admission from outside the US ?

Leaving aside the question of how well it would be enforced, I think it would have several advantages. 

It would then be harder to argue against tougher enforcement and applying pressure on illegals to self-deport ("look, they had a chance for six months to get right with the law and didn't take it. Tough luck").

It would also remove the incentive to stay once someone was in the country illegally. My view is that a seasonal worker, for example, who comes and goes is less likely to be a welfare burden than one who stays permanently and brings his family with him.

With that in mind, have the penalties for illegal presence introduced in 1996 (3yr, 10yr and lifetime bars) turned out to be counter productive ?

Australia has much more logical immigration laws than the USA. They basically have a points system, which takes in to account skills, experience, knowledge of English, financial resources and age. The UK has moved towards a similar system recently.

I think I'm correct in saying that the majority of new green cards issued in the USA are to relatives of current residents.

Dave,

As always you make the point very well.

I've changed my view of Obama's re-election from  "disaster" to "catastrophe" in the last couple of days. What a shame all these employers didn't make sure that everyone knew what was coming if BHO got in again. Too late for that now, but I do think that there will be enough of a country left to salvage if the USA goes through all the stages of hope-to-hopelessness about socialism very quickly - unlike other countries which took decades to see statism fall apart.

My highest regards to you this Veteran's day. 

I used to live about an hour from London, and there are still some things I miss - slightly.

You'll probably be living in a shoebox in comparison to wherever you live in Charleston, and general living costs would be higher, but if you don't mind that I would say go for the experience while you're young. If the Mark Steyn view of where Britain and Europe are headed is correct, you might not want to go there a few years from now !

I wouldn't be too concerned about the NHS; the general standard is ok in my view, unless you're old. I suppose the issue there is mainly whether you would be able to renew your private coverage when you return to the US.

And don't bother talking politics with the natives; I'm sad to say this as a Brit, but many of them would react to a Romney voter in roughly the same way as if you announced to them that you'd arrived in a spaceship from another galaxy.

All the best to you whatever you decide !

There were a couple of polls in 2009 and 2010 which showed opposition to secession in Texas at 75% and then 60%. It seems reasonable to assume that Texans of all people would be at least as inclined to secession as anyone else in the south and midwest.

It would be interesting to see though if those numbers have moved much in the last couple of years.

As to whether it's practical, the main issue would seem to me to be the military. If we can manage to maintain a military alliance which includes France and Turkey for example, it shouldn't be too difficult for 3 or 4 separate American nations to have some sort of mutual defense pact with a joint command. That could take the sting out of having to decide the issue of who got to keep the nukes and the carrier groups !

I'm in the "it ain't gonna happen" camp, but perhaps pushing the idea isn't such a bad thing; seeing your spouse packing a suitcase tends to concentrate the mind ! 

Admirable sentiment - if you're patient enough.

I ain't getting any younger though; the level of government spending isn't going down; any number of other issues aren't going to improve in the next 4 years.

I can see the dems taking a major beating 2 or 4 years from now, but I'm not sure that the country won't have changed irreversibly by then.

I thought Romney was excellent. More confident and in charge than I expected, and I was already pretty sure he would do very well in the debates.

Note to Messrs Robinson and Long;  DON'T JUMP !!!

Climb down from that ledge carefully, it's going to be ok !

Well, sometimes. Studying engineering or medicine is one thing, but far too many people seem to go to college with some vague idea that a degree is a good thing, regardless of the subject.

I wouldn't mind a dollar for every waitress and bartender I've met who has a degree in psychology.

It IS a cultural issue if, for example, you have teachers who think that gaining a degree in some useless field is a more worthy objective than becoming a plumber.

Very well put !

Couldn't agree more about the current tendency towards useless occupations and away from actually making stuff and doing useful work. Unfortunately, the current administration, and the president in particular, are perfect examples of highly credentialed people who literally (as a certain VP would say) haven't done a single useful days work in decades. If Obama had a job pumping gas when he was in college, that was the greatest net contribution he's ever made to the economy ! Pity he didn't stick to it and work his way up to owning a gas station or a dealership - he would then have done something worthwhile with his life, not to mention saving a few trillion ! 

Very interesting. Can you break the data down to the key swing states, say Florida, Ohio and Virginia, and come up with a prediction for just those states ?

..which will be after the election.

I can't remember the last time I met a bartender who didn't have a college degree.

Far too many people waste their time obtaining worthless degrees.

So, which misguided incentives need to be removed ?

I was thinking more of a football analogy; he tries for a long pass, misses hopelessly with the ball bouncing off someone's helmet, then bobbling  around and going nowhere. Incomplete.

I believe the quarterback spiking the football is also technically an "incomplete" !