PDA

View Full Version : More insanity from Arizona


Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 01:33 PM
The Gruppenfuhrer of the Arizona Senate, Russell Pearce has introduced one more anti-immigrant bill to the floor.

A. Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care, a hospital admissions officer must confirm that the person is a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of the United States or lawfully present in the United States. The admissions officer may use any method prescribed in section 1-501 to verify citizenship or legal status.

B. If the admissions officer determines that the person does not meet the requirements of subsection A of this section, the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.

C. If the hospital provides emergency medical care pursuant to federal requirements to a person who does not meet the requirements of subsection A of this section, on successful treatment of the patient the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.

D. A hospital that complies with the requirements of this section is not subject to civil liability.


Who in their right mind would think that this is a good idea?

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1405p.htm

Thunder
14th February 2011, 01:35 PM
you can't force hospitals to become border-control agents.

i have no problem asking hospitals to do this, but requiring them?

no, they are doctors. their job is to help people...and that's it.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 01:36 PM
The Gruppenfuhrer of the Arizona Senate, Russell Pearce has introduced one more anti-immigrant bill to the floor.


don't you mean anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant?

Who in their right mind would think that this is a good idea?

apparently Russell Pearce does...

thaiboxerken
14th February 2011, 01:37 PM
As if hospitals don't have enough paperwork and beauracracy to deal with. How does this fit in with the "we don't want government in our health care" mantra?

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 01:38 PM
Think of the consequences of this.

How many people will die becaue they are afraid to go to the hospital? How many children?

What if there is an outbreak of a contageous disease? This will affect everyone, citizen or not.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 01:39 PM
don't you mean anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant?


Does that really matter? You can NOT single out one group to be treated differently under the law.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 01:40 PM
Think of the consequences of this.

How many people will die becaue they are afraid to go to the hospital? How many children?

What if there is an outbreak of a contageous disease? This will affect everyone, citizen or not.

Before people need to go to the hospital...before an outbreak of disease...don't you think it prudent that people who are breaking the law...STOP breaking the law??

just a thought...

rwguinn
14th February 2011, 01:41 PM
Does that really matter? You can NOT single out one group to be treated differently under the law.
So actual criminals are treated exactly the same as Law-abiding Citizens in the US?

You might want to think that over...

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 01:41 PM
Does that really matter? You can NOT single out one group to be treated differently under the law.

lol...good one!

This is a proposal for legislation to ensure people are NOT breaking the law.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 01:42 PM
Before people need to go to the hospital...before an outbreak of disease...don't you think it prudent that people who are breaking the law...STOP breaking the law??

just a thought...

its not the job of hospitals to enforce immigration laws.

their job is to treat the sick and injured.

just a thought...

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 01:42 PM
Before people need to go to the hospital...before an outbreak of disease...don't you think it prudent that people who are breaking the law...STOP breaking the law??

just a thought...

So why don't they require that all hospitals and emergency rooms do complete criminal background checks on every patient?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 01:43 PM
its not the job of hospitals to enforce immigration laws.

their job is to treat the sick and injured.

just a thought...

well, if this legislation passes in AZ, then it WILL BE their job!

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 01:45 PM
So actual criminals are treated exactly the same as Law-abiding Citizens in the US?

You might want to think that over...

There is no logical, or valid legislative nexus between medical treatment and immigration status.

If there was, then why don't they require hospitals to enquire about how many parking tickets a patient has?

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 01:47 PM
well, if this legislation passes in AZ, then it WILL BE their job!

IF, the legislation passes.

I get the feeling that some of the republicans in the state capital are getting weary of these clearly unconstituional bills and the negative affect thatthey are having on the state.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 01:47 PM
well, if this legislation passes in AZ, then it WILL BE their job!

and it will be challenged in Federal court.

....as it should be.



if very sick people are in fear of getting busted for immigration violations at the hospital, they may not get vital treatment. this could mean the difference between a quickly discovered disease and a massive pandemic.

I am not a fan of illegal immigration, but our nation's health and security depends on everyone being able to get treatment.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 01:53 PM
Besides all that, the proposed law is just morally wrong.

Cleon
14th February 2011, 01:54 PM
well, if this legislation passes in AZ, then it WILL BE their job!

Great. And who do you think is going to pay for all these background checks and paperwork? How will the extra wait time for medical care benefit the patient? If people are less willing to seek medical care, how will this effect the ability to contain and control outbreaks?

I really wish righties would, just for a change of pace, think these things through farther than "uh, illegal immigration is BAD." I mean, if these sorts of restrictions were being placed on education rather than health care, it would still be morally objectionable, but at least it wouldn't be so *********** stupid.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 01:57 PM
and it will be challenged in Federal court.

....as it should be.



if very sick people are in fear of getting busted for immigration violations at the hospital, they may not get vital treatment. this could mean the difference between a quickly discovered disease and a massive pandemic.

I am not a fan of illegal immigration, but our nation's health and security depends on everyone being able to get treatment.

An Al-Qaeda operative in this country illegally and plotting to kill Americans doesn't deserve to get medical treatment paid for by American taxpayers.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 01:58 PM
I mean, if these sorts of restrictions were being placed on education rather than health care, it would still be morally objectionable, but at least it wouldn't be so *********** stupid.


They tried to do that to education years ago, the Supreme Court tossed it out

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZS.html

Cleon
14th February 2011, 01:59 PM
An Al-Qaeda operative

*facepalm*

technoextreme
14th February 2011, 02:00 PM
well, if this legislation passes in AZ, then it WILL BE their job!
That is a violation of the hippocratic oath.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 02:01 PM
An Al-Qaeda operative in this country illegally and plotting to kill Americans doesn't deserve to get medical treatment paid for by American taxpayers.



That's not strictly a Godwin or a Poe, what is it?

shall we call all arguments where someone tries to tie the issue to Al-Qaeda a "Trax?"

Cleon
14th February 2011, 02:04 PM
That's not strictly a Godwin or a Poe, what is it?

It's a tacit admission that logic and reason are not the driving forces behind the argument.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:04 PM
An Al-Qaeda operative in this country illegally and plotting to kill Americans doesn't deserve to get medical treatment paid for by American taxpayers.

if this law passes, an illegal immigrant who might have been infected by smallpox by a terrorist attack in Phoenix will not go to the hospital, in fear of being ratted out by the hospital.

instead, his smallpox will spread to many more people.

you happy with that scenario?


....and yes, facepalm.

KingMerv00
14th February 2011, 02:06 PM
An Al-Qaeda operative in this country illegally and plotting to kill Americans doesn't deserve to get medical treatment paid for by American taxpayers.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Just out of curiousity, does this apply to all crimes? If a man comes into the emergency room with a gunshot wound because he was robbing a bank, should the hospital let him die?

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 02:09 PM
Just out of curiousity, does this apply to all crimes? If a man comes into the emergency room with a gunshot wound because he was robbing a bank, should the hospital let him die?

The hospital would treat him, but bank robbery is a felony.

Being an illegal alien is not. it is an administrative violation.

What if the Hospital refused to admit you because you have outstanding library fines?

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:10 PM
I have an unpaid parking ticket in Maine. Should I therefore not receive medical treatment?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:10 PM
Just out of curiousity, does this apply to all crimes? If a man comes into the emergency room with a gunshot wound because he was robbing a bank, should the hospital let him die?

The AZ legislation takes care of this:

A: Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care...

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:11 PM
I have an unpaid parking ticket in Maine. Should I therefore not receive medical treatment?

Depends...what are the laws in Maine?

tyr_13
14th February 2011, 02:12 PM
The AZ legislation takes care of this:

A: Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care...

Unless you read the rest of the legislation...

C. If the hospital provides emergency medical care pursuant to federal requirements to a person who does not meet the requirements of subsection A of this section, on successful treatment of the patient the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:13 PM
That's not strictly a Godwin or a Poe, what is it?

shall we call all arguments where someone tries to tie the issue to Al-Qaeda a "Trax?"

MS 13 gang member then??

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:13 PM
deepatrax- why do you want to prevent little Jose from getting his boo boo treated? what did little Jose ever do to you?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:14 PM
Unless you read the rest of the legislation...

C. If the hospital provides emergency medical care pursuant to federal requirements to a person who does not meet the requirements of subsection A of this section, on successful treatment of the patient the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.

my bold above

so, no...he won't be allowed to die.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 02:14 PM
If the hospital provides emergency medical care pursuant to federal requirements to a person who does not meet the requirements of subsection A of this section, on successful treatment of the patient the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.

Hmm, I see a loophole here.

admissions officer: "Hello? Federal immigration office? Hi, How ya doin'. I'm just contacting you. Talk to you tommorow, Later, dude, bye"

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:16 PM
----If the hospital provides emergency medical care pursuant to federal requirements to a person who does not meet the requirements of subsection A of this section, on successful treatment of the patient the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.----

this requires hospitals to report illegal aliens to the authorities for non-emergency and emergency care. if this law passes, America's health and security will be less safe.



....yes, I want illegal aliens going to the hospital if they come down with a sudden fever and strange rash. I don't want them avoiding hospitals out of fear of being ratted on to ICE.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:16 PM
deepatrax- why do you want to prevent little Jose from getting his boo boo treated? what did little Jose ever do to you?

I like Jose. We sometimes play pool on the weekends...he and his family are good people.

I tell Jose, "Jose, why don't you just follow the law?"

Jose says, "**** the law!"

oh well, that's Jose for ya!

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:17 PM
Deepatrax- this law would put America's health & safety at risk, for millions of illegal aliens will think twice about going to a hospital after they come down with a sudden fever and rash.

are you happy with that?




Deepatrax- my friend, there is a very simple solution to solving America's illegal immigration problem. Its called a national ID or employment license card. Or even just a Federal law requiring all Americans to possess a state issued government ID that has certain biometric data. But right-wingers like yourself refuse to allow such IDs.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:20 PM
Deepatrax- this law would put America's health & safety at risk, for millions of illegal aliens will think twice about going to a hospital after they come down with a sudden fever and rash.

are you happy with that?

millions of illegal aliens should think twice about...being ILLEGAL!

and I said I like Jose, so this pains me.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:22 PM
millions of illegal aliens should think twice about...being ILLEGAL!

and I said I like Jose, so this pains me.

don't want illegals getting jobs in the USA? require all Americans to possess a Federally sponsored ID or state ID that conforms to Federal regulations.

but you guys don't want that, cause its against "freedom". :)

Biscuit
14th February 2011, 02:23 PM
This will result in the capture of exactly zero illegal immigrants. Doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff treat people as people regardless of where they were born. They have enough on their minds with the work they do to be bothered with this BS.

Its morally repugnant and is another window into the petty and heartless world of Pierce.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:26 PM
To be honest here...I understand this is a tough issue.

Some years back when I worked in a restaurant, I worked with illegals...and got to know them fairly well. They were hard working, law abiding (except for one law) people who routinely sent money back to their families living in Mexico. To think that they would be deported back to a terrible life and be unable to provide for their family wasn't something I wanted for them.

But then on the other side, it's hard to argue against people who are saying we have immigration laws on the books and they should be enforced.

These illegals were paid in cash and paid no income taxes etc.

So I'm sorta in the middle on this, understanding both sides and seeing no real solution.

To me, the real issues lies with Mexico. It would be nice if Mexico could clean up it's mess and provide a decent life for it's people.

dudalb
14th February 2011, 02:28 PM
It's a tacit admission that logic and reason are not the driving forces behind the argument.

The driving force behind the argument is that the poster is a troll.

Yeah, lot of insanity in Arizona. Maybe the heat is finally getting to them.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:35 PM
The driving force behind the argument is that the poster is a troll.

Yeah, lot of insanity in Arizona. Maybe the heat is finally getting to them.

Liberal definition of "troll" = someone they disagree with.

*facepalm*

Cleon
14th February 2011, 02:37 PM
Liberal definition of "troll" = someone they disagree with.

*facepalm*

Labeling dudalb as a liberal = fail.

*facepalm* indeed.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:40 PM
Liberal definition of "troll" = someone they disagree with.

*facepalm*

err...you have already labeled anyone who is a liberal to be mentally disturbed.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:41 PM
Labeling dudalb as a liberal = fail.

*facepalm* indeed.

did I say dudalb was a Liberal?

I merely said that was the Liberal definition of "troll".

I'm here to inform.

it's who I am...it's what I do!

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:42 PM
delete

Cleon
14th February 2011, 02:42 PM
did I say dudalb was a Liberal?

Really? :nope:

Now run along and let the grown-ups talk.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:42 PM
err...you have already labeled anyone who is a liberal to be mentally disturbed.

well, the medical community has yet to weigh in on it yet, but I think we can all agree that the evidence is overwhelming.

:D

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:43 PM
Really? :nope:

Now run along and let the grown-ups talk.

"The debate is over!", bellows Al Gore

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 02:44 PM
well, the medical community has yet to weigh in on it yet, but I think we can all agree that the evidence is overwhelming.

:D

I'm rather sure that the medical community will weigh in quite heavily against this bill.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:44 PM
Liberal definition of "troll" = someone they disagree with.

*facepalm*

Conservative definition of "mentally ill" = someone they disagree with (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6754044#post6754044).


Sorry for the Godwin, but the Nazis too labeled their political opponents "mentally ill", just before they were jailed and then executed.

thaiboxerken
14th February 2011, 02:45 PM
I like this big government solution coming from the Right......

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 02:47 PM
Conservative definition of "mentally ill" = someone they disagree with (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6754044#post6754044).


Sorry for the Godwin, but the Nazis too labeled their political opponents "mentally ill", just before they were jailed and then executed.

Liberalism can be cured through rational and logical thought...there is hope!

Thunder
14th February 2011, 02:49 PM
Liberalism can be cured through rational and logical thought...there is hope!

Conservatism can be cured by abandoning selfishness and narcissism. And by following the teachings & in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.

There is hope.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 02:51 PM
Conservative definition of "mentally ill" = someone they disagree with (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6754044#post6754044).


Sorry for the Godwin, but the Nazis too labeled their political opponents "mentally ill", just before they were jailed and then executed.

Is is a goodwin to have refered to Russell Pearce as "gruppenfuhrer?"

Or should I just call him a "pig eyed sack of crap?"

thaiboxerken
14th February 2011, 02:54 PM
Liberalism can be cured through rational and logical thought...there is hope!

Why don't you use rational and logical arguments then?

Thunder
14th February 2011, 03:04 PM
Is is a goodwin to have refered to Russell Pearce as "gruppenfuhrer?"

Or should I just call him a "pig eyed sack of crap?"

Reichsfuhrer would have been better.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 03:05 PM
Reichsfuhrer would have been better.

Boss Hogg?

Biscuit
14th February 2011, 03:15 PM
SB1070 makes sure that latinos, legal or otherwise, won't call on or co-operate with the police. Obviously this will make the job law enforcement has that much tougher.

This bill will make sure that some of the most exposed and vulnerable in my community will not seek medical attention. If one little boy or girl is killed because her parents were afraid they would be deported... this thought is just too sad and pathetic. We are better than this.

Next I propose that firefighters establish the legal status of anyone who's house in on fire before putting it out.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 03:17 PM
this law will prevent victims of a biological or chemical terrorist attack from going to the hospital.

that's...just lovely.

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 03:17 PM
To be honest here...I understand this is a tough issue.

Some years back when I worked in a restaurant, I worked with illegals...and got to know them fairly well. They were hard working, law abiding (except for one law) people who routinely sent money back to their families living in Mexico. To think that they would be deported back to a terrible life and be unable to provide for their family wasn't something I wanted for them.

But then on the other side, it's hard to argue against people who are saying we have immigration laws on the books and they should be enforced.

No it isn't "hard to argue"- instead of harshly and unmercifully "enforcing" our ******, racist, protectionist immigration laws, we should instead fix our ******, racist, protectionist immigration laws and stop punishing the people smart enough, brave enough, and motivated enough to ignore them.

Funny how you never see Peirce and his ilk talking about that option... instead they pander to our ****-headed, racist, protectionist citizens. I'm guessing because as a Mormon, he's racist and protectionist too. Given the output he's been dumping all over our legislation lately, I'm pretty sure I can tell what his head is filled with.

