Category: News and Views
The state of Arizona is pondering the end of citizenship by birth for "anchor babies", the infants of illegal immigrants usually from Mexico but from other places as well. I say it's about time.
The actual 14th Amendment has a clause many seem to chop off, the "under the jurisdiction of no other nation clause", and I'm curious: when did children become entities separate from their parents, except in the case of "emancipated minors", who are usually close to legal adulthood anyway. A parent is deportation eligible, a child not? What kind of nonsense is that? Under the proposed law, a child would have to have one parent who is already a legal U S resident or citizen to qualify for citizenship by birth. For the record, I was for Elian Gonzalez of Cuba being placed with his dad who, when he came to Florida, stated his desire to raise his son in Cuba. No one ever came right out & said why this man wasn't fit to make a decision in raising his child. Mom died, dad didn't want to settle here, he is living his life in Cuba. I'm not for Communism, but no one, unless the press hushed it, stated a reason this man couldn't make a choice on his son's behalf.
It sounds like Arizona residents are tired of being stepped on by people they know they didn't invite or sponsor here & aren't being sponsored by an employer or family member. Caring for these individuals on MedicAid is one of those "out of money" experiences. Bilingual ed classes in the schools usually don't immerse the children in English, and these folks aren't always "doing jobs Americans won't." Up here in MA, the voters voted overwhelmingly to overturn bilingual ed, and it got overturned by politicians funded by the teachers' unions. Illegal immigrants don't get screened in permanent residence physicals, so tuberculosis tends to run more rampant in immigrant communities here than among native borns. We just have entire groups of noncitizens who are no more likely to integrate into society than I am to dance the lead in "Swan Lake", and services like interpreters & assistance to pay for basics cost a lot of money.
In addition to the upholding of the controversial immigration laws, one other proposal I heard about last year that I haven't seen any follow up about is this state's proposal to audit recipients of food assistance in particular. Anyone using EBT to pay for groceries & cash to pay for cigarettes and/or alcohol could be reported to a 1-800 # & be stripped of that benefit. Basic cable, great, additional channels like HBO, not, cell phone only, great, cell phone in addition to a land line, you've lost your bennies, a car over a certain financial value would cost a recipient their benefits. Also to lose coverage are 280,000 people on Arizona MedicAid. IMO, the states are all having out of money experiences throwing money at too many people for too long, and AZ is starting to take overdue drastic action. Anyone on this board in AZ? What are you guys' thoughts?
I completely agree with you. These people should never get special priveleges if they're here illegally, and they shouldn't be able to stay just because they have children here! Let them work to become legal residents and citizens like everyone else. If they're unwilling, either deport them and their children or execute them and let someone else, either here or in their country, adopt the children. There's no need to keep them here and deprive natives and legal immigrants of work, housing and other necessities. It also disgusts me that these children aren't being taught in English. I didn't know that this is the case. People who come here should fucking learn English! I'm not saying they should forget their languages, but if you intend on staying in a foreign country, it's only the right thing to do to learn the language, unless, perhaps, you're elderly and don't plan on working here. But even they can learn a bit. Hell, my boyfriend is 65 and has been here, legally of course, for under ten years and while his English isn't perfect, the change from when I met him three years ago to now is truly extraordinary! He's constantly learning and using new knowledge to communicate. So if he can do it, there's no reason why these idiots can't do the same. Granted, he's working, but even those who aren't should know the basics for emergencies or for when they go shopping and/or need directions.
It seems that Arizona is the smartest of the states in this issue. I can only hope that others will soon follow. I'm against people losing benefits, unless they have done something serious to deserve it. So long as their cigarette or alcohol buying habits aren't extreme, that is, enough that they could easily buy food to support themselves, this should not be a crime. If you occasionally buy a bottle of wine or a case of beer or if you buy a pack or two a week of cigarettes, this doesn't mean that you can seriously afford food. In that case, what about coffee, gum, candy, snacks and other unnecessary things? But I understand the cable/extra channels and mobile/land line issue. Those really are expensive and you can certainly use that money for food and other necessities. Besides, some states have mobile phones for low-income families. I can never justify losing medicaid, unless you honestly make enough that you can equal what they give you and more. Personally, I think all health care should be socialised so that everyone gets it. Btw, I'm in NJ.
