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 11-10-2009, 01:48 PM
 
Location: California
706 posts, read 796,028 times
Reputation: 179

Advertisements

Is this reasoning logical or do we have more enimies than just the democrats?


“If we had done that right, the bill would have been extremely unlikely [to pass], if we’d brought up the illegal immigration motion to recommit,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law. “That would have been the coup de grace. It would have killed the bill.”

SNIP

Immigration Plan Questioned - Roll Call
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2009, 08:18 AM
 
Location: San Diego
32,799 posts, read 30,034,103 times
Reputation: 17687
Quote:
Originally Posted by borderlord View Post
Is this reasoning logical or do we have more enimies than just the democrats?


“If we had done that right, the bill would have been extremely unlikely [to pass], if we’d brought up the illegal immigration motion to recommit,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law. “That would have been the coup de grace. It would have killed the bill.”

SNIP

Immigration Plan Questioned - Roll Call

Politicians like to bury special interest items deep in these bills. Clinton was talking about it this morning and admitted that the entire bills usually don't get read.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 08:44 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,076,921 times
Reputation: 822
Illegal immigrants are excluded. What's interesting is that the Republican Party is using illegal immigrants to stop healthcare reform. This is a classic example how fear is used to push one's personal agenda. The public becomes galvanized on stopping healthcare reform due to the false statement that illegal immigrants will come in droves for healthcare. Thus, corporate interests win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Illegal immigrants are excluded. What's interesting is that the Republican Party is using illegal immigrants to stop healthcare reform. This is a classic example how fear is used to push one's personal agenda. The public becomes galvanized on stopping healthcare reform due to the false statement that illegal immigrants will come in droves for healthcare. Thus, corporate interests win.
You didn’t answer my question on another thread. I reiterate. If a bill excludes a group, yet has no provisions to prevent them from being included, are they actually excluded?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
You didn’t answer my question on another thread. I reiterate. If a bill excludes a group, yet has no provisions to prevent them from being included, are they actually excluded?
That is what is known as a loop hole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
That is what is known as a loop hole.
Absolutely! Illegals know all of the loopholes, and they fully take advantage of them. The total number of uninsured even includes illegal aliens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 11:25 PM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,076,921 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
You didn’t answer my question on another thread. I reiterate. If a bill excludes a group, yet has no provisions to prevent them from being included, are they actually excluded?
Read my previous post...that's your answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 11:26 PM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,076,921 times
Reputation: 822
BTW there are provisions. Documentation must be provided.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
Read my previous post...that's your answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy View Post
BTW there are provisions. Documentation must be provided.
Which “previous” post? Please indicate, because I have yet to see a response. There are NO provisions. The pro-illegals fought to exclude a verification requirement. As a matter of fact, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus threatened to vote against the bill if it included an immigration verification. I wonder why.

So tell me, what “documentation” are you referring to? Could it be the same documentation illegals use to obtain employment -- stolen/fake SSNs? Please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 09:33 AM
 
3,536 posts, read 5,076,921 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Which “previous” post? Please indicate, because I have yet to see a response. There are NO provisions. The pro-illegals fought to exclude a verification requirement. As a matter of fact, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus threatened to vote against the bill if it included an immigration verification. I wonder why.

So tell me, what “documentation” are you referring to? Could it be the same documentation illegals use to obtain employment -- stolen/fake SSNs? Please.
Yet in one reincarnation of the bill there is a provision. Please remember that Democrats are more concerning about the Republicans (whose fear borders on insanity on this point).

The interesting thing is that this a paid for public option. Meaning you must pay premiums. Personally, I don't think that you should establish legality for a product. Since it is YOUR money that you are spending.
Shouldn't anyone who is able to pay be able to obtain health insurance (regardless of legality)?
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
Similar Threads
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