We have lots of laws "on the books"- why don't you answer those people asking if we should deny hospital services and/or notify police until and unless the hospital is absolutely sure the patient is completely squeaky-clean? Why this law?

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 03:18 PM
If one little boy or girl is killed because her parents were afraid they would be deported... this thought is just too sad and pathetic. We are better than this.


Would the state be liable then?

Thunder
14th February 2011, 03:21 PM
how does Pierce feel about the Real ID Act?

I bet he sees it as "Communist intrusion into our God-given freedoms!!"

;)

KingMerv00
14th February 2011, 03:23 PM
The AZ legislation takes care of this:

A: Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care...

Ah, didn't read closely enough. My mistake.

That being said, I still think the law is immoral. Sick and wounded people will suffer and die because of this law (they will be afraid to go to the hospital). The fact that those people are illegal immigrants does not change that fact.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 03:25 PM
I'm pretty sure I can tell what his head is filled with.

Have you ever seen the mug shot picture of his son?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=21082&stc=1&d=1297722269

Is pointing out the Nazi tattoo on his chest a Godwin?

Ladewig
14th February 2011, 03:38 PM
Liberal definition of "troll" = someone they disagree with.

*facepalm*

You brought up Al-Queda in a discussion of Arizona immigration laws. Your goal could not have simply been to make a point. You must have had a secondary goal of getting a rise out of some posters. When people write things they don't seriously believe with the intention of provoking an emotional reaction, it is fair to label such behavior as trollish.

Cleon
14th February 2011, 03:38 PM
Funny how you never see Peirce and his ilk talking about that option... instead they pander to our ****-headed, racist, protectionist citizens. I'm guessing because as a Mormon, he's racist and protectionist too.

I don't think it's directly related to his religion, but Pierce has been criticized for his links to white supremacists and other hate groups in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Pearce#Controversy).

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 03:39 PM
Or should I just call him a "pig eyed sack of crap?"

Works for me. Him and Herr Arpaio. That mother-********** even wears a brown shirt to work.

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 03:50 PM
I don't think it's directly related to his religion, but Pierce has been criticized for his links to white supremacists and other hate groups in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Pearce#Controversy).

I used to think Mormons were on the whole nice, if misguided people... until they orchestrated the Prop 8 thing in CA. Now they are clearly behind the "illegal imigration" guanofest in this state. I get to listen to people I've know for years start spouting off like Klan members whenever anything negative is mentioned. High insurance rates? "Mexicans". Uninsured drivers? "Mexicans". Economy in the toilet? "Mexicans". Health care going up? "Mexicans". Bad weather? "Mexicans". Autotuning and Lady Gaga? "Mexicans".

I don't know what's motivating the rabid out-of-towners that think our laws are any of their *********** business.

JoeTheJuggler
14th February 2011, 04:05 PM
don't you mean anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant?


So. . .if they can magically tell which patients are illegal and only focus these extra measures against them and not apply them to legal immigrants (or even natural citizens), what's the point of this proposal?

JoeTheJuggler
14th February 2011, 04:09 PM
Two examples of imaginary problems:

Liberalism can be cured through rational and logical thought...there is hope!

To be honest here...I understand this is a tough issue.


What "tough issue" is there in deciding whether or not to allow hospitals to treat anyone they want to treat?

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 04:11 PM
So. . .if they can magically tell which patients are illegal and only focus these extra measures against them and not apply them to legal immigrants (or even natural citizens), what's the point of this proposal?

If identification is really the problem, maybe we should make "the illegals" wear a badge or a patch or something. Or hey, tatoos are even better.

Biscuit
14th February 2011, 04:23 PM
Would the state be liable then?

In my opinion we would all be liable. Those that voted for this bill should be forced to carry the casket of everyone who dies because of their reckless malice towards their fellow human beings.

Aren't these the people that are meant to be for smaller government and keeping government out of healthcare?

Thunder
14th February 2011, 04:25 PM
If identification is really the problem, maybe we should make "the illegals" wear a badge or a patch or something. Or hey, tatoos are even better.

or we could just send them home...rather than comparing them to people who were innocent victims of mass-murder.

comparing illegal immigrants to Holocaust victims is disgusting.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 04:27 PM
No it isn't "hard to argue"- instead of harshly and unmercifully "enforcing" our ******, racist, protectionist immigration laws, we should instead fix our ******, racist, protectionist immigration laws and stop punishing the people smart enough, brave enough, and motivated enough to ignore them.

Funny how you never see Peirce and his ilk talking about that option... instead they pander to our ****-headed, racist, protectionist citizens. I'm guessing because as a Mormon, he's racist and protectionist too. Given the output he's been dumping all over our legislation lately, I'm pretty sure I can tell what his head is filled with.

We have lots of laws "on the books"- why don't you answer those people asking if we should deny hospital services and/or notify police until and unless the hospital is absolutely sure the patient is completely squeaky-clean? Why this law?

The problem we have with illegal immigration isn't the fault of the U.S, the illegals, Republicans, or Democrats...it's the fault of the Mexican government.

For providing it's people with such a cesspool of a country and way of life that they must resort to coming here, breaking our laws, just to feed their families.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 04:29 PM
The problem we have with illegal immigration isn't the fault of the U.S, the illegals, Republicans, or Democrats...it's the fault of the Mexican government.

and what about all those wealthy Conservatives who love to hire illegals for cheap labor? why should we let them off the hook?

hiring an illegal alien should be a felony with mandatory prison time or $10,000 fine.

turning in someone who hired an illegal should bring a $10,000 reward.

Tatyana
14th February 2011, 04:43 PM
The problem we have with illegal immigration isn't the fault of the U.S, the illegals, Republicans, or Democrats...it's the fault of the Mexican government.

For providing it's people with such a cesspool of a country and way of life that they must resort to coming here, breaking our laws, just to feed their families.

It is never that simple.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 04:44 PM
It is never that simple.

true...it's better to just blame those evil Republicans!

Thunder
14th February 2011, 04:47 PM
true...it's better to just blame those evil Republicans Conservatives!

ftfy. and yes, they do deserve much of the blaim.

JoeTheJuggler
14th February 2011, 04:53 PM
or we could just send them home...

But again, which ones? My point is that this is indeed an anti-immigrant (and not merely anti-illegal immigrant) proposal since we can't tell ahead of time who is illegal and who is not.

If this would only affect illegals (if we could already make that distinction), it would be utterly pointless. That's the Catch-22 of this kind of proposal.

Tatyana
14th February 2011, 04:56 PM
true...it's better to just blame those evil Republicans!

I didn't say that.

You were blaming the Mexican government.

The problems in Mexico are obviously one of the factors, but it isn't the only one.

The need for cheap, migrant workers in states like California is also a factor.

That some employers in the United States do not want to pay taxes or benefits for employees is another factor.

The proximity of the two countries and the history of the two countries is a factor.

That there are certain jobs that Americans will not do or will not do for the money that is paid for the jobs is a factor.

I don't think I can think of one social issue that is the result of just one factor.

They are always multi-factorial.

However, as long as people keep playing the game 'it doesn't matter what is going on as long as we have someone to blame' or the ridiculous liberal-conservative bias in the US, nothing is going to be sorted.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 05:01 PM
But again, which ones?

in fantasy world? all of them.

realistically? at least those who have been here less than 5-10 years.

I'll give amnesty to folks who have been here for 30+ years.

those in between? they should go home first, come back, and pay lots o' fines. then apply for Permanent Residency.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 05:02 PM
I didn't say that.

You were blaming the Mexican government.

The problems in Mexico are obviously one of the factors, but it isn't the only one.

The need for cheap, migrant workers in states like California is also a factor.

That some employers in the United States do not want to pay taxes or benefits for employees is another factor.

The proximity of the two countries and the history of the two countries is a factor.

That there are certain jobs that Americans will not do or will not do for the money that is paid for the jobs is a factor.

I don't think I can think of one social issue that is the result of just one factor.

They are always multi-factorial.

However, as long as people keep playing the game 'it doesn't matter what is going on as long as we have someone to blame' or the ridiculous liberal-conservative bias in the US, nothing is going to be sorted.

If Mexicans had well paying jobs in Mexico, would we have anywhere near the illegal immigration problem in the US?

no.

fix the source of the flood, the broken damn, and quit blaming the people downstream who are trying to pile up the sandbags.

We don't have a Canadian illegal immigrant problem...do we?

6 percent of the illegal immigrants in the United States come from Canada or Europe
81 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States come from Mexico and other Latin America countries

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 05:05 PM
or we could just send them home...rather than comparing them to people who were innocent victims of mass-murder.

comparing illegal immigrants to Holocaust victims is disgusting.

I didn't do that. I compared the people that want to blame Mexicans for everything with people who blamed Jews for everything. Racism is racism.

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 05:10 PM
If Mexicans had well paying jobs in Mexico, would we have anywhere near the illegal immigration problem in the US?

And if everyone had lots of money there wouldn't be any poor people. Appealing to the "perfect solution" fallacy doesn't excuse laws that target people so harshly for a relatively minor offence.

81 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States come from Mexico and other Latin America countries
Which is why people that get really excited about "enforcing" laws against this particular offense in priority to and to a degree much greater than others seem racist.

You didn't answer this:

We have lots of laws "on the books"- why don't you answer those people asking if we should deny hospital services and/or notify police until and unless the hospital is absolutely sure the patient is completely squeaky-clean? Why this law?

Malerin
14th February 2011, 05:17 PM
Ah, didn't read closely enough. My mistake.

That being said, I still think the law is immoral. Sick and wounded people will suffer and die because of this law (they will be afraid to go to the hospital). they will choose not to go to the hospital. The fact that those people are illegal immigrants does not change that fact.

You are aware that they can still go to the hospital and get treated, right?

Malerin
14th February 2011, 05:20 PM
If identification is really the problem, maybe we should make "the illegals" wear a badge or a patch or something. Or hey, tatoos are even better.

How about we just deport them?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 05:24 PM
And if everyone had lots of money there wouldn't be any poor people. Appealing to the "perfect solution" fallacy doesn't excuse laws that target people so harshly for a relatively minor offence.


Which is why people that get really excited about "enforcing" laws against this particular offense in priority to and to a degree much greater than others seem racist.

You didn't answer this:

We have lots of laws "on the books"- why don't you answer those people asking if we should deny hospital services and/or notify police until and unless the hospital is absolutely sure the patient is completely squeaky-clean? Why this law?

The mere fact that an ILLEGAL immigrant walks into a U.S. hospital...is against the law.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 05:27 PM
I didn't do that. I compared the people that want to blame Mexicans for everything with people who blamed Jews for everything. Racism is racism.

let me know when they start setting up the gas chambers for illegal immigrants.

oh, and btw, Jews were targeted not for anything that they did..but simply due to who they were.

illegal immigrants however, ARE targeted for something they made a choice to do.

that's the difference. and its a big one.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 05:28 PM
The mere fact that an ILLEGAL immigrant walks into a U.S. hospital...is against the law.

no, wrong.

please point to the New York State Penal Code making it unlawful for an illegal immigrant to walk into a hospital.

I have the NYSPC book on my shelf. You name the law and I'll look it up.

Malerin
14th February 2011, 05:29 PM
Just out of curiousity, does this apply to all crimes? If a man comes into the emergency room with a gunshot wound because he was robbing a bank, should the hospital let him die?

Here's a better question: Should hospitals be required to report gunshot wounds (as I believe they currently are)? If they have to report them, doesn't that entail that some people who are shot will not got to the hospital for fear of being reported to the police?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 05:33 PM
no, wrong.

please point to the New York State Penal Code making it unlawful for an illegal immigrant to walk into a hospital.

I have the NYSPC book on my shelf. You name the law and I'll look it up.

Federal Immigration Law
(http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
knock yourself out...

btw, it's not the fact that he/she is walking into a hospital that's the illegal act, it's the fact that he/she is in the U.S. ILLEGALLY that is.

You cannot walk into that U.S. Hospital without being in the U.S.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 05:33 PM
Here's a better question: Should hospitals be required to report gunshot wounds (as I believe they currently are)?

this is to make sure the police are aware of possible crimes.

and yes, I am sure bank robbers who get shot by cops don't go to the local hospital to get treated.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 05:35 PM
btw, it's not the fact that he/she is walking into a hospital that's the illegal act, it's the fact that he/she is in the U.S. ILLEGALLY that is.

thanks for contradicting yourself:

Originally Posted by deepatrax http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6877104#post6877104)
The mere fact that an ILLEGAL immigrant walks into a U.S. hospital...is against the law.


gotcha'. :)


You cannot walk into that U.S. Hospital without being in the U.S.

dude, you must have got like a 1,500 on your SATs. ;)

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 05:37 PM
thanks for contradicting yourself:

Originally Posted by deepatrax http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6877104#post6877104)
The mere fact that an ILLEGAL immigrant walks into a U.S. hospital...is against the law.


gotcha'. :)

perhaps you missed the key part of my comment...I've highlighted it above for you

fishbob
14th February 2011, 05:43 PM
Before people need to go to the hospital...before an outbreak of disease...don't you think it prudent that people who are breaking the law...STOP breaking the law??

just a thought...

Though not a well-thought through thought.

"Prudent to stop breaking the law" has never in the history of the world stopped a law-breaker.

fishbob
14th February 2011, 05:45 PM
well, if this legislation passes in AZ, then it WILL BE their job!

Then whose job will it be to pitch hissy-fits about health care costs and government interference with privite enterprise?

fishbob
14th February 2011, 05:48 PM
Besides all that, the proposed law is just morally wrong.

Unless the word 'abortion' is somehow involved, this argument carries no weight with the sort of people who propose these laws.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 05:49 PM
Though not a well-thought through thought.

"Prudent to stop breaking the law" has never in the history of the world stopped a law-breaker.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote...read it again.

I said it would be prudent for those who are currently breaking the law, to stop breaking the law.

it's not a tough concept to grasp...really, it's not.

people who are breaking the law make the decision to stop all the time.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 05:50 PM
perhaps you missed the key part of my comment...I've highlighted it above for you

they are illegal as soon as they enter the USA.

you speak as if they become MORE illegal when then enter a hospital.

and if they get medical treatment??? oh boy...now they are super-duper illegal!!!

:p

fishbob
14th February 2011, 05:54 PM
These illegals were paid in cash and paid no income taxes etc.

So I'm sorta in the middle on this, understanding both sides and seeing no real solution.

To me, the real issues lies with Mexico. It would be nice if Mexico could clean up it's mess and provide a decent life for it's people.

The real issue was that the restaurant manager who made the deal to pay the illegals in cash was a sleazeball who belongs in jail.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 05:58 PM
they are illegal as soon as they enter the USA.

you speak as if they become MORE illegal when then enter a hospital.

and if they get medical treatment??? oh boy...now they are super-duper illegal!!!

:p

no, you inferred that...please don't hold me accountable for your misunderstanding of what I said.

Nowhere did I say "MORE"...

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 05:59 PM
The real issue was that the restaurant manager who made the deal to pay the illegals in cash was a sleazeball who belongs in jail.

no, see you miss the point...

The REAL issue is the terrible cesspool of a country that Mexico is for many of it's citizens who then have to resort to breaking U.S. law and leaving their families

Quit blaming Americans for this.

Blame the Mexican Government for once...please!

leftysergeant
14th February 2011, 06:02 PM
apparently Russell Pearce does...

Stop that. The question was who "in their right mind" would submit such a bill. That dirtbag is more than a brick short of an arch. He isn't even a decent American.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 06:03 PM
Blame the Mexican Government for once...please!

Mexicans wouldn't come here if wealthy and unpatriotic Conservatives wouldn't hire them to watch their kids, clean their homes, do construction work, and tend their gardens in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.

takes two to tango, kiddo.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 06:06 PM
Mexicans wouldn't come here if wealthy and unpatriotic Conservatives wouldn't hire them to watch their kids, clean their homes, do construction work, and tend their gardens in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.

takes two to tango, kiddo.

no, wrong.