And we'll find it costs more to enforce all this than what was paid out before, but at least people will get the friendly hiatus of *feeling like* they're doing something. This is something we usually find on the left, but what we have here, is a bunch of wingnuts on the right trying to do it without the requisite experience.
I worked for the Immigration service in the 1980s during the Reagan-sponsored Amnesty program for those who worked here.
I'm with people who say if there are people who want to give benefits to undocumented folks, those people may well do so privately, if they wish, but not enforce this on the state.
However, I'm borderline grossed out by the incredible lack of knowledge on the part of people making some of these types of decisions, all based upon feelings, like we used to have with the lefties, only instead of coming out of some grant from a university, it's coming from Fox News and Facebook, and let's not forget Youtube and Twitter.
So, what actually would work? My belief, every American citizen, wingnut or otherwise, gets a national ID. That tells local police, Immigration, employers, you who wants to cash their check, or anybody else whether this person is an American citizen. Why not? Even now, you could ask for my ID before doing business with me, in order to know I am who I say I am, and I could legally show you the state-issue non-driver's-license ID card, or my military issue ID.
Now, if it weren't for the wingnuts having already set their masses to oppose anything national, they might have supported this. And if they had, you would never hire a undocumented cleaning lady or anybody else, who could lie on their I9 form, but has a social security card to pay taxes with.
And, if Arizona wants local cops to enforce Immigration law, without providing any form of state-wide Citizenship markings on their ID cards, good luck with that, and my sympathy is with the cops trying to sort that one out.
Washington State, with a lot less feel-goody Fox News stuff, is actually doing this right: No driver's licenses, and no State ID for anyone not a citizen. Takes a couple years to get in place because old ones must expire first, but this isn't rocket science people. You already have on state record your birth certificate, from when you first showed up for your ID or license, and showed off your official proof of existence, among many other documents.
Till we nationalize this, and do it properly, we're doing nothing but allow a few people to feel good about what they're doing. Ironic, isn't it, that the very movement who used to fight against the feel-good stuff is outdoing their game with their own brand of feel-good-and-show-that-we-care "laws"?
Washington State is doind it right, but of course, doing it right usually means doing something constructive rather than something that garner's media attention.
After the party's over in Arizona, the citizens will have nothing to show but a leaner budget, as the fuzzy feelings tend to vaporize in the heat of reality.
Should be fun for a while, deny babies citizenship, stage a few stings at hospitals, spend a ton of your money to do it, get a media blitz, we'll have us a war on undocumented workers like the libbies had themselves a war on poverty in the sixties. Should turn out about as fruitful.
I have been there when families were split up and deportations happened.
It's cute of them to say they want to do all this stuff, but I doubta any of them have the balls to do it: they just want the TV time.
Years later I still wonder about some things, though overall the Seasonal Agricultural Workers program was well-run.
Leo, what's Washington state's requirement? U S citizenship? Washington state residency? It's gotten so silly here in MA as far as residency requirement for assistance one popular food assistance program all someone has to do is write a letter in their own words stating Massachusetts residency. The worker for this program I know is so fed up after she got a pregnant woman fresh off the plane with her passport just stamped that day asking for food vouchers, she enrolled in graduate courses to learn about computers to do administrative work and "get away from my clients." Sounds like they're moving in the right direction.
"Feel good" or whatever the motivation, I personally think all of the states are at the point where we can't afford to keep feeding & providing for those who weren't invited or sponsored here, maybe overstayed a tourist visa or something. A baby (far as I know native born) on Indiana Medicaid probably won't get a thymus transplant to aid in the development of his immune system.
