Town will take deportation to the top
Dalubwika
Selah is in eastern Washington - the conservative half of Washington. ;-)
Yes, let them fucking stay.
--Chris
Town will take deportation challenge to the top
The Associated Press
SELAH, Yakima County - Supporters of a Filipino family say they hope to appeal
to President Bush to stop the family's impending deportation.
Mayor Bob Jones and State Rep. Mary Skinner (R-Yakima) said Friday that they
hope to ask the president to intercede on behalf of Tomas, Judy and Jennylyn
Aganda when he visits the state next week.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week denied changes in the family
members' immigration status, clearing the way for them to be returned to the
Philippines.
Tomas, 55, Judy, 48, and 15-year-old Jennylyn have until Monday to surrender
their passports in Seattle and prove they have one-way tickets to the
Philippines, Skinner said.
"We are hoping for a miracle," she said, noting that the appeal to the
president will be made on humanitarian reasons relating to Judy Aganda's brain
cancer and the lack of medical coverage in the Philippines.
Jones had earlier expressed resignation that options were limited for
preventing the deportations.
"My duty is to tell them we've pretty much exhausted all possibilities for
stopping this," he said. "It's with a heavy heart I do that."
A last-minute appeal to allow Judy Aganda to remain in the country while she
received cancer treatment was denied last week.
The Agandas, who've owned and operated the Selah Dry Cleaners & Laundry for
about 13 years, came to the United States from the Philippines as visitors in
1990 and stayed.
Several attempts to change their immigration status have failed. They first
claimed to be business investors and later sought political asylum because they
feared a communist rebel group, the New People's Army.
Both requests were denied because the federal Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services - formerly the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
- believed the family's intent always had been to stay in the United States.
Many in this Yakima bedroom community of 6,300 have unrolled the welcome mat
for the Agandas, and gathered more than 4,000 signatures in support of the
family.
Outraged residents peppered U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Pasco) with questions
about the pending deportations at a town hall meeting Thursday.
Hastings told about 150 people he would speak with immigration officials on
behalf of the family, but said there was little else he could do.
Hastings said there is no way to assure the Agandas' safety after they return
to the Philippines.
Residents outraged over the deportation challenged Hastings to make a stand in
Congress and even threatened to barricade the family.
"Will you tell them about these people and that what's happening to these
people is wrong?" Selah resident Bob Brock asked.
Residents characterized the Agandas as productive citizens.
"If these people go back, I'd like to see a sweep clear from Canada all the way
to the Oregon border," one resident said about illegal immigrants in the state.
The Agandas' three other children will remain in the United States. Stephanie,
19, was born in the United States in 1984, while her mother was visiting a
relative as a tourist. Sons Herbie, 23, and Khimson, 21, will remain under
student visas.
The Agandas voluntarily dry-cleaned, gratis, the community's U.S. flags and
dresses for an annual Community Days celebration.
"It will be a big loss for our community," Jones said. "They did a lot."
Just JT
Sabi ni "Dalubwika" <dalu...@aol.com>:
>
> The Agandas, who've owned and operated the Selah Dry Cleaners & Laundry
for
> about 13 years, came to the United States from the Philippines as visitors
in
> 1990 and stayed.
>
Overstaying visitors who violated their terms of stay by working. YEP, THEY
SHOULD BE DEPORTED. Why should they stay when hundreds of thousands of
applicants are waiting for their chance to get a resident visa by the books?
--
DalubZeroToleranceAgainstOverstayers
Tansong Isda
They have a business, this actually qualifies them to stay. That is if the
papers are corrected to reflect this.
Rebecca Chua Enriquez
cannot just change your own circumstances and expect that the world will
follow (or in this case the INS). There are tens, if not hundreds, of
thousands, waiting (quite legally) for their papers to be processed. These
"queue-jumpers" are stealing a place from those who are following the rules.
Sorry, but I say no.
I have sympathy for the health concerns. Possibly they could file suit
against the makers of the dry-cleaning chemicals to see if they could have
caused the cancer.
"Tansong Isda" <ta...@hindiginto.ito> wrote in message
news:3F40EF5E...@hindiginto.ito...
Vincent Mahoney
US Embassy in Manila has Curbed "Tourist Visas" for Filipinos as a
result of this crap. This "Brain Cancer" is typical bull sh*t. Pinoys
are famous for claiming "Brain Cancer" of all kinds of excuses.
Time to Pack up them Bags.
Dalubwika
>Overstaying visitors who violated their terms of stay by working. YEP, THEY
>SHOULD BE DEPORTED. Why should they stay when hundreds of thousands of
>applicants are waiting for their chance to get a resident visa by the books?
I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. Thus is my opinion. ;-)
--Chris
joekerr
> Except that the business came after they arrived on tourist visas. You
> cannot just change your own circumstances and expect that the world will
> follow (or in this case the INS).
Oh yes you can... in fact there are several laws stating that you can.
There are tens, if not hundreds, of
> thousands, waiting (quite legally) for their papers to be processed. These
> "queue-jumpers" are stealing a place from those who are following the rules.
> Sorry, but I say no.
Most of the applicants have no business applying- they have no idea
what they face or how they will survive... they live in a dream world
(Hollywood). I've seen dozens of them go back home because they just
couldn't hack it here.... those folks not only made it- they did
better than many native-born Americans (of all races) They earned the
right to stay here as much as anybody else!
> I have sympathy for the health concerns. Possibly they could file suit
> against the makers of the dry-cleaning chemicals to see if they could have
> caused the cancer.
>
I have sympathy for them- they did everything they could to be good
citizens and become productive and yet- there's all of these people
attacking them!
Deport the lazy welfare jackasses and keep the good, hardworking ,
decent folks!!!!!
Mo Silidonio
feel sorry for this family. It is quite sad that they did not have an able
attorney who could have assisted them on immigration matters to possibly
avoid reaching deportation proceedings.
I heard a story of someone who was deported back to the Philippines. Flying
from O'Hare, he gave his INS escort the slip while changing planes in LAX.
Another one I heard, this guy was deported back to RP, got another passport
in a different name and was back in the US within a year.
"Dalubwika" <dalu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030818054432...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Rebecca Chua Enriquez
Illegal.
Illegal.
Illegal.
Illegal.
No matter how many times you type or write it, the meaning stays the same.
"Yes, it is just that simple" Pigette
Just JT
Sabi ni "joekerr" <joe...@mailandnews.com>:
>
> those folks not only made it- they did better than many native-born
> Americans (of all races) They earned the right to stay here as much
> as anybody else!
Yep, they certainly became successful in their laundry business. But they
still cheated their visitor's visas. And you know what we say about cheats.
ONCE A CHEAT ALWAYS A CHEAT. And you can't trust cheats.
I still say deport their arses back to PI. For if we don't, it is a slap in
the face on those who went through the legal processes.
>
> I have sympathy for them- they did everything they could to be good
> citizens and become productive and yet- there's all of these people
> attacking them!
--------------
Queue jumpers do not deserve sympathy. Queue jumpers should be shot.
> Deport the lazy welfare jackasses and keep the good, hardworking ,
> decent folks!!!!!
-------------
Yep deport the ILLEGALS, lazy or otherwise.
--
DalubLegalAndBonafide
Dalubwika
>As much as I hate to see people breaking immigration law, I cannot help but
>feel sorry for this family. It is quite sad that they did not have an able
>attorney who could have assisted them on immigration matters to possibly
>avoid reaching deportation proceedings.
Right. They made one mistake. I think they've more than compensated for it. I
mean these people are probably more patriotic than the average immigrant who
comes into this country. Their kids are American citizens - that's gotta count
for something.
--Chris
Tansong Isda
> "Rebecca Chua Enriquez" <rebecc...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:<n670b.104711$0v4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > Except that the business came after they arrived on tourist visas. You
> > cannot just change your own circumstances and expect that the world will
> > follow (or in this case the INS).
>
> Oh yes you can... in fact there are several laws stating that you can.
>
> There are tens, if not hundreds, of
> > thousands, waiting (quite legally) for their papers to be processed. These
> > "queue-jumpers" are stealing a place from those who are following the rules.
> > Sorry, but I say no.
>
> Most of the applicants have no business applying- they have no idea
> what they face or how they will survive... they live in a dream world
> (Hollywood). I've seen dozens of them go back home because they just
> couldn't hack it here.... those folks not only made it- they did
> better than many native-born Americans (of all races) They earned the
> right to stay here as much as anybody else!
>
> > I have sympathy for the health concerns. Possibly they could file suit
> > against the makers of the dry-cleaning chemicals to see if they could have
> > caused the cancer.
> >
>
> I have sympathy for them- they did everything they could to be good
> citizens and become productive and yet- there's all of these people
> attacking them!
> Deport the lazy welfare jackasses and keep the good, hardworking ,
> decent folks!!!!!
>
>
I agree with Joe Kerr here, in fact if you can own a business in the US for more than two years, you deserve a citizenship!
From us consulate offices:
PHILIPPINES - *Passport and onward/return ticket required. For entry by Manila International Airport, visa not required for transit/tourist stay
of
up to 21 days. A visa is required for longer stays and business. Visas require 1 application form, 1 photo, onward/return ticket, and $30
fee for
single-entry and $60 or $90 fee for multiple entries. Company letter needed for business visa. A Passenger Service Charge, 550 pesos ($11.00
US), must be paid in Philippine pesos when departing the country from international airports. For more information, contact the Embassy of
the
Philippines, 1600 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036 (202/467-9300/9324/9363) or nearest Consulate General: CA (213/639-0980
to 85 and 415/433-6666 or 69), GU (671/646-4620/30), HI (808/595-6316), NY (212/764-1330 or 34), or COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTH
MARIANA ISLANDS (670/234-1848). Internet: www.philippineembassy.usa.org
Then there's this:
from..http://www.immigration.ca/us/investment.asp
E-2 Treaty Investors
Owner or Developer of the new enterprise from a treaty country (see list of treaty
countries) has 50% or more ownership in a substantial US employment creating
investment. As a general rule substantial means $200,000 or more. Although smaller
investments are often approved the risk of denial increases as one heads south of
$200,000.
Eb(5) Immigrant Investors.
Individual invests $500,000 in a high unemployment area (150% of national
unemployment rate) or $1,000,000 elsewhere and hires 10 persons within 2 years, or
invests in a Regional Center and may use job multiplier studies instead of direct
employment. Because this category has been controversial INS processing times are
slow and unpredictable.
None of the investor categories have language, education or business experience
requirements.
The Investor Decision Tree
1. You own or control a business in your home country and want to establish a branch office,
affiliated company or subsidiary in the USA.
Use the L1A visa. INS grants 1 year to start up the US business with a total extension
periods of seven years. The biggest advantage of the L1A visa is that it can be easily
converted to a green card after doing business in the U.S. for one year.
2. You own or control a business in your home country that already own a U.S. branch office,
affiliated company or subsidiary company.
You can apply for a green card as a managerial transfer from abroad without coming to
the US, you can come to the US as an L1A (above), or you can come to the US as E1
or E2 if you are from a treaty company. In all cases you may apply for a green card as
long as you qualify as an international manager (serving one of past three years as
manager or executive of the foreign company).
3. You want to establish a US business that is not connected with an overseas company.
If you are a citizen of a treaty country you can use E1 if the US business is based on
trade or in all other cases use E2. If you do not also qualify as a managerial transfer
you will probably never qualify for a green card unless you invest $500,000 or
$1,000,000 per the Eb5 category. If you want to know why, you need to contact us.
Otherwise take our word for it. Its too complicated to describe in summary form.
Now you need to know the basic differences between the E visas and green cards.
The green card lasts forever, and permits one to work, invest, study or do none of the above
with complete freedom. Green card holders are subject to US world wide taxation and must
make the US their permanent residence. Green card holder dependents also receive green
cards valid for the rest of their lives.
E visa holders may only work for themselves or the E visa enterprise. E visas may be
extended as long as the E visa enterprise is operating. E visas are generally issued in five year
increments. E visa dependent children loose their E visa status when they turn 21 years of
age. At that time they need to find another status. E visa holders and dependents may study
in the US. E visa holders do not have to live in the US any particular amount of time and may
arrange their affairs so they are not subject to world wide taxation.
Those wishing to retire in America, live in America say six months a year and have no kids
under 21 years of age, should consider an E visa investment. In this case the E visa is more
flexible both for tax purposes and there’s no requirement to come to the US for at least one
time every six months. The US does not have a retirement visa category. The E visa is as
close as it gets.
Families with young children need to consider the fate of their children once they turn 21. In
this case green cards are the better alternative. If a green card is not possible, then consider
that children can go to university on F1 visas, upon graduation qualify for H1B visas and at
some point they will get married, more than likely to a US citizen. If you don’t qualify for a
green card and don’t want to expose your children to the added immigration pressure of having
"ify" status then stay home or invest under Eb5 below.
If all else fails consider EB-5.
EB5 has been controversial. If you check around you will here a variety of horror stories. Here’s
the truth according to us. First, your are only considering this because you don’t qualify for
another visa category and you want a green card. If you invest in a pooled immigrant investor
fund, INS will deny your file. Its that simple. If you as an individual invest the required capital
amount in a job producing enterprise INS should, after a long processing period approve your
case if you have a detailed business plan, a verifiable source of funds, and if you add some
value to the business either through your experience/education or as an owner operator.
Because of the uncertain processing times, we suggest that you apply for an E visa first, then
apply for the EB5.
This is not only allowed, this is the way the law is, now unless that report is not telling us everything, the business owner has a right to stay
in the US, the que? That person is on the que for so long he is still on that que.
Dalubwika
>This is not only allowed, this is the way the law is, now unless that report
>is not telling us everything, the business owner has a right to stay
>in the US, the que? That person is on the que for so long he is still on that
>que.
Well I forwarded the above to the reporter who covered the story. I asked him
to pass it on to the Agandas.
--Chris
Rebecca Chua Enriquez
come back, then file petitions for the folks and wait the 15 to 18 years.
"Hell, life isn't complicated, people are" Pigette
joekerr
Subject to legal definition- this also never changes!
The rules are different depending on whether you're over there or over
here- sorry but that's the rules! Other rules also apply- but the
bottom line is- if you are a useful productive member of society then
you shouldn't be punished.
These illegals don't change the quota-yet. And even if the alarmists
succeed in lowering the quota they won't succeeed in stopping illegals
from coming over here. The only real question is- are they making a
valuable contribution to our society. Most illegals take jobs few
citizens want- hell citizens actively employ them for that reason!
Fighting it risks alienating them and making the problem worse- just
look at Irish-American history or Black-American history... please no
more mistakes- we are a nation of immigrants we should embrace them
and assimilate them (just as my wife's family was)and adopt from them
whatever is beneficial to our nation! This dear sweet Becky is true
American Patriotism!
