Even I can't believe this one

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33
http:///forum/post/3146095
1. Crime is what made this country great. A: 50 MILLION Americans (or 1/6th) illegally smoke or use marijuana in their daily lives. Think of how much cash floats around because of this? Think about how much money is in drugs! B: During the prohibition, many people made their fortunes distilling their own alcohol. For example: THE KENNEDY's. C: Price Fixing - big businesses set prices across the board so that their profits will increase while taking money away from honest paying citizens. D: Big Business/monopolys - the government doesn't care as long as they keep lining their pockets.
2. Who wants a bunch of sick people walking around? If you went to another county- lost your wallet and passport and you broke your leg and went to the hospital - would you like to hear "oh, I'm sorry, you don't live here, we can't treat you." (in their language or English)????? dare you to say yes. I dare you.
If we cut off all the services they get, and there are plenty, it is another deterrent to them coming in or staying here.
I have no problem allowing those who are self supporting and have no serious criminal record to get a work visa. I don't even have a problem letting them apply for citizenship JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE but I'll be damned if I want to just give them citizenship after they broke the law to come here. As was mentioned up thread there are plenty of honest people going through the hoops to come here fairly, and honestly. What sort of message does it send when we let those who don't obey the law benefit from their behavior

 

[be2lose]

never mind

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3145979
Wha-aaaaaaaait a minute!!!!!
You saying you doubt the validity of the article because it is from a Conservative publication? There are several other sources out there that reported the same thing.
That's not at all what I said. What I said was that the news is spun according to the political bent of the publisher. I have not checked into other sources reporting the same, but my guess would be that what "facts" both sides report on differ little in substance. It is the remainder of any given report (which is generally opinion) which reflects the ideology of the publisher - liberal or conservative.
And my comment, while made mostly in jest is a perfectly legitimate question. On the other hand when I was growing up in the 92707 zip code which is heavily hispanic most of my "Mexican" friends hated "wet backs" like you wouldn't believe. I think a lot of these stupid politicians are assuming their hispanic constituents are a lot more pro illegal than they really are.
Again, I did not say it wasn't a legitimate question. I said as much upthread in my response to stdreb27. He made an assumption from your statement that I was unwilling to make. Even further upthread, I asked you for clarification.
What I did call into question was the demographic assumption made of the particular district illustrated in the article. The additional signatories to the letter were not mentioned in the article (there's a small sample of spin), and therefore their district demographics are indeterminate. You may be right, you may not. I don't know, nor am I willing to assume. I tend to find that what isn't reported is as much part of the spin as what is.
I agree w/ the legal vs. illegal Hispanic immigrants part of your statement. Politicians are nothing if they're not out of touch with the real world.
In any case it just amazes me that we live in a age when our government wants to reward criminal behavior.
Agreed. That goes for both sides of the aisle. That goes for illegal immigrants. That goes for their employers.
Given that existing legislation isn't enforced, what possible good can new legislation do?

 

[mantisman51]

Arizona is a bas tardization of an Apache or O'Odham word. Montana is more likely an Italian word since it is the exact word in Italian and an incorrect spelling if Spanish. Who cares anyway? Silly point to attempt. If someone is here illegally, they should be sent back to their country-wherever it is. We should not be subsidizing criminal behavior. My great grandfather waited for almost 5 years to come here from Eire.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3146104
If we cut off all the services they get, and there are plenty, it is another deterrent to them coming in or staying here.
"services " That's a symptom, not the root cause
Cutoff the JOBS - Put employers in jail... This will help mitigate the situation.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3146483
"services " That's a symptom, not the root cause
Cutoff the JOBS - Put employers in jail... This will help mitigate the situation.
There are plenty of honest employers who get scammed with fake paperwork too.
One thing that makes me crazy is all it would take to cut a lot of this out is to allow Social Security and INS to share information. Right now the Social Security administration becomes away of multiple payments to a single account number or bad number within a few months. It would be super simple to track down the people using bad or stolen SS numbers but for some "reason"

that isn't allowed.
Yeah, I agree the problem is the politicians. You get a few like Tom Tancredo that will stand up and say this is wrong and they are branded kooks or racists for stating the obvious.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3146182
That's not at all what I said. What I said was that the news is spun according to the political bent of the publisher. I have not checked into other sources reporting the same, but my guess would be that what "facts" both sides report on differ little in substance. It is the remainder of any given report (which is generally opinion) which reflects the ideology of the publisher - liberal or conservative.
Again, I did not say it wasn't a legitimate question. I said as much upthread in my response to stdreb27. He made an assumption from your statement that I was unwilling to make. Even further upthread, I asked you for clarification.
What I did call into question was the demographic assumption made of the particular district illustrated in the article. The additional signatories to the letter were not mentioned in the article (there's a small sample of spin), and therefore their district demographics are indeterminate. You may be right, you may not. I don't know, nor am I willing to assume. I tend to find that what isn't reported is as much part of the spin as what is.
I agree w/ the legal vs. illegal Hispanic immigrants part of your statement. Politicians are nothing if they're not out of touch with the real world.
Agreed. That goes for both sides of the aisle. That goes for illegal immigrants. That goes for their employers.
Given that existing legislation isn't enforced, what possible good can new legislation do?
I just re read that article and find myself a little confused, what was spun in it? Seemed to be short and too the point.