I believe the story in yahoo was slanted to make IN look bad...there are other considerations in organ transplants, like how likely is a person to get all of the anti rejection drugs & all of the follow up care they need, plus this baby has additional heart disease, would one organ be transplanted to have something else shut down, plus NO insurance I know covers any travel expenses, and the procedure to be performed was to be performed in North Carolina. How could someone so poor they qualify for Medicaid, unless they could relocate, afford their living expenses to follow up this procedure? Anyway, if we can't even afford a native born baby in Indiana, how are we going to be able to afford everyone else's nationals? Whatever AZ' motivation, it looks like someone is at least recognizing this reality. Incidentally, the cut audit in welfare benefits story was on a very liberal website I no longer frequent, and the IN baby story was on yahoo, but I'm still not seeing the sense of making kids born here automatic citizens if the parents are deportation eligible, and some states have bankrupted themselves automatically issuing benefits to Mexican women (CA) who simply drive over the border to have their babies & use those babies to possibly keep them here.
Far as the 14th Amendment goes, an incident came up in the Supreme Court where a young man coming back to the U S from Saudi Arabia claiming citizenship by birth to escape terrorism charges in that country was denied that citizenship. Turns out he was born in Louisiana, but his family returned with him to Saudi Arabia when he was a toddler. The "not being under the jurisdiction of any other nation" clause applied to him as he had spent his life in Saudi Arabia. An inmate in Texas condemned to die for rape/murder of a teenage girl appealed based on denial of assistance from the Mexican Consul. The ass had lived in the U S since he was three, and was in his early 30's while on Texas death row, so technically, as a non U S citizen, he was entitled to this help, but his argument was rejected, and he was executed.
When you say "No driver's licenses, and no State ID for anyone not a citizen" what about for those who came here legally to work? Would they no longer be allowed to drive or would they get a special license which indicates that they're residents but not citizens? People have too much humanitarian crap in them. I say if they're illegal and don't wish to become legal, deport them! What the fucking hell is going on if someone can just enter the country and apply for food stamps? How can they not check to make sure that these people are residents, have worked etc? Then, you have citizens, some of whom are disabled, who can't get the benefits to which they're entitled! Glad that the sicko in Texas was executed. Apparently, Mexico has a bit more sense than I thought.
I don't know, there are just so many programs that should yield more money with less pain than messing with illegal immigrants which, let's face it, must be here for a reason i.e. they are hired to do work Americans do not want to do, aggriculture, cleaning pools, baby sitting, if there was no demand for these people they wouldn´t be here.
What about medical malpractice law suit ban, what about the fact that healthcare is on the crappy side and the average U.S. citizen pays up to 4 times as much as in European countries with top-knotch healthcare, mostly because if your doctor accidentally takes your finger off you will get $3000000 a year for the rest of your life )I mean, after all, the average doctor pays $36000 a year in malpractice insurance, one doctors office here did away with insurance billing and just set all doctor appointments at $50, paid up front, they saved over 400000 dollars annually in billing and clerical expenses).
What about the endless amount of money spent on Iraq, most of which disappear and no one can account for, weapons programs that can annihilate the world 80 times over, heck, after the new start it is probably down to only 30 times over, so clearly we are much safer today.
What about truly bring people to responsibility for bad banking decissions instead of giving them 30 million dollars in bonuses and send them on their merry ways?
What about simply banning annual sallary and perks over 2 million dollars, or even 1200,000 .. heck, why should you ever have to make more than 300000 or so a year? What is the justification?
So you can buy a house and a car every year?
How can you fire 1000 workers and put them on unemployment benefits and then give the CEO 20 million dollar race )IBM, HP, Ford, to name a few companies that have done this recently, not those precise numbers, but the proportional pay was similar).
Why not make your social security number mean something and have a save national database to keep track of your health, so you can't get the same prescription and go to 10 different drug stores to cash it in )or rather, go to 10 different doctors, then the stores and then get high), and may be then you don´t have to fill in the same 3 page report with the hundred questions every time you go to a new doctors office.
Sure, make life more difficult for illegal immigrants, I am a legal one and we really have to jump through hoops to stay here, the amount of stupid paperwork we are forced to fill in is staggering. We think it´s ok, because we love being here, we work and study here, pay our taxes here and contribute to society, so it´s all good, but sometimes one almost wishes one were illegal to not have to deal with all this stuff).
But, it seems to me like the republicans are protecting the people who bought them into power )banks, drug companies) and then finding a scapegoat to focus public attention away from these issues, and choose the illegal immigrants.
There is so much else that could, and should, be fixed first.
