U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:13 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,397,164 times
Reputation: 2345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post

This is a "two wrongs make a right" logical fallacy.
It is not wrong to ask Mexicans to care for their fellow Mexicans. I do not expect the whole world to care for my parents as my parents have not worked in the whole world. Why should Americans and Americans only be responsible for hundreds of thousands dollars of this man's medical bills?

Quote:
This is an assertion, not an argument.
No. That's simply how we've organized our modern societies. We all have agreed upon borders and boundaries. Under that "principle" you might as well argue that someone has the right to camp out in your house because there are no borders to it.

Quote:
This is a logically fallacious attempt to infer the prescriptive from the descriptive, or an is-ought logical fallacy.
Again it is simply true. Mexicans zealously enforce their laws as do most other nations. Why should Americans and Americans only be the only people who do not?

Quote:
This is a repetition of your earlier "two wrongs make a right" logical fallacy.
Your definition of wrong is that Americans should be forced to pay for the medical bills of foreign nationals. Most people would not agree with your assertions no matter how much you cloak them in first year poly sci class terms.

Quote:
This is a strawman, an imputation of a false position that I do not hold to me. Since that is the case, allow me to clearly specify that apart from regarding the existence of Mexico as morally illegitimate (along with all other nation-states, but perhaps more so because of the particularly violent nature of Castilian colonialism), I say that Carlos Slim and his fellow oligarchs should be expropriated.
That's adorable. Go found your utopia. In the meantime the rest of us will deal with the real world. In the real world people get upset when involuntarily forced to pay for the medical bills of foreign invaders.

 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:15 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 16,931,461 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
Deesillustration.com, while perhaps not an explicitly white nationalist website, is most certainly heavily white populist and in line with the hyper-paleoconservatism of white supremacists. Among their other racist illustrations are depictions of Jewish control of Washington:
This is a logically fallacious attempt to infer the prescriptive from the descriptive, or an is-ought logical fallacy.
This is a strawman, an imputation of a false position that I do not hold to me. Since that is the case, allow me to clearly specify that apart from regarding the existence of Mexico as morally illegitimate (along with all other nation-states, but perhaps more so because of the particularly violent nature of Castilian colonialism), I say that Carlos Slim and his fellow oligarchs should be expropriated.
WOW! such big words, nothing like BS to spice up the thread....

So how do you really feel about long term care of illegal aliens paid for by your tax dollars?

Long term care for an American citizen costs a few thousand dollars a month yet you want to give the same care to an illegal alien for free?

Is this the reason 50 hospitals in CA had to close because they could no longer afford treating illegal aliens?
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Land of debt and Corruption
7,526 posts, read 7,000,565 times
Reputation: 2841
Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
Ohh my. Another one.
I'll take that to mean "another person who understands the law and disagrees with your interpretation of what you *think* it states". Fine by me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
The law requires an appropriate facility suited to the needs of the patient. Sorry about that. You really should read what the law says.
Please quote that law for me since you appear to be a self-professed expert in immigration law pertaining to medical repatriations. I would like a link to the actual case law pertaining to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
As well medical ethics requires that the Doctor assure that the patient goes to a suitable facility. So not only illegal but medically unethical.
It's already determined that an acute care hospital cannot adequately provide for the long term care and is not a suitable placement, so where would you like him to go? No longterm care facility in our country will accept indigent illegal aliens which is what prompted Advocate Christ Hospital to work with the Mexican Consulate in locating a care facility willing to accept him in his home country. The standard level of care in that facility does not have to equal the medical standards here in the US and your opinion on whether or not the facility he was sent to in Mexico was appropriate or not is just that..... your opinion. For individuals seeking medical asylum in the US "A standard of care that is merely lower than that available in the United States will not sustain a claim of a well-founded fear of persecution", which is the requirement that must be met to be granted asylum on the basis of a disabling medical condition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
He is not out $700,000. The Hospital is. And they should be the one suing the employer. Or the State workers compensation people. But they won't. Why? No money. Too bad you don't understand any of this.
Yes, the hospital foot his bill and those costs will be passed on to the rest of us. What is your inane point? How do you know that the hospital isn't suing or doesn't plan to in the future? You make an awful lot of ASSumptions. Have you done an exhaustive case file search in Cook County, Illinois to see if any charges have been brought against the employer? And more importantly, why do you care? Most likely, the corporate lawyers for ACH felt they would have little chance at recuperating anywhere near the $700K+ they are owed in the Cook County Circuit Courts.



Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
You suffer from the standard anti- idiocy. You don't get to tell me what I think. I know quite clearly what is required.
What you have is a case of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" syndrome. You think you know what you're talking about, but you don't truly have a clue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
The law in no way prevents removal to an out of country facility. But it must be capable of meeting the patients needs. If not it is not "appropriate" to the patient.
And you don't decide what is or is not legally determined to be appropriate. You're no lawyer and you're certainly no judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
It is however not clear on a whole mess of grounds that a Hospital has a right to move a cogent patient to any facility without his/her permission or a court order. It is called kidnapping.
No, it is most certainly NOT kidnapping. I cannot comprehend how you can even claim that returning a person to their family in their home country of origin is kidnapping. The decision (to medically repatriate an illegal alien) MAY be subject to jurisdictional challenge if performed without the consent of the federal government (which accounts for the majority of medical repatriations), but that does not equate to charges of kidnapping. In this particular case, the hospital did the correct thing. If their decision is challenged and found inappropriate in federal court, then the federal government will be liable for the long term care of the indigent illegal and not the hospital.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olecapt View Post
Your knowledge of US law is sadly lacking.
You may want to rethink whose knowledge of US law is sadly lacking.
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:20 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,397,164 times
Reputation: 2345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
This is a nonsensical statement based on the bias of your perceptions. No human beings "tak[e] care of their own lives"; the Agricultural Revolution gave way to divisions of labor that necessitate cooperation. Prior to that, bands of hunter-gatherers also benefited from mutual cooperation.
Cooperation has always meant adhering to an agreed upon set of societal rules. Illegal migrants brazenly break those rules. They ignore employment, tax, immigration, driving, schooling and many other laws. It is ludicrous to hear them whine when they then seek the protection of the law.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that you are not subject to laws yet you want their protection. Our immigration laws are fair, open and honest. This man ignored them in his own self interest. He has only himself to blame for the result. By allowing poor employers to flourish his actions and the actions of his fellow illegal migrants only serve to prop up law breakers.

Fine the employer. But demanding that Americans pay for his care for the rest of his life is unfair. He has no claim on a society he refused to join lawfully.
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:27 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 880,630 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
It is not wrong to ask Mexicans to care for their fellow Mexicans. I do not expect the whole world to care for my parents as my parents have not worked in the whole world.
Neither have they worked outside of a relatively small number of firms/settings in a limited number of communities, in all likelihood, but you make no demand to carefully separate the tax dollars of persons that reside outside of those communities, because you have already made a concession that there is a larger reciprocal net of social investment and withdrawal based on national boundaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Why should Americans and Americans only be responsible for hundreds of thousands dollars of this man's medical bills?
This is another strawman. But in the ethical sense, the wealthiest provider should contribute the most because of the nature of diminishing marginal utility, in another ethical sense, most immigrants have provided social investment that merits access to medical coverage, and in an economic sense, universal health care sustains the physical efficiency of the working class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
No. That's simply how we've organized our modern societies.
You have not organized anything, so the usage of the possessive pronoun "we" is inaccurate nomenclature. It implies substantial influence when the relevance of the large majority of individual contributions is marginal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
We all have agreed upon borders and boundaries.
Who is "we"? Got a frog in your pocket?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Under that "principle" you might as well argue that someone has the right to camp out in your house because there are no borders to it.
This is an extremely poor comparison, if only personal possession is typically a morally legitimate instance of property ownership, and nationalism is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Again it is simply true. Mexicans zealously enforce their laws as do most other nations.
This is incorrect. A specific faction of the Mexican government devoted to law enforcement does this to some extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Why should Americans and Americans only be the only people who do not?
This is a repetition of your earlier strawman logical fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Your definition of wrong is that Americans should be forced to pay for the medical bills of foreign nationals. Most people would not agree with your assertions no matter how much you cloak them in first year poly sci class terms.
Since you do not seem to know what a two wrongs make a right logical fallacy is, I'd be happy to help you out: Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