PROBLEM: terrible living conditions in Mexico
SOLUTION: come to the U.S. illegally and work for low-wage jobs which are still higher than what they would earn in Mexico

You're blaming the "solution" and not even addressing the problem.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 06:09 PM
no, wrong.

PROBLEM: terrible living conditions in Mexico
SOLUTION: come to the U.S. illegally and get hired illegally by American citizens who don't respect their country's laws, borders, or security and are willing to hire illegals to work for low-wage jobs which are still higher than what they would earn in Mexico

ftfy. for correctness.

KoihimeNakamura
14th February 2011, 06:13 PM
Takes two to tango is pretty much correct.

Shalamar
14th February 2011, 06:14 PM
With this, how will it be determined that someone is illegal? What Documentation do people need to carry should they enter a hospital?

Drivers License? Green Card? Birth Certificate?

WHhat documentation will Citizens need to carry to prove that they are, in fact, citizens?

fishbob
14th February 2011, 06:17 PM
no, see you miss the point...

The REAL issue is the terrible cesspool of a country that Mexico is for many of it's citizens who then have to resort to breaking U.S. law and leaving their families

Quit blaming Americans for this.

Blame the Mexican Government for once...please!

No, I got your point loud and clear. You are wrong, your point is invalid. Although US jobs are opportunities for many Mexicans to make more money than they can at home, much of Mexico is not terrible and not a cesspool. The opportunities are made by US employers.

There are many instances where Americans are falsely blamed for the evils of the world. This is not one of those. You worked for a sleazeball. I assume he was American. He deserves the blame.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 06:25 PM
No, I got your point loud and clear. You are wrong, your point is invalid. Although US jobs are opportunities for many Mexicans to make more money than they can at home, much of Mexico is not terrible and not a cesspool. The opportunities are made by US employers.

There are many instances where Americans are falsely blamed for the evils of the world. This is not one of those. You worked for a sleazeball. I assume he was American. He deserves the blame.

6% of illegal immigrants come from Canada and Europe
81% come from Mexico and Latin America

you do the math...

LightningTeg
14th February 2011, 06:27 PM
How is this any different from health insurance? You dont have health insurance, you dont get treated.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 06:33 PM
How is this any different from health insurance? You dont have health insurance, you dont get treated.

yeah, and let the poor die in the street.

nice. must be "compassionate conservatism".

:)

BobTheDonkey
14th February 2011, 06:38 PM
With this, how will it be determined that someone is illegal? What Documentation do people need to carry should they enter a hospital?

Drivers License? Green Card? Birth Certificate?

WHhat documentation will Citizens need to carry to prove that they are, in fact, citizens?

What if it's a rush to get me to the hospital. Say it's an emergency, I get to the hospital, I'm stabilized, and then my GF/SO/friend/etc has to run back to my house/hotel/car/etc to get my proof of citizenship?

And as was asked...what counts as proof of citizenship? A State ID card? A driver's license? Social Security card? Birth Certificate (oh, wait, this is AZ...birth certificates only count if it's the "long form")? AZ accepts a Visa card as a valid form of identification for obtaining a driver's license (and yet doesn't accept a Military ID (admittedly, it was the old style, but still...won't accept a Gov't photo ID but will accept a *********** credit card?), so does that mean that if I visit AZ, I have to carry a passport to prove my citizenship in case I need medical attention?

Or would I not even be asked because I'm white enough that I can't be from Mexico?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 06:39 PM
What if it's a rush to get me to the hospital. Say it's an emergency, I get to the hospital, I'm stabilized, and then my GF/SO/friend/etc has to run back to my house/hotel/car/etc to get my proof of citizenship?

And as was asked...what counts as proof of citizenship? A State ID card? A driver's license? Social Security card? Birth Certificate (oh, wait, this is AZ...birth certificates only count if it's the "long form")? AZ accepts a Visa card as a valid form of identification for obtaining a driver's license (and yet doesn't accept a Military ID (admittedly, it was the old style, but still...won't accept a Gov't photo ID but will accept a *********** credit card?), so does that mean that if I visit AZ, I have to carry a passport to prove my citizenship in case I need medical attention?

Or would I not even be asked because I'm white enough that I can't be from Mexico?

How good is your English? any accent??

BobTheDonkey
14th February 2011, 06:41 PM
How is this any different from health insurance? You dont have health insurance, you dont get treated.

Haven't you heard? Arizona's against health insurance for everyone too. Health care in AZ should be reserved for the wealthy white people.

fishbob
14th February 2011, 06:44 PM
6% of illegal immigrants come from Canada and Europe
81% come from Mexico and Latin America

you do the math...

81% - 6 % = 75%, which is exactly how much closer Mexico is than Europe to US job opportunities.

BobTheDonkey
14th February 2011, 06:44 PM
How good is your English? any accent??

What about my GF's grandparents who are proud US Citizens who immigrated legally from China, oh, 25+ years ago and yet can't speak hardly any English?

For ****'s sake, they've probably been citizens longer than I have, and I'm a natural born citizen.


ETA: Hell, you show me where in the US Constitution there is any requirement for citizenship that requires any grasp of English, and then maybe I'll agree that's a valid metric for this discussion.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 06:49 PM
81% - 6 % = 75%, which is exactly how much closer Mexico is than Europe to US job opportunities.

*cough* Canada *cough*

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 06:51 PM
What about my GF's grandparents who are proud US Citizens who immigrated legally from China, oh, 25+ years ago and yet can't speak hardly any English?

For ****'s sake, they've probably been citizens longer than I have, and I'm a natural born citizen.


ETA: Hell, you show me where in the US Constitution there is any requirement for citizenship that requires any grasp of English, and then maybe I'll agree that's a valid metric for this discussion.

that was a joke, BobtheDonkey...calm down.

but let's be honest here, that is used as at least one metric all over the country...probably the second metric.

eeyore1954
14th February 2011, 07:03 PM
in fantasy world? all of them.

realistically? at least those who have been here less than 5-10 years.

I'll give amnesty to folks who have been here for 30+ years.

those in between? they should go home first, come back, and pay lots o' fines. then apply for Permanent Residency.

But if you send them back how many will die in Mexico because they can't afford to go to the doctor or get proper nutrition. If even one little child dies isn't that is too much,

fishbob
14th February 2011, 07:08 PM
*cough* Canada *cough*

Don't get me started on Canada. What a cesspool of a country that is, with terrible living conditions, and a government that allows French speaking.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 07:08 PM
But if you send them back how many will die in Mexico because they can't afford to go to the doctor or get proper nutrition. If even one little child dies isn't that is too much,

is that why they come to the USA? because they can't afford to see a doctor or get proper nutrition?

Travis
14th February 2011, 07:10 PM
As written this law would seem to also state they have to report anyone that isn't a citizen not just illegal-immigrants. Isn't tourism a big deal in Arizona?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 07:13 PM
As written this law would seem to also state they have to report anyone that isn't a citizen not just illegal-immigrants. Isn't tourism a big deal in Arizona?

I think this covers it...

A. Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care, a hospital admissions officer must confirm that the person is a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of the United States or lawfully present in the United States.

eeyore1954
14th February 2011, 07:19 PM
The real issue was that the restaurant manager who made the deal to pay the illegals in cash was a sleazeball who belongs in jail.

Wouldn't it be immoral to not give them the opportunity to work and stay in America and send money back to their family who desperately needs it?

BobTheDonkey
14th February 2011, 07:22 PM
that was a joke, BobtheDonkey...calm down.

but let's be honest here, that is used as at least one metric all over the country...probably the second metric.

Argument from popularity does not a sound argument make. You may claim you were joking, but when you turn around and the next line you post indicates that you're supported in you joke via the popularity argument, I find your first statement to be hard to believe.

And you've completely ignored my previous post about what specific documents would be considered valid for proof of citizenship. Does everyone have to get a passport to travel to Arizona? I mean, why not - put up a wall around the state or at least checkpoints at all roads leading into AZ and check passports of everyone entering or leaving the state.

Alferd_Packer
14th February 2011, 07:24 PM
As written this law would seem to also state they have to report anyone that isn't a citizen not just illegal-immigrants. Isn't tourism a big deal in Arizona?

Read it again. It doesn't say "report" it says "contact."

So the hospital can send a hallmark friendship card to the ICE office every week. "Thinking of you!! Stay in touch!"

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 07:26 PM
Argument from popularity does not a sound argument make. You may claim you were joking, but when you turn around and the next line you post indicates that you're supported in you joke via the popularity argument, I find your first statement to be hard to believe.

And you've completely ignored my previous post about what specific documents would be considered valid for proof of citizenship. Does everyone have to get a passport to travel to Arizona? I mean, why not - put up a wall around the state or at least checkpoints at all roads leading into AZ and check passports of everyone entering or leaving the state.

BobTheDonkey, I stated it was a joke and then stated that it is also a reality...nowhere did I say I support this reality.

I didn't write the law, perhaps you should ask the man who did...it sounds like you have a wall proposal...run it by him.

unless you were joking and didn't support that??

thaiboxerken
14th February 2011, 07:33 PM
You cannot walk into that U.S. Hospital without being in the U.S.

I find that hard to believe, since I was born in a U.S. Hospital...in Okinawa, Japan.

thaiboxerken
14th February 2011, 07:36 PM
Does anyone see a contradiction in Conservative talking points here with this proposal? First, they are against "Obamacare" because it places government between a doctor and patient. Now, they want to place government between a doctor and patient to keep them "brownies" sick and dying.
Also, this is a "big government" solution. Something the Conservatives are supposed to be against.

firecoins
14th February 2011, 07:40 PM
This Arizon law compelling hospital to report illegal immagrants after receiving emergency care is illegal as it releases private medical info a.k.a a HIPPA violation.

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 07:43 PM
The mere fact that an ILLEGAL immigrant walks into a U.S. hospital...is against the law.

And I exceeded the speed limt when I my pegnant wife to the hospital. So what? Laws are not the be-all, end-all of human existance, and as far as I'm concerned really means very little when it comes to what's right. Treating people like **** is wrong, even if it is the "law". Especially when it's done just because of a "law".

Thunder
14th February 2011, 07:47 PM
there are around 30 million illegal immigrants in the USA today. it would take quite a while for all of them to go home, if they all chose to do so.

while that takes place, should they not be able to receive medical treatment at a hospital?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 07:47 PM
I find that hard to believe, since I was born in a U.S. Hospital...in Okinawa, Japan.

Of course I knew someone would try and use this argument...

but as you will note, I specifically used the word ILLEGAL in my statement.

you think you got me...but in fact, I got you.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 07:48 PM
An Al-Qaeda operative in this country illegally and plotting to kill Americans doesn't deserve to get medical treatment paid for by American taxpayers.

how about your regular non-felon illegal immigrant. do they too not deserve to receive medical treatment paid for by the American taxpayers?

should they die in the street?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 07:49 PM
there are around 30 million illegal immigrants in the USA today. it would take quite a while for all of them to go home, if they all chose to do so.

while that takes place, should they not be able to receive medical treatment at a hospital?

fine, Thunder...geesh

And if the medical checkups go well, lollipops for everyone!!

You start handing out numbers...and form a single file line, people!

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 07:51 PM
let me know when they start setting up the gas chambers for illegal immigrants.
It never starts with that, does it?

Can I see your papers?

oh, and btw, Jews were targeted not for anything that they did..but simply due to who they were.

illegal immigrants however, ARE targeted for something they made a choice to do.

that's the difference. and its a big one.

You don't live here... the people I'm talking about assume anyone who speaks Spanish or has darker skin than them is "illegal". They don't check IDs either.

And it started for the Jews with "things they did" (allegedly)... undermining Germany in WWI. Just like "the illegals" are allegedly undermining our economy. Seems these people never remember the rich white guys that ass-raped the mortgage loan industry.

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 07:51 PM
how about your regular non-felon illegal immigrant. do they too not deserve to receive medical treatment paid for by the American taxpayers?

should they die in the street?

You've beaten me, I surrender.

Give the illegal immigrant a house, a car, clothes, food, an education, medical care, an xbox, a flatscreen (no bigger than 32" though) and season tickets to the local professional sporting event of his or her choice.

but nothing more, Thunder!

fishbob
14th February 2011, 07:52 PM
Wouldn't it be immoral to not give them the opportunity to work and stay in America and send money back to their family who desperately needs it?

According to deepatrax, they were paid in cash and no federal taxes were paid to the government.

You are assuming that their families 'desparately need' the money. Years ago, I stayed in a small Mexican farming town for about a week, met quite a few locals. Nice little town in the mountains. Every male over the age of 20 claimed to have illegally worked in the US for at least one season. The reasons: make some extra cash to buy a truck, buy a house, get married, pay off a loan, etc. I know that some areas of Mexico are much worse than this, and that some people are in dire need, but your assumption that all illegal workers are desparate is not valid.

If we want moral means to assist desparate people, and if US employers are so morally concerned about the the terrible cesspools that foreign workers have left behind to find work, then those employers need to lobby their congressional representatives to change the laws. Instead of taking advantage of those laws to cheat the feds (and you and me) out of tax revenues.

thaiboxerken
14th February 2011, 07:58 PM
Of course I knew someone would try and use this argument...

but as you will note, I specifically used the word ILLEGAL in my statement.

you think you got me...but in fact, I got you.

Are you claiming that no illegal immigrant has ever been in a U.S. hospital that is outside of the USA?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 08:03 PM
Are you claiming that no illegal immigrant has ever been in a U.S. hospital that is outside of the USA?

No.

are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 08:05 PM
According to deepatrax, they were paid in cash and no federal taxes were paid to the government.

You are assuming that their families 'desparately need' the money. Years ago, I stayed in a small Mexican farming town for about a week, met quite a few locals. Nice little town in the mountains. Every male over the age of 20 claimed to have illegally worked in the US for at least one season. The reasons: make some extra cash to buy a truck, buy a house, get married, pay off a loan, etc. I know that some areas of Mexico are much worse than this, and that some people are in dire need, but your assumption that all illegal workers are desparate is not valid.

If we want moral means to assist desparate people, and if US employers are so morally concerned about the the terrible cesspools that foreign workers have left behind to find work, then those employers need to lobby their congressional representatives to change the laws. Instead of taking advantage of those laws to cheat the feds (and you and me) out of tax revenues.

Well, to be fair, they did pay a lot of alcohol taxes on the weekends...they did send some of their money back home, but not all of it.

thaiboxerken
14th February 2011, 08:07 PM
Federal Immigration Law
(http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
knock yourself out...

btw, it's not the fact that he/she is walking into a hospital that's the illegal act, it's the fact that he/she is in the U.S. ILLEGALLY that is.

You cannot walk into that U.S. Hospital without being in the U.S.

It's pretty clear that you are claiming illegal immigrants cannot walk into a U.S. hospital without being in the U.S. This is clearly not the case. Now that this argument has been debunked, you may continue with your next nonsensical post.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 08:08 PM
Give the illegal immigrant a house, a car, clothes, food, an education, medical care, an xbox, a flatscreen (no bigger than 32" though) and season tickets to the local professional sporting event of his or her choice.

right, cause giving a fellow human being medical treatment is the same as buying them a free house and a 32" flatscreen tv.


I guess this is what they call "Compassionate Conservatism"

Thunder
14th February 2011, 08:15 PM
It never starts with that, does it?

Can I see your papers?

you can stop the silliness now



You don't live here... the people I'm talking about assume anyone who speaks Spanish or has darker skin than them is "illegal". They don't check IDs either.

And it started for the Jews with "things they did" (allegedly)... undermining Germany in WWI. Just like "the illegals" are allegedly undermining our economy. Seems these people never remember the rich white guys that ass-raped the mortgage loan industry.

#1. I do live in the USA and we have illegal immigrant workers here in NYC just like everywhere else.

#2. You analogy between Holocaust victims and illegal immigrants HURTS your argument, because it is such a ridiculous strawman.

Illegal immigration has been a problem in the USA for decades, and yet the gas chambers remain unbuilt, the death-squads have yet to roam the West in search of millions of execute, and the trains have yet to start deporting folks to their deaths.

But sure, continue with your dishonest, offensive, and BS argument.

