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.
And now, the invasion is at an all-time high and American citizen and their children are paying the price . . . public housing, emergency care rooms and schools, all meant for our nation's needy, are being overrun with illegal entrant foreign nationals.
.
"And now, the invasion is at an all-time high"
Many of us have said it is a way f orthe dems to get more voters.
I have heard some dem run places are alredy saying they will allow them to vote even though they are NIT American citizens.
I've posted his many times and recall ever getting a response from our left friends.
Note the date, 2008.
" One Hospital in one city in the USA
VERY INTENSE...thanks....long read but this situation and its long-term magnitude (and current status) warrant it at times...
This is only One Hospital in one city in the USA
Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas,Texas is a fairly famous institution
and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later..by
coincidence
*"On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity
ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year*
*(That's almost 44 per day---every day)*
*A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave
birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal
immigrants.. That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas.*
According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering
15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars
in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County
taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5
million.
The average patient in Park land's maternity ward is 25 years old, married
and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant.. By
law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their
immigration status or ability to pay.
OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday,
middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland
Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE.
The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient
at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child ---her previous two
were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries were free and the
Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in
Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for
the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not
that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even
bother asking at this point.)
"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term affects?
Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly
after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child
there as well (That's right, she's technically a US citizen)
These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition,
birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car
seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only
for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost
insurmountable.
Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any
sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income. An American citizen
would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their
annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the
hospital must take them at their word.
"My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq )
and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these
perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our
public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American
citizens? Yes, it does!
As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's
bare bones, meat and potato medical care - not top of line.
Their (the illegals') medical care is free - simply because they are
illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn
less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not
refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not
so easy for Americans.)
There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for
un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free
treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is
going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But US citizens who live
outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?
As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are
actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP
story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to
translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband.
The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother
was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was
apparently a great injustice to her.
In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now
providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak
Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas
Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now
have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed
curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous
multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.
( Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation - particularly to
our "employees" in Congress.)
*Remember that this is only ONE hospital is Dallas, Texas. There are many
more hospitals across our country that also have to deal with this.*
*SO TRUMP IS RIGHT WANTING TO FOCUS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGATION*
*REMEMBER THEY ARE NOT 'UNDOCUMENTED ' , THEY ARE ILLEGAL & MILKING AMERICA
DRY....*..
*PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY US CITIZEN AND LEGAL RESIDENT YOU KNOW.*
And the county hospitals in Houston run a close 2nd. Some have stopped keeping records of the mom because they say the baby is an American citizen. So there is not an accurate count for the past few years of the citizenship of the mom. And some illegals the Valley have stopped going to the hospitals. So their babies have no birth certificates.
They are taken advantage of by large employers. About the time we moved again from Dallas to Houston it was in all the media about a guy falling from a tree. His employer was one of this large national companies that trim trees for utility companies. An illegal was in a tree in Montgomery county and fell. He was brought to Ben Taub hospital. His treatment took 6 months. Then when they could do nothing more for his paralyzed form the waist down self, Harris county paid for a specialized plane to take him home to his momma in Mexico.
Where does it say in the constitution that a president has to be convicted of insurrection to be disqualified? It simply says engaged in. Who defines if that happened? I would suppose each state. On the flip side could states ban Biden in 2024 because of the border situation claiming gave comfort to our enemies? Again the state can probably define that how they want.
What you said is dangerous. More dangerous than you think.
While we constantly gleaned philosophical and moral ideas from the US Constitution, what you and these liberal lawyers seems to miss, or more like ignored, is that first and foremost, the US Constitution is a LEGAL document. That means no matter what we interpreted, or thought we did, must finally be made into LAWS.
Take the 'right to privacy' and the 'right to abortion' for examples.
Neither right is linguistically outlined in the US Constitution and yet we interpreted they exists, then proceeded to make various laws covering them. We inferred them.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
If we interpret the word 'engaged' from a legal perspective, it mean Trump would have to be proven that he was the de facto leader of the movement, that he either planned or provided the general outline of the rebellion, and that he finally led the rebellion.
But if we interpret the word 'engaged' from a rhetorical perspective and prosecute legally, then we opened up the 14th for political misuse and abuse against anyone we do not like.
If Section 3 is that easily interpreted, then why did it took two yrs to find it? Jonathan Turley (Fox News) argued the legal interpretation. Liberal law professor Laurence Tribe called Turley a hack for that. If Section 3 is that easily interpreted, then why not Tribe himself found it and used it? Instead, apparently we had an anti-Trump conservative retired judge interpreted it, then every Democrat jumped on it BECAUSE the discoverer was conservative.
Most do not realize that every country is a dictatorship. The issue is what KIND of dictatorship. Of the personality kind, whatever the leader says -- goes. Not much interpreting on what Saddam Hussein or Xi Jingping or Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro said. For US, our dictator is the US Constitution and we have a body -- the US Supreme Court -- to interpret what we think the dictator said. Are the Democrats readied to fight this out at the Supreme Court?
Where does it say in the constitution that a president has to be convicted of insurrection to be disqualified? It simply says engaged in. Who defines if that happened? I would suppose each state. On the flip side could states ban Biden in 2024 because of the border situation claiming gave comfort to our enemies? Again the state can probably define that how they want.
Fox and CNN have interviews live with constitutionally intelligent persons. Trump can counter sue and delay long after the matter goes to the Supreme Court. By then the election will be over.
Voters know Trump is charged with over 90 counts on various charges. Judging by this forum most have made up their mind on whether he is guilty or not. If he is convicted before the election it won't change many minds. Those that hate him will be happy. His voters will be angry. Not many on the fence.
I might be one of the few who feels that the charges should have been filed after election day and who also believes Trump is guilty on at least some of the charges. The document case is cut and dry. He tried to hide the documents, delete video evidence he lied to his lawyers he lied to the feds. Pretty hard to dispute that. And enough have flipped against him to make it very difficult for him to win that case. And the other charges in the various indictments indicate quite troubling behavior.
"Voters know Trump is charged with over 90 counts on various charges."
From very biased dem AG's etc.
Below is a detailed tally of the results of the 2020 Republican Party presidential primary elections in the United States. In most U.S. states outside New Hampshire, votes for write-in candidates remain untallied..
The only category that even arguably applies to Trump is “an officer of the United States,” Mukasey wrote. But that phrase, he asserted, “refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones.”
Accusations towards Trump are pale in comparison to (James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson )
who are considered the two worst ( Democratic ) Presidents of all time and never spent a day in jail.
Just look it up...........
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.
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.