Sorry Randy- while you're being overwhelmed and over-burdened the rest
of us aren't... we should all share the burden more evenly- whether in
cost or in physical terms.
joekerr
> Sabi ni "joekerr" <joe...@mailandnews.com>:
> >
> > those folks not only made it- they did better than many native-born
> > Americans (of all races) They earned the right to stay here as much
> > as anybody else!
> -------------
> Yep, they certainly became successful in their laundry business. But they
> still cheated their visitor's visas. And you know what we say about cheats.
> ONCE A CHEAT ALWAYS A CHEAT. And you can't trust cheats.
Actually they didn't cheat- they're within the rules- there are 2
count them 2 sets of rules that apply... one set for those who are
over there and another for those who are overhere... sorry but those
are the facts! Smart doesn't equal cheat 8 P
> I still say deport their arses back to PI. For if we don't, it is a slap in
> the face on those who went through the legal processes.
>
Most in the que need to be slapped! They have no idea what they're
facing or dealing with! Most could've been here years ago if they'd
only pull their heads out of their asses!
> > I have sympathy for them- they did everything they could to be good
> > citizens and become productive and yet- there's all of these people
> > attacking them!
> --------------
> Queue jumpers do not deserve sympathy. Queue jumpers should be shot.
>
No idiots should be shot! The que is just a way of keeping the morons
occupied- so they don't cause more trouble... really 20 years just to
be considered and then you have to bribe your own people just to get
out of the country??? They're right where they belong!
> > Deport the lazy welfare jackasses and keep the good, hardworking ,
> > decent folks!!!!!
> -------------
> Yep deport the ILLEGALS, lazy or otherwise.
No just those who don't contribute to society- can't punish someone
for being good- how would you like it if ASStrailia suddenly
discovered an error in your paperwork and decided you were illegal and
simply tossed you out? Ah the shoe is always on the other foot isn't
it????
Loves good workers Pig
Mo Silidonio
aliens deserving deportation, I believe illegal immigration must be dealt
with accordingly. Surely the news report left out many pariculars regarding
their case, but face value---why would an immigrant family running a
mom-and-pop legitimate business attract attention from the INS to the point
of deportation. Perhaps a disgruntled relative or neighbor ratted on them?
The common argument that "most illegals take jobs few citizens want" is
debunked by recent studies. Because of illegal immigrants inundating the
construction sector, many small-time contractors (with legal workers) are
squeezed out of profitability because these migrant workers accept sub-level
wages. Recent studies also confirm that the cost of illegal immigration
(education, healthcare, welfare services) far outweigh any benefit they
bring in.
For the self-sufficient family in the story, I do not believe they fall in
this category.
"joekerr" <joe...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:5cf78540.03081...@posting.google.com...
LeeBat
>The common argument that "most illegals take jobs few citizens want" is
>debunked by recent studies. Because of illegal immigrants inundating the
>construction sector, many small-time contractors (with legal workers) are
>squeezed out of profitability because these migrant workers accept sub-level
>wages.
I've seen this in my area.
Americans who hired illegals at substandard pay have supplanted
contractors who paid their workers a "living" wage.
The tables are starting to turn again, however. Some of the more
entrepeneurial illegals, having learned the trade, are going into
business themselves .... undercutting and squeezing out their former
bosses.
Its the American Way.
LeeBat
aqui se habla espanol
Just JT
Sabi ni "joekerr" <joe...@mailandnews.com>:
>
> there are 2 count them 2 sets of rules that apply... one set
> for those who are over there and another for those who are overhere...
If what you're saying is true and people who have landed are given
favourably treatment than those who are still applying overseas, then that
explains why people who do every means possible to land in the US of A. No
wonder people fake their passports and bank statements and marital status
just to get the visitor's visa. Then I say the immigration rules are flawed
because it encourages absconders and overstayers.
>
> Most in the que need to be slapped! They have no idea what they're
> facing or dealing with! Most could've been here years ago if they'd
> only pull their heads out of their asses!
------------
But when can one do if it takes 30 years for a married child of majority age
to be petitioned by a parent? Surely you can't blame the petitionee of this
rule, can you?
> how would you like it if ASStrailia suddenly discovered an error in your
> paperwork and decided you were illegal and simply tossed you out? Ah the
> shoe is always on the other foot isn't it????
---------------
That would be a worry. That's why it's important to follow the rules and go
by the books. If they deport me to Tasmania, I will appeal.
--
DalubI'mNoQueueJumper
joekerr
> While the subject family appears to me as not the best example of illegal
> aliens deserving deportation, I believe illegal immigration must be dealt
> with accordingly. Surely the news report left out many pariculars regarding
> their case, but face value---why would an immigrant family running a
> mom-and-pop legitimate business attract attention from the INS to the point
> of deportation. Perhaps a disgruntled relative or neighbor ratted on them?
9-11 has changed a lot of things- one of them is the ability to use
commonsense approach to such matters... are all illegal aliens
terrorists? Hell no!
We gotta stop the ridiculous delusion that we should only target
non-Arabs lest we appear racist... political correctness run amok-
SUPRISE!!!!
> The common argument that "most illegals take jobs few citizens want" is
> debunked by recent studies. Because of illegal immigrants inundating the
> construction sector, many small-time contractors (with legal workers) are
> squeezed out of profitability because these migrant workers accept sub-level
> wages. Recent studies also confirm that the cost of illegal immigration
> (education, healthcare, welfare services) far outweigh any benefit they
> bring in.
>
> For the self-sufficient family in the story, I do not believe they fall in
> this category.
Assimilation would change most of that- unionizing (real word?) these
low paid jobs would change things as well- but from actual
experience... there are indeed a lot of jobs no one wants- like
roofing. It's a mixed bag- but I believe the law recognizes that and
that's why they've allowed illegals second chances. This family should
be one of them... the others??? Well it's a case by case basis.
I'm always suspicious of these so-called studies- esp. when they don't
include detailed info on how they arrived at their conclusions- I
guess I've seen too many false claims over the years- Alar
anyone??????
Joekerr
Congenital Kano
> here- sorry but that's the rules! Other rules also apply- but the
> bottom line is- if you are a useful productive member of society then
> you shouldn't be punished.
> These illegals don't change the quota-yet. And even if the alarmists
> succeed in lowering the quota they won't succeeed in stopping illegals
> from coming over here. The only real question is- are they making a
> valuable contribution to our society. Most illegals take jobs few
> citizens want- hell citizens actively employ them for that reason!
> Fighting it risks alienating them and making the problem worse- just
> look at Irish-American history or Black-American history... please no
> more mistakes- we are a nation of immigrants we should embrace them
> and assimilate them (just as my wife's family was)and adopt from them
> whatever is beneficial to our nation! This dear sweet Becky is true
> American Patriotism!
> Sorry Randy- while you're being overwhelmed and over-burdened the rest
> of us aren't... we should all share the burden more evenly- whether in
> cost or in physical terms.
Sorry, this approach simply does not take the facts into account.
Those who believe illegal immigration does not impact their lives should
consider the following:
In 2000 (the last year such stats are completely available) the 24 counties
bordering foreign soil spent over $1 billion dollars on unreimbursed medical
treatment for illegal aliens. The feds have a little thing called PRWORA
(Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996)
which says local hospitals must provide emergency services, treatment of
communicable diseases, and immunizations for which the hospitals will be
reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid. Problem is that illegals use ERs as
doctor's offices, and rather than face discrimination suits and demand
either proof of payment or proof of coverage, most hospitals simply treat
people for anything they walk in the door with.
Upshot? Medical facilities in these border states split a $1 billion cost
that the feds didn't reimburse. This makes your $200 ER visit cost $300 to
you or your insurance provider. But what does that mean to Joeker, who
wants to pay more taxes to provide free medical care to illegals?
In LA county alone, 16 hospitals have planned to shut down this year largely
because of the losses they have incurred from deadbeat illegals. That means
when you are driving to the hospital with Joeker, Jr., lying bleeding in
your arms, you have to go an extra 10-15 minutes to find an ER. If he dies
before you get help, well, it's just the cost of supplying measles
immunizations and allergy medicine to suffering illegals.
For me, that price is too steep. I'll pay more for tomatoes, and mow my own
lawn (OK, I'll have Maria mow the lawn).
The situation is not getting better, either. So many conversations on the
issue seem to assume that the illegal immigrant problem we have today is
it -- but it is getting worse every day. Why shouldn't it snowball, when
life here even for illegals is easier than back home? You give free
healthcare, you give welfare and food stamps, you give drivers licenses, you
don't collect taxes, you give in-state tuition (of *course* it makes sense
for UC Berkeley to charge an illegal immigrant 1/10th of what it charges a
military veteran from Nevada!). And I am being reactionary when I point out
that Mexico encourages illegal immigration to relieve poverty and population
pressure internally - just export your unskilled and criminal elements so
they don't create problems for you! Great plan! Thanks, Estados Unidos
amigos!
Sorry, this is a lot more than just paying taxes. Even if it was -- why
should we pay more? American remains the land of opportunity for those who
come legally, but the rest should wait their turn. Unless you believe that
the US can assimilate all comers, you have to recognize limits. We have
limits, but we don't enforce them. Education suffers, healthcare suffers,
wages suffer, unions suffer, and taxpayers foot the bill. Wow, that sounds
like a great deal!
Are you happy to pay $100 for a $20 suit? That's the attitude of "we aren't
all over-burdened -- we should pay more taxes." If you have money to burn,
send it to me and I'll pass it along to people who can really use it.
Prop 187 Pig
Towelie
In Brownsville, TX (a bordertown), the number of students in high school
is equal to about 25% of the town population. They can't build enough high
schools over there... But come to think of it, how can it possible that
1/4 of the population is always composed of 14 - 18 year olds??? Strange
no one has noticed that around there...
--
towelie4ever AT earthlink DOT net
"Don't forget to always bring a towel!"
joekerr
> > citizens want- hell citizens actively employ them for that reason!
> > Fighting it risks alienating them and making the problem worse- just
> > look at Irish-American history or Black-American history... please no
> > more mistakes- we are a nation of immigrants we should embrace them
> > and assimilate them (just as my wife's family was)and adopt from them
> > whatever is beneficial to our nation! This dear sweet Becky is true
> > American Patriotism!
> > Sorry Randy- while you're being overwhelmed and over-burdened the rest
> > of us aren't... we should all share the burden more evenly- whether in
> > cost or in physical terms.
>
> Sorry, this approach simply does not take the facts into account.
>
> Those who believe illegal immigration does not impact their lives should
> consider the following:
>
> In 2000 (the last year such stats are completely available) the 24 counties
> bordering foreign soil spent over $1 billion dollars on unreimbursed medical
> treatment for illegal aliens.
Only a billion? That's chump change for the Fed!!!
The feds have a little thing called PRWORA
> (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996)
> which says local hospitals must provide emergency services, treatment of
> communicable diseases, and immunizations for which the hospitals will be
> reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid. Problem is that illegals use ERs as
> doctor's offices, and rather than face discrimination suits and demand
> either proof of payment or proof of coverage, most hospitals simply treat
> people for anything they walk in the door with.
And thus it's the hospital's own fault...
> Upshot? Medical facilities in these border states split a $1 billion cost
> that the feds didn't reimburse.
Meaning they've chosen to not do their job so the Fed won't reward
them- sorry I've worked in hospitals and this type of thing is just
propaganda used for justifying their *other* actions.
This makes your $200 ER visit cost $300 to
> you or your insurance provider. But what does that mean to Joeker, who
> wants to pay more taxes to provide free medical care to illegals?
It means my dishonest insurance company and the hospital both are
abusing the system!!!!
> In LA county alone, 16 hospitals have planned to shut down this year largely
> because of the losses they have incurred from deadbeat illegals.
Losses???? You mean incompetence don't you???? If they enforced the
rules there'd be no such losses!!!! Sorry but hospitals can afford to
keep $300,000 dollar a year lawyers on staff to protect them but
choose not to!
That means
> when you are driving to the hospital with Joeker, Jr., lying bleeding in
> your arms, you have to go an extra 10-15 minutes to find an ER. If he dies
> before you get help, well, it's just the cost of supplying measles
> immunizations and allergy medicine to suffering illegals.
GRANDSTANDING!!!!! Hey- little joe et al are never that far away- esp
with the state police medi-vac so readily available!!!! And lest we
forget paramedics etc????
> For me, that price is too steep. I'll pay more for tomatoes, and mow my own
> lawn (OK, I'll have Maria mow the lawn).
>
> The situation is not getting better, either. So many conversations on the
> issue seem to assume that the illegal immigrant problem we have today is
> it -- but it is getting worse every day. Why shouldn't it snowball, when
> life here even for illegals is easier than back home?
And this is a seperate issue- spend more for security! One way or
another you're going to have to pay more!!!! The two-path approach is
the only one that makes sense- except the assimilation path is a
half-effort 8 (
You give free
> healthcare, you give welfare and food stamps, you give drivers licenses, you
> don't collect taxes, you give in-state tuition (of *course* it makes sense
> for UC Berkeley to charge an illegal immigrant 1/10th of what it charges a
> military veteran from Nevada!).
OK- if they are on welfare they wouldn't pay taxes anyway.... if they
are going to school they should pay full price (unless the govt
assists them)and once they're educated and become assimilated they
WILL PAY TAXES- as opposed to 5 generations of non-tazpayers we now
have!
And I am being reactionary when I point out
> that Mexico encourages illegal immigration to relieve poverty and population
> pressure internally - just export your unskilled and criminal elements so
> they don't create problems for you! Great plan! Thanks, Estados Unidos
> amigos!
You're right- more preventitive measures are needed- as well as more
investment in Mexico.
> Sorry, this is a lot more than just paying taxes. Even if it was -- why
> should we pay more? American remains the land of opportunity for those who
> come legally, but the rest should wait their turn. Unless you believe that
> the US can assimilate all comers, you have to recognize limits. We have
> limits, but we don't enforce them. Education suffers, healthcare suffers,
> wages suffer, unions suffer, and taxpayers foot the bill. Wow, that sounds
> like a great deal!
Here even you pointout we're not doing our job- why blame illegals????
And assimilation can cure a great deal of the problems... the biggest
problem is that by treating these people like lepers we've forced them
to adopt underground tactics and for their relatives to push for
legislation that gives them more benefits- and YOU know that that's a
huge issue in your state- the relos are pushing for benies in the
absence od acceptence!
Are youe really willing to pay more for tomatoes?
Then force the companies to give health benefits to their workers-
give the illegals the right to unionize- give THEM a decent wage and
see how much everything changes.
> Are you happy to pay $100 for a $20 suit? That's the attitude of "we aren't
> all over-burdened -- we should pay more taxes." If you have money to burn,
> send it to me and I'll pass it along to people who can really use it.