I am not anti republican, some of their ideas make a lot of sense, I think I am very much in the middle and look at individual issues rather than religiously subscribe to one party's agenda while calling everything the other party does wrong.
But I am just so tired of seeing the excess and the glamour of some people and how others just completely are fine with all that and think it is some application of "freedom".
I hardly ever get involved with American politics myself, but am constantly arguing with my Libertarian friends. They say things that make absolutely no sense to me. For example, they don't understand that making such huge amounts of money is unnecessary and wasteful, particularly when they fire employees to keep their salaries. They think that people should have the right to huge amounts of money simply because they earned it and it doesn't matter what they do with it. They're against taxation, though they might agree with a so-called fair tax, which isn't so bad. But they don't believe that anyone should get anything, whether they're truly poor, sick, disabled or just lost their jobs! I don't know where they get their ideas!
I agree with everything that you have said, though I still think illegal immigrants are a big issue. Maybe, it's because I see it so much in Greek politics, which I do follow. Glad that someone finally understands the positives to European health care! I think the American system is totally backward and alot of innocent people die or live with illnesses which can be cured or treated simply because they don't have enough money to pay for a doctor's visit. That doctor who set his appointments at $50 was smart and it seems like a very decent price.
I completely disagree with the war on Iraq, and Afghanistan, as do you. We had some of our troops there too because of our EU, NATO and UN involvement and they probably wouldn't be there if it wasn't for America. Needless to say, this made me very angry. Fortunately, we said no to sending in more but I'm not sure if the ones still there are fighting or still in noncombatant positions.
But I'm getting off topic. I love your idea on banning huge sallaries. Making a decent living, even living somewhat luxuriously is fine. But there comes a point where moderation must take it's place. I actually thought that such records existed, that is, when you fill your prescription, it's written down in the computer so you can't just go to another store and do the same thing. It seems like common sense.
I can't comment much on Republicans, but from what I've heard of them, it seems like I wouldn't agree with most of their ideas and I know that I'm very much against a few of them. I'm truly sorry that the legal immigrants have to go through so many hurdles. I wish there was a way to make things easier for you guys. I hope I don't have to endure so much when I finally get to Greece, but even if I do, it will all be worth it in the end.
OK let's break this down, Squidwrad I know nothing of assistance programs, well next to nothing save the year I had to use SSDI and that is not the cakewalk most people - republicans make it out to be. I'm not saying it should be, just saying it isn't. Neither was funding when I was in college.
But back to the illegal immigrants.
Wanta know who fights more than anyone else to let 'em stay? It's the companies that hire them. One of the major reasons we had the Amnesty program out here in the 1980s was precisely that: fruit rotted on the vines without the help of illegal aliens: They do the work.
House cleaners, babysitters for rich republican and democrat alike, it doesn't matter. They make more working here than they did there, they take the money back there which spends a lot further, then they come here again and work some more. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, the organization responsible for managing the situation knows it. I tend to agree with Wildebrew here, sounds like more scapegoating. No, I don't think we should give out benefit to anybody until we take care of our own, but that goes for foreign aid as well. But the discrepancies on the part of the republican party is gross in size.
You won't be doing any better just to feel good, implement a system that ultimately costs a lot, and doesn't work. Washington State is trying to get a bill through which would require legal status to be on the State issued ID card. Said status is not a state issue, it's a federal one. In my time at Immigration I never saw any hand-written letter in someone's own words or whatever: it was proof based on who worked for whom and for how long.
Don't make the same mistake as other groups who have run failed policies just because they were fed up with something, so now "We have to do something". That's a really weak argument. Doing something can be as bad as, or worse than, doing nothing, if that something isn't the something which will fix the problem.
If we want to run off illegals, frankly it comes to economics: cut off supply. do the national ID card, and then imprison any employer who hires an illegal, if you want to get draconian. More of them come for work, than come for benefits.
If we do do that, I don't know what's going to happen to our fruit crops out here, or even the Christmas tree farms, and all the small stores who sell to them, but I realize that doesn't really paint the Us-And-them picture some would want.