Ausmerican
14th February 2011, 08:23 PM
As written this law would seem to also state they have to report anyone that isn't a citizen not just illegal-immigrants. Isn't tourism a big deal in Arizona?

A very good point Travis. If you go to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon any day of the year you will hear multiple languages being spoken by the people from all over the world that are there. If they are treated like criminals every time one of them needs medical treatment that will not be the case for too long.

#2. You analogy between Holocaust victims and illegal immigrants HURTS your argument, because it is such a ridiculous strawman.


Piscivore already pointed out that the analogy was not between the Holocaust victims and the illegals but between the victimisers of both. The false analogy that you find so offensive is your own.

Thunder
14th February 2011, 08:27 PM
Piscivore already pointed out that the analogy was not between the Holocaust victims and the illegals but between the victimisers of both. The false analogy that you find so offensive is your own.

I have yet to hear any politicians of any respect call for the murder of all illegal immigrants.

I have yet to hear any politicians of any respect call for the imprisonment of all illegal immigrants.

So yes, the analogy is still BS...and still offensive.

Piscivore
14th February 2011, 09:01 PM
you can stop the silliness now
I wish it were "silly"


#1. I do live in the USA and we have illegal immigrant workers here in NYC just like everywhere else.
I didn't mean "the USA", I meant Arizona.

#2. You analogy between Holocaust victims and illegal immigrants HURTS your argument, because it is such a ridiculous strawman.
Second time, I'm not making an "analogy" between Holocaust victims and illegal immigrants. I'm not making an "analogy" at all. I'm saying the racists that we have in Arizona right now, right here, are saying the same things and acting in the same ways that the racists in Germany were saying and acting in the mid-Thirties. I don't even begin to imagine that the situations will turn out even close to the same way, but I don't think it can be dismissed as "silliness", either (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/14/20110214arizona-activist-in-deadly-home-invasion-guilty.html).

Illegal immigration has been a problem in the USA for decades
Because the laws that govern immigration have been historically based on overt racism and misguided nationalism and that legacy has not been written out of them yet.

We need to be better than these laws, and until the law is worthy of being observed, **** the law.

Travis
14th February 2011, 10:52 PM
I think this covers it...
A. Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care, a hospital admissions officer must confirm that the person is a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of the United States or lawfully present in the United States.


Read the highlighted part. Do you think a tourist wants to be pressured into presenting their visa to a hospital?

And seriously where does this all end? Will restaurants be required to determine citizenship of customers next?

And why is Arizona the only border state doing retarded things like this?

fishbob
14th February 2011, 11:09 PM
And why is Arizona the only border state doing
retarded things like this?

Habit.

http://phoenix.about.com/od/desertplantsandflowers/a/waterlawn_2.htm

dc1971
14th February 2011, 11:12 PM
well, if this legislation passes in AZ, then it WILL BE their job!

And you agree with that?

deepatrax
14th February 2011, 11:16 PM
Read the highlighted part. Do you think a tourist wants to be pressured into presenting their visa to a hospital?

And seriously where does this all end? Will restaurants be required to determine citizenship of customers next?

And why is Arizona the only border state doing retarded things like this?

screw it...

just change the 14th Amendment to say that any person born on planet Earth is a U.S. citizen and entitled to American taxpayer funded EVERYTHING!

send every American a picture of someone else in another country (Mexico perhaps) to put up at work so they can see where all of their money is going.

"Jose, this ones for you!"...as I work furiously to complete the report by the deadline.

Corsair 115
14th February 2011, 11:46 PM
A. Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care, a hospital admissions officer must confirm that the person is a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of the United States or lawfully present in the United States. The admissions officer may use any method prescribed in section 1-501 to verify citizenship or legal status.

B. If the admissions officer determines that the person does not meet the requirements of subsection A of this section, the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.

C. If the hospital provides emergency medical care pursuant to federal requirements to a person who does not meet the requirements of subsection A of this section, on successful treatment of the patient the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.

D. A hospital that complies with the requirements of this section is not subject to civil liability.


I skipped to the end of this thread, so pardon me if it's been mentioned already, but the first question that comes to mind from the above legislative proposal is this: What about tourists?

According to the Arizona Office of Tourism, in 2009 the state welcomed a total of 21.2 million visitors who were not residents of the state. Of those, 8 million arrived by air.

Corsair 115
14th February 2011, 11:50 PM
*cough* Canada *cough*


You said 6% of illegal immigrants came from Canada AND Europe. What's the breakdown of each? Also, where do the other 13% of illegal immigrants come from?

eeyore1954
15th February 2011, 04:51 AM
Read the highlighted part. Do you think a tourist wants to be pressured into presenting their visa to a hospital?

And seriously where does this all end? Will restaurants be required to determine citizenship of customers next?

And why is Arizona the only border state doing retarded things like this?
It will not go to restaurants because that is not hurting the economy like the unpaid hospital bills from illegal aliens. I would suspect that is the main impetus behind this bill.

How much pressure is it to present your VISA.

I am not in favor of the bill but I can clearly see why people can be in favor of it and not be terrible racist monsters.

leftysergeant
15th February 2011, 05:06 AM
Give the illegal immigrant a house, a car, clothes, food, an education, medical care, an xbox, a flatscreen (no bigger than 32" though) and season tickets to the local professional sporting event of his or her choice.

Seeing the drug-resistant diseases that are coming into the country right now, I think it is just in the interest of public safety to treat anybody, illegal or whatever, who has any unidentified malady and not leave them on the street spreading lethal cooties because they are afraid of being deproted.

And how many of those with injuries were injured working for American entrepreneurs who are making huge profits, free of things like Social Security obligations, safety regs, health inspections and all that administrative regualtory BS that they like to shriek about?

I have an idea how to fix part of the problem that the illegals have caused. When an employer is caught hiring illegals without even attemppting to determine their eligibility to work here, sieze the assets of that firm or farm and use the procedes to fund public health care.

(Might kill two birds with one stone there. Maybe three.)

Tatyana
15th February 2011, 05:20 AM
If Mexicans had well paying jobs in Mexico, would we have anywhere near the illegal immigration problem in the US?

no.

fix the source of the flood, the broken damn, and quit blaming the people downstream who are trying to pile up the sandbags.

We don't have a Canadian illegal immigrant problem...do we?

6 percent of the illegal immigrants in the United States come from Canada or Europe
81 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States come from Mexico and other Latin America countries

I think you are forgetting the issue that the US NEEDS migrant farm labour.


http://www.ncfh.org/docs/fs-Facts%20about%20Farmworkers.pdf
FACTS ABOUT FARMWORKERS
Basics
It is estimated that there are over 3 million migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the United States.1 These farmworkers travel throughout the U.S. serving as the backbone for a multi-billion dollar agricultural industry 2.

Economic Contribution
Migrant farm labor supports the 28 billion dollar fruit and vegetable industry in the U.S.; 4 85% of which are hand harvested and/or cultivated.5 The production of fruit and vegetable crops in the U.S. has steadily increased over the last decade. Without the seasonal influx of migrant farm labor during peak periods the production of many fruit and vegetable crops would not be possible.6 The presence of farmworkers has been shown to increase the overall economic output of the regions in which they work. Eliminating the presence of farmworkers or switching to less labor-intensive crops has been shown to have a negative impact on regions and to reduce the number of jobs available to permanent local residents. 7

Legal Status
The farmworker population is racially and culturally diverse, and there are varying opinions on their legal status. The data from the most recent NAWS study indicates that 52% of farmworkers are not citizens or legal residents of the United States8, while another report from the same time period argues that the majority of migrant and seasonal farmworkers are U.S. citizens or legal residents. 9 Regardless of their residency status, many farmworkers report experiencing prejudice and hostility in the communities in which they live and work.

Wages and Benefits
Migrant and seasonal farmworkers represent some of the most economically disadvantaged people in the U.S.10 According to the most recent findings of the NAWS, nearly three-quarters of U.S. farmworkers earn less than $10,000 per year and three out of five farmworker families have incomes below the poverty level.11

In addition to the low wages, farmworkers rarely have access to workers compensation, occupational rehabilitation, or disability compensation benefits. 12 Only 12 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands provide farmworkers with workers compensation to the same degree as other workers; in 13 other states, farmworker coverage is optional but not required by state law.13

Tatyana
15th February 2011, 05:30 AM
*cough* Canada *cough*

The standard of living is an issue, but it isn't the only issue.

population of Mexico = 107,431,225

population of Canada = 33,739,900

Having to resort to the 'coughs' thing is a really crappy and stroppy argument technique.

Tatyana
15th February 2011, 05:36 AM
I skipped to the end of this thread, so pardon me if it's been mentioned already, but the first question that comes to mind from the above legislative proposal is this: What about tourists?

According to the Arizona Office of Tourism, in 2009 the state welcomed a total of 21.2 million visitors who were not residents of the state. Of those, 8 million arrived by air.

And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the immigrants came from Canada.

Think snowbirds.

Biscuit
15th February 2011, 08:36 AM
Seeing as how there are fewer employers of illegal immigrants than there are illegal immigrants it makes sense to go after the employers. If you really want to solve a problem you look for the easiest solution, right?

Anyone who truly wants to solve the problem of illegal immigrants would do themselves well to remove the reason for the illegal immigrants coming here. If you are not willing to start there than I do not believe you actual want to solve the problem.

SB1070, this law, a higher/wider wall - these are BS and will do nothing to impact illegal immigration. They will make people look like rabid racists, divide my community, and drive people further into the shadows.

You want proof of this solution I am proposing? As our economy has taken a nose dive and jobs have become more scarce for everyone the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border has gone down.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 09:36 AM
screw it...

just change the 14th Amendment to say that any person born on planet Earth is a U.S. citizen and entitled to American taxpayer funded EVERYTHING!

How about we split the difference and say anyone with the motivation, fortitude, and courage to make a long and dangerous journey to get here so they can work harder to earn much less than the people who were born here gets to stay, and anyone born here who is all butt-hurt about that (especially if it is mostly because they look different or have an accent) can GTFO?

That's what I'd like to see. That's what would be good for the America I could believe in.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 09:47 AM
I think you are forgetting the issue that the US NEEDS migrant farm labour.
But we don't NEED far workers doing difficult and dangerous work for poverty wages. But so long as we import seasonal laborers for the sole reason they'll work for cheap thwn we in fact have the goal of 3 million people working for poverty wages. I don;t think this is a goal any civilized country should have.

Importing labor from Mexico has its origins in WWII, when for obvious reasons there was a shortage of able-bodied people to bring the crops in. But then farmers and later agribusiness conglomerates got addicted to this cheap labor, much as plantation owners in the old south were addicted to slave labor. And just as those plantations learned they didn't need slave labor to survive, agribusiness corporations will discover they don;t have to keep 3 million people in abject poverty in order to survive.

Frankly, it shocks me that people here are acting like they're doung the farm workers a big favor by keeping them in abject poverty, where there's often 30 or 40 people sharing a single bathroom.

Wages and Benefits
Migrant and seasonal farmworkers represent some of the most economically disadvantaged people in the U.S.10 According to the most recent findings of the NAWS, nearly three-quarters of U.S. farmworkers earn less than $10,000 per year and three out of five farmworker families have incomes below the poverty level.11

In addition to the low wages, farmworkers rarely have access to workers compensation, occupational rehabilitation, or disability compensation benefits. 12 Only 12 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands provide farmworkers with workers compensation to the same degree as other workers; in 13 other states, farmworker coverage is optional but not required by state law.13
This is supposed to be A Good ThingTM? Frankly, I think it's a national disgrace. And the only thing keeping farm wages down is the continuous influx of illegal foreign labor which undercuts any wage, benefit, and working condition improvements which would be the inevitable result of being forced to hire domestic labor.

Look at the United Farm Workers union, what other union has been in existence for 50 years and still has members working for poverty wages and no benefits? This union has completely and utterly failed in their mission, and they don't seem to have the slightest clue as to why that is the case.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 09:49 AM
How about we split the difference and say anyone with the motivation, fortitude, and courage to make a long and dangerous journey to get here so they can work harder to earn much less than the people who were born here gets to stay, and anyone born here who is all butt-hurt about that (especially if it is mostly because they look different or have an accent) can GTFO?

That's what I'd like to see. That's what would be good for the America I could believe in.
Why do you think this is a desireable thing? Do you think wages and benefits and working conditions in the US are too generous?

Thunder
15th February 2011, 09:52 AM
easy solution:

1. Pass the Real ID Act.

2. Require all Americans to provide a state or federally issued ID when they apply for a job.

3. Offer $10,000 reward for reporting someone who hires illegal labor.

4. Institute $10,000 fine and/or mandatory 5 years prison time to anyone who hires an illegal laborer.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 09:53 AM
Seeing as how there are fewer employers of illegal immigrants than there are illegal immigrants it makes sense to go after the employers. If you really want to solve a problem you look for the easiest solution, right?
I agree. But what are you actually willing to do to bring this about? Unannounced workplace ICE inspections? Steep fines for employers who are caught, possibly jail time for repeat offenders? What about the guys who pick up illegal day laborers, should ICE conduct sting operations against them as well?

What, exactly, do you propose to "go after the employers"? And what do you do with the illegal aliens you discover in the process?

technoextreme
15th February 2011, 09:54 AM
It will not go to restaurants because that is not hurting the economy like the unpaid hospital bills from illegal aliens. I would suspect that is the main impetus behind this bill.

How much pressure is it to present your VISA.

I am not in favor of the bill but I can clearly see why people can be in favor of it and not be terrible racist monsters.
Dude it makes you a terrible jackass because if you know anything about medical ethics you are essentially forcing doctors and nurses to do something that for all intents and purposes that completely opposes their profession. I said it back on the first page. This idiocy is a violation of the hippocratic oath and is in direct conflict of how a doctor should behave.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 10:01 AM
Why do you think this is a desireable thing? Do you think wages and benefits and working conditions in the US are too generous?

The market seems to think so if there needs to be protectionist immigration laws propping up those wages, that are regularly and systematically flouted by workers and employers.


And I'm not saying it is "desirable", only that it is simply a fact that these people that are willing to put themselves at risk for these jobs work harder and are not paid as well as people born here, yet they still come. And the people born here think that these jobs, at higher wages and for much better conditions, are something they are somehow entitled to for no other reason or or without any effort except accident of birth.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 10:03 AM
oops

WildCat
15th February 2011, 10:07 AM
The market seems to think so if there needs to be protectionist immigration laws propping up those wages, that are regularly and systematically flouted by workers and employers.
So you want to eliminate minimum wage, workplace safety rules, etc etc, and just default to whatever standards the nearest developing country has?

WildCat
15th February 2011, 10:10 AM
And I'm not saying it is "desirable", only that it is simply a fact that these people that are willing to put themselves at risk for these jobs work harder and are not paid as well as people born here, yet they still come. And the people born here think that these jobs, at higher wages and for much better conditions, think they are somehow entitled to them for no other reason or or without any effort except accident of birth.
Yes, people born in the US expect to live better than people in Mexico or Slovakia or Pakistan.

I don't know why you think that is a problem.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 10:14 AM
So you want to eliminate minimum wage, workplace safety rules, etc etc, and just default to whatever standards the nearest developing country has?

No. I'm saying take down the barriers to immigration that make circumventing these standards an attractive option. If it wasn't so difficult to get into this country, then people wouldn't need to break these bad laws to get here, and that couldn't be held as leverage against them by the unscrupulous employers to pay them **** wages under the table.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 10:15 AM
Yes, people born in the US expect to live better than people in Mexico or Slovakia or Pakistan.

I don't know why you think that is a problem.

Why should they expect that? What did they do to make this country what it is?

Contrariwise, why should someone born in Mexico be content to living to a lower standard than his neighbor to the north? What did he do to warrant that?

I think it is a problem because it is essentially a caste system based on where one was born rather than who one's relatives are.

Biscuit
15th February 2011, 10:22 AM
I agree. But what are you actually willing to do to bring this about? Unannounced workplace ICE inspections? Steep fines for employers who are caught, possibly jail time for repeat offenders? What about the guys who pick up illegal day laborers, should ICE conduct sting operations against them as well?