>
> Prop 187 Pig
My attitude is- DO YOUR JOB!!! If you really don't want them here PAY
MORE TAXES..so you can stop them... it's not a pretty choice Randy
either way it's going to cost you... why not strengthen the stick and
carrot approach????
HumaneRealistPig
Dirty Sick Pig
Towelie wrote:
> In Brownsville, TX (a bordertown), the number of students in high school
> is equal to about 25% of the town population. They can't build enough high
> schools over there... But come to think of it, how can it possible that
> 1/4 of the population is always composed of 14 - 18 year olds??? Strange
> no one has noticed that around there...
The University of Texas has known about this and is powerless to do
anything about it. Many of those high schoolers are from out of state
and will be there long enough to establish Texas residence. Saves them
lots of money when they enroll in UT-Brownsville after spending their
high school senior year as Tejanos.
AdmiresEncouragesSupportsKidsWithPlansPig
Congenital Kano
> > In 2000 (the last year such stats are completely available) the 24
counties
> > bordering foreign soil spent over $1 billion dollars on unreimbursed
medical
> > treatment for illegal aliens.
> Only a billion? That's chump change for the Fed!!!
Now you are reading like Renowl. These are *unreimbursed* medical costs.
Not from the Fed, from either local gummint or private industry. Not chump
change (you are beginning to sound like a tax and spend Dem...).
Note that this "chump change" is more than we spend annually patrolling our
borders... (more below).
> The feds have a little thing called PRWORA
> > (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996)
> > which says local hospitals must provide emergency services, treatment of
> > communicable diseases, and immunizations for which the hospitals will be
> > reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid. Problem is that illegals use ERs
as
> > doctor's offices, and rather than face discrimination suits and demand
> > either proof of payment or proof of coverage, most hospitals simply
treat
> > people for anything they walk in the door with.
>
>
> And thus it's the hospital's own fault...
No. The hospitals are so hemmed in by regulations, discrimination laws,
basic treatment standards, and the ever-present threat of lawsuits by the
ACLU and MALDEF that they know the hassles of turning away a $10,000 patient
may cost them $1 million.
This is like saying rape is the victim's fault because they didn't fight
hard enough. Again, a liberal tactic to blame the victim. Hospitals
treating sick illegals is not the problem. the illegals are. Let's put the
blame where it belongs.
> > Upshot? Medical facilities in these border states split a $1 billion
cost
> > that the feds didn't reimburse.
>
> Meaning they've chosen to not do their job so the Fed won't reward
> them- sorry I've worked in hospitals and this type of thing is just
> propaganda used for justifying their *other* actions.
Again, blame the victim. "Doing their jobs" should not involve facing
litigation, loss of license, etc., for rejecting a non-paying non-critical
customer, but that is what they face. Many states and cities have laws
saying even the *police* cannot question the immigration status of someone
they pick up, and you think an ER admitting clerk should expose the hospital
to that liability?
> This makes your $200 ER visit cost $300 to
> > you or your insurance provider. But what does that mean to Joeker, who
> > wants to pay more taxes to provide free medical care to illegals?
>
>
> It means my dishonest insurance company and the hospital both are
> abusing the system!!!!
That's absurd! The costs are real. They have to be borne by *someone*.
You are suprisingly dense here. It's basic economics.
You have 10 customers. Five get the product for free. The other five have
to pay the costs of their product *and* subsidize the freeloaders. Sure,
renowl would say "Let the rich owners pay for the freebies" but you are not
that stupid.
This is a welfare state. It is socialism, "to each according to his needs,
from each according to his ability." Since when did you become a socialist?
Regular shoppers pay for shoplifters. Businesses pay for workers comp
fraud. Honest people pay for the actions of crooks.
Why not deal with the *problem* (illegals) instead of making every citizen
pay the price for allowing them in?
Think about this: over 29% of all inmates are illegal aliens in the US
(http://www.fairus.org/html/04110608.htm). That's $1.5 *billion* costs to
taxpayers. All unnecessary. Now, you may think "that's chump change", but
a billion here, a billion there, and soon you are talking real money.
> > In LA county alone, 16 hospitals have planned to shut down this year
largely
> > because of the losses they have incurred from deadbeat illegals.
>
>
> Losses???? You mean incompetence don't you???? If they enforced the
> rules there'd be no such losses!!!! Sorry but hospitals can afford to
> keep $300,000 dollar a year lawyers on staff to protect them but
> choose not to!
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Most hospitals are
working right at the edge of solvency, in large part because of the high
default rate. You want to put the blame on admissions staffs, but they are
operating in a climate of fear of litigation that even those charged with
enforcing the laws shy away from.
Certainly illegals are not the only reasons hospitals are in trouble
financially. The enormous costs of malpractice insurance and litigation are
also a big factor, because while we want to be able to screw up in our own
jobs we expect perfection from others. Hospitals have a much higher rate of
saving and extending lives, or repairing shattered bodies, than anytime in
history yet face astronomical litigation increases as everyone goes after
the "deep pockets" (it's like you said -- these rich hospitals can afford
it, right?).
Your saying that we should accept the cost of illegals is like saying you
would accept the loss to an armed robber who takes you wallet. You can
afford it, so no harm, no foul. Right? Laws against armed robbery are
discriminatory (who are *you* to say this is not a legitimate enterprise?),
and should be repealed. Are you with me in this?
> That means
> > when you are driving to the hospital with Joeker, Jr., lying bleeding in
> > your arms, you have to go an extra 10-15 minutes to find an ER. If he
dies
> > before you get help, well, it's just the cost of supplying measles
> > immunizations and allergy medicine to suffering illegals.
>
>
> GRANDSTANDING!!!!! Hey- little joe et al are never that far away- esp
> with the state police medi-vac so readily available!!!! And lest we
> forget paramedics etc????
Ob cors. But ambulance services are also going out of business. It's not
grandstanding, it's reality. If your business costs exceed our income, you
generally go out of business. If you have deadbeat clients, and you cannot
get reimbursement from the state (which gets it from the taxpayers), you are
in trouble. Ambulance companies are going belly-up across the US, meaning
fewer vehicles. That means Joe, Jr., may not get the 10-minute response he
needs.
> > For me, that price is too steep. I'll pay more for tomatoes, and mow my
own
> > lawn (OK, I'll have Maria mow the lawn).
> >
> > The situation is not getting better, either. So many conversations on
the
> > issue seem to assume that the illegal immigrant problem we have today is
> > it -- but it is getting worse every day. Why shouldn't it snowball,
when
> > life here even for illegals is easier than back home?
>
>
> And this is a seperate issue- spend more for security! One way or
> another you're going to have to pay more!!!! The two-path approach is
> the only one that makes sense- except the assimilation path is a
> half-effort 8 (
The security issue has many sides. One is that we do not enforce the laws
in place. John Boyd Malvo, one of the DC snipers, was caught, identified as
an illegal, and released on orders of the INS. We have a catch and release
policy. Sen. Tom Tancredo of Colorado read a front-page story about an
illegal immigrant family who worried about losing a subsidy to college for
their son. Sen. Tancredo called the INS to ask them what they would do
about this family, admittedly breaking the law whose picture and address
were available from the paper. He was told they would send them a letter
telling them they were breaking the law. Great...
The harshest border policy will not succeed if we continue to make it
worthwhile to violate the laws. So long as we give assistance to illegals
making their illegal life here better than their legal life in Mexico they
will come. We want to beef up border security, but Arizona is trying to put
water fountains in the desert to help illegals cross the desert. We allow
banks to accept the matricula consular to open a bank account -- note that
*I* cannot open a bank account without giving my SSN so the IRS can audit me
and levy my accounts, but an illegal can open an account without one! We
give illegals drivers licenses, and some jurisdictions even allow them to
vote in local elections.
The problem with assimilation or amnesty is that it *increases* the burden
on the taxpayer. A legal resident can get welfare and food stamps.
According to The National Research Council's 1997 study, The New Americans:
Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, the majority of
increase in poverty in the US in the 1990s was by immigrants, legal and
illegal. Making someone an instant citizen allows them to feed off the
public trough even more than as an illegal. Legal Mexican US residents
collect, per capita, 20% more than native-born Americans, and at a rate
twice as high per population. The study also noted:
"The net current fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) imposed on
all levels of government by immigrant households nationally is estimated to
range from $11.4 billion to $20.2 billion annually. This fiscal drain is
larger than the $1 billion to $10 billion benefit estimated to accrue to
natives from having immigrants in the labor market."
http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/combinednrc.pdf
In California, the average immigrant-headed household uses $3,463 more in
services provided by state and local government than it pays in taxes. This
translates into an added tax burden of $1,178 imposed on each native
household in California.
And the problem will only get larger:
"Immigrants and their descendants who will arrive between now and 2050 will
add 80 million people to the U.S. population. This will account for 65
percent of the growth in the U.S. population over the next 50 years."
> You give free
> > healthcare, you give welfare and food stamps, you give drivers licenses,
you
> > don't collect taxes, you give in-state tuition (of *course* it makes
sense
> > for UC Berkeley to charge an illegal immigrant 1/10th of what it charges
a
> > military veteran from Nevada!).
>
> OK- if they are on welfare they wouldn't pay taxes anyway.... if they
> are going to school they should pay full price (unless the govt
> assists them)and once they're educated and become assimilated they
> WILL PAY TAXES- as opposed to 5 generations of non-tazpayers we now
> have!
"Unless the government assists them" -- *Think, Joeker -- where does the
government get *its* money? From *taxes*. What you are saying is, "If they
are going to school, they should pay full price unless legal working
Americans are asked to cough up the difference."
Whenever I hear liberals say "The government should pay for it" I want to
shake them and say "It's *your* money, moron! The Government doesn't just
print it to pay bills! They collect it from *you*!"
If they are illegals, they still cannot get a tax-paying job because they
have no SSN... You *do* understand how taxes are collected?
There is a double whammy for taxes with illegals. As noted elsewhere here,
illegals in the construction biz (one of the driving forces in the
recovering economy) are driving out legals from jobs. Contractors cannot
keep records showing they are employing illegals, so they under report
earnings (hard to track in a biz like construction -- if I cash that check
you give me to run my cash employees, it will never show up in an audit).
And I don't want to increase my own tax burden by not taking the writeoff,
so I keep two sets of books. So the contractors are not reporting the
income or paying taxes, the illegal workers are not paying taxes, and the
unemployed legal workers are not paying taxes. All the way around, the
gummint loses.
Where does this money go? Does it go back into the economy? Nope. Some $6
billion is sent into Mexico as remittances, money taken out of circulation
in the US and used to bolster Mexico's economy.
> And I am being reactionary when I point out
> > that Mexico encourages illegal immigration to relieve poverty and
population
> > pressure internally - just export your unskilled and criminal elements
so
> > they don't create problems for you! Great plan! Thanks, Estados Unidos
> > amigos!
>
> You're right- more preventitive measures are needed- as well as more
> investment in Mexico.
You don't get it. Mexico has established a cabinet-level department to
assist Mexicans to illegally enter the US, and the minister candidly told
Sen. Tancredo that with a doubling of the under-25 Mexican population in the
last few years they depended upon illegal immigration to the US to ease
poverty and population pressures, and transfer the burden onto the US. When
asked point blank about whether Mexico would assist the US in curbing
illegal immigration, Secretary of Governance Santiago Creel said "We are not
going to do that."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/948682/posts?page=41
> > Sorry, this is a lot more than just paying taxes. Even if it was -- why
> > should we pay more? American remains the land of opportunity for those
who
> > come legally, but the rest should wait their turn. Unless you believe
that
> > the US can assimilate all comers, you have to recognize limits. We have
> > limits, but we don't enforce them. Education suffers, healthcare
suffers,
> > wages suffer, unions suffer, and taxpayers foot the bill. Wow, that
sounds
> > like a great deal!
>
>
> Here even you pointout we're not doing our job- why blame illegals????
> And assimilation can cure a great deal of the problems... the biggest
> problem is that by treating these people like lepers we've forced them
> to adopt underground tactics and for their relatives to push for
> legislation that gives them more benefits- and YOU know that that's a
> huge issue in your state- the relos are pushing for benies in the
> absence od acceptence!
Your argument fails to reflect facts. After the general amensty of 1986,
illegal immigration increased. Why? In part because illegals felt they had
a good shot at another amnesty (and before 9-11 we were heading there
quickly; now little Tommy Daschle wants to get back to that). In part
because illegals-turned-legals were in a better position to support other
illegals now that they had access to the social services. Amnesty is simply
both parties whoring themselves -- the Dems for votes, the Reps for cheap
labor.
The only way your plan would work is to eliminate all barriers to
immigration, which would result in a swamping of the system and the
destruction of the country. We have lost the ability to assimilate even the
legal immigrants we get now, due to the throughgoing destruction of the US
educational system over the last 30 years (Chronicle headline: "Impressive
boost in state's school test scores" -- meaning we went from a 32.5% pass
rate in reading and writing up to 35%, and from 30.8% passing in math to
35% -- only the Chronicle supporting Davis could find this dismal failure
"impressive", since the teachers have been teaching to these tests for years
now. Inpressive would be more students passing than failing. Would you fly
on an airline that boasts an "impressive" safety record boost from 32.5%
safe landings to 35% safe landings?).
The more immigrants enter the country, the poorer it becomes, as the NRC
documented in 1997. Poor people do not pay taxes (the bottom 45% of wage
earners, which includes most illegals and first-gen legal immigrants, pay no
state or federal income tax), but they consume a disproportunate amount of
services. Increase that base, and those paying taxes bear an
ever-increasing burden. Assimilation does not make the uneducated suddenly
productive -- look at comparable levels of poverty, crime, drug abuse and
public assistance among native blacks who are certainly assimilated.
> Are youe really willing to pay more for tomatoes?
> Then force the companies to give health benefits to their workers-
> give the illegals the right to unionize- give THEM a decent wage and
> see how much everything changes.
Sheesh. Who are you, and what have you done with Joeker?
Who forces the companies... the gummint? More gummint interference in
bidness? Great Dem thinking (along with your support of raising taxes to
increase social services).
If there was not a cheap pool of illegal labor around, the businesses would
be forced by market pressure (this, Joe, is the conservative position...
note it well) to raise pay and benefits. And AFAIK no law prohibits union
organization -- indeed, the laws expressly provide protection for union
organization. Sure, illegals cannot unionize, but they are *illegals*.
They are *breaking the law* just being here.
The answer is not to give better pay to illegals (if the jobs paid better,
legals would work there, and illegals would be out of work...) but to
eliminate the ready pool of illegals. Pretty simple. One way you eliminate
illegals is to stop making it so darn easy to prosper illegally. Stop all
of the give aways of tuition and drivers licenses and food stamps and
medical care.
I guarantee you that if there was no illegal labor pool then businesses
would compete in the market for jobs, wages and benefits would increase, and
prices would be adjusted. It's called free market capitalism...