I think most find the entrance-based-on-merit approach appealing, but now whose merit? I want perhaps to only import intelligence, something profusely lacking in America. But the farmer (who sells me my food) wants to import manual labor. In order to deliver as much food as America does, there's still a lot of semiskilled and unskilled human involvement. Paid at American prices you wouldn't be able to afford the food.
And then, as I said, there are businesses who cater to the populations. Either it's a free market or it's not. Pubbies can't have it both ways, and there are loads of people selling to illegal immigrants all the time.
I guess that brings us back to a flat consumption tax on goods, something everyone from the sex-trafficking CEO who sleeps with ten-year-old girls on his business trip to Thailand, to the drug dealer, to the wellfare squad, to the working stiffs like the most of us.
The people we had the most trouble with with the illegal immigrants was not do-gooders: they're far to soft to smuggle anybody in just to put them on the roles. Employers. The guys who own the republicans, because they own the market.
Make it market-friendly to not have illegal immigrants and you'll win. Otherwise, you'll end up with spotty and really expensive results with reporters in five-star hotels airbrushing slums to make them look worse, just to make people feel good. How ironic is this?
Ok here is my two sense worth on this topic.
Immigration in some areas is a problem, and in some areas they are taking jobs. They should try to help improve their own country not harm us..
For doctors. They overcharge especially the idiot Quacks... I'm lucky I have medicade. A lot has happened to me medically in my life and if it wasn't for medicade I'd be one of those people dead, because I'd not be able to aford it.
Our health care is very very poor here in the US, and it is sad that other countries have better care.
Don't even get me started on politics though. I could ramblre on for hours.
The truth is this country is slowly becoming a dictatorship... It's not as much of a democracy as people want to claim. The government is already given too much power, and they are trying to take away rights listed in the constitution.. Now why is our economy so bad, why are we having all of these issues? It's the people's falt for giving the government too much power.
Here is an amusing news story from South Carolina:
http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/9080541/
The senator claims illegal immigrants are here, because the rest of us are too lazy to work, the Chinese and Japanese workers replaced black slaves, the Irish replaced them and now it is the Mexicans, the immigrants always have to work.
Of course this is a bit tongue in cheek of the guy (he is black himself) and he has drawn criticism for it, but it underlines my initial argument.
Immigrants are here because they are paid and wanted.
Stop paying them and they won't come.
They may be taking "our" jobs, but one asks oneself if any Americans would be willing to do those jobs anyway, some prefer social security to working in the field for less (if they had the choice).
People always seem to want more benefits and pay less taxes, which is understandable, but politicians keep promising them that this is possible, which it is not.
Either you have to pay more or you get less service.
There is someting to be said about efficiency and unnecessary servies, but that only goes so far. In the end you need to make a choice.
Well put.
And the we're-lazier argument is so senseless and completely foolish it's amazing:
The people who canonized the 1950s as some sort of golden age forget that during that time people took more vacations, worked fewer hours for a better standard of living, and the middle class was far greater in number. There was considerably more regulation. When I was a young fool, I too was anit-regulation. All young fools are: you want to do what you want, when you want it, with no consequences or responsibility to society at large. With that attitude you have no society as a whole.
But back to the supposed lazy arguments: People who claim people are drawing unemployment just to be lazy have never drawn unemployment: it's very difficult, and that for a very good reason. Your past employer paid an insurance premium (hence the term 'unemployment insurance', and you go jump through the hoops to collect.
It's actually far easier to work than to go snuffling after benefit. As long as you do your job and your company continues to thrive, you have a job. People on benefit have to come up for requalification all the time, because circumstances change, and by all rights these things need to be checked out.
If we were a completely slovenly society, we'd not have the huge workforce, infrastructures, roads, power, food, transportation, even volunteer efforts this country has. No, despite what the pubbies will tell you, we're not all lazybones, just as despite what the libbies will tell you, we're not all victims of circumstance. We, like most societies, thrive as best we can, bloom where we're planted, and carry on. Such is life as a human being, titilating tales of woe aside.
This is going to be kind of random thoughts, not in any particular order. I'm curious who thinks drawing unemployment is just to be lazy. I drew it once, and more in response to a long since ex-boyfriend encouraging me to apply. It really was quite pointless, as I had just lost a part time minimum wage job, but his rationale was the employer had jerked me around by not outright firing me, but claiming there wasn't enough for me to do that week, try again next week, etc. "Squid they either have work for you to do or they don't and if they don't they should let you go & you should get unemployment from them."
