Colorado - Illegal Immigrants no longer eligble for state health care - page 15

Effective Aug. 1, state services, including the state health plans and welfare, will no longer be given to illegal immigrants in Colorado. This law, enacted by Gov. Bill Owens, in considered the... Read More

  1. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    My final comment on citizenship. Birthright citizenship has become a constitutional right. The Elk case preceded the Wong Kim Ark case by over 14 years. Quite obviously the courts understanding of section 1 evolved to the viewpoint in Wong Kim Ark that citizenship by birth was codified through the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has accepted this court interpretation of Birthright citizenship for all people as a Constitutional right by implementation of the INA. This debate has become "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

    A much more productive way to reduce illegal immigration would be for the US to focus on changing the conditions driving immigrants and their families out of mexico. (Oh for example the 40% poverty rate.)

    I'm out of here....I have too much school work to do.
    I maintain that Wong Kim ARK specifically states that it only granted citizenship BECAUSE the jurisidictional test was met due to the parents legal right to be here.

    But, I would state that a more productive way to reduce illegal aliens is to reduce the INCENTIVES for coming here. That means eliminating available jobs by enforcing our work laws, eliminating all benefits, to include public schooling of illegals, AND to remove the possibility of creating 'anchor' babies.

    If you come here and things are worse then at home BECAUSE your illegal status confers you NOTHING, then there's no reason to come.

    As long as we don't enforce the border and provide ample incentive to come, people WILL COME.

    We can't control the Mexican economy and its treatment and encouragement of its citizens to become de facto hard currency producers. We CAN control OUR response to illegal entry. And, we should.

    I agree that UNTIL WE DO JUST THAT, we inherit a moral obligation towards people that we've invited here due to our indifference to our own laws. That doesn't mean I support the necessity to provide such services, but rather, the NEED to deny such entry in ORDER to not be morally obligated thusly.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 3, '06
  2. by   weirdRN
    As long as we don't enforce the border and provide ample incentive to come, people WILL COME.

    EXACTLY!!!!!
  3. by   Fuzzy
    Quote from HM2Viking
    My final comment on citizenship. Birthright citizenship has become a constitutional right. The Elk case preceded the Wong Kim Ark case by over 14 years. Quite obviously the courts understanding of section 1 evolved to the viewpoint in Wong Kim Ark that citizenship by birth was codified through the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has accepted this court interpretation of Birthright citizenship for all people as a Constitutional right by implementation of the INA. This debate has become "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

    A much more productive way to reduce illegal immigration would be for the US to focus on changing the conditions driving immigrants and their families out of mexico. (Oh for example the 40% poverty rate.)

    I'm out of here....I have too much school work to do.

    Where does it say in the US Constitution that the US must save the world? The countries themselves have to want to change. We have poured more aid into countries that didn't want our help more than any country in the world. I personally don't think that Mexico wants our help. This came to light while I was a college student. The college that I attended had many international students from African and Latin American countries. One day we were all watching the news. President Reagan had announced that he was sending aid to an African country. The hew and cry in the room from the international students was chilling. Things like, "Leave us the h*** alone, We don't want your money, The f****** US is always sticking their nose into other people's affairs," were many of the responses. Several other American students and myself were stunned. We had never heard this type of stuff before. We were young and dumb and thought that most of the world loved us. Needless to say now, I'm jaded. I say let's just follow the immigration laws. Send back the illegal aliens. If they want their Americian born childern to stay in this country and learn our ways (including English and American history) than they can stay providing they are staying with a legal resident. I don't care what country they're from.

    Fuzzy
  4. by   RebeccaJeanRN
    i live in california and you should see the neonatal units, overflowing with babies of moms who run over the border when they are literally already in labor but who had not any prenatal care or worse. these babies are born with tons of congenital defects and diseases and occcupy the neonatal units for months, at the tune of 100's of thousands of dollars. and since they are now citizens (despite the fact that their mothers have only been here a few days), the hospital literally rushes to sign them up for medicaid so that our tax payers start paying a portion of the bills immediately. it is such a dilemma: would i turn them away? of course not. but do i think that when the u.s. allows itself to cure the world at the average working class person's expense, that the bank will break and eventually we will have a huge percent of illiterate, underfunctional and welfare laden individuals? you bet. it would not matter to me the race/color of any other country encouraging the same massive numbers of its poorest and least educated over the border, with major medical needs and with no regard for legality, current skills, or employment prospects. the end result would be the same: an eventual bankruptcy of our country, with hospitals going first. we've already seen this with emergency rooms closing shop, one by one...california is drowning and unless something radically changes, it will eventually pull other states onto the same sinking ship. and even if some radical changes happen in our country, it will take many, many years to reverse the downward trend of a major underclass, dependent on the tax dollars of the few, that has already been established.