> > Are you happy to pay $100 for a $20 suit? That's the attitude of "we
aren't
> > all over-burdened -- we should pay more taxes." If you have money to
burn,
> > send it to me and I'll pass it along to people who can really use it.
> >
> > Prop 187 Pig
>
> My attitude is- DO YOUR JOB!!! If you really don't want them here PAY
> MORE TAXES..so you can stop them... it's not a pretty choice Randy
> either way it's going to cost you... why not strengthen the stick and
> carrot approach????
How about -- we cut out all the expenses supporting illegals and use *that*
money to police the borders and deport people? Why raise taxes on the upper
10% when the other hand is giving more money away making illegals happy?
The INS budget is about $6.3 billion. Take those "mere" billions we spend
now supporting illegal alien felons in prisons (don't imprison them, deport
them...), and providing free health care and social services, and you can
*quadruple* the Border Patrol budget overnight. Know how much the Border
Patrol budget is for fiscal 2003? $711.7 million. Less than the billion
you so carelessly throw about. We spend more in maintaining illegal aliens
in comfy prisons with weight rooms, color cable TV, and 3 square meals a
day, than we spend keeping these criminals out. Does that make *any* sense?
> HumaneRealistPig
Naw. Head-in-the-sand short-sighted Pig.
Just the facts, Ma'am Pig
joekerr
> "joekerr" <joe...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:5cf78540.03082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > In 2000 (the last year such stats are completely available) the 24
> counties
> > > bordering foreign soil spent over $1 billion dollars on unreimbursed
> medical
> > > treatment for illegal aliens.
>
> > Only a billion? That's chump change for the Fed!!!
>
> Now you are reading like Renowl. These are *unreimbursed* medical costs.
> Not from the Fed, from either local gummint or private industry. Not chump
> change (you are beginning to sound like a tax and spend Dem...).
>
> Note that this "chump change" is more than we spend annually patrolling our
> borders... (more below).
And the unreimbursed is from what? Not doing it the proper way!
more later....
> > The feds have a little thing called PRWORA
> > > (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
> 1996)
> > > which says local hospitals must provide emergency services, treatment of
> > > communicable diseases, and immunizations for which the hospitals will be
> > > reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid. Problem is that illegals use ERs
> as
> > > doctor's offices, and rather than face discrimination suits and demand
> > > either proof of payment or proof of coverage, most hospitals simply
> treat
> > > people for anything they walk in the door with.
> >
> >
> > And thus it's the hospital's own fault...
>
> No. The hospitals are so hemmed in by regulations, discrimination laws,
> basic treatment standards, and the ever-present threat of lawsuits by the
> ACLU and MALDEF that they know the hassles of turning away a $10,000 patient
> may cost them $1 million.
A ten thousand dollar patient isn't a non-serious illness as earlier
claimed.
And the laws do allow great leeway but staff aren't able to make those
decisions....
> This is like saying rape is the victim's fault because they didn't fight
> hard enough. Again, a liberal tactic to blame the victim. Hospitals
> treating sick illegals is not the problem. the illegals are. Let's put the
> blame where it belongs.
No- hospital must bear the lion's share of the burden... more later
> > > Upshot? Medical facilities in these border states split a $1 billion
> cost
> > > that the feds didn't reimburse.
> >
> > Meaning they've chosen to not do their job so the Fed won't reward
> > them- sorry I've worked in hospitals and this type of thing is just
> > propaganda used for justifying their *other* actions.
>
> Again, blame the victim. "Doing their jobs" should not involve facing
> litigation, loss of license, etc., for rejecting a non-paying non-critical
> customer, but that is what they face.
And how many non-critical $10,000+ dollar proceedures are there?
Excessive litigation is a result of not policing the legal system-
here's where you should direct reform!
Many states and cities have laws
> saying even the *police* cannot question the immigration status of someone
> they pick up, and you think an ER admitting clerk should expose the hospital
> to that liability?
I've heard of California doing that- again their relos have a lot of
pressure to exert... it's the fed that should step in...
> > This makes your $200 ER visit cost $300 to
> > > you or your insurance provider. But what does that mean to Joeker, who
> > > wants to pay more taxes to provide free medical care to illegals?
> >
> >
> > It means my dishonest insurance company and the hospital both are
> > abusing the system!!!!
>
> That's absurd! The costs are real. They have to be borne by *someone*.
> You are suprisingly dense here. It's basic economics.
>
> You have 10 customers. Five get the product for free. The other five have
> to pay the costs of their product *and* subsidize the freeloaders. Sure,
> renowl would say "Let the rich owners pay for the freebies" but you are not
> that stupid.
So you're claiming that for every legal there's an illegal? And how
does my insurance become involved? (Aetna just settled a huge suit for
denying valid treatment- whilst giving their execs a massive bonus)
Hospitals have been overcharging for non-immigrant related issues for
a very long time...
>
> Why not deal with the *problem* (illegals) instead of making every citizen
> pay the price for allowing them in?
Because illegals are already an integral part of our society! Reform
society and you'll have aleg to stand on.
> Think about this: over 29% of all inmates are illegal aliens in the US
> (http://www.fairus.org/html/04110608.htm). That's $1.5 *billion* costs to
> taxpayers. All unnecessary. Now, you may think "that's chump change", but
> a billion here, a billion there, and soon you are talking real money.
And I'd love to deport them- but the laws don't make that possible in
many cases... hell a lot of those arrested under Homeland security
can't be deported because there's no legal mechanism to do so. And how
would you be able to make the other nations jail these scum????
> > > In LA county alone, 16 hospitals have planned to shut down this year
> largely
> > > because of the losses they have incurred from deadbeat illegals.
> >
> >
> > Losses???? You mean incompetence don't you???? If they enforced the
> > rules there'd be no such losses!!!! Sorry but hospitals can afford to
> > keep $300,000 dollar a year lawyers on staff to protect them but
> > choose not to!
>
> You really have no idea what you are talking about. Most hospitals are
> working right at the edge of solvency, in large part because of the high
> default rate. You want to put the blame on admissions staffs, but they are
> operating in a climate of fear of litigation that even those charged with
> enforcing the laws shy away from.
Excuse me but I've worked in the medical field and the profit margin
would be huge if it weren't for the incompetence of admin. Hell just
look at some of the outrageous salaries some of these clowns pulldown!
> Certainly illegals are not the only reasons hospitals are in trouble
> financially. The enormous costs of malpractice insurance and litigation are
> also a big factor, because while we want to be able to screw up in our own
> jobs we expect perfection from others. Hospitals have a much higher rate of
> saving and extending lives, or repairing shattered bodies, than anytime in
> history yet face astronomical litigation increases as everyone goes after
> the "deep pockets" (it's like you said -- these rich hospitals can afford
> it, right?).
No- here you're over simplifying.... hospitals try to cut too many
corners. Residents and nurses working 48 plus hours without sleep.
Admin ordering them to cut costs regardless of risk... I watched it
all and it invites litigation because it's wrong! Now you do have
absurd cases but again if the hospitals followed standards they would
be protected in most cases- the same is true of police officers...
they tend to be their own worst enemies.
> Your saying that we should accept the cost of illegals is like saying you
> would accept the loss to an armed robber who takes you wallet. You can
> afford it, so no harm, no foul. Right? Laws against armed robbery are
> discriminatory (who are *you* to say this is not a legitimate enterprise?),
> and should be repealed. Are you with me in this?
No because it's apples and oranges- where does armed robbery benefit
society?
> > That means
> > > when you are driving to the hospital with Joeker, Jr., lying bleeding in
> > > your arms, you have to go an extra 10-15 minutes to find an ER. If he
> dies
> > > before you get help, well, it's just the cost of supplying measles
> > > immunizations and allergy medicine to suffering illegals.
> >
> >
> > GRANDSTANDING!!!!! Hey- little joe et al are never that far away- esp
> > with the state police medi-vac so readily available!!!! And lest we
> > forget paramedics etc????
>
> Ob cors. But ambulance services are also going out of business. It's not
> grandstanding, it's reality.
And new ones are starting and the county isn't going out of business-
yes it's grandstanding.
> > > For me, that price is too steep. I'll pay more for tomatoes, and mow my
> own
> > > lawn (OK, I'll have Maria mow the lawn).
> > >
> > > The situation is not getting better, either. So many conversations on
> the
> > > issue seem to assume that the illegal immigrant problem we have today is
> > > it -- but it is getting worse every day. Why shouldn't it snowball,
> when
> > > life here even for illegals is easier than back home?
> >
> >
> > And this is a seperate issue- spend more for security! One way or
> > another you're going to have to pay more!!!! The two-path approach is
> > the only one that makes sense- except the assimilation path is a
> > half-effort 8 (
>
> The security issue has many sides. One is that we do not enforce the laws
> in place. John Boyd Malvo, one of the DC snipers, was caught, identified as
> an illegal, and released on orders of the INS. We have a catch and release
> policy.
And here is where the rules are either not followed or the enforcers
aren't able to make the snap decisions you demand.... hell you are
comparing someone with a successful business with a deadbeat- where is
the sanity in that?
Sen. Tom Tancredo of Colorado read a front-page story about an
> illegal immigrant family who worried about losing a subsidy to college for
> their son. Sen. Tancredo called the INS to ask them what they would do
> about this family, admittedly breaking the law whose picture and address
> were available from the paper. He was told they would send them a letter
> telling them they were breaking the law. Great...
Again, it's the system as you've funded it- you got what you paid for!
> The harshest border policy will not succeed if we continue to make it
> worthwhile to violate the laws. So long as we give assistance to illegals
> making their illegal life here better than their legal life in Mexico they
> will come. We want to beef up border security, but Arizona is trying to put
> water fountains in the desert to help illegals cross the desert.
This is humane- why leave them to die?????
We allow
> banks to accept the matricula consular to open a bank account -- note that
> *I* cannot open a bank account without giving my SSN so the IRS can audit me
> and levy my accounts, but an illegal can open an account without one! We
> give illegals drivers licenses, and some jurisdictions even allow them to
> vote in local elections.
All of which is illegal!!!! The fed has already said the matricula
isn't valid ID... but letting them bank their money prevents them from
being targeted by robbers... ask any hispanic they'll tell you!
As for elections- this is an outrage!
> The problem with assimilation or amnesty is that it *increases* the burden
> on the taxpayer. A legal resident can get welfare and food stamps.
> According to The National Research Council's 1997 study, The New Americans:
> Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, the majority of
> increase in poverty in the US in the 1990s was by immigrants, legal and
> illegal. Making someone an instant citizen allows them to feed off the
> public trough even more than as an illegal. Legal Mexican US residents
> collect, per capita, 20% more than native-born Americans, and at a rate
> twice as high per population. The study also noted:
So you're saying we should just let them live underground? Fend for
themselves? Please- allowing those who work to become legal residents
should be a better solution.
> "The net current fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) imposed on
> all levels of government by immigrant households nationally is estimated to
> range from $11.4 billion to $20.2 billion annually. This fiscal drain is
> larger than the $1 billion to $10 billion benefit estimated to accrue to
> natives from having immigrants in the labor market."
> http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/combinednrc.pdf
>
> In California, the average immigrant-headed household uses $3,463 more in
> services provided by state and local government than it pays in taxes. This
> translates into an added tax burden of $1,178 imposed on each native
> household in California.
And this is because of???? They can't get decent jobs if they aren't
really assimilated.... our history shows us that!
> And the problem will only get larger:
> "Immigrants and their descendants who will arrive between now and 2050 will
> add 80 million people to the U.S. population. This will account for 65
> percent of the growth in the U.S. population over the next 50 years."
Immigrants have always accounted for a large proportion- why should we
turn our backs on them now?
> > You give free
> > > healthcare, you give welfare and food stamps, you give drivers licenses,
> you
> > > don't collect taxes, you give in-state tuition (of *course* it makes
> sense
> > > for UC Berkeley to charge an illegal immigrant 1/10th of what it charges
> a
> > > military veteran from Nevada!).
> >
> > OK- if they are on welfare they wouldn't pay taxes anyway.... if they
> > are going to school they should pay full price (unless the govt
> > assists them)and once they're educated and become assimilated they
> > WILL PAY TAXES- as opposed to 5 generations of non-tazpayers we now
> > have!
>
> "Unless the government assists them" -- *Think, Joeker -- where does the
> government get *its* money? From *taxes*. What you are saying is, "If they
> are going to school, they should pay full price unless legal working
> Americans are asked to cough up the difference."
And this is wrong how? The current system is for the disadvantaged to
recieve such assistance- where do you draw the line... how will you
cure poverty without education?
> Whenever I hear liberals say "The government should pay for it" I want to
> shake them and say "It's *your* money, moron! The Government doesn't just
> print it to pay bills! They collect it from *you*!"
>
> If they are illegals, they still cannot get a tax-paying job because they
> have no SSN... You *do* understand how taxes are collected?
And if you legalize them you can tax them DUH!
> There is a double whammy for taxes with illegals. As noted elsewhere here,
> illegals in the construction biz (one of the driving forces in the
> recovering economy) are driving out legals from jobs. Contractors cannot
> keep records showing they are employing illegals, so they under report
> earnings (hard to track in a biz like construction -- if I cash that check
> you give me to run my cash employees, it will never show up in an audit).
> And I don't want to increase my own tax burden by not taking the writeoff,
> so I keep two sets of books. So the contractors are not reporting the
> income or paying taxes, the illegal workers are not paying taxes, and the
> unemployed legal workers are not paying taxes. All the way around, the
> gummint loses.
And even with illegals the cost of housing in your home state (and
soon many others) will out strip the ability of most middle class to
pay for them-
how do you deal with that?
> Where does this money go? Does it go back into the economy? Nope. Some $6
> billion is sent into Mexico as remittances, money taken out of circulation
> in the US and used to bolster Mexico's economy.
And doesn't this improvement in their economy reflect? won't it in
theory eventually lower the need for immigrants to come here?
> > And I am being reactionary when I point out
> > > that Mexico encourages illegal immigration to relieve poverty and
> population
> > > pressure internally - just export your unskilled and criminal elements
> so
> > > they don't create problems for you! Great plan! Thanks, Estados Unidos
> > > amigos!
> >
> > You're right- more preventitive measures are needed- as well as more
> > investment in Mexico.
>
> You don't get it. Mexico has established a cabinet-level department to
> assist Mexicans to illegally enter the US, and the minister candidly told
> Sen. Tancredo that with a doubling of the under-25 Mexican population in the
> last few years they depended upon illegal immigration to the US to ease
> poverty and population pressures, and transfer the burden onto the US. When
> asked point blank about whether Mexico would assist the US in curbing
> illegal immigration, Secretary of Governance Santiago Creel said "We are not
> going to do that."
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/948682/posts?page=41
Right... so how do you prevent it? This is your viewpoint.... you
don't want to pay for security- you don't want to pay for
assimilation- you just want to complain??? Where is the logic- gimme
an answer- not propaganda!
