http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109973

'Obama to make illegals eligible for health care'
Upcoming immigration bill seen as 'backdoor' to bring millions into plan

I see no problem in requiring all illegal aliens to return to their country of record and to apply for re-entry to the United States by going to their local United States embassy, filling out all of the required paperwork, paying all of the required fees, and then waiting for their interview as their files come up in rotation. That would be, indeed, true immigration reform.

I would also like to see the Legislative Branch of the United States government enact law that prohibits granting United States citizenship solely on the criteria of a person being born on United States soil. If one of the parents is a United States citizen, then the child would have the option of seeking United States citizenship. If neither parent is a United States citizen, the child does not have the option of seeking United States citizenship.

All of the above makes wonderful sense to me.

Right on. Why is this logical and fair process not accepted and endorsed by more people? How can people even argue with this view?

BB

I've been told that without illegals, the economy of California would collapse. Nobody (legal) is willing to do the work that "they" are for the price they are paid.

It's a subjective and highly speculative comment, and don't ask for a link, because I don't have one, but the states adjacent to Mexico have access to very cheap labor that are sustaining them.

I agree with you. Up here it's pretty easy to postulate solutions to the illegal immigrant problem. However, there are some working issues with California/Texas that those legislatures are not really willing to tackle.

A couple of years ago, there was a "strike" on Cinco de Mayo to "prove" this. The end result was that high school and college students made a bunch of money mowing lawns.

As a side note, the economy of Cali is already collapsing. Taking out a significant percentage of the welfare-state recipients isn't going to speed the decline.

I fail to grasp the point you are trying to make. If there are jobs that "citizens" do not want to do, then employers could avail of the visa system to bring in the number of "non-citizens" to do the job. That process is already being done to bring in Registered Nurses, MD's, teachers, etc.

A visa system would help "non-citizens" to obtain those jobs without getting their trouser legs, or their backs for that matter, wet by illegally entering the country by crossing the Rio Grande river. We would know who they are, where they came from, and when they are scheduled to leave the country.

I believe there are very few who oppose immigration on it's face. Immigration is wonderful, but only if it is controlled. A country without borders is no country at all.

I am ignorant on the subject and do not have a strong opinion either way.

A one day strike proves nothing either way. It may open eyes to how much/little Mexican and/or illegal immigrants actually do. The employers are probably the ones that had to panic to fill the spots, but that happens. They are called sick days. So, customers stay blind to the issue.

The way that illegals are portrayed on tv, hangin' out at home depots, not all of them would skip a day. So there has to be at least one guy to do the work. Less competition.

I have a real problem with this. We pay ever increasing taxes in support of various types of welfare for legals and illegals; all the while we are subject hearing the argument that Americans won’t do certain types of work. Let me offer the proposal that we not allow ANY welfare to ANY illegals, and significantly reduce the welfare we pay out to able bodied legals (I’m thinking the number 0). Hunger is probably a motivator to get one working

I would also strongly suggest that any illegals that feel they are in need of “health care” seek that care in their country of origin, rather than compel me to pay for it, for them

Let's not forget the huge voting potential that the illegals pose for the Democrats. If the dems can figure out a way (like amnesty) to get them to the polls. It's over for the Republicans.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your desire, it will require a Constitutional Amendment to make that change. The only thing stopping that from happening is Congress & the President, as I believe it would be no problem to get the required number of states to ratify it...

It's pretty clear that illegals are a net financial plus for the economy; it's not only the CATO study that's showed that, collectively, they pay more in taxes than they consume in services.

But that doesn't mean that we have to, as a society, tolerate illegals' presence here. That's a policy decision that we, the people, have a right to make through our elected representatives, as is the question of whether or not they should get health care benefits that they don't pay for.

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with, if we were to have a national health care system, including or excluding illegals. I do think it's wrong for the Obama administration to say that they'd be excluded from it without showing their homework -- what mechanism, precisely, would they use to exclude illegals, as they claim that their plan would? -- and it is deceptive to simply point to a paragraph title in a bill as the mechanism.

The problem is going to be that most of the health care for illegals will be emergent stuff, ie, woman in labor, heart attack, personal injury ect. There is no way they are going to be turned down. If anything the amnesty might be sped up to cover the situation.

Maybe the hospital could issue an amnesty card right at admission. (Register to vote at the same time? )

Hospitals are not going to turn away emergency cases, and doctors are going to want to get paid. The whole point of universal care is that is be universal. As long as we subsidize the insurance industry, and play to the righteous right, it'll be just more high priced paperwork.

Which is exactly why, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, fifty-four percent of Americans would rather have no health care reform at all, rather than the bills that are currently being considered in Congress. The poll also shows that, while eighty percent of Republicans oppose the bill, a surprising forty percent of Democrats are opposed as well.

Universal health care is simply government controlled and government apportioned health care.

For illegal aliens who avail of emergency room treatment, perhaps ICE could outfit their buses with IV stands and tiered cots so that patients could be stabilized on their ride back to Tijuana or Juarez hospitals.

Sure. But there's other ways to reduce the subsidy to the insurance industry -- allowing health insurance sales across state lines to increase competition, for example, preferably combined with some gazillionaire starting up a low-profit technically no-profit competitor.

I think that, as bad as the Obamacare "public option" would be -- and it would -- simply adding a requirement that people buy insurance would do little more than increasing insurance company profits, and that's the way that this is shaping up.

There's no question that whatever may pass will be inadequate, the insurance and medical lobbys are still too strong. But at least then we'd have something to improve.

The problem is that the right wing wants NOTHING. No matter what, they are not going to support anything. Instead, they'll misrepresent and riddicule and deny. If the present system continues, it will bring down the economy in a few years. Most of the "people" still don't get that this is a crisis bigger than anthing we've seen.

Because of the irrational opposition to everything, I'll just hold my nose and be happy for anything. The Obama administation will do the same. Too bad.

I know lots of you "disagree", becdause YOU currently have health care. That'll change. And yeah, the waiting rooms will get more crowded, because of the medical lobbys.

It is a a fiscally "conservative" position to work the numbers and evaluate the lack of effectiveness of what we still call "private enterprise", and make changes.