What, exactly, do you propose to "go after the employers"? And what do you do with the illegal aliens you discover in the process?

Well we can start by enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

Legal AZ workers act (http://www.azag.gov/LegalAZWorkersAct/)

I think this law has been used twice since it was enacted but everyone in Tucson can name at least one employer that has an illegal working for them. Big business that depend on cheap foreign labor ham-stringed the enforcement of this law before it even passed.

What we don't need to do is waste our time with laws that are designed to punish illegal immigrants and minorities in general that will do nothing to actually solve illegal immigration.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 10:31 AM
Why should they expect that? What did they do to make this country what it is?
We expect that because we implemented wage and workplace safety and environmental laws to raise the standard of living in the US. Higher wages means a larger tax base upon which schools and roads and clean water and clean air projects can be funded.

IOW, we want to live in a first world country, not in some hellhole with rampant corruption and open sewers in streets lined with tarpaper tin-roof shacks.

Contrariwise, why should someone born in Mexico be content to living to a lower standard than his neighbor to the north? What did he do to warrant that?
They shouldn't be content, they should be demanding a government free from corruption that looks after the best interests of their citizens. If they want to emigrate they should do so by legal means.

It is not the responsibility of the US to relieve Mexico of its duties to its citizens. If this is what Mexico really wants they should explore ways to become part of the US, and if not they should work to solve their own problems like every other country is supposed to do.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 10:35 AM
Well we can start by enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

Legal AZ workers act (http://www.azag.gov/LegalAZWorkersAct/)
Now you want the states to enforce immigration laws?

What we don't need to do is waste our time with laws that are designed to punish illegal immigrants and minorities in general that will do nothing to actually solve illegal immigration.
How do you "go after the employers" without affecting the illegal immigrants they employ?

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 10:53 AM
We expect that because we implemented wage and workplace safety and environmental laws to raise the standard of living in the US.
You're thinking about people in abstract. Think about specific people. Think about averge Joe Smith American, brand spanking new out of his momma's womb. He didn't implement ****, yet he gets to reap all the benefits of what his predecessors before him did- while a thousand miles south, Jose Martinez Mexican gets to suffer a much lower standard of living for what his predeccessors did or did not do.

Why is Joe "entitled" to the better standard of living? Why is Jose not? What makes it right for Joe to try and prevent Jose from joining him in his better standard of living?

Higher wages means a larger tax base upon which schools and roads and clean water and clean air projects can be funded.
So does more people working.

IOW, we want to live in a first world country, not in some hellhole with rampant corruption and open sewers in streets lined with tarpaper tin-roof shacks.
Why shouldn't a Mexican be expected to want that also- just because he wasn't born into it?

They shouldn't be content, they should be demanding a government free from corruption that looks after the best interests of their citizens.
Why not just join the one that already exists? The one that is supposed to welcome people like him?

If they want to emigrate they should do so by legal means.
We've put up barriers to that.

It is not the responsibility of the US to relieve Mexico of its duties to its citizens. If this is what Mexico really wants they should explore ways to become part of the US, and if not they should work to solve their own problems like every other country is supposed to do.
Countries aren't people. "Mexico" doesn't want anything, neither does "America" have responsibilities. People do. Stop thinking about these imaginary abstract concepts like "America" and "Mexico" as meaningful and look at actual people. A person isn't magically better than other people for being born on a certain peice of dirt, anymore than they are a better person for being born with a particular surname.

Biscuit
15th February 2011, 10:57 AM
Now you want the states to enforce immigration laws?

I guess you didn't read that. The law is actually an employment law and so you don't have to ask, yes I do want the state to enforce employment law.

But a funny thing happened on the way to becoming a law. These same republicans who hate illegal immigration, who swear to end it, who will pass useless law after useless law were persuaded to gut the enforcement of this law by the very businesses it would be used against.

You see no one in government and no one in business actually want to end illegal immigration. They make too much money off of it. Thats why when a law that would actually cut back on illegal immigration is passed they don't enforce it. Instead they pass ignorant and dangerous laws that merely punish illegals without addressing any of the issues involved.


How do you "go after the employers" without affecting the illegal immigrants they employ?

I have already told you I want to start with a guest worker program. Because what you and others refer to as 'illegals' and 'criminals' I call my neighbors, my bartender, my gym partner, my favorite waitress, my best friend in high school. You see I live with these people and I want them to be here legally.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 11:08 AM
I guess you didn't read that. The law is actually an employment law and so you don't have to ask, yes I do want the state to enforce employment law.

But a funny thing happened on the way to becoming a law. These same republicans who hate illegal immigration, who swear to end it, who will pass useless law after useless law were persuaded to gut the enforcement of this law by the very businesses it would be used against.

You see no one in government and no one in business actually want to end illegal immigration. They make too much money off of it. Thats why when a law that would actually cut back on illegal immigration is passed they don't enforce it. Instead they pass ignorant and dangerous laws that merely punish illegals without addressing any of the issues involved.

"Cheap labour's great, but you can't let 'em get uppity- look what happened with them darkies."

I have already told you I want to start with a guest worker program. Because what you and others refer to as 'illegals' and 'criminals' I call my neighbors, my bartender, my gym partner, my favorite waitress, my best friend in high school. You see I live with these people and I want them to be here legally.

rAmen.

Giz
15th February 2011, 11:23 AM
This bill will make sure that some of the most exposed and vulnerable in my community will not seek medical attention. If one little boy or girl is killed because her parents were afraid they would be deported... this thought is just too sad and pathetic. We are better than this.



While I understand your sentiment, if parents were not taking their kid to hospital because they fear what it will mean to their standard of living... then they are just horrible parents and they should be coming in for more condemnation than the Bill.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 11:26 AM
While I understand your sentiment, if parents were not taking their kid to hospital because they fear what it will mean to their standard of living... then they are just horrible parents and they should be coming in for more condemnation than the Bill.

It's not always just "fear [of] what it will mean to their standard of living"- some of these people are fleeing real, actual, mortal danger.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 11:33 AM
You're thinking about people in abstract. Think about specific people. Think about averge Joe Smith American, brand spanking new out of his momma's womb. He didn't implement ****, yet he gets to reap all the benefits of what his predecessors before him did- while a thousand miles south, Jose Martinez Mexican gets to suffer a much lower standard of living for what his predeccessors did or did not do.

Why is Joe "entitled" to the better standard of living? Why is Jose not? What makes it right for Joe to try and prevent Jose from joining him in his better standard of living?
I never said anyone is entitled to anything. But yes, someone born in the US is far more likely to have a better life than someone born in Malawi or Mexico. But that isn't the fault of the US, nor is it the responsibility of the US.

So does more people working.
Not if those people working are making $10,000/year, like the 3 million migrant farm workers.

Why shouldn't a Mexican be expected to want that also- just because he wasn't born into it?
Why shouldn't I be able to avail myself of the British NHS when I get sick, just because I wasn't born into it? Shouldn't I have the rght to get treated for any illness in the UK for the price of the plane ticket?

Why not just join the one that already exists? The one that is supposed to welcome people like him?
No first-world country welcomes droves of unskilled workers from undeveloped countries.

We've put up barriers to that.
Because like every other country on the planet the US has decided its not in our best interest to allow sanctuary to droves of unskilled immigrants.

Countries aren't people. "Mexico" doesn't want anything, neither does "America" have responsibilities. People do. Stop thinking about these imaginary abstract concepts like "America" and "Mexico" as meaningful and look at actual people. A person isn't magically better than other people for being born on a certain peice of dirt, anymore than they are a better person for being born with a particular surname.
Why do you focus only on Mexico? Shouldn't the billions of impoverished Indians and Chinese and other people the world over have the right to emigrate to the US without restriction?

WildCat
15th February 2011, 11:44 AM
I guess you didn't read that. The law is actually an employment law and so you don't have to ask, yes I do want the state to enforce employment law.

But a funny thing happened on the way to becoming a law. These same republicans who hate illegal immigration, who swear to end it, who will pass useless law after useless law were persuaded to gut the enforcement of this law by the very businesses it would be used against.
I don't know if this is even true, but its irrelevant in any case since it's not my position. I'd like to make the penalties for hiring illegal workers on par with the ones for hiring children or using slave labor.

You see no one in government and no one in business actually want to end illegal immigration.
I do, try to address me instead of your strawman.

I have already told you I want to start with a guest worker program. Because what you and others refer to as 'illegals' and 'criminals' I call my neighbors, my bartender, my gym partner, my favorite waitress, my best friend in high school. You see I live with these people and I want them to be here legally.
Ah, back to your mysterious guest worker program you refuse to define, nor explain how it would work or what problems it would solve.

How does a guest worker program enable you to "go after employers"?

You repeatedly have said you want to "go after the employers", yet don't explain how you can do this without affecting the workers they hired illegally.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 11:46 AM
"Cheap labour's great, but you can't let 'em get uppity- look what happened with them darkies."
Ironically, the pro-illegal immigrant people are using the exact same arguments that slave owners used to justify slavery. Actually it's not so ironic, as the position of both groups is that we need a steady supply of cheap labor to exploit.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 11:46 AM
I never said anyone is entitled to anything.
You don't have too. It's inherent in the attitude that America and the benefits of being born American should be protected from those not born American, with harsh, highly restrictive immigration laws.

But yes, someone born in the US is far more likely to have a better life than someone born in Malawi or Mexico. But that isn't the fault of the US, nor is it the responsibility of the US.
It becomes the "fault and repsonsibility" of the people in the US when they try to institutionalize this unfairness.

Not if those people working are making $10,000/year, like the 3 million migrant farm workers.
Show me the numbers that prove that.

Why shouldn't I be able to avail myself of the British NHS when I get sick, just because I wasn't born into it? Shouldn't I have the rght to get treated for any illness in the UK for the price of the plane ticket?
You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people should be given a free ride. But you should have the option of joining that society if you like the way they do things there, of working alongside the people that were born there, paying the same taxes, making the same sacrifices and enjoying the same benefits if you are willing to do it... regardless of what peice of dirt you came from.

No first-world country welcomes droves of unskilled workers from undeveloped countries.
We used to.

Because like every other country on the planet the US has decided its not in our best interest to allow sanctuary to droves of unskilled immigrants.
Because of overt racism, economic protectionism, and misguided nationalism.

Why do you focus only on Mexico?
Because I live in Arizona. It's the 500lb gorrila here.

Shouldn't the billions of impoverished Indians and Chinese and other people the world over have the right to emigrate to the US without restriction?
Where did I say "without restriction"?

But Indians and Chinese should be welcome as well (we've historically not done right by the Chinese much, either... in case you didn't know). Anyone.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 11:50 AM
Ironically, the pro-illegal immigrant people
What "pro-illegal immigrant people"? The business people and the government people that Biscuit mentioned that make a lot of noise and do nothing signifigant? Those people? The ones I was mocking just there?

gnome
15th February 2011, 12:00 PM
Let's turn the tables a bit, shall we say anyone receiving care at a hospital shall be turned away for non-emergency care, and reported after receiving emergency care, if they cannot prove that everyone they employ is a legal worker in the US?

Trax seems happy to ignore the questions of practicality and focus on the morality. So let's do that for this--assuming it could be done, would it be a good idea? After all, they are breaking the law, they shouldn't do that if they're worried they might need hospital care.

Something else not yet addressed--the impact to LEGAL citizens of the area if the illegals near them fail to be treated for something contagious. Is that worth it?

If you really think the illegal immigrants themselves are the problem, reduce their numbers rationally--by cracking down on employers. Go for the guy who breaks the law to inflate their profits or save a dishonest buck, instead of the guy who breaks the law to feed their family. Go for the guy who drives wages and working conditions down because they can turn aside uppity Americans and give the job to one of the five guys scratching at the window that won't ask for breaks.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 12:09 PM
Trax seems happy to ignore the questions of practicality and focus on the morality.

Hiding racism and its insidious twin, nationalism, behind an odious appeal to legalism has nothing whatsoever to do with "morality".

WildCat
15th February 2011, 12:17 PM
It becomes the "fault and repsonsibility" of the people in the US when they try to institutionalize this unfairness.
220 years of efforts to improve the general welfare of Americans is now "institutionalized unfairness"? :boggled:

Show me the numbers that prove that.
People making poverty wages are net consumers of government services, not net contributors. The value of Medicaid insurance alone for a family making $10,000/year exceeds their entire income. It's impossible for such a family to be net contributors.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people should be given a free ride. But you should have the option of joining that society if you like the way they do things there, of working alongside the people that were born there, paying the same taxes, making the same sacrifices and enjoying the same benefits if you are willing to do it... regardless of what peice of dirt you came from.
There are legal ways for foreigners to emigrate to the US. But it's not in our interest to import low-skilled workers for the sole reason that they will work cheaper than domestic low-skilled workers.

We used to.
Back when 95% of people in the US were farm laborers, and even then only if you were a white European. But as it stands now we don't need more unskilled labor in the US, nor do we need warm bodies to settle the vast stretches of unclaimed land we had 100 years ago.

Because of overt racism, economic protectionism, and misguided nationalism.
Or because we like living in a first world country. This is not protectionism, I wish you would stop misusing that word. People are not goods.

Where did I say "without restriction"?
So what restrictions would you impose?

But Indians and Chinese should be welcome as well (we've historically not done right by the Chinese much, either... in case you didn't know). Anyone.
And they are welcome. Chicago's Chinatown, for example, expanded into the adjacent neighborhoods because of the influx of Chinese getting out of Hong Kong when it reverted to Chinese rule.

But it wasn't the poor unskilled Chinese who entered then, it was the skilled workers who were net assets to our society. And it's much the same with Mexican immigrants. Skilled professionals are welcomed here, however there is no need for droves of unskilled workers. As it stands, we have milllions of able-bodied Americans who make the rational choice of living as welfare recipients rather than work for the low wages which are the result of illegal labor.

Don't you think a low-skilled American worker should be able to find a job that doesn't pay poverty wages? Don't you think wages would rise if there wasn't a constant influx of illegal workers willing to work for 3rd-world wages in a first-world country?

Biscuit
15th February 2011, 12:29 PM
I don't know if this is even true, but its irrelevant in any case since it's not my position. I'd like to make the penalties for hiring illegal workers on par with the ones for hiring children or using slave labor.

No problems from me on that one.


I do, try to address me instead of your strawman.

It's not a strawman, its what happened. I wasn't saying that it was your position. Just illustrating that none of the laws that would actually deal with the problem of illegal immigration are ever followed through on. Instead they pass laws to harass illegal immigrants. This serves no purpose.


Ah, back to your mysterious guest worker program you refuse to define, nor explain how it would work or what problems it would solve.

I haven't not written it out in the form of a bill to be submitted to the legislator but I have explained my intent behind such a program, I have listed a number of problems it would help to solve, and I have explained that it is a first step in solving illegal immigration. I did all of the above in the previous thread we discussed this in, please don't make me link to it as you know full well that it is there.

How does a guest worker program enable you to "go after employers"?

Well, you would have guest workers that are legal to hire provided you follow all employment laws. Then you could target companies that are hiring illegal immigrants. Companies that depend for one reason or another on a non citizen could get their employe and companies that want to exploit people could be caught and punished.


You repeatedly have said you want to "go after the employers", yet don't explain how you can do this without affecting the workers they hired illegally.

Of course I want to go after employers but I am not myopic in my approach to a complex issue. Its only one step towards what I see as the best solution. Go after the employers while providing a path for legitimate work for the workers.

I would like to solve illegal immigration not by removing all of the illegal immigrants. I would like to solve it by legitimizing their presence and their work here. I would like to improve their lot in life and acknowledge their contributions to my community.

ETA - I would honestly consider a fast track if you are sponsored by a U.S. company. I recall my families business did this with an Irish kid a number of years ago. Of course the employe would have to meet certain requirements. Clean back ground check, contracted to work, ect.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 01:15 PM
220 years of efforts to improve the general welfare of Americans is now "institutionalized unfairness"? :boggled:
It is when you try to keep it from people that want to join in for no other reason than they weren't born here.

There are legal ways for foreigners to emigrate to the US.
And they are Byzantine and complex and set as barriers to protect those who were born here- regardless of merit- from those who were not- again, regardless of merit.