> > > Sorry, this is a lot more than just paying taxes. Even if it was -- why
> > > should we pay more? American remains the land of opportunity for those
> who
> > > come legally, but the rest should wait their turn. Unless you believe
> that
> > > the US can assimilate all comers, you have to recognize limits. We have
> > > limits, but we don't enforce them. Education suffers, healthcare
> suffers,
> > > wages suffer, unions suffer, and taxpayers foot the bill. Wow, that
> sounds
> > > like a great deal!
> >
> >
> > Here even you pointout we're not doing our job- why blame illegals????
> > And assimilation can cure a great deal of the problems... the biggest
> > problem is that by treating these people like lepers we've forced them
> > to adopt underground tactics and for their relatives to push for
> > legislation that gives them more benefits- and YOU know that that's a
> > huge issue in your state- the relos are pushing for benies in the
> > absence od acceptence!
>
> Your argument fails to reflect facts. After the general amensty of 1986,
> illegal immigration increased. Why? In part because illegals felt they had
> a good shot at another amnesty (and before 9-11 we were heading there
> quickly; now little Tommy Daschle wants to get back to that).
That's an assumption- give proof that it was that and not their own
nations economic woes that drove them- remember Mexico had suffered
economically before the US and far worse than the US...
In part
> because illegals-turned-legals were in a better position to support other
> illegals now that they had access to the social services. Amnesty is simply
> both parties whoring themselves -- the Dems for votes, the Reps for cheap
> labor.
That's the pols view... I'm looking at this strictly from a humane
point of view....
> The only way your plan would work is to eliminate all barriers to
> immigration, which would result in a swamping of the system and the
> destruction of the country. We have lost the ability to assimilate even the
> legal immigrants we get now, due to the throughgoing destruction of the US
> educational system over the last 30 years (Chronicle headline: "Impressive
> boost in state's school test scores" -- meaning we went from a 32.5% pass
> rate in reading and writing up to 35%, and from 30.8% passing in math to
> 35% -- only the Chronicle supporting Davis could find this dismal failure
> "impressive", since the teachers have been teaching to these tests for years
> now. Inpressive would be more students passing than failing. Would you fly
> on an airline that boasts an "impressive" safety record boost from 32.5%
> safe landings to 35% safe landings?).
No my plan doesn't scrap controls- and the education system is a
liberal failure not an immigrant failure....
> The more immigrants enter the country, the poorer it becomes, as the NRC
> documented in 1997.
Our nation became poorer due to immigrants??? I thought it was the eco
mess Klinton dealt us!
Poor people do not pay taxes (the bottom 45% of wage
> earners, which includes most illegals and first-gen legal immigrants, pay no
> state or federal income tax), but they consume a disproportunate amount of
> services. Increase that base, and those paying taxes bear an
> ever-increasing burden. Assimilation does not make the uneducated suddenly
> productive -- look at comparable levels of poverty, crime, drug abuse and
> public assistance among native blacks who are certainly assimilated.
First how many immigrants are you talking about- and why compare
blacks who have a sub-culture that celebrates criminal activity with
immigrants?
Are you saying that assimilation is impossible?
> > Are youe really willing to pay more for tomatoes?
> > Then force the companies to give health benefits to their workers-
> > give the illegals the right to unionize- give THEM a decent wage and
> > see how much everything changes.
>
> Sheesh. Who are you, and what have you done with Joeker?
>
> Who forces the companies... the gummint? More gummint interference in
> bidness? Great Dem thinking (along with your support of raising taxes to
> increase social services).
So again- you don't want to pay... has this already been tried? Show
me where it has failed!
> If there was not a cheap pool of illegal labor around, the businesses would
> be forced by market pressure (this, Joe, is the conservative position...
> note it well) to raise pay and benefits. And AFAIK no law prohibits union
> organization -- indeed, the laws expressly provide protection for union
> organization. Sure, illegals cannot unionize, but they are *illegals*.
> They are *breaking the law* just being here.
And if they were legal residents they could unionize???? And why
hasn't the cheap pool of labor resulted in lower housing costs?????
> The answer is not to give better pay to illegals (if the jobs paid better,
> legals would work there, and illegals would be out of work...) but to
> eliminate the ready pool of illegals. Pretty simple. One way you eliminate
> illegals is to stop making it so darn easy to prosper illegally. Stop all
> of the give aways of tuition and drivers licenses and food stamps and
> medical care.
But why not accept those that are here and concentrate on preventing
others????
> I guarantee you that if there was no illegal labor pool then businesses
> would compete in the market for jobs, wages and benefits would increase, and
> prices would be adjusted. It's called free market capitalism...
Ahhh prices would go up... and how could the middle class afford
this???
> > > Are you happy to pay $100 for a $20 suit? That's the attitude of "we
> aren't
> > > all over-burdened -- we should pay more taxes." If you have money to
> burn,
> > > send it to me and I'll pass it along to people who can really use it.
> > >
> > > Prop 187 Pig
> >
> > My attitude is- DO YOUR JOB!!! If you really don't want them here PAY
> > MORE TAXES..so you can stop them... it's not a pretty choice Randy
> > either way it's going to cost you... why not strengthen the stick and
> > carrot approach????
>
> How about -- we cut out all the expenses supporting illegals and use *that*
> money to police the borders and deport people? Why raise taxes on the upper
> 10% when the other hand is giving more money away making illegals happy?
> The INS budget is about $6.3 billion. Take those "mere" billions we spend
> now supporting illegal alien felons in prisons (don't imprison them, deport
> them...), and providing free health care and social services, and you can
> *quadruple* the Border Patrol budget overnight. Know how much the Border
> Patrol budget is for fiscal 2003? $711.7 million. Less than the billion
> you so carelessly throw about. We spend more in maintaining illegal aliens
> in comfy prisons with weight rooms, color cable TV, and 3 square meals a
> day, than we spend keeping these criminals out. Does that make *any* sense?
>
> > HumaneRealistPig
>
> Naw. Head-in-the-sand short-sighted Pig.
>
> Just the facts, Ma'am Pig
We can't just throw them out... sorry that's not realistic.
Prevent future illegals and police correctly- but you need an stop gap
and that's going to have to be higher taxes.... sorry there's no
realistic way.
That's not short sighted it's the long view Pig
Congenital Kano
> > No. The hospitals are so hemmed in by regulations, discrimination laws,
> > basic treatment standards, and the ever-present threat of lawsuits by
the
> > ACLU and MALDEF that they know the hassles of turning away a $10,000
patient
> > may cost them $1 million.
>
>
>
> A ten thousand dollar patient isn't a non-serious illness as earlier
> claimed.
You haven't visited a hospital lately. My SIL had pains. We took her to a
county hospital. They ran some tests. They kept her overnight. She was
disgnosed as having heartburn. The tab was $5000!
> And the laws do allow great leeway but staff aren't able to make those
> decisions....
You don't live in California or the southwest. You have *no* clue what the
litigation situation is. An illegal immigrant gets turned away from a
hospital, and there are literally dozens of legal firms and not-for-profits
who will take the case and go after the hospital for millions ("Did you have
a doctor examine Mr. Gonzalez?" "No. He had no evidence of obvious trauma.
His symptoms as described were those of gout." "Yet without even having a
doctor look at him, you sent him out on the street. Are you aware that Mr.
Gonzalez has been diagnosed with SARS, and your turning him away exposed his
family, including his 90-year-old mother, to this lethal and infectious
disease?"). On any given day in the US, there are 125,000 medical
malpractice suits pending - California has a rate of malpractice suits 50%
higher than the national average. In California, 8 out of 10 are found to
be without merit, but they still cost. Lawyers know that if they can keep a
claim near $10,000, the tortfeasor will usually pay because it will cost
more to fight (PI lawyers often send out one boilerplate letter to get their
$10k settlement).
A hospital who turns away a patient must show that they satisfied their duty
of care and did not exceed their privilege. They must gamble that the
patient is not truly deathly ill, and that in turning them away they are not
violating statutes.
The simple thing is to not accept the risk of criminal or civil litigation
and treat everyone. The cost of those who fail to pay is passed along to
the consumer.
>
> And how many non-critical $10,000+ dollar proceedures are there?
Hundreds of thousands every day.
> Excessive litigation is a result of not policing the legal system-
> here's where you should direct reform!
California enacted tort reform in 1975. It still has a terrible record,
because the cost of fighting (and maybe losing) is greater than the cost of
settling. When the Mafia does this, it is extortion; when lawyers do it, it
is tort law.
> Many states and cities have laws
> > saying even the *police* cannot question the immigration status of
someone
> > they pick up, and you think an ER admitting clerk should expose the
hospital
> > to that liability?
>
>
> I've heard of California doing that- again their relos have a lot of
> pressure to exert... it's the fed that should step in...
But they won't. Neither the Reps or the Dems want to do anything about
immigration except facilitate it. The people lose.
> > You have 10 customers. Five get the product for free. The other five
have
> > to pay the costs of their product *and* subsidize the freeloaders.
Sure,
> > renowl would say "Let the rich owners pay for the freebies" but you are
not
> > that stupid.
>
>
> So you're claiming that for every legal there's an illegal?
No. The analogy was to try to make it simple for you. But in some
hospitals as much as 70% of the patients seen in the ER are illegals. If
even one out of 10, or 1 out of 100, are illegals the cost still must be
borne.
> And how
> does my insurance become involved?
Basic economics are eluding you here. Insurance companies pay claims. If
costs rise, they have to pay out more. If they pay out more, they have to
get it from the insured by way of premiums.
Illegals raise costs in hospitals for everyone. Insurance plans have to pay
those higher costs set by the instituitions to recoup their losses. You
lose.
> Hospitals have been overcharging for non-immigrant related issues for
> a very long time...
Maybe yes, maybe no. But irrelevent. If I am charging $2000 for a
procedure I should be charging $1000 for, and losses to treatment of
illegals bump that up $500, you are still paying $500 more than you would
without the illegals.
> Because illegals are already an integral part of our society! Reform
> society and you'll have aleg to stand on.
Criminals are an integral part of society already. Reform society and you
can prosecute criminals. Until then, you shouldn't prosecute them.
> > Think about this: over 29% of all inmates are illegal aliens in the US
> > (http://www.fairus.org/html/04110608.htm). That's $1.5 *billion* costs
to
> > taxpayers. All unnecessary. Now, you may think "that's chump change",
but
> > a billion here, a billion there, and soon you are talking real money.
>
>
> And I'd love to deport them- but the laws don't make that possible in
> many cases... hell a lot of those arrested under Homeland security
> can't be deported because there's no legal mechanism to do so. And how
> would you be able to make the other nations jail these scum????
That's the point. I don't care what the other nations do with them --
that's their problem! They have made it *our* problem -- in many cases,
specifically transporting to us (a la Cuba) known criminals.
Dump 'em over the border and say adios, and don't let them back in.
> >
> > You really have no idea what you are talking about. Most hospitals are
> > working right at the edge of solvency, in large part because of the high
> > default rate. You want to put the blame on admissions staffs, but they
are
> > operating in a climate of fear of litigation that even those charged
with
> > enforcing the laws shy away from.
>
>
> Excuse me but I've worked in the medical field and the profit margin
> would be huge if it weren't for the incompetence of admin. Hell just
> look at some of the outrageous salaries some of these clowns pulldown!
I've worked in the hospital biz, too, as part of administration. The big
salaries were generally for the docs. Administrative costs in hospitals
nationwide represent about 20% of total costs, the majority of which are
department managers, sales staff, and clerks.
CEOs, COOs and CFOs of major hospitals earn between $200 and $300k a year --
certainly not an obscene amount of money or out of line with others in the
private sectors. Doctors are averaging about $150k, and there are many of
them on staff.
So, no, the salaries of administrators are not a factor.
> No- here you're over simplifying.... hospitals try to cut too many
> corners. Residents and nurses working 48 plus hours without sleep.
> Admin ordering them to cut costs regardless of risk... I watched it
> all and it invites litigation because it's wrong! Now you do have
> absurd cases but again if the hospitals followed standards they would
> be protected in most cases- the same is true of police officers...
> they tend to be their own worst enemies.
Sigh. That's just not true. You simply are getting the causation
backwards. Why are the cost cuts ordered? Why are the corners cut?
Because rising bills make it so. A malpractice insurance policy for a
surgeon can run $100k a year; you have 50 doctors on staff, and think of
what your insurance alone will be. That's up from something like $13k a
year in 1970.
> > Your saying that we should accept the cost of illegals is like saying
you
> > would accept the loss to an armed robber who takes you wallet. You can
> > afford it, so no harm, no foul. Right? Laws against armed robbery are
> > discriminatory (who are *you* to say this is not a legitimate
enterprise?),
> > and should be repealed. Are you with me in this?
>
>
> No because it's apples and oranges- where does armed robbery benefit
> society?
Illegals *don't* benefit society. That's the whole point. They are a
drain, and the only authoritative study done shows they cause a huge
long-term financial drain. Even UCLA recently did a study that showed
illegals in So Cal actually caused wages in general to be lower -- for
illegals *and* legals. Few studies are done, because no one wants to be
called racist, or upset the apple cart.
> >
> > Ob cors. But ambulance services are also going out of business. It's
not
> > grandstanding, it's reality.
>
> And new ones are starting and the county isn't going out of business-
> yes it's grandstanding.
Sorry, no. The number of ambulance companies are shrinking, and response
times are increasing. The number of hospitals are shrinking, making
commutes longer.
In my local community, we are down to one ambulance service. We've lost two
out of 5 hospitals in the last 5 years.
It's a problem. You may not believe it is, but it is.
> > The security issue has many sides. One is that we do not enforce the
laws
> > in place. John Boyd Malvo, one of the DC snipers, was caught,
identified as
> > an illegal, and released on orders of the INS. We have a catch and
release
> > policy.
>
>
> And here is where the rules are either not followed or the enforcers
> aren't able to make the snap decisions you demand.... hell you are
> comparing someone with a successful business with a deadbeat- where is
> the sanity in that?
Hunh? Who is the successful businessman? The hospitals are not successful
(hint: they are going bankrupt, hardly a sign of success). Malvo? The INS?
You lost me completely here.
> Sen. Tom Tancredo of Colorado read a front-page story about an
> > illegal immigrant family who worried about losing a subsidy to college
for
> > their son. Sen. Tancredo called the INS to ask them what they would do
> > about this family, admittedly breaking the law whose picture and address
> > were available from the paper. He was told they would send them a
letter
> > telling them they were breaking the law. Great...
>
>
> Again, it's the system as you've funded it- you got what you paid for!
So, let's give the gummint more money to spend, and that will fix
everything... right? That's your original pitch -- that Randy should pay
more in taxes. This would make the political and social issues disappear,
we would fund agencies as needed (there would be no political or economic
considerations in the border issue if we had enough money to triple the
Border Patrol, right?).