Now whether it's easy or difficult to file depends on which state, as the laws in each state can vary as far as who is and isn't eligible to collect. At one time here in MA, you used to actually have to show up in person to file for comp, and keep track of employment applications/sent resumes/interviews including names, addresses, & phone numbers. Now registration is done by telephone, and people just have to answer "yes" or "no" they weren't offered work this week, although they may have had any # of offers they rejected. A friend has property in RI, where he spends time, and was describing a girl he met, and I'm not sure if she was collecting in RI or FL, but apparently it was all telephone or online, and she just had to answer "No" to collect, her car was paid for, she was living with her parents, etc. Where is the incentive to find work? Mindset of the average person can vary from state to state, too, and a former friend of mine, when I asked would she be interested in checking out vacancies with my employer, said "I want to see where I get with my unemployment comp claim first." ?! The whole purpose of applying for comp is to try to get a fraction of your former paycheck while ACTIVELY SEEKING OTHER EMPLOYMENT. Personally, unemployment is better than no income, but I will still take work over it any old day. I'm not seeing the appeal of comp at all as it really is just a fraction of one's income without any shift diff (I work third), or sales commissions, bonuses, or tips. COBRA for health coverage costs an arm and a leg.
Re socialized medicine I'm still not seeing the rationale for this in the U S. I worked in a Veterans' hospital, and military vets actively avoid the V A in favor of paying for private medicine. One poor lady vet who served in Iraq was homeless by the time her info was entered in their system. One soldier I knew it took six months for his personnel file to be transferred from DC to Boston. Personnel being centralized it takes months for open positions to be filled, and it is next to impossible to be fired from a government job, so even if the quality of care you get sucks...one young man in Tampa's James Haley V A died with extensive pressure sores from never being rotated or his limbs exercised in bed...it's next to impossible to fire the practitioner. The thought of government being involved in medicine scares me, and we've had folks working for us in the private sector who came from places that got socialized medicine under the British and French systems, and they all said you're better off paying for private care.
Anyone getting Medicaid good luck, I hope the quality of the care you receive isn't lacking. We have universal health law here, expanding the pool of people eligible for Medicaid, and it's a disaster. One guy I talk to has a friend of his mom's who is in dementia and getting worse. The only doctor he can get through Mass Health says "There's nothing wrong with him." Apparently the man is putting his pants on backwards, and with this insurance that costs doctors a lot out of their pockets, the man was released from a hospital after two days with pneumonia. Now a lot of people get treated for pneumonia at home...I did last year...but I believe in any state had he stayed in the hospital for one more day that would have been grounds, based on his behavior, for a comprehensive psych eval. The do gooders (actually former Governor Romney was one of 'em) who passed universal health thought it would be so wonderful to expand the pool of people eligible for this program, without realizing that hey they now have insurance, but damn if they can find a primary care physician who will see 'em. A lot of doctors won't take it, and the ones who do tend to be younger & less experienced. Hopefully those of you who have it have good public health clinics, but the one I know here it really depends on what complaint you go to 'em with. Something common for that neighborhood, great, but orthopedic problems? Not so good. It's got to be better than no insurance, but I still favor a private approach to the uninsured.
I'm also curious what employers favor illegals, as the major employers I know that employer has to dial a 1-800 # to see if any non U S citizens have documentation. Small businesses? Individuals looking for a nanny or sitter? Now there are some illegals my heart goes out to, like a Mexican woman who not only got no help from Mexican police against her abusive husband, but got penalized for filing a complaint, or a Ghanaian woman seeking to flee female genital mutilation. There is a channel to get legalized and it's good especially if these are individuals who would do some kind of work in return. But if neither parent is making an effort to get legalized...mom actually had a woman who stayed here illegally for 10 years and had to be deported once she served her federal time, no effort at legalization...thus subject to someone else's jurisdiction, if they must go IMO so should the kids. National i d cards would probably be a good move in that direction.
