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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2008, 06:43 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,813,362 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Tax-funded health insurance for children should benefit needy legal citizens, not illegal aliens. Illegal alien children are already receiving enough freebies funded by US taxpayers. If these provisions are included in the new bill, this will simply be yet another ‘benefit’ abused by illegal aliens, and another magnet for illegal immigration.

Mexican children are already abusing our school systems by making a daily trek into this country to attend our schools -- all on the taxpayer’s dime. They don’t even try to hide it. After all, our laws mandate that EVERY child, irrespective of immigration status, is entitled to receive an education in this country. The same will apply to this. They will enter this country to receive their health insurance card, and return to Mexico. Or, a family member already illegally residing in this country will obtain the card on their behalf. Whenever they need medical treatment, they will simply cross the border (as they do daily to attend school), receive their treatment, and return home. We will essentially become Mexico’s healthcare system. There will be nothing to prevent this abuse, because proof of citizenship will not be a requirement.

Why should US taxpayers be burdened with providing health insurance for children who should not be here?

Quote:
If the House brings up children’s healthcare in September, Hispanic, black and Asian members will press Speaker Nancy Pelosi to restore two controversial pro-immigrant measures.

The provisions, ending a five-year waiting period for benefits for legal immigrants and canceling a requirement that participants show proof of citizenship, were dropped last year by Democratic leaders seeking to pick up Republican votes for a veto override. Republicans criticized both measures as overly pro-immigrant.

But the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) says the measures really don’t have anything to do with illegal immigration, and shouldn’t be caught up in the immigration debate.
TheHill.com - Minority caucuses to press for two SCHIP provisions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2008, 07:56 AM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,689,216 times
Reputation: 3010
I'm a single mom with an eleven year old son. I go to school full-time (18 semester hours) work part-time, and subsist on grants and student loans. I am also an American citizen.

Where is my child's taxpayer subsidized healthcare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,813,362 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
I'm a single mom with an eleven year old son. I go to school full-time (18 semester hours) work part-time, and subsist on grants and student loans. I am also an American citizen.

Where is my child's taxpayer subsidized healthcare?
Now, now, Kele.....you know our government isn't supposed to concern itself with the needs of legal citizens. We must FIRST care for illegals. Where is your compassion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,366,957 times
Reputation: 4893
In a word:

NO!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Northern VA (for now)
23,003 posts, read 31,957,905 times
Reputation: 30387
Shows you how seriously twisted this country is. A lot of our US-born kids dont have health insurance and our govt wants cover illegals health insurance before batting an eyelash at our children's insurance needs.

One question: Our federal govt is watching out for the illegals, Who exactly is watching out for us and our children? Our government sure aint doing the job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Ohio
18,012 posts, read 13,243,316 times
Reputation: 13787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Tax-funded health insurance for children should benefit needy legal citizens, not illegal aliens. Illegal alien children are already receiving enough freebies funded by US taxpayers. If these provisions are included in the new bill, this will simply be yet another ‘benefit’ abused by illegal aliens, and another magnet for illegal immigration.
Then you need to amend the 14th Amendment to change the word 'person' to 'citizen.'

Otherwise your "provisions" in the new bill will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Missouri
3,640 posts, read 4,309,484 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Then you need to amend the 14th Amendment to change the word 'person' to 'citizen.'

Otherwise your "provisions" in the new bill will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Please take the time to actually read the 14th Amendment and you will see that the children of illegals are already not considered citizens. The 14th Amendment has been abd is being misinterpreted for the goal of multicultrism and one worlders. If you would take the time to actually research the amendment then you would find that you are wrong in your assumptions about it. Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) has already stated exactly what he meant by the 14th Amendment. Do you know who he is? Well, he happens to be the author of that amendment. Please take the time to read the whole of the information I have I have linked for you below.

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - THE AMERICAN RESISTANCE FOUNDATION

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 01:29 PM
 
1,417 posts, read 852,101 times
Reputation: 76
I am unsure here, I mean these are children brought here against their will most likely. Taking the fault for their parents actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Missouri
3,640 posts, read 4,309,484 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
I am unsure here, I mean these are children brought here against their will most likely. Taking the fault for their parents actions.
Tough luck then. They need to blame their parents and they still need to be deported. I don't care what their excuses happen to be at any given time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 01:33 PM
 
1,417 posts, read 852,101 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Political Junky View Post
Tough luck then. They need to blame their parents and they still need to be deported. I don't care what their excuses happen to be at any given time.
Your going to safe tough luck to a helpless 3 year old? I mean its really not their fault. The children are the only ones ending up hurt in the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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