Quote:
Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":
1. It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
2. It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.
Ergo, the claim that it is not morally problematic to deny U.S.-financed medical coverage to a Mexican because Mexican-financed medical coverage would be denied to an American is a logical fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
That's adorable. Go found your utopia. In the meantime the rest of us will deal with the real world. In the real world people get upset when involuntarily forced to pay for the medical bills of foreign invaders.
I'm sure your "foreign invaders" reference makes for tough talk on the Minutemen website, but to anyone with an eye toward history, it's simply too full of irony. The U.S. was founded by the violent dispossession of indigenous peoples, as part and parcel of the genocide that facilitated European colonial settlement across the Americas. I'm not too miffed if a squatter who made his way in by home invasion robbery cries about "foreign invaders."
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:40 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 880,630 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Cooperation has always meant adhering to an agreed upon set of societal rules.
This statement implies a formal or distinct agreement. Where is it? Where is the ratified treaty that all persons in a society sign upon obtaining legal competence that signifies agreement to "societal rules"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Illegal migrants brazenly break those rules. They ignore employment, tax, immigration, driving, schooling and many other laws.
These are artificial constraints generated by unlawful status. Illegal/undocumented immigrants/residents are disenfranchised by artificial constraints on labor market mobility, so it is the inevitable consequence that there would be related problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
It is ludicrous to hear them whine when they then seek the protection of the law. You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that you are not subject to laws yet you want their protection.
This is incorrect, and based on a flawed and logically baseless assumption of the equal morality of all laws. You have not justified this, but have engaged in the logical fallacy of question begging.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
Our immigration laws are fair, open and honest.
This is an assertion, not an argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
This man ignored them in his own self interest. He has only himself to blame for the result.
All rational individuals pursue their own self-interest. Since you have failed to demonstrate any immoral action on the parts of illegal immigrants or residents, your conclusion is not supported by your premises, rendering your attempt at an argument invalid and unsound besides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
By allowing poor employers to flourish his actions and the actions of his fellow illegal migrants only serve to prop up law breakers.
This is an incoherent sentence fragment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1 View Post
But demanding that Americans pay for his care for the rest of his life is unfair. He has no claim on a society he refused to join lawfully.
This is a fallacious depiction of a false set of choices between "lawful joining" and "unlawful joining." Since there are not equivalent opportunities for either, this is an inaccurate depiction. Addable to this is the fact that there is no moral basis for law creation in the U.S., since the nature of its creation was in the violation of the property rights of others.
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:44 PM
 
16,438 posts, read 18,597,932 times
Reputation: 9494
Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2ten View Post
I think the bill for his care should go to the company that hired him.
Very sensible approach.
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:49 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,397,164 times
Reputation: 2345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
Neither have they worked outside of a relatively small number of firms/settings in a limited number of communities, in all likelihood, but you make no demand to carefully separate the tax dollars of persons that reside outside of those communities, because you have already made a concession that there is a larger reciprocal net of social investment and withdrawal based on national boundaries.
My parents paid federal taxes. They supported the United States government not the Mexican government. My father served in the United States military not the Honduran or El Salavadoran military.

Quote:
This is another strawman. But in the ethical sense, the wealthiest provider should contribute the most because of the nature of diminishing marginal utility, in another ethical sense, most immigrants have provided social investment that merits access to medical coverage, and in an economic sense, universal health care sustains the physical efficiency of the working class.
Oh gosh. Poly sci class 101. Heaven preserve us from the sophmore who's decided he wants to spread his newfound wisdom!

The guy is not an immigrant. He's an illegal migrant. He hasn't provided any social investment in our society. Most illegals do not. They simply walk across the border without permission and take what they can get. The notion that they're helping the working class is idiotic. If anything by lowering wages, increasing school overcrowding, decreasing worker protections and pushing up the cost of access to decent neighborhoods they are vastly hurting it.

