H.R. 4437

Lori Lancaster | March 28, 2006
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 28, 2006
What does this mean?

I found a sec to look it up and I see you are talking about the immigration thing...I haven't read it and don't know all the details but I was in the office when the massive protest in Chicago took place - I tell you, the building shook with the shouts!

Lori Lancaster | March 28, 2006
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | March 30, 2006
Withhold medical care? I don't consider many things cruel, but we don't do it to murderers and rapists in prison, and we don't do it to enemy combatants captured during war, so why do it to non-violent civilians whose biggest threat is to our economy? What, that's going to stop them from coming over?

Scott Hardie | March 30, 2006
There's a great movie out right now on this subject if you're the bleeding-heart sort: (link)

Lori Lancaster | March 30, 2006
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | March 30, 2006
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | March 31, 2006
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | March 31, 2006
Illegal immigration needs to stop NOW! As a card carrying member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corp, please check out their website and see why our borders need to be secured. Here's their link. (link)

Also, here's a story that you should all read. (link)

These people are demanding full citizen rights and they march under a different countries flag. If that's the case, get out of the country. If you want to be a citizen here, then do it properly and march under the correct colors.

There is another border watch operation starting this April, tomorrow. If you can, head down to the border and do what your government isn't. Protecting the country from illegal immigration and potential terrorist from crossing the border.

Anna Gregoline | March 31, 2006
I think a lot of people's main problem with the bill, Mike, is the withholding of help from anyone, lest that person be deemed a criminal as well.

I find the bill abhorent enough just for that - I'm imagining a child with life-threatening injuries arriving at a hospital - are they really going to turn him away because he's an illegal immigrant? That's what the language of the bill sounds like - or if they don't turn him away, the people who helped him could be sent to jail too.

I agree that illegal immigration is a serious problem and I would like it to stop as well. But I don't think this bill is the proper way to do it.

Mike Eberhart | March 31, 2006
I agree that withholding medical help is not the right thing to do. They should be allowed to help those that really need it. However, after they are stable, or healed, then they need to be deported back to their own country. If they want to return to the US, then do it legally.

Having said that, the first thing that needs to happen is to shutdown the borders until they can figure out a better way to protect them.

Scott Horowitz | March 31, 2006
I understand a lot of problems with illegal immigration, but here's a plus

Many of the people that are here illegally are doing menial tasks that no American would want to do at below minimum wage pay. If this stops, then prices will increase.


Just another way to look at the problem.

Oh yeah, and a bunch of us probably wouldn't be here if all immigration was legal....

Anna Gregoline | March 31, 2006
Scott - I really don't get that argument - "jobs that Americans don't want to do."

What I don't buy is that there are such jobs. There is still an unemployment rate for Americans - I believe that rate would go down if immigrants weren't taking those positions.

I realize it would cause problems if we managed to somehow, "poof" all the illegals were gone. For example, prices of things like strawberries would skyrocket - because the illegals who are paid for picking them are paid such a poor wage that growers would be forced to pay Americans more for that job, or risk going out of business.

I don't see it as a good thing that we wink and look the other way on industries such as this, allowing illegal immigrants to take a job that could be offered to someone legally in this country, while paying them a wage that isn't liveable simply to keep costs to consumers down. It's unfair to everyone in the big picture.

Jackie Mason | April 1, 2006
[hidden by request]

Steve West | April 4, 2006
Somebody check me on this. In 1994(?), California passed a ballot initiative, Proposition 187, which would have denied "free" (as in taxpayer-funded) social services to illegal aliens. Federal courts prevented the implementation of Prop 187 citing the Fourteenth Amendment. How does H.R. 4437 differ significantly from that instance (other than the authoring body)?

Scott Hardie | April 4, 2006
Well, I ran a curiosity-feeding search on Wikipedia for the ominously-named Proposition 187. According to the article (link) it was overturned in federal court because California exceeded federal authority on the subject of immigration. If H.R. 4437 is a national, there's no such conflict.

Jackie Mason | April 4, 2006
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | May 1, 2006
[hidden by request]