Reply With Quote
See my post right above this one on how I believe that process would work.
The American taxpayers would pay in the form of emergency room bills and whatnot, as they do now. And those who don't have an emergency would be denied coverage, much like Americans without insurance are denied now.
Again, unless you propose to deny emergency care to illegal citizens, there's really no getting around that.
See my post right above this one on how I believe that process would work.
They're not going to deny them basic, preventative, or routine care either. The emergency room is the primary care physician of illegal aliens.
"If you build it, they will come." We need to reverse the cycle, not encourage more.
Thing is, anything we do that makes it easier and better for illegals, makes them try harder to get here. We need to deny them work and other services. When an illegal comes to the emergency room, his next stop need to be his home country.
If you don't agree with that, then sponsor someone to live here. You take responsibility. Stop wanting to do it with "other people's money."
That's funny. I would have sworn that's a list of legal aliens, who have to go through a process that sometimes takes years to get their legal status granted.
Furthermore, for those that simply claim that other countries will load up planes with sick people at ship them over, why don't they already do that sending them to France, England, and pretty much the rest of the civilized world?
Perhaps it has to do with the fact those countries do not have permeable borders like the US does? Why couldn't we simply attack this problem at it's root and finally secure our borders?
We already sponsor those people to live here through our desire for cheap food, construction costs, cleaning and child raising.
When does anybody here provide simple yes or no answers?
I'm not against treating sick people. That is against my religious beliefs.
What I'm against is not addressing every aspect of our health care issues in this country. When the remark regarding illegal alliens came up in Obama's speech I decided to look into it a little more to see what (specifically) that aspect might have regarding this bill.
What I found was the amazingly high cost associated with treating illegal alliens in this country and no reference as to how to reduce those costs.
With regards to my religious beliefs...somebody pointed out that it is not Christian to deny care to somebody. It's also not Christian to force somebody to pay for somebody else. Good will in the Christian faith comes from donation and volunteering. The more government control and mandating forced upon us the less donating and volunteering we can provide.
I'm a firm believer that if many government programs and mandates were less in our lives...the more caring, donating and self managing we would be as a nation and that many of the issues we face now would be either non-existent or minimal compared to today.
If Obama truly wants to reform the health care crisis...illegal alliens will have to be a part of that reform as well. And total reform would be best served if all the en ies that make up health care be addressed as individual bills and not rolled into any single law.
Guys, the dirty secret about illegal immigration is that the main source of it are the corporations who hire them, knowing they're illegal, but looking the other way.
And most of those corporations are the biggest supporters of the Republican party. Why do you think they're so conflicted on the issue?
Crack down on the corporations, you'll reduce illegal immigration. Most immigrants to this country apply for asylum or citizenship. Most get it. Some go back when their visas are up. Some stay illegally - but this is a small fraction compared to the ones brought over by corporations to work for MUCH MUCH LESS than Americans want to be paid, and MUCH MUCH LESS than the American minimum wage.
You live in a very simple world, don't you?
Everything has a place, everything it its place.
Democrats = All that is good and virtuous
Republicans = All that is evil and corrupt.
There, politics is done. Now go learn physics....
Technicalities.
Funny that Jack still considers them all unwelcome, and *illegal*, even with our government's express permission to be here.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but most illegals work for small businesses like restaurants, independent trade contractors, or as just plain old day laborers getting paid in cash on a daily basis. Your notion that all these illegals are coming here to work in corporate america is completely absurd.
supergirl is not all that off base in that there is a direct link between corporations and illegal immigration and a good portion of this is related to NAFTA ( a trade agreement that obama has not exactly gone after since put in office-even though he's a socialist )
mexican economists have demonstrated data showing that after a steady rise until 1993, agricultural employment began to decline when NAFTA came into force, primarily among corn producers — a direct consequence of NAFTA . one-sixth of the mexican agricultural work force has been displaced in the NAFTA years, a process that is continuing, depressing wages in other sectors of the economy and impelling emigration to the united states. max correa, secretary-general of the group central campesina cardenista, estimates that for every five tons bought from foreign producers, one campesino becomes a candidate for migration.
big firms like wal-mart have entered the mexican market and, as a result of selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, they have displaced locally based shoe, toy, and candy firms. an estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized mexican businesses have been eliminated.
a report by the carnegie endowment study shows that wages along the mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA..
essentially, corporate america's drive for lower wages has been satisifed by NAFTA but the direct result has been increased illegal immigration to the US.
No . You think? Doesn't matter. USA doesn't have the money. Problem solved. 2010 we won't have to put up with the bull policies Obama brings with him. 2012 we won't be forced to listen to him like he wanted us and our kids too.
What will you do when refugees still get health care?
I'm ok with denying basic, preventative and/or routine care to illegal immigrants, just not emergency care.
I'm ok with this, with the caveat that they don't have kids. If they have children who are citizens, then I'd like to see some option besides deportation. Not sure what that is though.
Really? What do you think hing is?
With regards to my religious beliefs...somebody pointed out that it is not Christian to deny care to somebody. It's also not Christian to force somebody to pay for somebody else. Good will in the Christian faith comes from donation and volunteering. The more government control and mandating forced upon us the less donating and volunteering we can provide.
Edit: You could argue that hing isn't necessarily forced, but HIGHLY encouraged...I would see that as a poor argument, however.
+1
As WC mentioned earlier, laws hitting people who hire illegal immigrants are good too.
We need to change that. It should not be automatic to get citizenship just because you are born here. That is not a strict cons utional interpretation. Since they are subject under a different nation's laws, it is not required to give the babies citizenship.
Myself, I don't give to the churches. I give to causes of my choice. I don't take the biblical idea as gospel, but I believe in doing it anyway. I can directly think of $5,000+ that my contribution to the needy in one form or another will be by the end of the year, if I stop donating more and leave my payroll deduction in place to charity. That does not count taxes. That is charitable contribution.
It has always been my goal to give more in charity than I pay in taxes. This year I may fall short. Things are getting tight.
14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Currently, le 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States *
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
All persons born or naturalized. What could be clearer, WC?
If you don't like it, amend the Cons ution.
Depends on how you interpret that. The newly born are not subject to our jurisdiction, because they are innocent at birth. Their parents however are from the jurisdiction of another country.
Trust me. I know the cons utional passage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