Those of us who don't live in ivory towers understand this fact.

Quote:
You have not organized anything, so the usage of the possessive pronoun "we" is inaccurate nomenclature. It implies substantial influence when the relevance of the large majority of individual contributions is marginal.
In the real world people have nation states.

Quote:
Who is "we"? Got a frog in your pocket?
The American public. You know. The people who know how to convey an idea in standard Elements of Style English rather than condescending academic gibberish.

Quote:
This is an extremely poor comparison, if only personal possession is typically a morally legitimate instance of property ownership, and nationalism is not.
That's your opinion. I have every right to say you can't live in my house or my nation without my permission. One naturally follows from the other. You can't have have property ownership without an entity to enforce it.

Quote:
This is incorrect. A specific faction of the Mexican government devoted to law enforcement does this to some extent.
Given that we don't see most Mexicans lining up to protest Mexican immigration laws -- despite the fact they routinely protest American immigration laws -- one can safely assume most Mexicans feel their own country's immigration laws are just fine.

Quote:
This is a repetition of your earlier strawman logical fallacy.
The only strawman here is your own.

Quote:
Since you do not seem to know what a two wrongs make a right logical fallacy is, I'd be happy to help you out: Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right
Dear, I have a graduate degree. I just don't share your assertions that I am responsible for this man's massive medical bills. If you want to pay for his then go ahead. He is not my responsibility just because you said so.

Quote:
Ergo, the claim that it is not morally problematic to deny U.S.-financed medical coverage to a Mexican because Mexican-financed medical coverage would be denied to an American is a logical fallacy.

No. It's your opinion. No one is denying this man care. We're just denying him United States taxpayer financed medical care. He is a foreign national. Mexicans are not entitled to ship their excess population here nor are they entitled to demand that the average American finance their medical needs.

You are, of course, perfectly free to believe otherwise. Just do so on your own dime not mine.

Quote:
I'm sure your "foreign invaders" reference makes for tough talk on the Minutemen website, but to anyone with an eye toward history, it's simply too full of irony. The U.S. was founded by the violent dispossession of indigenous peoples, as part and parcel of the genocide that facilitated European colonial settlement across the Americas. I'm not too miffed if a squatter who made his way in by home invasion robbery cries about "foreign invaders."
And before the United States showed up, those indigenous peoples were busy killing each other. The English genocide was more than trumped by the Spanish genocide. Many Mexicans are European as well as Indian. Today countries have national borders. They expect people to adhere to them. If you can't legally immigrate stay home.

That still does not change the fact that America taxpayers bear no responsibility to provide for the needs of Mexico and Latin America's excess population.
 
Old 02-07-2011, 10:51 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 16,931,461 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
This is another strawman. But in the ethical sense, the wealthiest provider should contribute the most because of the nature of diminishing marginal utility, in another ethical sense, most immigrants have provided social investment that merits access to medical coverage, and in an economic sense, universal health care sustains the physical efficiency of the working class.
Spoken like a true socialist. The only "social investment" illegal aliens have given us is keeping our jails and Border Patrol in business and causing an environmental disaster on our border states.

As most elitists only you know what is right and morally correct

Your Marxist BS knows no bounds does it?
 
Old 02-07-2011, 11:01 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 16,263,094 times
Reputation: 4611
Ya know...everttime I hear about illegals and their medical freebees......

It's not just the "free medical", although it doesn't lessen my anger It's the "DEMANDS" and out right "ORDERS" they give when something doesn't go their way or if the US Laws are even slightly enforced.
On top of that, everyone around them stoops to their every demand..

When a medical bill goes unpaid by an illegal, the cost is added to the US Citizens bill.
And here's proof:

Recently, my DR, suggested that I have a Colonoscophy, (or what ever you call it). She set up an appointment at another DR's office, they called me and I said I wanted to cancel. She said I had to come to the office to cancel, so I did. I was at the window in the waiting room, at the most, 2 min's.
I received a bill for $218.00 for stepping in the waiting room.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top