No announcement yet.

Gangs, Vatican, Pay, Texas & Debate

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #3
    So the vatican cardinal condemns a wall along the southern U.S. border? I am sure they must also object to the one on the southern Mexico border, they just forgot to mention it in the article.


    • #4
      Notice that they are not calling Israel the same names they call the U.S. yet Israel is not only building a wall but also supresses christianity.

      note: you can not get married in Israel if you are not Jewish. This despite the fact that it is considered the holy land by christians. How is this any different from say, banning Hindi marriages?


      • #5
        What these debates about local laws reflect is nothing but a pathetic and profound ignorance of the law at the most basic level. They're not about doing what's legal, they're about channeling frustrations and personal issues through colorful initiatives sanctioned by the legislation.

        The famous idea that illegal aliens are entitled to free healthcare is nothing but a myth. An illegal alien is not entitled to anything a citizen or permanent resident is not able to receive. Citizens and LPR's are able to receive assistance through medicaid and several other programs that cover periodic preventive care, immunizations, child birth and emergencies. Illegal aliens are NOT entitled to such benefits but are covered by a very restrictive program designed to deal with emergency care, and that's because nobody in the U.S. should be allowed to die because of legal status, otherwise convicted felons and prisoners would be neglected to death.

        There's simply no statute whatsoever designed to prevent billing an illegal alien for services rendered. The law only features a program designed to reimburse hospitals for treatment of emergency conditions in cases where the hospitals are unable to bill the patient or in cases where the patient cannot afford to pay, and this applies to illegal aliens, citizens and residents. The law simply provides against discrimination based on "race, nationality OR ability to pay" when it comes to emergency care. Nothing more and nothing less.

        The fact that many hospitals do not have an effective billing system or that they decide to waive the treatment cost in the case of a suspected illegal alien does NOT mean the law actually mandates such actions. But this obscure fact is exploited to the limit by officials trying to make the most out of the debate against immigration.

        Illegal aliens are by definition not authorized to be in the U.S. unless they're in custody of any state or federal jurisdiction. That is exactly the description of the offense. A fugitive from justice, those who have outstanding warrants, those who escape from custody, citizen or illegal alien, are also not authorized to remain at large. So, to do what's right, and to do "what's legal" landlords, employers, store clerks and schools should check NCIC, the criminal databases of every state and every county and the databases of USCIS and also of every country the person might have been to because, since we're not talking about probable cause, to discriminate about two persons in similar situations (not authorized to remain at large) is simply put a VIOLATION of the equal protection rights of the U.S. Constitution.

        Doing what's right, what's "LEGAL" implies a violation of the basic rule of law, what a nice start.


        • #6
          It is when lawmakers try to make whats right into whats legal that we have a problem.


          • #7
            The first requirement of any law is to comply with the Constitution. Obviously, the Constitution forbids discrimination and favoritism. We have a problem when lawmakers try to manipulate "the law" to ignore Constitutional guidelines and conform to personal points of view other questionable beliefs.

            "What's right" is enforcement of law, all laws that is. The Constitution does not prevent any local jurisdiction from doing "what's right", it does prevent though any jurisdiction from treating groups in similar situations by different standards, it forbids playing favorites, it condemns discrimination. If two persons are not allowed to "remain at large" then the two persons should be treated equally. Period, there's nothing "wrong" about that.

            The fact that the laws have numerous flaws, that resources are limited and that legislation was conceived with unrealistic expectations is NO EXCUSE for lawmakers to play favorites. The law does not differentiate between Mr. John Doe, John Doe MD, Mexican Joe and Congressman John Doe when it comes to chargeable crimes under state or federal law.

            Since this is a constitutional issue, I cannot agree with the idea that the Constitution prevents local authorities from doing "what's right". The Constitution is the very foundation of the nation, to say the Constitution is somehow defective is to say the nation is flawed at its very core. I cannot agree with that.


            • #8
              You may want to take some social security provisions for a clear example. These statutes eliminate assistance for aliens "illegally present" BUT ALSO for "fugitives from justice". That is completely Constitutional and perfectly legal.


              • #9
                Affirmative action circumvented the constitution because of lawmakers HASTE to correct what they felt was not right.

                Since the advent of affirmative action our legal system has deteriorated. No one dare speak up for fear of being labeled a racist, a moniker that would have made a black listed communist feel lucky. With such protection our country has allowed the double standard to germinate and breed.

                We now live in a society that understands (albeit grudgingly) said double standard. We are now moving toward "guilty until proven innocent". Anyone who is accused of a *** crime is already subject to this standard.

                We are also moving toward an era will the media will interpret the law and pass judgement on the accused.

                I say it all goes back to lawmakers trying to make whats right, the law.


                • #10
                  So, what's right? Is discrimination right? How many initiatives were considered in the past few years against fugitives from justice living in small towns? Why aliens and not fugitives? What's the real distinction if both are in violation of the law and not supposed to remain at large?

                  Racism is only one small part of discrimination and urgency does not justify unlawful activity, if that were true, people who skip the legal visa issuing process and enter illegally would not be subject to legal action.

                  I couldn't agree more with you, society has deteriorated and we now live in a world dominated by suspicion, fear and intimidation. Due process is becoming a luxury instead of a right and some laws are designed to erode the civil liberties they're supposed to protect. This is reality, no question about that, but it doesn't mean the conduct is legal and should be seen as permissible. If discriminating against aliens is seen as lawful, then discrimination based on race, *** or income should be too. Who's to say what will happen next if this conduct is tolerated?

                  So, if you don't like the laws imposed upon you, does that give you the right to ignore them and create a new set of standards? No, lawmakers of all people should know that, they may not design legislation that ignores, or goes against, the rule of the land. True enough the process of amending a Constitutional clause may be long and tedious, but that's no excuse, the law must be followed until the law is changed. That's supposed to be the substance behind the phrase "a nation of laws". This may sound familiar, because it's the very same argument used against illegal aliens who enter the country without inspection instead of channeling their requests through the consulate in order to obtain a visa. Again, urgency is not an excuse to break the law, specially when it comes to the very people in charge of deciding what's lawful and what's not.

                  There can be any legal substance behind an argument that promotes illegal conduct to punish those who engage in illegal conduct. Illegality to punish illegality. This is absurd, but again, only absurd results may come out of the manipulation of the law to sanction questionable beliefs and illegal practices.


                  Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                  Home Page

                  Immigration Daily


                  Processing times

                  Immigration forms

                  Discussion board



                  Twitter feed

                  Immigrant Nation


                  CLE Workshops

                  Immigration books

                  Advertise on ILW



                  About ILW.COM

                  Connect to us



                  Immigration Daily