 

[stdreb27]

I really love shela Jackson Lee's perspective.
"The idea of the premise of what I signed the letter for is to allow for those in this country that may be un-statused, undocumented, to buy insurance in the exchange that is unsubsidized. So they're using their own money"
For those of you who don't understand. The whole idea of insurance is equalizing risk between the members. So unless there was an insurance plan just for illegals, you'd be paying for it. Then to top that off, when have you EVER seen a government program actually be in the black? So you'd have to buy into the idea that the government would never pay into the system.
But hey cows fly.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3146534
For those of you who don't understand. The whole idea of insurance is equalizing risk between the members.
Well, ya. Insurance is the very definition of Socialism: from/to/according/needs and all that.
So unless there was an insurance plan just for illegals, you'd be paying for it.
And under the current (so called) plan we don't?
Your two statements appear to be at odds with each other.
Seems to me if they were allowed to buy in, by your own definition above, it would cost us less than it does now as there would be substantially more money in the pool for marginally greater risk. In other words, I don't understand what a payer's legal status has to do with anything.

 

[hlcroghan]

To all those that say send back all people who came here illegally, I definitely understand. It is a huge strain on our resources as a country to support other nationalities, but there is a little problem with that.
What happens to the children that are citizens???? Are you going to to deport American citizens because of where their parents are from? There are hundres of thousand of families who have children born and raised here, who pay their taxes using a tax ID number (because of lack of ***), who want citizenship but have no sponsor and therefore, are unable to do it. And while I'm at it, what about that child that came here illegally with thier parents when they were a baby and has graduated from high school and can't find a job now because their parents never had the money to get them their citizenship or even visa for that matter. This is far from a black and white issue, my friends. You simply cannot just send every person who is here illegally back to where they came from. You would leave millions of children with no parents, children who have the same rights as you and I in this country.

 

[uneverno]

+1
Not to mention, what would happen to the economy if we deported 25-40 million CONSUMERS?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3146602
Well, ya. Insurance is the very definition of Socialism: from/to/according/needs and all that.
And under the current (so called) plan we don't?
Your two statements appear to be at odds with each other.
Seems to me if they were allowed to buy in, by your own definition above, it would cost us less than it does now as there would be substantially more money in the pool for marginally greater risk. In other words, I don't understand what a payer's legal status has to do with anything.

You've kind of got the right ideas floating around. You're just not reaching the right conclusion...
I've made the point several times that the concept of insurance is a small scale example of Government.
There is two problems with your what is the big deal argument.
One there is no way in the world this is going to be a revenue neutral plan. Nothing the government does is revenue neutral. So regardless of the whole concept of insurance, we'd pay into illegal's plans.
Second, major political players have floated financial penalties for not having medical insurance. I think if something happens it will be a safe assumption that there will be penalties for non enrollment. Hence making it manditory.
Now personally if a private (and this is key) VOLENTARY company sells something to an illegal. That is a non issue.
But assuming the concept of a revenue neutral is true, and illegals are able to purchase a government administrated plan, then what is the point of government insurance to begin with? After all the government is in no way going to be more efficient than the sector. (and when they do screw it up which they will) it will get a bail out not the ax.

 

[angler man]

We had amnesty once. We have legal ways in which to become a citizen. Coming over our border to have a baby to become a citizen is crap. The child should have his/her citizenship revoked and sent back with their parents.
Enverno, putting the economy first over principle is what got us into this mess in the first place. Big business got away with murder, and created this issue.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/3146626
To all those that say send back all people who came here illegally, I definitely understand. It is a huge strain on our resources as a country to support other nationalities, but there is a little problem with that.
What happens to the children that are citizens???? Are you going to to deport American citizens because of where their parents are from? There are hundres of thousand of families who have children born and raised here, who pay their taxes using a tax ID number (because of lack of ***), who want citizenship but have no sponsor and therefore, are unable to do it. And while I'm at it, what about that child that came here illegally with thier parents when they were a baby and has graduated from high school and can't find a job now because their parents never had the money to get them their citizenship or even visa for that matter. This is far from a black and white issue, my friends. You simply cannot just send every person who is here illegally back to where they came from. You would leave millions of children with no parents, children who have the same rights as you and I in this country.
As far as I am concerned making the children of illegals citizens is a gross misapplication of the 14th amendment of the constitution anyway. But it is what it is. I don't see why we should reward the parent's illegal behavior with citizenship. Give them a choice. If there is a family member or other responsible party welling to care for the child here let it stay, if not let it go with the parent.
Sorta like the analogy I used up thread, If someone breaks into your vacation home you let them stay just because they happened to have a child while they were living there?