I'd rather take the stupid subsidies away from agribusiness and use that.
Let the gummint prove it can run *an* program effienctly before raising more
taxes for it to piss away.
> > The harshest border policy will not succeed if we continue to make it
> > worthwhile to violate the laws. So long as we give assistance to
illegals
> > making their illegal life here better than their legal life in Mexico
they
> > will come. We want to beef up border security, but Arizona is trying to
put
> > water fountains in the desert to help illegals cross the desert.
>
> This is humane- why leave them to die?????
Um, because we don't want them to *try*? If they know we are maing it
easier, do you maybe think more will try? If dying of thirst is a
deterrent, maybe millions fewer risk it?
People die doing stupid things. Darwin approves of that. The gummint
should not be responsible for protecting people from their stupidity or
intentinal breach of the law.
> We allow
> > banks to accept the matricula consular to open a bank account -- note
that
> > *I* cannot open a bank account without giving my SSN so the IRS can
audit me
> > and levy my accounts, but an illegal can open an account without one!
We
> > give illegals drivers licenses, and some jurisdictions even allow them
to
> > vote in local elections.
>
>
> All of which is illegal!!!! The fed has already said the matricula
> isn't valid ID
No. The fed has said that it is not valid ID for certain federal
identification purposes, such as gaining entry into federal buildings. They
have not said it isn't a valid ID in general.
> ... but letting them bank their money prevents them from
> being targeted by robbers... ask any hispanic they'll tell you!
> As for elections- this is an outrage!
"Targeted for robbers"? That's a hoot. It's part of the plan to establish
a legal identity to bypass immigration and the tax system. It is flat out
wrong. I don't thinik we have any responsibility to protect criminals from
other lawless elements who take advantage of them solely because they are
criminal.
> So you're saying we should just let them live underground? Fend for
> themselves? Please- allowing those who work to become legal residents
> should be a better solution.
No. I'm saying we should deport everyone here illegally. If they are
caught illegally in the US again they will permamently lose any rights to
admittance. We should charge back to the governments through aid
withholding the costs of incarcerating or deporting their nationals until
the Mexicans demonstrate actions to curb the flood.
> > In California, the average immigrant-headed household uses $3,463 more
in
> > services provided by state and local government than it pays in taxes.
This
> > translates into an added tax burden of $1,178 imposed on each native
> > household in California.
>
>
> And this is because of???? They can't get decent jobs if they aren't
> really assimilated.... our history shows us that!
There aren't enough decent jobs for people here legally who are assimilated.
Mexican immigrants *with* legal status *still* use more social services --
after the 1986 amnesty, city, state and federal aid requests leaped.
> > And the problem will only get larger:
> > "Immigrants and their descendants who will arrive between now and 2050
will
> > add 80 million people to the U.S. population. This will account for 65
> > percent of the growth in the U.S. population over the next 50 years."
>
>
> Immigrants have always accounted for a large proportion- why should we
> turn our backs on them now?
*Legal* immigrants are the backbone of the country. We still allow hundreds
of thousands in legally. Why allow additional millions in illegally?
> > "Unless the government assists them" -- *Think, Joeker -- where does the
> > government get *its* money? From *taxes*. What you are saying is, "If
they
> > are going to school, they should pay full price unless legal working
> > Americans are asked to cough up the difference."
>
>
> And this is wrong how? The current system is for the disadvantaged to
> recieve such assistance- where do you draw the line... how will you
> cure poverty without education?
OK. How about this -- why don't we simplay take half of what every American
makes and send it to poor countries to be distributed among the poor? Oh,
you want to draw the line before that?
How about this for a line -- we assist legal residents. We deport illegals.
We gotta draw the line somewhere. Why not at a reasonable spot short of
supporting the violations of our national sovereignty and breaking our laws?
Why reward lawbreakers? Do you think that just might encourage more to
break the laws?
> > Whenever I hear liberals say "The government should pay for it" I want
to
> > shake them and say "It's *your* money, moron! The Government doesn't
just
> > print it to pay bills! They collect it from *you*!"
> >
> > If they are illegals, they still cannot get a tax-paying job because
they
> > have no SSN... You *do* understand how taxes are collected?
>
> And if you legalize them you can tax them DUH!
Um, they will *always* be in the segment of the population that doesn't get
taxed. All the statistics show that. *Legal immigrants* as well as
illegals increased the poverty percentages in the American population in the
1990s (as well as accounting for a huge increase in "conquered" diseases
like TB).
Legalizing the illegals still keeps them in the lower 45% of wage earners
who don't pay taxes. But it allows them to collect welfare, AFDC, etc.
DUH!
> And even with illegals the cost of housing in your home state (and
> soon many others) will out strip the ability of most middle class to
> pay for them-
> how do you deal with that?
That's a market problem. And completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
That's like saying we should ignore intellectual property rights because
pirated software makes software more affordable.
> > Where does this money go? Does it go back into the economy? Nope.
Some $6
> > billion is sent into Mexico as remittances, money taken out of
circulation
> > in the US and used to bolster Mexico's economy.
>
> And doesn't this improvement in their economy reflect? won't it in
> theory eventually lower the need for immigrants to come here?
No. It boils down to $60 dollars per Mexican -- hardly an incentive to
remain behind. The more money sent, the more people see the US as the land
of opportunity and enter illegally.
Have remittances to the RP stopped Filipinos from going TNT? Or do they
serve as an advertisement to come to where the streets are paved in gold?
> > You don't get it. Mexico has established a cabinet-level department to
> > assist Mexicans to illegally enter the US, and the minister candidly
told
> > Sen. Tancredo that with a doubling of the under-25 Mexican population in
the
> > last few years they depended upon illegal immigration to the US to ease
> > poverty and population pressures, and transfer the burden onto the US.
When
> > asked point blank about whether Mexico would assist the US in curbing
> > illegal immigration, Secretary of Governance Santiago Creel said "We are
not
> > going to do that."
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/948682/posts?page=41
>
>
> Right... so how do you prevent it? This is your viewpoint.... you
> don't want to pay for security- you don't want to pay for
> assimilation- you just want to complain??? Where is the logic- gimme
> an answer- not propaganda!
I *want* to pay for security! With the money we save in not paying for the
lifestyles of the illegals. California's budget crisis is due in large part
to illegals. If we took just a fraction of the money being spent on
incarcerating illegals and used it to quadruple the Border Patrol and INS
investigators, we could make a real dent in illegal immigration. If we
crack down on employers who use illegals, legit employers would benefit.
Costs would rise, but a fraction of the amount the outlays would be.
I just don't want to pay more for security out of my pocket, then offer
billions of dollars each year to illegals to make their life comfy and cause
them to invite their family to join them.
Put the military on the border (deal with posse comitas). Put high-tech
sensors on the border. Increase the Border Patrol's budget to $3 billion a
year, and deport every criminal illegal back to their passport country.
Shut down a bunch of unneeded prisons. Fine employers who hire illegals.
Roust illegals at the Home Depot looking for work. Enforce the laws.
Eleminate bilingual ed, the biggest educational failure in California.
Force assimilation like we did for centuries, with immersion. With the cuts
in bilingual ed, put back in place music and sports and arts programs (all
of which cost less than bilingual programs).
Now, to me, that doesn't sound like complaining. That sounds like a solid
conservative platform.
> > Your argument fails to reflect facts. After the general amensty of
1986,
> > illegal immigration increased. Why? In part because illegals felt they
had
> > a good shot at another amnesty (and before 9-11 we were heading there
> > quickly; now little Tommy Daschle wants to get back to that).
>
> That's an assumption- give proof that it was that and not their own
> nations economic woes that drove them- remember Mexico had suffered
> economically before the US and far worse than the US...
Oh, jeez. You are married to a Filipina, right? I mean, you talk as if you
have no clue about how TNT works. TNTs need legal family to help them; I
know of no TNT who came into the US cold.
You are trying to ignore the obvious and say "Making it easier to enter the
US illegally has no effect on illegal immigration." That's just plain
silly.
> In part
> > because illegals-turned-legals were in a better position to support
other
> > illegals now that they had access to the social services. Amnesty is
simply
> > both parties whoring themselves -- the Dems for votes, the Reps for
cheap
> > labor.
>
>
> That's the pols view... I'm looking at this strictly from a humane
> point of view....
Humane? Where do you draw the line? What about the billions around the
world who can't make it to a US border? Does your humane treatment extend
to them? What about the poverty it causes to legals who cannot get work
because of the illegals -- where is your humanity there? The people who
have to pay taxes? The workers in the businesses that go broke because of
illegal immigrants? The people who get paid less now? The high school and
college kids who don't work in the traditional summer jobs because they are
all done by illegals now?
> No my plan doesn't scrap controls- and the education system is a
> liberal failure not an immigrant failure....
A big part of the liberal failure is the immigration failure, at least in
the Southwest.
> > The more immigrants enter the country, the poorer it becomes, as the NRC
> > documented in 1997.
>
>
> Our nation became poorer due to immigrants??? I thought it was the eco
> mess Klinton dealt us!
No. The number of people at or below the poverty level was severely
impacted by illegal immigrants.
> Poor people do not pay taxes (the bottom 45% of wage
> > earners, which includes most illegals and first-gen legal immigrants,
pay no
> > state or federal income tax), but they consume a disproportunate amount
of
> > services. Increase that base, and those paying taxes bear an
> > ever-increasing burden. Assimilation does not make the uneducated
suddenly
> > productive -- look at comparable levels of poverty, crime, drug abuse
and
> > public assistance among native blacks who are certainly assimilated.
>
> First how many immigrants are you talking about- and why compare
> blacks who have a sub-culture that celebrates criminal activity with
> immigrants?
> Are you saying that assimilation is impossible?
With the 8 million illegals in the US, yes.
> > Who forces the companies... the gummint? More gummint interference in
> > bidness? Great Dem thinking (along with your support of raising taxes
to
> > increase social services).
>
>
> So again- you don't want to pay... has this already been tried? Show
> me where it has failed!
You believe raising taxes strengthens the economy? By taking money away
from the public and giving it to the wise gummint to spend you are making a
reasonable choice?
It has failed in our education system -- often the states with the highest
per-student expenses produce the worst scores. It has failed in welfare,
where tax dollars from the working keep millions in perpetual poverty by
eliminating motivation to work. It has failed in ourforeign policy, where
giving billions has earned us contempt and attacks.
Throwing money at most problems does not solve them -- it makes them worse.
> > If there was not a cheap pool of illegal labor around, the businesses
would
> > be forced by market pressure (this, Joe, is the conservative position...
> > note it well) to raise pay and benefits. And AFAIK no law prohibits
union
> > organization -- indeed, the laws expressly provide protection for union
> > organization. Sure, illegals cannot unionize, but they are *illegals*.
> > They are *breaking the law* just being here.
>
>
> And if they were legal residents they could unionize???? And why
> hasn't the cheap pool of labor resulted in lower housing costs?????
Because, in part, increasing gummint costs, fees, taxes and such have eroded
any savings. A single home in my country can cost the builder $24,000 in
fees (my addition cost me about $6000 in fire, school district and county
fees). 10-20 years ago, these fees were 1/10th what they are today. Where
does the money go? To make up city, county and state shortfalls... caused
in large part by the drains of illegals.
And there is no way of knowing that the illegals have *not* kept costs down.
One might project how much more construction would cost, but I'm not going
to do it.
> But why not accept those that are here and concentrate on preventing
> others????
Didn't work in 1986. And adding 8 million to the welfare roles would be a
financial disaster for the US.
I know several people who came here in 1988. Filed papers saying they were
here illegally in 1986, and got amnesty. You declare amnesty for illegals,
and there will be a run on the border of people who will swear they have
been her prior to the amnesty date. And they will then petition their
families...
I disagree. You can do it, we just lack the moral fiber and common sense to
do it.
Over the Border with $15 and a hearty "Adios!" Pig
Just JT
Sabi ni "Congenital Kano" <jrsdadde...@comcast.net>:
>
> Put the military on the border (deal with posse comitas). Put high-tech
> sensors on the border. Increase the Border Patrol's budget to $3 billion
a
> year, and deport every criminal illegal back to their passport country.
> Shut down a bunch of unneeded prisons. Fine employers who hire illegals.
> Roust illegals at the Home Depot looking for work. Enforce the laws.
>
> Eleminate bilingual ed, the biggest educational failure in California.
> Force assimilation like we did for centuries, with immersion. With the
cuts
> in bilingual ed, put back in place music and sports and arts programs (all
> of which cost less than bilingual programs).
Actually an easier solution would be to just GIVE BACK CALIFORNIA TO MEXICO.
Let Mexico manage California's affairs. That should fix those Mexicans and
give 'em a taste of their own medicine!
How about it, Señor Randy?
--
DalubForEveryComplexProblemIsASimpleSolution
Vincent Mahoney
deport the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants in our once great Country.
CEO's are Organized, they have their "representation" in Washington
fighting to keep their cheap Slave labor. Democrats have "sold out"
because no huge groups seem to raise their voice in a unified way.
The Republicans like BUSH keep quiet because CEO's want a cheap, quiet
and obedient SLAVES to work in meat cutting factories for $2 to $5 an
hour with NO Rights. These factories will NOT EVEN hire "Green Card"
Holders because they have too many rights.
The Car wash industry pays Mexicans $1 and $2 an hour in California and
EVERYONE keeps quiet about it. The CEO's LOVE to pit Mexican workers
against American workers and cry racism to silence everyone. Its not
about race, its about preventing The United States from becoming a
Nation like Brazil.
What Americans need to do is FORCE Change at a grass root level.
FORCE the Government to impose HUGE fines that are already on the books.
Fine The Hotel owners that get $160 a night, the Car wash owners paying
$2 an hour should get these $20,000 fines.
Americans should not blame the slaves, Blame the Politicians for
allowing this to happen. ORGANISE political ACTION. The Millions of
Americans upset about the invasion need to start knocking on doors.
AGGRESSIVELY Confront industries that exploit Slave labor. Take photos
of illegals and write down everything, march down to the immigration
office and FORCE them to deport these illegals. It WORKS.
We have organized groups in Massachusetts that has successfully deported
thousands of illegal Mexicans, Dominicans, South Americans and Haitians.
Millions of Americans know we have a problem but what we need is Grass
roots Action.
H. David Pembrook
Justices reject bid by agency to limit in-hospital Medicaid
Posted: August 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
The Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a plea by the state's Medicaid provider
to limit medical coverage for illegal immigrants to emergency room and acute
care.
The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, or AHCCCS, manager of the
state's Medicaid program, is obligated to provide care to illegals beyond
emergency room and other acute care wards, justices ruled unanimously Thursday.