But it's not in our interest to import low-skilled workers for the sole reason that they will work cheaper than domestic low-skilled workers.
That's not the "sole reason" people come here, though. What makes the domestic low-skilled workers more special they need to be protected from the ones that are not?

Back when 95% of people in the US were farm laborers, and even then only if you were a white European. But as it stands now we don't need more unskilled labor in the US, nor do we need warm bodies to settle the vast stretches of unclaimed land we had 100 years ago.
Seems like we do still need farm laborers, if we're still hiring them.

Or because we like living in a first world country.
Are you saying we can only live in a "first world country" if we make sure people born elsewhere can't join?

This is not protectionism, I wish you would stop misusing that word. People are not goods.
Economically, their labour is.

So what restrictions would you impose?
I don't have all the answers. Fewer than what we have now. For starters, the inherent literacy requirements are pretty steep. There's a lot of paperwork, meaning lawyers. basically what it boils down to on average is that you can only immigrate legally if you have enough money you don't really need to.

And they are welcome. Chicago's Chinatown, for example, expanded into the adjacent neighborhoods because of the influx of Chinese getting out of Hong Kong when it reverted to Chinese rule.
Now they are.

But it wasn't the poor unskilled Chinese who entered then, it was the skilled workers who were net assets to our society. And it's much the same with Mexican immigrants. Skilled professionals are welcomed here, however there is no need for droves of unskilled workers. As it stands, we have milllions of able-bodied Americans who make the rational choice of living as welfare recipients rather than work for the low wages which are the result of illegal labor.
And you think they are perfectly within their rights to be a drain on society because they were born here, but the one coming to do the work they won't should just **** off because they weren't?

Don't you think a low-skilled American worker should be able to find a job that doesn't pay poverty wages?
Not just because he's "American". Low-skilled is low-skilled, no matter what peice of dirt he was born on. If he's going to work an unskilled "third-world" job why should he expect to get paid more than an actual "third worlder"? There's nothing special or noble or inherently valuable about being born an "American".

Don't you think wages would rise if there wasn't a constant influx of illegal workers willing to work for 3rd-world wages in a first-world country?
Yes. That's why I'm calling it "protectionism"- increasing the market value of a good (labour) by creating laws that artificially reduce supply of that good. Doing so on the basis of accident of place of birth (because "our people" are somehow inherently better than "those people") is nationalism, and often racism to boot. I called it "misguided" because "Americans" are exactly the same sort of humans as the ones living on all the other little bits of dirt.

LightningTeg
15th February 2011, 02:09 PM
blame the Mexican parents. I worked with one at the local pizza hut in high school shops that had 4 kids since she "immigrated" to America with 3 more back in mexico she was providing for. Responsibility my ass

WildCat
15th February 2011, 02:16 PM
Well, you would have guest workers that are legal to hire provided you follow all employment laws. Then you could target companies that are hiring illegal immigrants. Companies that depend for one reason or another on a non citizen could get their employe and companies that want to exploit people could be caught and punished.
I've hilited the flaw in your plan. They aren't following the law, and there's nothing in your plan to ensure they do. In fact, you seem to think that an employer who is hiring illegal workers from Mexico (for example) hires them because he wants to hire Mexicans, rather than hiring them because they'll work for less than legal workers. If you make legal workers from Mexico available he'll still hire the illegal ones, because they'll be cheaper to employ.

And if you try to make the case that they won't be cheaper to employ than legal guest workers from Mexico then you reveal that the sole purpose of the guest worker program is in fact to lower wages and benefits to the price point of illegal workers.

Of course I want to go after employers but I am not myopic in my approach to a complex issue. Its only one step towards what I see as the best solution. Go after the employers while providing a path for legitimate work for the workers.
So these workers who arrived illegally get to jump in line in front of those waiting to enter legally?

I would like to solve illegal immigration not by removing all of the illegal immigrants. I would like to solve it by legitimizing their presence and their work here. I would like to improve their lot in life and acknowledge their contributions to my community.
What about low-skilled Americans who now have to either collect welfare or work for poverty wages because that's the price point set by the foreign workers? Why should their needs take a back seat to those of foreigners?

ETA - I would honestly consider a fast track if you are sponsored by a U.S. company. I recall my families business did this with an Irish kid a number of years ago. Of course the employe would have to meet certain requirements. Clean back ground check, contracted to work, ect.
Look, I'd be all for a guest woirker program if there was an actual labor shortage in the US. However, we don't have a labor shortage. If we did even low-skilled jobs would have to pay decent wages in order to attract workers.

This is basic economics. If you increase the supply of low-skilled workers at a time when low-skilled jobs are not increasing (such as now) then you are driving wages downward. I don't think that low-skilled workers in the US are making too much money today. I also don't think it's in the best interest of the US to create a climate that encourages a decline in wages and benefits, and that's exactly what is happening now by tolerating the massive amounts of illegal immigration we have today.

Did you know Illinois law prohibits employers from checking whether the SS number of an employee is legitimate? This is insanity.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 02:22 PM
It is when you try to keep it from people that want to join in for no other reason than they weren't born here.
Theoretiocal question here Piscivore: Suppose the US adopts a policy of allowing immigration to anyone who wants to work here, except say known criminals. Now suppose that India does the math, and realizes that for $1,000 or so per head they can send 300 million of their lowest-skilled, least educated, poorest citizens to the US and save money in the long run in reduced demand for social services in India.

Do you think the US will be better off with these 300 million new residents, worse off, or indifferent?

GlennB
15th February 2011, 02:33 PM
Theoretiocal question here Piscivore: Suppose the US adopts a policy of allowing immigration to anyone who wants to work here, except say known criminals. Now suppose that India does the math, and realizes that for $1,000 or so per head they can send 300 million of their lowest-skilled, least educated, poorest citizens to the US and save money in the long run in reduced demand for social services in India.

Do you think the US will be better off with these 300 million new residents, worse off, or indifferent?

I think you'd need to demonstrate the existence of 'social services' in India that apply to the 300 mill you refer to. And then we'd worry about the state of India (and so would India) without the small farmers, trash collectors, lunch-carriers, cooks, taxi drivers, casual labourers and cleaners. etc. etc. etc.

India would fold overnight without those people, so yours is a silly question.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 02:43 PM
blame the Mexican parents. I worked with one at the local pizza hut in high school shops that had 4 kids since she "immigrated" to America with 3 more back in mexico she was providing for. Responsibility my ass

You think there aren't native born white Americans like that?

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 02:55 PM
Theoretiocal question here Piscivore: Suppose the US adopts a policy of allowing immigration to anyone who wants to work here, except say known criminals. Now suppose that India does the math, and realizes that for $1,000 or so per head they can send 300 million of their lowest-skilled, least educated, poorest citizens to the US and save money in the long run in reduced demand for social services in India.

Do you think the US will be better off with these 300 million new residents, worse off, or indifferent?

I don't have psychic powers. There are thousands of factors that could effect the outcome. Turn it around. Suppose that India does the math, and realizes that for $1,000 or so per head they can exile 300 million of their lowest-skilled, least educated, poorest citizens to "anywhere but here" and save money in the long run in reduced demand for social services in India.

Is that anything us natural born "Americans" need to care about?

From a human decency stand point, I don't think we're any less morally obligated- in either scenario- to help them than people that are born here.

But I'll tell you one thing- population statistics seem to be trending towards your "first world" greying and shrinking... we might want to pay a little more attention to what these dirty, brown "third worlders" can offer us, "long term", as much as what we can give them right now.

Or, you know, in a decade or two, when the bulk of the population is to old to do real work, our economy contracts even further, and suddenly no one can afford this "first world" lifestyle anymore... "we" can start trying to sneak into China for the good jobs.

ETA: You didn't answer my questions.
Are you saying we can only live in a "first world country" if we make sure "unskilled" people born elsewhere can't join?

What makes the domestic low-skilled workers more special they need to be protected from the ones that are not?

Do you think the "milllions of able-bodied Americans who make the rational choice of living as welfare recipients rather than work for the low wages which are the result of illegal labor" you mentioned are perfectly within their rights to be a drain on society because they were born here, but the one coming to do the work they won't should just **** off because they weren't born here?

And a new one- Why don't we exile our ""milllions of able-bodied Americans who make the rational choice of living as welfare recipients rather than work for the low wages" their "third world" skillset pays?

I think you'd need to demonstrate the existence of 'social services' in India that apply to the 300 mill you refer to. And then we'd worry about the state of India (and so would India) without the small farmers, trash collectors, lunch-carriers, cooks, taxi drivers, casual labourers and cleaners. etc. etc. etc.

India would fold overnight without those people, so yours is a silly question.
This too. Is this the "B-Ark" fallacy? :)

fishbob
15th February 2011, 03:27 PM
I agree. But what are you actually willing to do to bring this about? Unannounced workplace ICE inspections? Steep fines for employers who are caught, possibly jail time for repeat offenders? What about the guys who pick up illegal day laborers, should ICE conduct sting operations against them as well?

What, exactly, do you propose to "go after the employers"? And what do you do with the illegal aliens you discover in the process?

Yes,
Yes,
Yes,
Send them home, just like we do now.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 04:14 PM
Theoretiocal question here Piscivore:

Not-so-theoretical question for you, Wildcat. Who do you think makes a better potential citizen and economic contributor:

A: A native born "first-worlder" raised to expect (and feeling entitled to) a "first-world" lifestyle, given access to a "first world" education, that somehow through indolence and poor motivation only manages to acquire a "third-world" skillset, suitible only for a "third-world" job yet still expecting a "first-world" paycheck and lifestyle...

OR

B: A native born "third-worlder" raised in a "third-world" lifestyle, given access to a "third world" education (if at all), that nevertheless (or even therefore) posesses a high degree of motivation to improve both his skillset and/or education (and if not for himself, then his offspring) and willing to accept even modest improvements in both paycheck and lifestyle.

BobTheDonkey
15th February 2011, 04:45 PM
Not-so-theoretical question for you, Wildcat. Who do you think makes a better potential citizen and economic contributor:

A: A native born "first-worlder" raised to expect (and feeling entitled to) a "first-world" lifestyle, given access to a "first world" education, that somehow through indolence and poor motivation only manages to acquire a "third-world" skillset, suitible only for a "third-world" job yet still expecting a "first-world" paycheck and lifestyle...

OR

B: A native born "third-worlder" raised in a "third-world" lifestyle, given access to a "third world" education (if at all), that nevertheless (or even therefore) posesses a high degree of motivation to improve both his skillset and/or education (and if not for himself, then his offspring) and willing to accept even modest improvements in both paycheck and lifestyle.

Gah, you're such a socialist.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 06:01 PM
Not-so-theoretical question for you, Wildcat. Who do you think makes a better potential citizen and economic contributor:

A: A native born "first-worlder" raised to expect (and feeling entitled to) a "first-world" lifestyle, given access to a "first world" education, that somehow through indolence and poor motivation only manages to acquire a "third-world" skillset, suitible only for a "third-world" job yet still expecting a "first-world" paycheck and lifestyle...

OR

B: A native born "third-worlder" raised in a "third-world" lifestyle, given access to a "third world" education (if at all), that nevertheless (or even therefore) posesses a high degree of motivation to improve both his skillset and/or education (and if not for himself, then his offspring) and willing to accept even modest improvements in both paycheck and lifestyle.
It's a false dichotomy. IRL there are illegal immigrants coming into the country just to mooch off relatives or a girlfriend, and there are low-skilled domestic workers who do have a high degree of motivation to better themselves. But most people in both groups are neither bums nor supermen, and will be somewhere in between.

Tatyana
15th February 2011, 06:10 PM
Why shouldn't I be able to avail myself of the British NHS when I get sick, just because I wasn't born into it? Shouldn't I have the rght to get treated for any illness in the UK for the price of the plane ticket?



You are entitled to some care for illness if you are in the UK.

It goes on and on, there are also humanitarian reasons for free treatment, for example, if the treatment is not available in your own country.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_113268.pdf


Services exempted from charges
3. No charge shall be made in respect of any services forming part of the health service
provided for an overseas visitoró
(a) at a hospital accident and emergency department, or casualty department, unless
and until he has been accepted as an in-patient at the hospital, for treatment of
the condition in respect of which such services are provided; or
(aa) at a walk-in centre in respect of services similar to those at an accident and
emergency department of a hospital; or
(b) otherwise than at, or by staff employed to work at, or under the direction of, a
hospital; or
(bb) consisting of the provision of family planning services; or
(c) for treatment in respect of a disease listed in Schedule 1; or
(d) at a special clinic for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases or in respect
of a sexually transmitted disease by virtue of a reference from such a clinic, but
in the case of services which relate to infection with any Human
Immunodeficiency Virus, only to the extent that they consist of a diagnostic test
for evidence of infection with any such Virus and counselling associated with
that test or its result;
(e) who is detained in a hospital, or received into guardianship, under the Mental
Health Act 1983 or any other enactment authorising orders for admission to, and
detention in, hospital by reason of mental disorder; or
(f) with a view to the improvement of his mental condition where submission to the
treatment is, under section 3(1) of the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973,included by the Court in a probation order under section 2 of that Act.
Overseas visitors exempt from charges


DISEASES FOR THE TREATMENT OF WHICH NO CHARGE
IS TO BE MADE
PART I
NOTIFIABLE DISEASES
PUBLIC HEALTH (CONTROL OF DISEASE) ACT 1984, SECTION 10
PUBLIC HEALTH (INFECTIOUS DISEASES) REGULATIONS 1985
Cholera
Food poisoning
Plague
Relapsing fever
Smallpox
Typhus
PART II
DISEASES TO WHICH PUBLIC HEALTH ENACTMENTS APPLIED
PUBLIC HEALTH (INFECTIOUS DISEASES) REGULATIONS 1968
Acute encephalitis
Acute poliomyelitis
Amoebic dysentery
Anthrax
Bacillary dysentry
Diphtheria
Leprosy
Leptospirosis
Malaria
Measles
Meningitis
Meningococcal Septicaemia (without meningitis)
Mumps
Ophthalmia neonatorum
Paratyphoid fever
Rabies
Rubella
Scarlet fever
Tetanus
Tuberculosis
Typhoid fever
Viral haemorrhagic fever
Viral hepatitis
Whooping cough
Yellow fever
PART III
FOOD POISONING AND FOOD-BORNE INFECTIONS
PUBLIC HEALTH (INFECTIOUS DISEASES) REGULATIONS 1968
Salmonella infections
Staphylococcal infections likely to cause food poisoning
8
PART IV
OTHER DISEASES
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Pandemic influenza (influenza caused by a new virus subtype that has an increased and
sustained transmission during a global outbreak of influenza)
SCHEDULE 2
COUNTRIES OR TERRITORIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE UNITED
KINGDOM GOVERNMENT HAS ENTERED INTO A RECIPROCAL
AGREEMENT
Anguilla
Australia
Barbados
British Virgin Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Guernsey and its bailiwick
Iceland
Isle of Man
Israel
Jersey
Montserrat
New Zealand
Russian Federation
St Helena
Sweden
Turks and Caicos Islands
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (except the States of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the
Russian Federation)
Yugoslavia

WildCat
15th February 2011, 06:31 PM
I don't have psychic powers. There are thousands of factors that could effect the outcome. Turn it around. Suppose that India does the math, and realizes that for $1,000 or so per head they can exile 300 million of their lowest-skilled, least educated, poorest citizens to "anywhere but here" and save money in the long run in reduced demand for social services in India.

Is that anything us natural born "Americans" need to care about?
You really don't think there'd be reason to care? You don't think there'd be an enormous tax burden to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for 300 million people? You know, I used such a ridiculously high amount because I thought this would obviouly have a major impact on Americans, but I guess this isn't appaent to you.

From a human decency stand point, I don't think we're any less morally obligated- in either scenario- to help them than people that are born here.
So do you think the entire US social support system (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc) should be divvied up among the population of the entire world, instead of just Americans?

