You know typically when one has a debate they provide their OWN material to disprove someone else's assertion.
Basically you came here brought up numerous IRRELEVANT points and asserted they were more of an issue than ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION without providing one shred of evidence to the contrary.
And then you demanded I prove YOUR points were not relevant, but I actually DO know this issue very well I live near Washington DC and I KNOW what this issue is costing us. So while your ploy may have seemed effective I did YOUR work and basically you've been OWNED. Big time.
Now to the meat of the issue;
1.) First off the Iraq War and Illegal immigration are not releated. Nice red herring there. And do you have any fucking clue what 9/11 cost us????? What nukes in the middle east will cost not only the U.S., but Canada too. Besides why am I educating a Canadian about US public discourse and debate.
2.) Your income spread BS smacks of class envy and some socialist I want someone else's money mindset.
3.) As to test scores good question, BUT the answer is "immigrants (illegals) are bringing the overall test score averages down as they come here unable to speak the language and severely uneducated
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n25/
4.) As to gay marriage, dude I don't care if you are into that and I'm sure Canada has a boatload of homos.
5.) Finally as to National Debt our national debt is a smaller percentage of our GNP than Canada's national debt. Canada's National debt (805 Billion) is about $23,000 per citizen and the US National debt is about $27,000 per citizen, but we make MORE money so your debt is HIGHER as a percentage of income AND Canada never had to spend during the Cold War and is protected under the US Defense umbrella.
6.) We spend 4 TIMES the amount of money as a percentage of GNP for defense as Canada does
And furthermore Canada benefits FNANCIALLY from our defense budget Canada's offset program is probably one of the best examples of the shift from a national security to an economic development focus. Its mandatory program of 100 percent offsets is primarily indirect. When selling to Canada, U.S. primes are required to set up non-related industries in targeted provinces.
Canada learned many years ago that it was not cost-effective to duplicate defense manufacturing facilities, so instead they rely on U.S. industry to develop and expand Canadian non-defense industry into the U.S. and other markets. This, despite the fact that the United States has had a significant merchandise trade deficit with Canada for the last several years. What's more, Canada has a special relationship with the United States and is considered part of the North American defense industrial base. Canadian defense firms have special access to the U.S. marketplace - and Canadian firms are not required to fulfill offset agreements to do business here.
In contrast, we have had a number of complaints from firms who were barred from the Canadian defense market unless they agreed to the required offsets despite a significant percentage of Canadian content already in the weapon system..
7.) BTW you spend MORE for health care 4.58% versus 4.38 and you provide far LESS services;
"studies of Canada show Canadas track record in controlling health care costs is no better than that of the U.S. Example: Between 1967 and 2004, innation adjusted per capita health care spending increased at an average annual rate of 4.58 percent in Canada, versus 4.38 percent in the U.S The Canadian system is suffering significant and growing problems in providing access to care and assuring quality. Example: In the Canadian province of British Columbia the average wait for heart surgery is five months."
From wikpedia
"Coverage and access to healthcare
In Canada, every citizen has coverage, but access can still be a problem. Based on 2003 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey[1], an estimated 1.2 million Canadians do not have a regular doctor because they "cannot find" one and just over twice that number do not have one because they "haven't looked". Those without a regular doctor are 3.5 times more likely to visit an emergency room for treatment. Complaints of long waiting lists for some services are also common. For example, in a survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the United States, and three other countries, 21 percent of Canadian hospital administrators admitted that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50 year old woman. Less than one percent of American administrators made this claim. according to the same survey, fifty percent of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts stated that it would take over six months for a sixty-five year old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery [2].
In the United States, the majority of citizens have health insurance that is related to employment or purchased directly.[7] The federal government does not guarantee universal health care to all its citizens, but certain publicly funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, and the poor[8][9] and federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.[10] Those without health coverage are expected to pay privately for medical services.