According to Capitol Media Services and the Arizona Daily Star, AHCCCS –
which currently pays $75 million to $80 million a year in emergency care for
illegals – had refused to reimburse hospitals for services it said were not
covered. About one-third of that amount is covered by state taxpayers; the
federal government covers the rest.
AHCCCS had argued it was only obligated to pay for emergency treatment –
coverage that stopped once patients were moved to non-acute care wards. But
Justice Michael Ryan, writing for the high court, called that definition far
too narrow.
Frank Lopez, a spokesman for the Medicaid agency, said officials would have to
review the ruling, but he expressed confidence AHCCCS would end up paying for
the care of illegals who previously were not considered the state's obligation.
A series of lawsuits followed after AHCCCS refused to pay for the extra care in
several cases.
In consolidating the complaints, justices said the state Medicaid agency could
not base its decision whether or not to pay the claims on where the care was
being given at hospitals.
"Whether a patient suffers from an emergency medical condition (that the state
must cover) does not depend upon the type of bed or facility the patient may be
in at any given time," Justice Ryan wrote.
He said AHCCCS must instead use a standard of care based on whether a patient's
symptoms have, or could, put them in serious jeopardy, seriously impair
function or result in a severe dysfunction of any organ or body part.
Despite the justices' ruling, the high court did not say whether AHCCCS would
have to cover any of the bills that resulted in the lawsuits. Rather, the high
court sent the case back to trial judges, asking them to review each patient's
record using the correct standard.
Critics of providing unlimited medical care to illegals argue many of them use
emergency departments as clinics, a practice that not only can delay care for
others but, since E.R. care is more expensive, can also raise the overall costs
of operating a hospital. This is especially true in areas suffering from high
immigration.
As WorldNetDaily reported, the cost of providing medical care to illegals in
and around Los Angeles is rising so fast that many hospitals have cut services
or closed emergency departments.
According to Project USA, an immigration reform group, the problem is
"epidemic" throughout California. The group adds the problem is compounded
because fewer taxes are being paid to support care for illegals.
"Since employers usually pay illegal aliens 'off the books,' neither the
employer nor the workers pay payroll taxes," the group says.
Regarding health care, former immigration Lawyer Matt Hayes said "it is amazing
that America is willing to provide free medical treatment to people who are not
citizens – and even illegal aliens – while the home countries of most all
of those people will not do so."
"For the fiscally conservative, free medical treatment for illegal aliens in an
emergency is better than free medical treatment for illegal aliens for all
maladies, all the time," Hayes said in a column for Fox News.
"But because America is now deluged with illegal immigrants like it has never
been – 8 million by the most recent government estimate – the cost to
taxpayers, even for emergency medical treatment, has skyrocketed," he said.
The Border Counties Coalition, formed by the elected officials of the 24 U.S.
counties that border Mexico, Hayes said, reported medical expenses for illegal
immigrations in 2000 was $832 million just for those counties.
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., says the cost to the entire nation is in the billions.
"According to one estimate, the cost of providing federally-mandated health
care to illegal immigrants is between $1.5 billion and $2 billion annually," he
said in a Jan. 11, 2002 statement.
~~~~~
"When a true genius appears in the world,
you may know him by this sign, that the dunces
are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift
Rebecca Chua Enriquez
country.
"Can I have ketchup and mustard with that taco?" Pigette
Congenital Kano
> Another good reason to erect a 50 foot electrified fence around the entire
> country.
>
> "Can I have ketchup and mustard with that taco?" Pigette
The Bush admin, even if they wanted to (they don't -- "We need the little
brown people to do the schlup work") would be hard pressed to put forward
the idea of a physical barrier when they have called the Israeli fence a
"roadblock to the road map."
Just had a great idea. We know the Mexicans have a lot of soldiers on
*their* southern border to keep out the rabble from further south -- what
say we hire these guys (we can probably get them real cheap) who already
have border patrol training (and probably have been trained to shoot rather
than "detain and release"), put them on our side as part of the Border
Patrol (no posse comitas issue) and the threaten to deport any of them
caught aiding illegals across.
Sometimes I amaze even myself Pig
Mo Silidonio
money from illegal aliens. As it is there is no effective way of collecting
revenue from them specially if they are paid cash under the table. I don't
know; maybe a license and periodic fees for operating a fruit stand, selling
flowers at freeway ramps, working at a carwash, hanging out at Home Depot,
etc. There has to be a way to extract money from them.
"Rebecca Chua Enriquez" <rebecc...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:8mP2b.114886$0v4.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Towelie
> Maybe the solution lies in a system or mechanism to extract fees, taxes,
> money from illegal aliens. As it is there is no effective way of
> collecting revenue from them specially if they are paid cash under the
> table. I don't know; maybe a license and periodic fees for operating a
> fruit stand, selling flowers at freeway ramps, working at a carwash,
> hanging out at Home Depot, etc. There has to be a way to extract money
> from them.
>
>
Then others would bitch that we're taking all these fees from people
making $2 an hour. Then, they'd bitch that since these people are
"contributing so much" to the community, they should be given citizenship.
Of course, right after that, they'd be asking for welfare for their eight
kids...
Deport them, then shut the border...
Dirty Sick Pig
Vincent Mahoney wrote more snipped bullshit:
Dis peyj intenshyonali lepht blanc
joekerr
> county hospital. They ran some tests. They kept her overnight. She was
> disgnosed as having heartburn. The tab was $5000!
This is far more expensive than around here....
> > And the laws do allow great leeway but staff aren't able to make those
> > decisions....
>
> You don't live in California or the southwest. You have *no* clue what the
> litigation situation is. An illegal immigrant gets turned away from a
> hospital, and there are literally dozens of legal firms and not-for-profits
> who will take the case and go after the hospital for millions ("Did you have
> a doctor examine Mr. Gonzalez?" "No.
So again they aren't doing their job.... at Johns Hopkins they would
be triaged... those there for minor complaints wait until everyone
else is seen.
A couple of 8 to 12 hour waits in the ER and they tend to lose
interest.
But they always get the diagnosis.... complaint-vital signs etc this
protects the hospitals from bogus suits.
In California, 8 out of 10 are found to
> be without merit, but they still cost. Lawyers know that if they can keep a
> claim near $10,000, the tortfeasor will usually pay because it will cost
> more to fight (PI lawyers often send out one boilerplate letter to get their
> $10k settlement).
Once or twice but then it opens the floodgates.... so sooner or later
you have to stand up to them... Hopkins will have it's lawyers target
such organizations and lawyers who file frivolous suits... both in
courts and thru disbarrment hearings- this is their legal right but
most hospitals just roll over. It's their own fault!
> A hospital who turns away a patient must show that they satisfied their duty
> of care and did not exceed their privilege. They must gamble that the
> patient is not truly deathly ill, and that in turning them away they are not
> violating statutes.
>
See above....
> >
>
> > Excessive litigation is a result of not policing the legal system-
> > here's where you should direct reform!
>
> California enacted tort reform in 1975. It still has a terrible record,
> because the cost of fighting (and maybe losing) is greater than the cost of
> settling. When the Mafia does this, it is extortion; when lawyers do it, it
> is tort law.
And the system provides remedies for those that abuse the system- if
people would do their jobs a lot less abuse would be happening.
> > Many states and cities have laws
> > > saying even the *police* cannot question the immigration status of
> someone
> > > they pick up, and you think an ER admitting clerk should expose the
> hospital
> > > to that liability?
> >
> >
> > I've heard of California doing that- again their relos have a lot of
> > pressure to exert... it's the fed that should step in...
>
> But they won't. Neither the Reps or the Dems want to do anything about
> immigration except facilitate it. The people lose.
Again people not doing their jobs- including voters.
> >
> >
> > So you're claiming that for every legal there's an illegal?
>
> No. The analogy was to try to make it simple for you. But in some
> hospitals as much as 70% of the patients seen in the ER are illegals. If
> even one out of 10, or 1 out of 100, are illegals the cost still must be
> borne.
This is far out of line with what we're seeing around here... of
course the numbers would be similar if non-insured(welfare) were
counted as the same as illegals.
>
> > Hospitals have been overcharging for non-immigrant related issues for
> > a very long time...
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no. But irrelevent. If I am charging $2000 for a
> procedure I should be charging $1000 for, and losses to treatment of
> illegals bump that up $500, you are still paying $500 more than you would
> without the illegals.
So now they justify their over-charging in the first place by blaming
illegals- that's sickening!
> > Because illegals are already an integral part of our society! Reform
> > society and you'll have aleg to stand on.
>
> Criminals are an integral part of society already. Reform society and you
> can prosecute criminals. Until then, you shouldn't prosecute them.
Society can function without murderers and rapists.... the loss of
these hurts no one... a big difference.
> >
> > And I'd love to deport them- but the laws don't make that possible in
> > many cases... hell a lot of those arrested under Homeland security
> > can't be deported because there's no legal mechanism to do so. And how
> > would you be able to make the other nations jail these scum????
>
> That's the point. I don't care what the other nations do with them --
> that's their problem! They have made it *our* problem -- in many cases,
> specifically transporting to us (a la Cuba) known criminals.
>
> Dump 'em over the border and say adios, and don't let them back in.
>
Assuming you could keep them from returning....
> > >
> >
> >
> > Excuse me but I've worked in the medical field and the profit margin
> > would be huge if it weren't for the incompetence of admin. Hell just
> > look at some of the outrageous salaries some of these clowns pulldown!
>
> I've worked in the hospital biz, too, as part of administration. The big
> salaries were generally for the docs. Administrative costs in hospitals
> nationwide represent about 20% of total costs, the majority of which are
> department managers, sales staff, and clerks.
>
> CEOs, COOs and CFOs of major hospitals earn between $200 and $300k a year --
> certainly not an obscene amount of money or out of line with others in the
> private sectors. Doctors are averaging about $150k, and there are many of
> them on staff.
>
> So, no, the salaries of administrators are not a factor.
I'd disagree but I guess I've never workered for hospitals that
couldn't turn a profit....
> > No- here you're over simplifying.... hospitals try to cut too many
> > corners. Residents and nurses working 48 plus hours without sleep.
> > Admin ordering them to cut costs regardless of risk... I watched it
> > all and it invites litigation because it's wrong! Now you do have
> > absurd cases but again if the hospitals followed standards they would
> > be protected in most cases- the same is true of police officers...
> > they tend to be their own worst enemies.
>
> Sigh. That's just not true. You simply are getting the causation
> backwards. Why are the cost cuts ordered?
Greed... the malpractice results from cutting corners.
A malpractice insurance policy for a
> surgeon can run $100k a year; you have 50 doctors on staff, and think of
> what your insurance alone will be. That's up from something like $13k a
> year in 1970.
And again it's because Doctors aren't following all of the rules and
proceedures(just like cops) and many are over-worked by admin who have
no concerns about a doctor working 24-48 without proper rest taking
the lives of patients in his hands! Damned crazy!
> > > Your saying that we should accept the cost of illegals is like saying
> you
> > > would accept the loss to an armed robber who takes you wallet. You can
> > > afford it, so no harm, no foul. Right? Laws against armed robbery are
> > > discriminatory (who are *you* to say this is not a legitimate
> enterprise?),
> > > and should be repealed. Are you with me in this?
> >
> >
> > No because it's apples and oranges- where does armed robbery benefit
> > society?
>
> Illegals *don't* benefit society. That's the whole point. They are a
> drain, and the only authoritative study done shows they cause a huge
> long-term financial drain. Even UCLA recently did a study that showed
> illegals in So Cal actually caused wages in general to be lower -- for
> illegals *and* legals. Few studies are done, because no one wants to be
> called racist, or upset the apple cart.
I haven't seen it- but I'll take your work for it....
> > >
> > > Ob cors. But ambulance services are also going out of business. It's
> not
> > > grandstanding, it's reality.
> >
> > And new ones are starting and the county isn't going out of business-
> > yes it's grandstanding.
>
> Sorry, no. The number of ambulance companies are shrinking, and response
> times are increasing. The number of hospitals are shrinking, making
> commutes longer.
>
> In my local community, we are down to one ambulance service. We've lost two
> out of 5 hospitals in the last 5 years.
>
> It's a problem. You may not believe it is, but it is.
Not around here.... we aren't closing down hospitals like that or
losing ambulance services either.
> > > The security issue has many sides. One is that we do not enforce the
> laws
> > > in place. John Boyd Malvo, one of the DC snipers, was caught,
> identified as
> > > an illegal, and released on orders of the INS. We have a catch and
> release
> > > policy.
> >
> >
> > And here is where the rules are either not followed or the enforcers
> > aren't able to make the snap decisions you demand.... hell you are
> > comparing someone with a successful business with a deadbeat- where is
> > the sanity in that?
>
> Hunh? Who is the successful businessman? The original illegal this thread started over!!!
> You lost me completely here.
I'll be more specific next time....
>
> > Sen. Tom Tancredo of Colorado read a front-page story about an
> > > illegal immigrant family who worried about losing a subsidy to college
> for
> > > their son. Sen. Tancredo called the INS to ask them what they would do
> > > about this family, admittedly breaking the law whose picture and address
> > > were available from the paper. He was told they would send them a
> letter
> > > telling them they were breaking the law. Great...
> >
> >
> > Again, it's the system as you've funded it- you got what you paid for!
>
> So, let's give the gummint more money to spend, and that will fix
> everything... right? That's your original pitch -- that Randy should pay
> more in taxes.
Randy asked for more services didn't he????
> I'd rather take the stupid subsidies away from agribusiness and use that.
I'd vote for that screw willie nelson and the NEA!!!!
We want to beef up border security, but Arizona is trying to
> put
> > > water fountains in the desert to help illegals cross the desert.
> >
> > This is humane- why leave them to die?????
>
> Um, because we don't want them to *try*? If they know we are maing it
> easier, do you maybe think more will try? If dying of thirst is a
> deterrent, maybe millions fewer risk it?
Hasn't worked so far has it????
> People die doing stupid things. Darwin approves of that. The gummint
> should not be responsible for protecting people from their stupidity or
> intentinal breach of the law.
Yeah they do stupid things like set patterns and make trails so that
law enforcement can track them easier... remember your history??? How
did the Calvery defeat the Indians??? By hiring Indians who knew where
all of the water holes were duh! It's the same principle- and you used
to be a cop!!!!
> > We allow
> > > banks to accept the matricula consular to open a bank account -- note
> that
> > > *I* cannot open a bank account without giving my SSN so the IRS can
> audit me
> > > and levy my accounts, but an illegal can open an account without one!
> We
> > > give illegals drivers licenses, and some jurisdictions even allow them
> to
> > > vote in local elections.
> >
> >
> > All of which is illegal!!!! The fed has already said the matricula
> > isn't valid ID
>
> No. The fed has said that it is not valid ID for certain federal
> identification purposes, such as gaining entry into federal buildings. They
> have not said it isn't a valid ID in general.