But I'll tell you one thing- population statistics seem to be trending towards your "first world" greying and shrinking... we might want to pay a little more attention to what these dirty, brown "third worlders" can offer us, "long term", as much as what we can give them right now.
I have no problems whatsoever with developing countries becoming developed countries. That would be a wonderful thing, and is in fact the best (and only IMHO) chance those billions of people in the developing world can achieve a first-world lifestyle. The US simply cannot do it for them. There simply aren't enough Americans to support them.

Or, you know, in a decade or two, when the bulk of the population is to old to do real work, our economy contracts even further, and suddenly no one can afford this "first world" lifestyle anymore... "we" can start trying to sneak into China for the good jobs.
China?! Ever hear of the "one child" policy? The problem you describe is much, much, much greater in China and will hit them far harder than it will the US. Then you'll be here saying we should open the door to 500 million Chinese... ;)

ETA: You didn't answer my questions.
Are you saying we can only live in a "first world country" if we make sure "unskilled" people born elsewhere can't join?
No, I'm saying growth should be controlled and based on need. If there comes a time when we do need low-skilled workers because of a genuine shortage of workers and not just a shortage of workers willing to bust their asses for poverty wages I'm all for letting them in.

What makes the domestic low-skilled workers more special they need to be protected from the ones that are not?
Because we have to pay for their housing, medical care, and nourishment if they're unable to find a job here.

Do you think the "milllions of able-bodied Americans who make the rational choice of living as welfare recipients rather than work for the low wages which are the result of illegal labor" you mentioned are perfectly within their rights to be a drain on society because they were born here, but the one coming to do the work they won't should just **** off because they weren't born here?
See above.

And a new one- Why don't we exile our ""milllions of able-bodied Americans who make the rational choice of living as welfare recipients rather than work for the low wages" their "third world" skillset pays?
Because the US takes responsibility for the plight of its citizens because we believe that is a core responsibility of the government. We don't shove them out the door to become someone else's problem like the Mexican government likes to do.

Maybe if the 6.6 million or so Mexican nationals illegally living in the US because they felt there was no hope in Mexico had stayed in Mexico they would have the political power to foment a positive political change there. And there's not a doubt in my mind this is why the Mexican government so actively encourages their citizens to emigrate, far better for the malcontents to leave than stay as an opposing political force as far as the powers in control are concerned.

Travis
15th February 2011, 06:42 PM
screw it...

just change the 14th Amendment to say that any person born on planet Earth is a U.S. citizen and entitled to American taxpayer funded EVERYTHING!

send every American a picture of someone else in another country (Mexico perhaps) to put up at work so they can see where all of their money is going.

"Jose, this ones for you!"...as I work furiously to complete the report by the deadline.

Yeah....that's exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:

Or maybe I meant that we should secure the border then legitimize the millions that are already here. The millions that are already part of the social fabric. The millions that are already working and productive. The millions that already pay taxes on the items they buy. The millions that would have no problem paying income taxes if they were legal.

My own family started off as illegal immigrants to America. So I know that they can fit in fine if given the chance.

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 06:50 PM
You really don't think there'd be reason to care? You don't think there'd be an enormous tax burden to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for 300 million people? You know, I used such a ridiculously high amount because I thought this would obviouly have a major impact on Americans, but I guess this isn't appaent to you.
Did you read what I actually wrote?

So do you think the entire US social support system (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc) should be divvied up among the population of the entire world, instead of just Americans?
No, but I think they should have an equal opportunity to become participants in the system. There is a huge field between "**** off" and "take all my stuff", you know.

I have no problems whatsoever with developing countries becoming developed countries. That would be a wonderful thing, and is in fact the best (and only IMHO) chance those billions of people in the developing world can achieve a first-world lifestyle. The US simply cannot do it for them. There simply aren't enough Americans to support them.
That's a pretty condescending attitude think we need to "support them". I guess brown people just can't ever make their own way?

No, I'm saying growth should be controlled and based on need.
Who's need?

Because we have to pay for their housing, medical care, and nourishment if they're unable to find a job here.
Why?

Because the US takes responsibility for the plight of its citizens because we believe that is a core responsibility of the government.
Then maybe we need to reconsider what constitutes "plight" for a citizen. If we've got "millions on welfare" because they can't get paid enough to support their "first world" lifestyles with a "third world" wage, maybe we're trying to maintain too high a lifestyle for them.

We don't shove them out the door to become someone else's problem like the Mexican government likes to do.

Another false dichotomy.

Maybe if the 6.6 million or so Mexican nationals illegally living in the US because they felt there was no hope in Mexico had stayed in Mexico they would have the political power to foment a positive political change there. And there's not a doubt in my mind this is why the Mexican government so actively encourages their citizens to emigrate, far better for the malcontents to leave than stay as an opposing political force as far as the powers in control are concerned.
Please. Like the drug dealers aren't a much more pressing "political force".

Piscivore
15th February 2011, 06:54 PM
It's a false dichotomy.
I wasn't setting them up as typical representatives of their particular situations. I want to know, given a choice between these two specific, unique individuals, which you think is a better potential citizen.

I want to know why you think being born "American" is so *********** special.

BobTheDonkey
15th February 2011, 08:01 PM
I wasn't setting them up as typical representatives of their particular situations. I want to know, given a choice between these two specific, unique individuals, which you think is a better potential citizen.

I want to know why you think being born "American" is so *********** special.

2 words:

Manifest
Destiny

ETA: Or these 2 words:

American
Exceptionalism


Or this one:

Ethnocentrism

WildCat
15th February 2011, 08:23 PM
I wasn't setting them up as typical representatives of their particular situations. I want to know, given a choice between these two specific, unique individuals, which you think is a better potential citizen.
How can you tell which one is which ahead of time?

I want to know why you think being born "American" is so *********** special.
Ask the people literally dieing to get here.

WildCat
15th February 2011, 08:38 PM
No, but I think they should have an equal opportunity to become participants in the system. There is a huge field between "**** off" and "take all my stuff", you know.
They do have an equal opportunity to become participants in the system. The US accepts over a million legal immigrants a year, 190,000 of them are from Mexico.

That's a pretty condescending attitude think we need to "support them". I guess brown people just can't ever make their own way?
Of course they can. But the overwhelming number of illiterate low-skilled adults won't. Illiterate + no skills = a tough time making a living, even in America.

Then maybe we need to reconsider what constitutes "plight" for a citizen. If we've got "millions on welfare" because they can't get paid enough to support their "first world" lifestyles with a "third world" wage, maybe we're trying to maintain too high a lifestyle for them.
No, we're not. Here in America we tend to like our indoor plumbing, a solid roof over our heads, walls you can't see through, clean drinking water and air to breathe, and enough food so the typical adult male isn't 5'5" and 110 lbs.

Another false dichotomy.
It's not a dichotomy, it's a fact.

Please. Like the drug dealers aren't a much more pressing "political force".
The drug cartels are as powerful as they are for the same reasons Mexico is a poor country despite being rich in resources - a government where corruption is rampant at all levels. Only Mexicans can fix that problem.

mrgrouch
15th February 2011, 09:06 PM
i lived and worked in colorado for a number of years and several times i was asked to prove my citizenship before i could receive medical attention, (yes, i'm mexican) one time they threaten with calling immigration if i didn't. sure... that was years ago, it was the time when a barber shop could have a sign on the window saying "no service to dogs or mexicans" and it would be alright, but you know what? things havenít changed much.

at this point it would be easy to make the argument of "they are just trying to legalize what they've been doing all along". but i don't think this proposal is really trying to accomplish anything but public acceptance, it's possible that russell pierce don't give a damn about the issue one way or another, but he's just riding the wave thatís paying off for so many politicians in the u. s. and letís be honest, if it's paying off it's because a good part of the american public thinks and feels that way; politicians only help them formalize their point of view, using patriotism as a way to justify their prejudices and complexes. the people and actions that 20 years ago could have been called racists now is just love for america.

cheers

JudeBrando
15th February 2011, 09:47 PM
...their point of view, using patriotism as a way to justify their prejudices and complexes. the people and actions that 20 years ago could have been called racists now is just love for america.
cheers
Are you saying.. is it your opinion that citizens of the United States of America.. Americans.. are wrong for seriously and stridently disapproving of the massive inundation of their nation with approximately 30 million Mexicans in the last 25 years? And an additional 10 million foreigners from everywhere else? Is it wrong to disapprove of that? Is it wrong to be against that?

Are you aware that this is the greatest mass migration/movement of population in human history?

JudeBrando
15th February 2011, 09:56 PM
I admit I have not read all of this thread. I am in and out, hit and miss, more or less, now and then..

For purposes of this discussion herein, would someone be so kind as to define "insanity" for me?

mrgrouch
15th February 2011, 10:20 PM
I admit I have not read all of this thread. I am in and out, hit and miss, more or less, now and then..

For purposes of this discussion herein, would someone be so kind as to define "insanity" for me?

lol... nop, that's not what i said at all... but a few more lines and you would have proven my point.

cheers

Biscuit
16th February 2011, 08:00 AM
I've hilited the flaw in your plan. They aren't following the law, and there's nothing in your plan to ensure they do. In fact, you seem to think that an employer who is hiring illegal workers from Mexico (for example) hires them because he wants to hire Mexicans, rather than hiring them because they'll work for less than legal workers. If you make legal workers from Mexico available he'll still hire the illegal ones, because they'll be cheaper to employ.

Seeing as how I am not in the business of writing laws or immigration policy you haven't hi-lighted anything of any relevance. I have not provided you with a comprehensive all inclusive plan for a guest worker program or a plan to catch and punish employers who hire illegal immigrants. Even if I did I am sure you could find a part to point at and say, "Ah Ha! Gotcha!". During our several posts on the matter you have done this a number of times but you haven't once proposed any solutions of any level of detail of your own.

You seem to ignore that people come here to work. Its the employers who take advantage of their illegal status.

And if you try to make the case that they won't be cheaper to employ than legal guest workers from Mexico then you reveal that the sole purpose of the guest worker program is in fact to lower wages and benefits to the price point of illegal workers.

I have already clarified this issue for you in our previous conversation, why do you ignore my response and continue this asinine line of thinking?


So these workers who arrived illegally get to jump in line in front of those waiting to enter legally?

Don't they do that already? Only this time we are going to arrest the employers instead of harassing the immigrants.


What about low-skilled Americans who now have to either collect welfare or work for poverty wages because that's the price point set by the foreign workers? Why should their needs take a back seat to those of foreigners?

Prove that illegal immigrants are forcing Americans to accept lower wages.


Look, I'd be all for a guest woirker program if there was an actual labor shortage in the US. However, we don't have a labor shortage. If we did even low-skilled jobs would have to pay decent wages in order to attract workers.

And you will note that due to our job shortage the number of illegal immigrants coming across has decreased.

This is basic economics. If you increase the supply of low-skilled workers at a time when low-skilled jobs are not increasing (such as now) then you are driving wages downward. I don't think that low-skilled workers in the US are making too much money today. I also don't think it's in the best interest of the US to create a climate that encourages a decline in wages and benefits, and that's exactly what is happening now by tolerating the massive amounts of illegal immigration we have today.

That's why I am proposing changes. Note that my proposals are not fully vetted complete programs that guarantee the end of illegal immigration. However, they are better than the status quo of harassing immigrants and wasting money. You have yet to propose anything.

Alferd_Packer
16th February 2011, 08:03 AM
I admit I have not read all of this thread. I am in and out, hit and miss, more or less, now and then..

For purposes of this discussion herein, would someone be so kind as to define "insanity" for me?

In regards to the OP, the insanity is that the proposed law endangers public health for no discernable benefits.

Piscivore
16th February 2011, 09:36 AM
They do have an equal opportunity to become participants in the system.
Not as long as barriers exist, and people with equivilent skills get a free ride on welfare simply by being born on the right peice of dirt.

The US accepts over a million legal immigrants a year, 190,000 of them are from Mexico.
We also support "millions on welfare". Why?

No, we're not. Here in America we tend to like our indoor plumbing, a solid roof over our heads, walls you can't see through, clean drinking water and air to breathe, and enough food so the typical adult male isn't 5'5" and 110 lbs.
There's lots of things a person might "like" that they just can't afford.

Piscivore
16th February 2011, 09:38 AM
Ethnocentrism

Exactly. Why that isn't seen as reprehensible and immoral as racism, I just don't know.

WildCat
16th February 2011, 10:28 AM
Seeing as how I am not in the business of writing laws or immigration policy you haven't hi-lighted anything of any relevance. I have not provided you with a comprehensive all inclusive plan for a guest worker program or a plan to catch and punish employers who hire illegal immigrants. Even if I did I am sure you could find a part to point at and say, "Ah Ha! Gotcha!". During our several posts on the matter you have done this a number of times but you haven't once proposed any solutions of any level of detail of your own.

You seem to ignore that people come here to work. Its the employers who take advantage of their illegal status.



I have already clarified this issue for you in our previous conversation, why do you ignore my response and continue this asinine line of thinking?
You've clarified nothing. You've just thrown out the term "guest worker program" as if that somehow solves the problems. You may as well say the problem will be solved by magic.

Don't they do that already? Only this time we are going to arrest the employers instead of harassing the immigrants.
If there are no sanctions on the illegal immigrants they will keep coming. Your "solution" would likely just make the problem worse, since there's no repurcussions at all for the illegal immigrants and in fact rewards them with permanent residency status.

Prove that illegal immigrants are forcing Americans to accept lower wages.
If they want to work they'll have to accept lower wages to compete with illegal labor. Nobody "forces" them to work, they can remain unemployed if they wish..

That's why I am proposing changes. Note that my proposals are not fully vetted complete programs that guarantee the end of illegal immigration. However, they are better than the status quo of harassing immigrants and wasting money. You have yet to propose anything.
Sorry, I still don't see the benefits of your changes. The simple fact is employers hire illegal immigrants not because they can't find any legal employees, but because legal employees won't work for the low wages illegal ones will work for, or even legal low-skilled workers who are content to live in a tarpaper shack with no plumbing, just like they did back home.

Remember the Postville IA meat packing plant that was raided in 2008 that was employing hundreds of illegal workers? Besides the violations for hiring illegal workers (many of whom were children, they were also charged with child labor violations) they were also fined for paying the workers less than the Iowa minimum wage which was $6.25/hr at the time, since raised to $7.25. Today?
An additional 125 employees have been hired to fill the immediate need created by the beef operation and more workers will he hired. The company has 560 employees. Low-end production jobs pay $8 to $9 per hour, Friedman said. Wages on the beef line range from $12 to $17.
http://matzav.com/friedman-and-agri-star-promise-big-economic-effect-in-postville

What a difference being forced to hire legal workers makes! Wages increased at least 30% and upwards of 175%. IMHO this is a good thing, YMMV.

Wages will be suppressed if you implement programs to bring in foreign workers not because there is a labor shortage (and there isn't) but because they will work for less money. I think good wages for US workers is a benefit to the country. I don't see how it's in the interest of the US to import foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down the wage scale.

Piscivore even admits as much, you appear to be in denial as you want to implement a guest worker program and have made no attempt at all to show there is a labor shortage.

WildCat
16th February 2011, 10:33 AM
Not as long as barriers exist, and people with equivilent skills get a free ride on welfare simply by being born on the right peice of dirt.
Yes, that's how it works on Planet Earth. No country has the immigration policy you advocate the US have.

We also support "millions on welfare". Why?
Because it's the responsibility of the US government to promote the general welfare of its citizens. Other governments should do the same. I have no desire to engage in a race to the bottom as far as housing, clean air, clean water, etc etc goes. I'm sure most Americans would agree.

There's lots of things a person might "like" that they just can't afford.
We're talking basic necessities here, not a new car.

I Am The Scum
16th February 2011, 10:41 AM
What a difference being forced to hire legal workers makes! Wages increased at least 30% and upwards of 175%. IMHO this is a good thing, YMMV.

Where did that extra money come from?

Piscivore
16th February 2011, 11:14 AM
Yes, that's how it works on Planet Earth. No country has the immigration policy you advocate the US have.
What policy exactly is that, in your mind?