 

[hlcroghan]

I completely get what you are saying. It is an argument that goes around and around unfortunately. But saying that someone born here must leave because of where their parents are from is completely going against the constitution as well. That person was born on American soil. They are a citizen. You can't revoke their citizenship. Sorry. So you cannot force them to leave. However the argument about leaving them with a relative has some merit. I recently handled a case where two noncitizens were forced to leave their 5 children behind with their brother to raise them. The brother was a legal permanent resident who had been here for 20+ years. The children's ages ranged from 16 to 3 in years. So you have a 3 year old child who is deprived of both their mother and father. I'm sorry. That I just simply cannot agree with. Those parents had been living here for close to 20 years and raising their children. Not committing any crimes except being here. I believe there should be some concessions for these types of situations. I'm all for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing, ya know? Are we allowing these children that same opportunity? We took both their mother and father away. I think not.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3146645
One there is no way in the world this is going to be a revenue neutral plan. Nothing the government does is revenue neutral. So regardless of the whole concept of insurance, we'd pay into illegal's plans.
Second, major political players have floated financial penalties for not having medical insurance. I think if something happens it will be a safe assumption that there will be penalties for non enrollment. Hence making it manditory.
We definitely agree there.
I don't recall ever having said the plan should be gov't run. I'm not a proponent of that. I am a proponent of making insurance mandatory (among a variety of other things, ala the German system which is entirely private), but that's, perhaps, another discussion.
After all the government is in no way going to be more efficient than the sector. (and when they do screw it up which they will) it will get a bail out not the ax.
I think it's debatable whether or not current Gov't run systems are less efficient than privately run ones. Medicare/aid and VA run at ~3% overhead where private insurance is over 20%.
As to who gets a bail out when it gets screwed up, whether privately or gov't run, the recent precedents set in the private sector lead me to believe that that no longer matters. I.e. - either/or will get bailed out.
While the insurance companies are in reasonable shape right now, the model they've set up is not sustainable as the population continues to age. Will they come to DC with their hands out like the Airline execs, the Auto execs, and the Financial execs? Most assuredly. Will DC pander to them? Absolutely.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3146712
As far as I am concerned making the children of illegals citizens is a gross misapplication of the 14th amendment of the constitution anyway. But it is what it is. I don't see why we should reward the parent's illegal behavior with citizenship. Give them a choice. If there is a family member or other responsible party welling to care for the child here let it stay, if not let it go with the parent.
I think we're about the only nation on the planet that does that. Hell, even them socialist Canadians realized that was a stupid policy.

 

[angler man]

hlcroghan,
To me, it's a simple black and white issue. No gray area. If you cross the border without going through the "Front door" you are here illegally. If you choose to make children when you were not a citizen, I feel that the child should be striped of citizenship. I understand being born in the US make you a citizen, but if you never should have been here in the first place and their are issues with the system then it needs to be rectified. I have no problem with legal immigration. So don't take my view as someone who is anti-immigrant.
If I cheat and figure out a way to rig the lottery and win, should I not lose my reward for cheating when caught?
I understand compassion, but if you give an inch a mile is always taken.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Angler man
http:///forum/post/3146857
I understand compassion, but if you give an inch a mile is always taken.
That's Capitalism at its finest.
It's not just the illegal immigrants doing the taking. It's their illegal employers too.
The primary reason illegal immigrants don't have health care is because their employers don't "have" to provide it for them. If they were here legally, their employers would have to provide it. That cuts into profit margins.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/3146766
I completely get what you are saying. It is an argument that goes around and around unfortunately. But saying that someone born here must leave because of where their parents are from is completely going against the constitution as well. That person was born on American soil. They are a citizen. You can't revoke their citizenship. Sorry. So you cannot force them to leave. However the argument about leaving them with a relative has some merit. I recently handled a case where two noncitizens were forced to leave their 5 children behind with their brother to raise them. The brother was a legal permanent resident who had been here for 20+ years. The children's ages ranged from 16 to 3 in years. So you have a 3 year old child who is deprived of both their mother and father. I'm sorry. That I just simply cannot agree with. Those parents had been living here for close to 20 years and raising their children. Not committing any crimes except being here. I believe there should be some concessions for these types of situations. I'm all for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing, ya know? Are we allowing these children that same opportunity? We took both their mother and father away. I think not.
We can agree to disagree on this because I am not willing to give any concessions to those who came in illegally. Hopefully the people will get in line and do it right and be back with their kids at some point. If their only crime was coming in I wouldn't prevent them from getting citizenship at some point.