They said that under the law only the Fed can recognize it as legal -
it's a soverignty and seperation of powers issue. But in general if it
doesn't directly deal with the Fed then it's up to the locals....
> > ... but letting them bank their money prevents them from
> > being targeted by robbers... ask any hispanic they'll tell you!
> > As for elections- this is an outrage!
>
> "Targeted for robbers"? That's a hoot. It's part of the plan to establish
> a legal identity to bypass immigration and the tax system. It is flat out
> wrong. I don't thinik we have any responsibility to protect criminals from
> other lawless elements who take advantage of them solely because they are
> criminal.
So only the pure are entitled to legal protections???? That might
eliminate a lot of crime but it's immoral.
> > So you're saying we should just let them live underground? Fend for
> > themselves? Please- allowing those who work to become legal residents
> > should be a better solution.
>
> No. I'm saying we should deport everyone here illegally.
And the cost of deporting six million????
If they are
> caught illegally in the US again they will permamently lose any rights to
> admittance.
Oh boy that'll stop them!!!!
We should charge back to the governments through aid
> withholding the costs of incarcerating or deporting their nationals until
> the Mexicans demonstrate actions to curb the flood.
A dangerous ploy- but forced mass deportation will cause a
humanitarian crisis and might even violate international laws!
>
> There aren't enough decent jobs for people here legally who are assimilated.
> Mexican immigrants *with* legal status *still* use more social services --
> after the 1986 amnesty, city, state and federal aid requests leaped.
OK
>> >
> > Immigrants have always accounted for a large proportion- why should we
> > turn our backs on them now?
>
> *Legal* immigrants are the backbone of the country. We still allow hundreds
> of thousands in legally. Why allow additional millions in illegally?
Why not raise the quota????
> > > "Unless the government assists them" -- *Think, Joeker -- where does the
> > > government get *its* money? From *taxes*. What you are saying is, "If
> they
> > > are going to school, they should pay full price unless legal working
> > > Americans are asked to cough up the difference."
> >
> >
> > And this is wrong how? The current system is for the disadvantaged to
> > recieve such assistance- where do you draw the line... how will you
> > cure poverty without education?
>
> OK. How about this -- why don't we simplay take half of what every American
> makes and send it to poor countries to be distributed among the poor? Oh,
> you want to draw the line before that?
>
> How about this for a line -- we assist legal residents. We deport illegals.
>
> We gotta draw the line somewhere. Why not at a reasonable spot short of
> supporting the violations of our national sovereignty and breaking our laws?
>
> Why reward lawbreakers? Do you think that just might encourage more to
> break the laws?
>
I think starvation is encouragement enough don't you?
You're treating the symptom and not the disease.... how would you
treat the disease???
> > > If they are illegals, they still cannot get a tax-paying job because
> they
> > > have no SSN... You *do* understand how taxes are collected?
> >
> > And if you legalize them you can tax them DUH!
>
> Um, they will *always* be in the segment of the population that doesn't get
> taxed. All the statistics show that. *Legal immigrants* as well as
> illegals increased the poverty percentages in the American population in the
> 1990s (as well as accounting for a huge increase in "conquered" diseases
> like TB).
>
> Legalizing the illegals still keeps them in the lower 45% of wage earners
> who don't pay taxes. But it allows them to collect welfare, AFDC, etc.
> DUH!
OOOOOOOOOOH now I see where you're coming from-
>
> > > Where does this money go? Does it go back into the economy? Nope.
> Some $6
> > > billion is sent into Mexico as remittances, money taken out of
> circulation
> > > in the US and used to bolster Mexico's economy.
> >
> > And doesn't this improvement in their economy reflect? won't it in
> > theory eventually lower the need for immigrants to come here?
>
> No. It boils down to $60 dollars per Mexican -- hardly an incentive to
> remain behind. The more money sent, the more people see the US as the land
> of opportunity and enter illegally.
>
> Have remittances to the RP stopped Filipinos from going TNT? Or do they
> serve as an advertisement to come to where the streets are paved in gold?
So are you going to stop sending remittances????
> > > You don't get it. Mexico has established a cabinet-level department to
> > > assist Mexicans to illegally enter the US, > >
> >
A lot do.... they just need sympathetic people of their own ethnic
group.
And most know where to find them... since they cluster together
(Chinatown????)
> You are trying to ignore the obvious and say "Making it easier to enter the
> US illegally has no effect on illegal immigration." That's just plain
> silly.
Never said I'd make it easier to ENTER!!!! Did you sleep thru that
part????
Amnesty is
> simply
> > > both parties whoring themselves -- the Dems for votes, the Reps for
> cheap
> > > labor.
> >
> >
> > That's the pols view... I'm looking at this strictly from a humane
> > point of view....
>
> Humane? Where do you draw the line? What about the billions around the
> world who can't make it to a US border? Does your humane treatment extend
> to them? What about the poverty it causes to legals who cannot get work
> because of the illegals -- where is your humanity there? The people who
> have to pay taxes? The workers in the businesses that go broke because of
> illegal immigrants? The people who get paid less now? The high school and
> college kids who don't work in the traditional summer jobs because they are
> all done by illegals now?
Sorry but once they're here- it's our responsibility to deal with them
on a case by case basis... if you catch them before they become
entrenched (ie start a family or a bussiness) then you can send them
back- otherwise concentrate on prevention.
> > No my plan doesn't scrap controls- and the education system is a
> > liberal failure not an immigrant failure....
>
> A big part of the liberal failure is the immigration failure, at least in
> the Southwest.
>
> > > The more immigrants enter the country, the poorer it becomes, as the NRC
> > > documented in 1997.
> >
> >
> > Our nation became poorer due to immigrants??? I thought it was the eco
> > mess Klinton dealt us!
>
> No. The number of people at or below the poverty level was severely
> impacted by illegal immigrants.
This didn't make us poorer- it simply added more poor people 8P
> > Poor people do not pay taxes (the bottom 45% of wage
> > > earners, which includes most illegals and first-gen legal immigrants,
> pay no
> > > state or federal income tax), but they consume a disproportunate amount
> of
> > > services. Increase that base, and those paying taxes bear an
> > > ever-increasing burden. Assimilation does not make the uneducated
> suddenly
> > > productive -- look at comparable levels of poverty, crime, drug abuse
> and
> > > public assistance among native blacks who are certainly assimilated.
> >
> > First how many immigrants are you talking about- and why compare
> > blacks who have a sub-culture that celebrates criminal activity with
> > immigrants?
> > Are you saying that assimilation is impossible?
>
> With the 8 million illegals in the US, yes.
That was the argument against the Irish.... and others.... I'm not so
sure.
> > > Who forces the companies... the gummint? More gummint interference in
> > > bidness? Great Dem thinking (along with your support of raising taxes
> to
> > > increase social services).
> >
> >
> > So again- you don't want to pay... has this already been tried? Show
> > me where it has failed!
>
> You believe raising taxes strengthens the economy? By taking money away
> from the public and giving it to the wise gummint to spend you are making a
> reasonable choice?
Hey you're the one that is demanding increased spending- all I'm
saying is that you're going to have to pay one way or the other.
> It has failed in our education system -- often the states with the highest
> per-student expenses produce the worst scores. It has failed in welfare,
> where tax dollars from the working keep millions in perpetual poverty by
> eliminating motivation to work. It has failed in ourforeign policy, where
> giving billions has earned us contempt and attacks.
>
> Throwing money at most problems does not solve them -- it makes them worse.
>
> > > If there was not a cheap pool of illegal labor around, the businesses
> would
> > > be forced by market pressure (this, Joe, is the conservative position...
> > > note it well) to raise pay and benefits. And AFAIK no law prohibits
> union
> > > organization -- indeed, the laws expressly provide protection for union
> > > organization. Sure, illegals cannot unionize, but they are *illegals*.
> > > They are *breaking the law* just being here.
> >
> >
> > And if they were legal residents they could unionize???? And why
> > hasn't the cheap pool of labor resulted in lower housing costs?????
>
> Because, in part, increasing gummint costs, fees, taxes and such have eroded
> any savings. A single home in my country can cost the builder $24,000 in
> fees (my addition cost me about $6000 in fire, school district and county
> fees). 10-20 years ago, these fees were 1/10th what they are today. Where
> does the money go? To make up city, county and state shortfalls... caused
> in large part by the drains of illegals.
Are you claiming that the bulk of new taxes has gone to pay for
illegals????
Nice slogan but at what cost????
Vincent Mahoney
to give them an honest days pay. American labor laws mean NOTHING if
they are not enforced. We could deport 2 MILLION this year and they will
just come back. We TRULY NEED to hit Companies that hire illegal with
Stiff fines. Industries must be hit EVENLY across the board. A $500 to
$10,000 fine for hieing illegal immigrants would be a good start. The
Fine should depend on how bad the violation is and the # of offences.
California produce prices are artificially low because it is, in
reality, subsidised on the backs of slave labor. FORCE companies to pay
a living wage, fine the shit out of law breaking employers and enforce
laws across the board.
"Working Class Americans" in States like Texas and California should
not be asked to work for $5 an hour simply because 7 million Mexicans
flood the labor market. It truly demeans American labor, just like in
a 3rd world Country.
Labor in the 3rd world is often treated like total scum and its
beginning to happen here in America. You even have some Americans in
this NG that like to dehumanize Labor like saying ok "House painter",
insinuating that words coming from a "House painter" may have less
value.
I'm proud to be a "House Painter". The "House Painters" I hire
work hard. I would hate to live in a State where I'm FORCED to hire
illegals because the flooded Market has forced me to out of necessity.
If your coworker has no voice, YOU have no voice. If your coworker is a
slave than YOU are nothing but a slave.
30,000 Indian H1B visa "Contract Workers" In California are Slaving
with 60 work weeks, NO Vacation, NO way to speak up. Americans that work
with them are Slaves too or are just simply unemployed. Don't attack the
slave, attack the Slave Master.
Thoughts from a "House Painter"
Renowl
Just JT
>
> California produce prices are artificially low because it is, in
> reality, subsidised on the backs of slave labor. FORCE companies to pay
> a living wage, fine the shit out of law breaking employers and enforce
> laws across the board.
But surely any State or Federal government would be in a bind. Which is
worse:
- To keep businesses within the State/Country but use illegal workers to
maintain the low cost of labour;
- To lose business overseas due to the lower cost of labour there.
--
DalubIt'sACatch24
Renowl
he starts to do drama with crocodile tears and gone with the wind broadway
dialogue. attnetion sylvia sounds like double standard to me. or is this dood
excempted? wow ha.
LeeBat
>How did the Calvery defeat the Indians???
I think they finally put them up on crosses and crucified them.
LeeBat
couldn't resist .....
Sylvia Knörr
"Renowl" <ren...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20030827033044...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> look at this guy . if he does off topic stuff its ok and when other s do
it
> he starts to do drama with crocodile tears and gone with the wind
broadway
> dialogue.
LOL! A little drama from time to time is okay, it´s like Pinoy soap opera.
:-))
Well, I think we all go off topic sometimes, so let´s not be too strict.
With Filipino issues in the middle, we go some ways left and right from that
main road to see what else there is to discover. We can´t avoid that,
because the Philippines are just one piece of that puzzle called earth. :-)
attnetion sylvia sounds like double standard to me. or is this dood
> excempted? wow ha.
Nah, Rennie darling, relax! No double standard needed. It´s just a
difference whether a thread leads to an off topic branch or whether you
START an off topic thread (like LHA does without any measure).
Usenet Correctness Piggy
H. David Pembrook
>money from illegal aliens.
Another great reason to switch from an income tax to a national sales tax.
~~~~~
H. David Pembrook
It's hard to disagree with you.
Congenital Kano
"LeeBat" <Lee...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4stokv0n47s4r102c...@4ax.com...
Ooh, you da man! I prolly would have missed that, so attuned am I to
interpolating Renowl's posts.
Golgotha Pig
joekerr
And the truely sad part is??? I looked it up in the ol Funk and
Wagnalls and it says... calvary- not to be confused with cavalry...
yikes 2 f-ups for da price ob one!!!!
Never pay retail Pig
Dirty Sick Pig
Vincent Mahoney wrote:
<Mucho snipping>
> You even have some Americans in
> this NG that like to dehumanize Labor like saying ok "House painter",
> insinuating that words coming from a "House painter" may have less
> value.
Not any house painter. Just you, House Painter.
> I'm proud to be a "House Painter".
And I'm so proud of you, House Painter.
> The "House Painters" I hire work hard.
Painting is Hard? Hmm. I won't Remember because It's been Two years
Since I single-Handedly painted My own Buildings. nothing To it.
> I would hate to live in a State where I'm FORCED to hire
> illegals because the flooded Market has forced me to out of necessity.
Nah. You'll just be forced into another occupation. Pig farmer, for
example. Or prostitution, which I'm sure you will like.
> Thoughts from a "House Painter"
Dirty, dirty!
Huckleberry Pig
Renowl
thats a no no for the masses.
Robert Chin
news:26733-3F4...@storefull-2278.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Industries abuse the system by hiring illegals because they don't have
> to give them an honest days pay. American labor laws mean NOTHING if
> they are not enforced. We could deport 2 MILLION this year and they will
> just come back. We TRULY NEED to hit Companies that hire illegal with
> Stiff fines. Industries must be hit EVENLY across the board. A $500 to
> $10,000 fine for hieing illegal immigrants would be a good start. The
> Fine should depend on how bad the violation is and the # of offences.
The biggest offense so far is you...
> California produce prices are artificially low because it is, in
> reality, subsidised on the backs of slave labor. FORCE companies to pay
> a living wage, fine the shit out of law breaking employers and enforce
> laws across the board.
Well dumbo...House painters want to paint a house for $5,000. Then when
someone else is WILLING to do the job for less, you scream bloody murder.
What should people do when a termite like you wants to soak him?
> I'm proud to be a "House Painter". The "House Painters" I hire
> work hard....
They should. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE YOU KNOW!!!! Well maybe it is if
you're a house painter.
AllInPerspective Pig
-i'd pay good money if someone would attack mahorneyforayoungboy...
Ian Graeme
joekerr wrote:
> LeeBat <Lee...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<4stokv0n47s4r102c...@4ax.com>...
>
>>joe...@mailandnews.com (joekerr) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How did the Calvery defeat the Indians???
>>
>>I think they finally put them up on crosses and crucified them.
Hey, "nailed" is "nailed."
joekerr
Hey dutchboy... why do you fly to 3rd world countries to pay
prostitutes slave labor wages???? Why don't you pay them Vegas rates
or better yet stay home and pay the local whores "a living wage"...
hell while you're at it pay US standards for hotels, foods, drinks.
You really believe in fairness then live what you preach!!!!
Going to 3rd world countries to abuse them is just as bad as importing
them to do so.... either way it's a sweat shop- and you're the
evildoer abusing the helpless poor!