Yes, I get that whole "it's not my problem" and "why should I pay for other people" nonsense from my Libertarian friends all the time. It drives me up the wall. While I think that many Americans are lazy, certainly that's not the case for all of them, especially in today's economy. there is a huge number of people who recently, or even not so recently, lost their jobs who simply can't find work because no one is hiring. And I'm talking skilled individuals who were making decent amounts of money. I've never been on unemployment so can't comment there, but for some people, talking on the phone is alot easier than going in person, particularly if they can't drive etc. I have Medicaid and can't really complain. Then again, the only alopathic doctors I see are the gynachologist, the eye doctor and the dentist. No insurance that I know of pays for naturopathic physicians and those are the ones I would go to if I was sick enough to need a doctor. Getting back to Medicaid, I will admit that it is sometimes difficult to find doctors who will accept it. I'm lucky enough to live in an eara with a good clinic but it sometimes takes hours to be seen, which is a real drag. Thankfully, I don't go often. As for socialised medicine, I think that there should also be an option for those who want to go private but that everyone should have access to health care.
maybe that hs changed. A few years ago, as a business owner, all I had to do was have everyone citizen or not fill out an I9 form declaring legal status.
I had no mechanism for checking this out, though in my case all my employees happened to be U.S. citizens. Perhaps this has changed since 2005.
I think the either-or approach with health care - either Canada or the U.S. is a silly argument: there are a plethora of countries (South Korea, Japan, ...) who have a private carrier system with subsidies, e.g. the same systemic contract law which binds our defense contractors and other private entities who want to bid on government contracts.
I used to be one as a software consultant, and to get a government gig, you do like anyplace else, you submit your bid and in our case with software anyway, the time it will take to completion.
It's funny to me how nobody is complaining about contract law surrounding Defense contractors, but they're claiming a modification to our system would immediately render us like Canada or parts of Europe. The V.A. is precisely what you're talking about, but it isn't at all like what the new move is: read the bill itself, it's basically contract law. Similar to contract law which binds road construction for the interstate highway systems, or defense contractors.
I'd prefer the European approach, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
I don't think too many people are familiar with laws surrounding defense contractors. Isn't a lot of this kind of work hush hush from the beginning? My dad is retired from a company that did extensive business with the U S Armed Forces, and he spoke very little of his work at all.
I think it's not just a small employer demand for illegals that has to dry up, but the states need to be united in this issue if they can't afford the upkeep of these individuals. I'm also seeing ties between how much nonsense goes on with Unemployment Comp in some of these states & how much they let the illegals walk all over 'em.
For example, it got so loose with Unemployment Comp where I live for a long time people who had NEVER LIVED NOR WORKED A DAY IN MASSACHUSETTS could actually file for & collect unemployment bennies from the Commonwealth. People would migrate from states like Florida to collect up here for the higher payout. It got to the point where native borns & other locals had to brave long lines to make their claim in the state they actually lived & worked, & it was too much of a caseload for the workers, so this loophole was closed. We have just about every third world immigrant group up here & they walk all over the rest of us. Sure we have any number of people from very poor nations who adapt & do well for themselves & are genuinely decent people, but we have so many others who are quite the opposite. Massachusetts police look the other way when they are dealing with illegals as informants so they can get these folks to work with them. Illinois is a sanctuary state for them, and I heard some years ago of an appeal for Unemployment Comp where the woman actually won after being sacked for embezzling from her dentist employer. The ground? She was "innocent until proven guilty". ?! The workplace isn't a Constitutional democracy.
Couldn't vouch for neighboring Rhode Island Unemployment Comp, but the police will not work with illegals & they are firm in assisting in their deportation once they've done something to be dealing with the police in the first place. I have a friend with a time share there, he is frequently in & out of there & hasn't complained about it and the one time I went it was lovely & had excellent infrastructure. They don't seem to have as many diverse groups as we do here, and I'm going to go ahead & assume they are more firm on integration. Probably it is such a tiny state there is little they can provide in the way of interpreters and other accommodations. Certain things are and should be decided, IMO, by each state, but when there are discrepancies this big that sometimes poses problems, like if an illegal can't get documentation like a driver's license in one state they can hop the line & get it in another. This is where, again, the National ID card would come in handy.