Because it's the responsibility of the US government to promote the general welfare of its citizens.
Don't you think that given these non-productive workers- you know, the kind you advocating keeping out of our country if they didn't happen to be born here, that maybe a different standard of "citizenship" is needed than accident of birth?

We're talking basic necessities here, not a new car.
Most of the things you mentioned aren't "basic necessities" to most of the world, and haven't been for anyone for nearly all of human history. Why are they now?

WildCat
16th February 2011, 11:18 AM
Where did that extra money come from?
Some of it likely was realized through gretaer efficiency of the plant (note the new owners spent $7.5 million to modernize it), some likely came from the pay/profits of the owners (the previous one seemed like a real greedy bastard). Kosher meat is a fairly fungible commodity, so I doubt that they could have just raised their prices to wholesalers at will, that would have to have been kept in line with their competitors. Perhaps some came from economies of scale from the expansion of the plant. Impossib;e to say for certain without a detailed examination of the books, which is of course not going to happen.

Are you one of those people who thinks lettuce will be $5/head if ag workers are paid enough to not live in abject poverty?

WildCat
16th February 2011, 11:23 AM
What policy exactly is that, in your mind?
Letting in anyone who can make it here. You didn't even flinch at the hypothetical example of 300 million illiterate low-skilled Indians, remember?

Did you have a numerical limit in mind? If so, would you like to share?

Don't you think that given these non-productive workers- you know, the kind you advocating keeping out of our country if they didn't happen to be born here, that maybe a different standard of "citizenship" is needed than accident of birth?
No. That's insane.

Most of the things you mentioned aren't "basic necessities" to most of the world, and haven't been for anyone for nearly all of human history. Why are they now?
Because we've progressed.

Anyway, it seems clear to me at this point that you really aren't interested in improving the plight of workers in developing nations so much as you are in reducing the standard of living in the developed nations, to make it more fair or something.

Piscivore
16th February 2011, 11:45 AM
Letting in anyone who can make it here. You didn't even flinch at the hypothetical example of 300 million illiterate low-skilled Indians, remember?

Did you have a numerical limit in mind? If so, would you like to share?
I was speaking of principles, not policy. And I don't "flinch" at ludicrous and meaningless hypotheticals, I disregard them.

No. That's insane.
Why? We've rejected the notion of "royalty" and "aristocracy"- that people are "better" because of what family they are born into. Why are we clinging to this equally absurd notion that people are "better"- and therefore innately entitled to a standard of living much, much higher than everyone else- simply because of where they are born?

Because we've progressed.
No "we" havent progressed. Most of us contribute relatively little to this "progress" you speak of- we just happened to be lucky enough to be born in a time and place where we could benefit from the progress of others.

Or are you one of those people that watch a sports team on TV and claim "'We' won" when the team you like does well?

TragicMonkey
16th February 2011, 12:00 PM
I have pondered the matter deeply, and reached a fair compromise: the federal government should build a wall entirely around Arizona, and prevent all travel into and out of there.

WildCat
16th February 2011, 12:55 PM
I was speaking of principles, not policy. And I don't "flinch" at ludicrous and meaningless hypotheticals, I disregard them.
Still waiting for the number... got one? A ballpark figure will do. Just provide a bit of reasoning on how it was derived.

Why? We've rejected the notion of "royalty" and "aristocracy"- that people are "better" because of what family they are born into. Why are we clinging to this equally absurd notion that people are "better"- and therefore innately entitled to a standard of living much, much higher than everyone else- simply because of where they are born?
No one's saying that the people are better, but certainly some governments are better than others. It is not the role of the US government to make life beter in Mexico, or India, or anywhere else. It's to make life better for the people of America. It's up to the government of Mexico to make life better for Mexicans, and not by encouraging them to emigrate.

No "we" havent progressed. Most of us contribute relatively little to this "progress" you speak of- we just happened to be lucky enough to be born in a time and place where we could benefit from the progress of others.

Or are you one of those people that watch a sports team on TV and claim "'We' won" when the team you like does well?
We = the people of the United States.

We created a country with one of the highest standards of living on the planet. I'm certainly not ashamed of that.

There's no reason Mexico, India, or any place else can't do the same. India appears to be making progress, while Mexico is still mired in the cesspool their own rampant corruption has left them in. It's not the fault of the US that Mexico is run by corrupt kleptocrats willing to do the bidding of anyone (and I do mean anyone, including violent drug cartels) presenting a bribe, and nor is the US responsible for the people of Mexico.

Your anger is displaced, rather than getting upset with the US government you should concentrate your anger on the Mexican political class. Only they can make Mexico a better place for Mexicans. The US will continue to strive to make the US a better place for Americans and the million or so legal immigrants we accept every single year.

I Am The Scum
16th February 2011, 01:04 PM
Are you one of those people who thinks lettuce will be $5/head if ag workers are paid enough to not live in abject poverty?

No. I don't even know what lettuce costs right now.

But most of the people who study this issue thoroughly seem to agree that immigration is good for the country. If it has any effect at all, it's definitely small, and most likely positive.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

WildCat
16th February 2011, 01:17 PM
No. I don't even know what lettuce costs right now.

But most of the people who study this issue thoroughly seem to agree that immigration is good for the country. If it has any effect at all, it's definitely small, and most likely positive.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/
Your factcheck link talks about unemployment, I'm talking about wages.

And your npr link supports what I'm saying, that an influx of low-skilled immigrants depresses wages of low-skilled domestic workers. Did you even read it?
Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------
The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.
And I feel that the author makes an error when he says this:

Even in industries with high concentrations of illegal workers — such as construction, restaurants and some parts of agriculture — the impact isn't as great as many people think. If there weren't illegal immigrants working in construction in places like Chicago and Miami, then demand for legal workers would go up, which would mean wages would rise. But very quickly, legal workers from other parts of the country would move to those cities, and wages would go back down. The net impact on wages would be relatively modest.
If workers moved in from other parts of the country in enough numbers to make wages go down again, then surely the wages in the areas they left would rise proportionally? He's only looking at one side of the equation, and you simply cannot do that.

Piscivore
16th February 2011, 01:32 PM
Still waiting for the number... got one? A ballpark figure will do. Just provide a bit of reasoning on how it was derived.
Keep waiting. I'm not giving you one. I was talking about principles, not policy.

No one's saying that the people are better, but certainly some governments are better than others. It is not the role of the US government to make life beter in Mexico, or India, or anywhere else. It's to make life better for the people of America. It's up to the government of Mexico to make life better for Mexicans, and not by encouraging them to emigrate.

We = the people of the United States.
"The people of the United States" come in all kinds. Some of them more useless and a bigger drain on the economy than the people you want to keep out.

We created a country with one of the highest standards of living on the planet. I'm certainly not ashamed of that.
Of course you're not- you get to benefit from work other people have done, and exclude the people you don't want to share with.

Your anger is displaced, rather than getting upset with the US government
I'm not upset with the US government. Where did you get that idea? I've never even mentioned them. They're just people doing the best they can.

I'm concerned that the principles on which our current immigration laws are based are faulty- and that the moral climate behind those faulty principals is rooted in an unearned sense of entitlement endemic in "my fellow citizens".

I Am The Scum
16th February 2011, 02:21 PM
Your factcheck link talks about unemployment, I'm talking about wages.

And your npr link supports what I'm saying, that an influx of low-skilled immigrants depresses wages of low-skilled domestic workers. Did you even read it?

Of course I read it. My point is, just like the article says, there are positives and negatives to immigration (legal or otherwise). I'm certainly not arguing that the quantity of immigrants makes no impact whatsoever. Rather, the overall impact pretty much balances out. It would appear that the savings produced by lower wages are passed on to the consumer.

Funnily enough (and I'm not saying this paragraph has anything to do with you, Wildcat), this can all be traced back to what people are willing to pay at the check-out line. Given the tea party's recent infatuation with objectivism, it's peculiar to see them scream the loudest for government intervention into what is ultimately a product of The Market.

EDIT:
I'm curious which has a more negative effect on the US economy: An illegal immigrant being paid under the table, or an outsourced job to another country. The outsourced job does not add a consumer to local American businesses, so I think that might be worse. Sorry if this is a derail.

JoeTheJuggler
16th February 2011, 03:04 PM
And your npr link supports what I'm saying, that an influx of low-skilled immigrants depresses wages of low-skilled domestic workers.

Does it depress wages below minimum wage? If not, then why not simply raise the federal minimum wage?

BTW, I admit I haven't been following this thread, but how does this connect to the proposed law that would require hospitals to verify immigration status before admitting non-emergency patients (and before discharging emergency patients)?

WildCat
16th February 2011, 04:24 PM
Of course I read it. My point is, just like the article says, there are positives and negatives to immigration (legal or otherwise). I'm certainly not arguing that the quantity of immigrants makes no impact whatsoever. Rather, the overall impact pretty much balances out.
No, it doesn't balance out. Your own link says a typical low-skill worker loses $25/week because of low-skilled immigrants (both legal and illegal). You may think that's chump change but it's a lot when you're at the lower end of the wage scale. That extra $100/month may mean the difference between being able to feed yourself or applying for food stamps. Higher wages means more tax revenue and less government assistance, which is good for government budgets.

It would appear that the savings produced by lower wages are passed on to the consumer.
So? Doesn't everyone's get passed on to consumers eventually? Why should the lowest income earners be singled out as having to make less so others can pay less? Will you be willing to take a pay cut so your company's clients can pay less?

Funnily enough (and I'm not saying this paragraph has anything to do with you, Wildcat), this can all be traced back to what people are willing to pay at the check-out line. Given the tea party's recent infatuation with objectivism, it's peculiar to see them scream the loudest for government intervention into what is ultimately a product of The Market.
What do you mean by this? The free market operates under the conditions government regulations impose on them, the black market operates with no government restrictions whatsoever, beyond it being illegal by definition. Companies that hire illegal aliens are hiring from the black market, not the labor market law-abiding employers use to fill their payrolls. It's like buying cigarettes without the tax stamps for $2/pack.

EDIT:
I'm curious which has a more negative effect on the US economy: An illegal immigrant being paid under the table, or an outsourced job to another country. The outsourced job does not add a consumer to local American businesses, so I think that might be worse. Sorry if this is a derail.
Outsourcing is simply the market achieving efficiency, which it will do one way or another. An efficient market should benefit all parties concerned, consumers get lower cost goods and producers stay in business by being able to price their goods competitively.

That last bit is important, because therein lies the difference. Companies outsource because they may well not survive if they don't, because their competitors will and undercut them. This is not the case with labor, because most labor is location-specific. A restaurant in Peoria can't cook their meals in China. If the roof of your home needs repair you can't send it to India to get fixed. Thus, there's no overiding need to cut costs to meet the cost of fixing a roof in India or to prepare a meal in China, because those costs are completely irrelevant. Unless low-cost labor is imported, there will be no downward pressure on wages, all other things being equal.

In sum, outsourcing is inevitable and unstoppable. It's the markets working the way they should. When you import cheap foreign labor, you are introducing downward pressure on wages completely unnecessarily. If there was no imported labor and everyone was law-abiding there would be no need for Restaurant A to hire a low-cost foreign staff because Restaurant B next door is doing so. The lower wages are completely artificial, the product of a variable introduced from an outside source. It's a distortion of the market.

WildCat
16th February 2011, 04:34 PM
Does it depress wages below minimum wage? If not, then why not simply raise the federal minimum wage?
What do you think that will accomplish? This isn't an issue of absolute numbers, but of relative ones. Foreign labor will still be willing to work for less money than domestic labor.

I think a federal minimum wage is a bit like shoving a square peg into a round hole, because different parts of the country have vastly different costs of living. $25,000/yr probably lets you live a middle-class lifestyle in Ames Iowa, but will leave you living in poverty in NYC. Which is why many states and cities have a minimum wage far higher than the federal one. And as always, if the minimum wage is raised above the market wage the increase just gets eaten up in inflation. You could make everyone a millionaire with a minimum wage of $500/hr, but then you'd just end up with millionaires living in poverty.

BTW, I admit I haven't been following this thread, but how does this connect to the proposed law that would require hospitals to verify immigration status before admitting non-emergency patients (and before discharging emergency patients)?
I think it started when someone said we need a guest worker program.

Corsair 115
16th February 2011, 07:44 PM
population of Canada = 33,739,900


34,238,035 according to the Oct. 2010 estimate by Statistics Canada. ;)


And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the immigrants came from Canada.

Think snowbirds.


The 2009 report by the Arizona Office of Tourism I found online unfortunately did not break out the number of visitors to the state who were from outside the United States. It did, however, break out the percentages for the ten U.S. states which accounted for the most frequent (American) non-resident visitors to Arizona.

fishbob
17th February 2011, 12:54 AM
Well, to be fair, they did pay a lot of alcohol taxes on the weekends...they did send some of their money back home, but not all of it.

How is this is relevant to anything we have been discussing?

a) Not at all.
b) Not at all.
c) Not at all.
d) a - c

Biscuit
17th February 2011, 10:21 AM
You've clarified nothing. You've just thrown out the term "guest worker program" as if that somehow solves the problems. You may as well say the problem will be solved by magic.

I am sorry I don't know the 1-800 number yet but I think that a program that would allow people working here illegally to work here legally sums up the intent. I am not sure what more you want as it is just a hypothetical idea. I am not going to spend more time saying the same thing to you in two threads only to have you ignore it.


If there are no sanctions on the illegal immigrants they will keep coming. Your "solution" would likely just make the problem worse, since there's no repurcussions at all for the illegal immigrants and in fact rewards them with permanent residency status.

Please link to where I stated that there would be no sanctions on illegal immigration. I double dog dare you, use either of the two conversations we have been having about this. This is another straw man you have invented.

If they want to work they'll have to accept lower wages to compete with illegal labor. Nobody "forces" them to work, they can remain unemployed if they wish..

Actually I asked you to prove that illegal immigrants force U.S. citizens to make less money. I am not sure what the above is in relation to.


Sorry, I still don't see the benefits of your changes. The simple fact is employers hire illegal immigrants not because they can't find any legal employees, but because legal employees won't work for the low wages illegal ones will work for, or even legal low-skilled workers who are content to live in a tarpaper shack with no plumbing, just like they did back home.

The illegal ones are forced to work for the lower wages, they do not go around asking for lower wages. If we can start to dwindle the pool of illegal labor than businesses will be be forced to hire legal labor.

Once again I will state that the solution to solving this problem is going to be multifaceted, must consider both the economic issue and the human issue, and it will take time. There is no overnight solution.

I am 100% certain that laws that harass illegal immigrants and minorities in general will do nothing to solve the issue. Our current approach ensures the economic problem becomes worse and ignores the human element entirely.

Remember the Postville IA meat packing plant that was raided in 2008 that was employing hundreds of illegal workers? Besides the violations for hiring illegal workers (many of whom were children, they were also charged with child labor violations) they were also fined for paying the workers less than the Iowa minimum wage which was $6.25/hr at the time, since raised to $7.25. Today?

http://matzav.com/friedman-and-agri-star-promise-big-economic-effect-in-postville

What a difference being forced to hire legal workers makes! Wages increased at least 30% and upwards of 175%. IMHO this is a good thing, YMMV.

There is this thing called minimum wage and I am willing to bet the factory was paying the illegals well below that. It was not the illegals fault they were paid less, its the companies fault.

I wonder how much punishment that place actually received.

Wages will be suppressed if you implement programs to bring in foreign workers not because there is a labor shortage (and there isn't) but because they will work for less money. I think good wages for US workers is a benefit to the country. I don't see how it's in the interest of the US to import foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down the wage scale.

Piscivore even admits as much, you appear to be in denial as you want to implement a guest worker program and have made no attempt at all to show there is a labor shortage.

Nor did I ever claim there was a labor shortage or that a guest worker program would solve it. You keep inventing these straw men arguments against a sensible and reasonable approach to the issue of illegal immigration.

Illegal immigrants work for less money because of their illegal status. There is no desire in the illegal community to work for less money.

Alferd_Packer
23rd February 2011, 01:14 PM
Well, the legislature has passed this bill out of committee to the full floor.

Also passed to the floor were a birthright citizenship bill and another bill denying the children of illegal immigrants from attending school.