    allowing a constant flow of the very poorest over our borders is no different than allowing 200 people to storm a life raft made for 10. kind intentions and wishful thinking do not change the reality of the size of the life raft. everyone drowns eventually.
  5. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from rebeccaone
    california is drowning and unless something radically changes, it will eventually pull other states onto the same sinking ship.

    allowing a constant flow of the very poorest over our borders is no different than allowing 200 people to storm a life raft made for 10. kind intentions and wishful thinking do not change the reality of the size of the life raft. everyone drowns eventually.
    all of the border states are drowning. now the level of states above us are starting to sink as well. like i said in a way earlier post, empathy is nice, but it's not what will fix this situation. we're in serious trouble, and the pp who used the term invasion was right.
  6. by   HM2VikingRN
    Nafta has literally destroyed the agricultural economy in Mexico. My point has been that we have created a whole class of displaced economic refugees to the south of us. These people and they are people are only doing what we do if our families were starving. They are going where they can find the means to support their families. The only way to stem the tide is to help the Mexican government clean up the mess that we helped create with NAFTA. (FWIW Mexico has more Billionaires per capita than Western Europe and with 40% of the population of Mexico living in poverty we have the conditions in place to drive people north to seek jobs.)
  7. by   RebeccaJeanRN
    Should we also "fix" India, or be willing to take in ALL of its poor? Must we also "fix" all the countries in Africa or be willing to accept all of their poor? What about the Ukraine? Where does it end? Mexico was a corrupt government long before NAFTA. Mexico needs to fix itself. If NAFTA doesn't benefit them, let their government change policy and opt out. I noticed that THEIR government knows enough to seal their own southern borders and to deny free health coverage to visiting American citizens without the cash to pay. As for us, we need to fix our borders, citizenship, medical, welfare, and immigration policies. Sad that the world is in such a mess, but I still stand by my lifeboat analogy above...
  8. by   studentmalenurse
    Quote from TrudyRN
    What about the governments of the countries where these illegals originate? Let's crucify the right governments.
    Your right but if u think about it and do research on it, the american governments hand has been in many countries, creating economic problems for them. My father works in the fashion industry and he did a report on american companies in other countries, and basically alot of companies go overseas or near, to poor countries, create sweatshops, pay the workers pennies, which destroys their economy.
  9. by   studentmalenurse
    Quote from TheCommuter
    Don't you get it?! Any person who is in this country illegally is, in reality, performing criminal activity because they broke American laws to come here.
    What i do get is that i dont use terms that the present administration likes to popularize. (criminal activity , terrorist)

    Criminal activity ? Thats to funny . But if we were to really use that concept then basically all Americans are criminals, because basically the settlers came here illegaly , stole the land illegaly , killed the natives illegaly, stole slaves illegaly, So basically , we all just need to pack our bags and go because where all criminals.
  10. by   Multicollinearity
    Some of my fellow liberals basically argue that we ought to have no borders. Think about it. That is what they are arguing. I find that naive.
  11. by   Multicollinearity
    Quote from studentmalenurse
    What i do get is that i dont use terms that the present administration likes to popularize. (criminal activity , terrorist)

    Criminal activity ? Thats to funny . But if we were to really use that concept then basically all Americans are criminals, because basically the settlers came here illegaly , stole the land illegaly , killed the natives illegaly, stole slaves illegaly, So basically , we all just need to pack our bags and go because where all criminals.
    You are not a criminal based upon your ancestors actions. You know that, too. My ancestors came thru Ellis Island. But even if they didn't - it wouldn't matter. What matters is the time we are in now. Our laws matter. You are arguing (by default) for a free and open border. Again, naive.
  12. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from studentmalenurse
    What i do get is that i dont use terms that the present administration likes to popularize. (criminal activity , terrorist)

    Criminal activity ? Thats to funny . But if we were to really use that concept then basically all Americans are criminals.
    Well, that's because the term, 'criminal activity', is right. It's not a concept, it's a law that is being broken repeatedly.
  13. by   caroladybelle
    Quote from HM2Viking
    The term "Anchor Baby" is both offensive and racist and is on a par with the phrase "welfare queen." Both are used as a way to demean and attack the least powerful members of society. The children who are born here are citizens. All children born to a society are worthy of protection and inherent value by society regardless of their parents race, gender, national origin, religion etc. These children are the seedcorn for our future.

    If we as a collective society want people to respect and honor society at large that we need to treat them as people and not stereotypes.
    It sounds to me like you are the one racially stereotyping.

    There is nothing racist about either "anchor baby" or "welfare queen". Race/national origin is not even mentioned nor implied by either phrase.

    Unless YOU are the one making baseless "racist" assumptions.

close