According to the United States Census Bureau, 45.8 million Americans (15.7%) were without health insurance coverage in 2004.[7] A 2003 report by the Congressional Budget office found that many of these uninsured are uninsured only temporarily, such as between job changes. The number of chronically uninsured (uninsured all year) is somewhere between 21 and 31 million. [3] Also included in the uninsured are about 3 million children who are eligible for Medicaid but who have not been enrolled by their parents. [4]
A number of free clinics also exist that provide free or low-cost non-emergency care to poor, uninsured patients. The National Association of Free Clinics claims that its member clinics provide $3 billion in services to some 3.5 million patients annually. [5]
[edit]Price of health care
Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. The United States spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2003, the government of Canada spent $1886 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2548.[11]
Despite the American government paying more per capita, private sources also pay far more for health care in the United States. In Canada an average of $630 dollars is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the United States this number is $2719. In 2001 the United States spent in total 13.6% of its annual GDP on health care. In Canada only 9.5% of the GDP was spent on health care. This difference is a relatively recent development. In 1971 the nations were much closer with Canada spending 7.1% of GDP on health while the U.S. spent 7.6%. The health share of gross domestic product (GDP) in America is expected to hold steady in 2006 before resuming its historical upward trend, reaching 19.6 percent of GDP by 2016.[12]
Some advocating against socialized health care have asserted that the difference in health care costs between the two nations is partially explained by the differences in their demographics.[13] Police-reported Drug abuse and violence are all more common in the United States than in Canada[citation needed], and all place a burden on the health care system.
Most illegal immigrants (more prevalent in the United States than in Canada) do not carry health insurance and rely on emergency rooms (which are legally required to treat them) as a principal source of health care.[14] (In Colorado, for example, 80% of illegal immigrants do not have health insurance.) Illegal immigrants' relative lack of preventative care incurs higher overall costs. Recent history has meant that the United States has far more veterans and war wounded, also somewhat increasing cost. Accounting practices also differ and in Canada fewer capital investments are included in health care costs[citation needed]. Another important caveat is that research and development spending in Canada is lower, but Canada still benefits from the research done in the United States[citation needed]. This leads some scholars, such as David Gratzer, to argue the actual cost difference, while still real, is much smaller than the straight GDP numbers would indicate.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
Plus America is a representative Republic and over 81% of our CITIZENS are against this bill and illegal immigration as a whole so the "will" of the people is being ignored.
As to the cost some estimates are illegal aliens will cost the US 3.9 TRILLION over 10 years.
"Is the presence of illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, a boon to the U.S. economy, or a drag? It’s a question that has long divided Bush supporters; the Wall Street Journal editorial page tells us that a lenient immigration policy is absolutely vital for American prosperity, while enforcement-first advocates tell us a strict policy is the only thing that will ensure continued economic health.
Both have plenty of statistics to cite to make their case. But now a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, has found a new and revealing way to get at the answer.
Rector has just published a study, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer,” that is ostensibly not about immigration at all. He takes the most detailed look yet at the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. With numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other government agencies, Rector found what they make, what they spend, and how much they receive in government services.
The reason Rector chose to look at low-skilled workers is that it is estimated that nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants fall into that category. (By way of comparison, slightly less than ten percent of native-born Americans are in that group.) By focusing on those workers, Rector was able to make use of information on them that is more detailed and precise than information on immigrants as a whole. And any conclusions he reached would be applicable to a large majority of illegal immigrants who are already in this country as well as those who would come here under various immigration reform proposals.
Rector began by calculating the dollar value of the benefits those low-skill workers receive from the government. There are direct benefits, like Medicare and Social Security, and means-tested benefits, like food, housing and medical benefits specifically for low-income people. Then there is public education, along with population-based services like police and fire protection, parks, and roads. (Those services benefit everyone, and their cost usually increases as the population increases.) After that, there is interest on the public debts, a burden spread throughout all income groups, and the cost of what Rector calls “pure public goods” — national defense, scientific research, and a few other areas — which benefit everyone but do not necessarily rise in cost as the population rises.
Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household — the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits. (Rector excluded from that figure the cost of public goods and interest; with those included, he says, each low-skill household receives an average of $43,084.) Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes. (The biggest chunk of that was the Social Security tax — $2,509 — followed by state and local taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and federal income taxes, but Rector counted everything, including highway levies and lottery purchases.) In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes — the $32,138 in benefits, excluding public goods, minus the $9,689 in taxes.
Taking that $22,449, and multiplying it by the 17.7 million low-skill households, Rector found that the total deficit for such households was $397 billion in 2004. “Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion,” Rector writes. “This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services.”
As to what Illegals cost ME as a taxpayer making close to a 7 figure income, and not YOU a Canadian, here are some links and now you can STFU! You've just been OWNED!
As to your comments that it won't matter how stupid can you be? Besides there is PRINCIPLE involved. Some people have waited 10 years to immigrate to the US legally and these fucking criminals are jumping ahead of the people who do it the right way.
As a Canadian, a rather ignorant one at that, I don't see how you can sit there with your thumb up your ass and pontificate how it "won't matter"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/top_stories/19_56_5812_5_04.txt
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty2.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44154
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
