I
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I disagree that immigrants rely on social services solely, or even primarily because they can’t afford to do otherwise. That might be true sometimes, but I think it’s much more complex than that.
I do work for a company that has decent wages and a very good health insurance plan. It is rare to find an “Anglo” who does not carry the group health and the disability insurance. It is rare to find a Hispanic doing the same job at the same wage who carries either. It does cost money to have the benefits, but it’s not out of reach at all. What I have seen time and again is groups of Hispanics, one of whom will have a group card, but a number of them will use the same card. I have seen many claim a work injury where there was no work injury so it would be paid for by workers’ compensation instead of the group health they don’t have. I even asked one, one time, who did that and was caught doing it, why in the world he didn’t have health insurance since it was available to him. He replied “because I didn’t know I would get hurt”. He wasn’t even embarrassed, and acted as if it was the dumbest question he ever heard.
I have also seen different Hispanics use the same Medicaid card; people who have jobs and could afford health insurance, using the card of one of them who is not employed. Doctors around here often have a tough time knowing who has what medical history because of that. I have seen medical records, supposedly of one person, with three or four different patient signatures; all the same name. I have seen physicians write that, e.g., a pregnant woman appearing to be in her thirties has an ID that says she’s sixty, or a person appearing to be in his late fifties come in with an ID that says he’s twenty-five. A healthcare provider can’t throw somebody out of his office because of that. He would be sued the next day. I suppose native-born Americans do that some, but I have never seen it.
I’m not saying it’s conscious theft, exactly. I think it’s something else. So many of them come from countries that have a kind of vague socialist orientation, but insufficient resources with which to make it a political reality. I think a lot of them bring that orientation with them into a country that has the resources, but not the orientation or the political reality. I think a lot of them think it’s “owed” to them, as a matter of social justice, and are not troubled by having to go through various strategems to make it happen.
If anyone does not think abuse is widespread, he simply does not know what he’s talking about. And it’s wrong to say they do it because they can’t afford to do otherwise. I don’t doubt that there are some illegals who do not earn a living wage. I have known a few, though most illegals I have known do just fine. But around here, immigrant industrial workers earn just the same as everyone else does. They just don’t pay for the benefits everybody else has to pay for to protect himself or his family. And they’re not a bit ashamed of it either. They consider it just being smart.
I am not saying every last one is like that, but it is so pervasive that I would have to say it’s the majority. And, since others are paying for it, I say it’s wrong and should be stopped.
Finally, all of this talk of “penalizing employers of illegals” as a panacea is misguided. Certainly, some employers knowingly hire illegals. But I have never seen an illegal (and I have seen plenty) who did not have a pretty good set of forged ID cards. It is illegal for an employer to question the identity or status of a job applicant whose identification, on its face, appears to be regular, whatever doubts the employer might have. Doing so would be “discriminatory.”
I do work for a company that has decent wages and a very good health insurance plan. It is rare to find an “Anglo” who does not carry the group health and the disability insurance. It is rare to find a Hispanic doing the same job at the same wage who carries either. It does cost money to have the benefits, but it’s not out of reach at all. What I have seen time and again is groups of Hispanics, one of whom will have a group card, but a number of them will use the same card. I have seen many claim a work injury where there was no work injury so it would be paid for by workers’ compensation instead of the group health they don’t have. I even asked one, one time, who did that and was caught doing it, why in the world he didn’t have health insurance since it was available to him. He replied “because I didn’t know I would get hurt”. He wasn’t even embarrassed, and acted as if it was the dumbest question he ever heard.
I have also seen different Hispanics use the same Medicaid card; people who have jobs and could afford health insurance, using the card of one of them who is not employed. Doctors around here often have a tough time knowing who has what medical history because of that. I have seen medical records, supposedly of one person, with three or four different patient signatures; all the same name. I have seen physicians write that, e.g., a pregnant woman appearing to be in her thirties has an ID that says she’s sixty, or a person appearing to be in his late fifties come in with an ID that says he’s twenty-five. A healthcare provider can’t throw somebody out of his office because of that. He would be sued the next day. I suppose native-born Americans do that some, but I have never seen it.
I’m not saying it’s conscious theft, exactly. I think it’s something else. So many of them come from countries that have a kind of vague socialist orientation, but insufficient resources with which to make it a political reality. I think a lot of them bring that orientation with them into a country that has the resources, but not the orientation or the political reality. I think a lot of them think it’s “owed” to them, as a matter of social justice, and are not troubled by having to go through various strategems to make it happen.
If anyone does not think abuse is widespread, he simply does not know what he’s talking about. And it’s wrong to say they do it because they can’t afford to do otherwise. I don’t doubt that there are some illegals who do not earn a living wage. I have known a few, though most illegals I have known do just fine. But around here, immigrant industrial workers earn just the same as everyone else does. They just don’t pay for the benefits everybody else has to pay for to protect himself or his family. And they’re not a bit ashamed of it either. They consider it just being smart.
I am not saying every last one is like that, but it is so pervasive that I would have to say it’s the majority. And, since others are paying for it, I say it’s wrong and should be stopped.
Finally, all of this talk of “penalizing employers of illegals” as a panacea is misguided. Certainly, some employers knowingly hire illegals. But I have never seen an illegal (and I have seen plenty) who did not have a pretty good set of forged ID cards. It is illegal for an employer to question the identity or status of a job applicant whose identification, on its face, appears to be regular, whatever doubts the employer might have. Doing so would be “discriminatory.”
I
Ituyu
Guest
I’ve worked through Catholic Charities as both a volunteer and as an employee of the Charities Immigration QDE ( We accepted and processed legalization applications and submitted them to the INS) We had intimate knowledge through my position about the lives of those who applied. They had to declare all names used and where, as well as all previous addresses. They all underwent background checks. If they told the truth and did not qualify, the INS would not use that information against them. If they lied they were disqualified and were subject to deportation. Consequently, I have a different picture on this issue because I had all the documentation on their income and they had to file ten years worth of income tax returns. Also “illegals” do not qualify for government assistance. I have no reason to question your personal experience but I do sincerely doubt that we can paint the majority of “illegals” with such a broad brush. For one, the statistics I’ve seen for example of “illegals” working in the fields puts large numbers at the poverty level. Aside from that all available data I’ve seen indicate that most “illegal” workers work at low paying jobs and of course, add to that my personal experience. Those that find their way into skilled industrial jobs are the exception not the rule. In addition insurance fraud is rampant due in large part to the fact that the ranks of the uninsured are swelling to historic levels and you’ll find that it is not limited to Hispanics or even “illegals” though those at the lowest pay scale are more prevalent.Finally, all of this talk of “penalizing employers of illegals” as a panacea is misguided. Certainly, some employers knowingly hire illegals. But I have never seen an illegal (and I have seen plenty) who did not have a pretty good set of forged ID cards. It is illegal for an employer to question the identity or status of a job applicant whose identification, on its face, appears to be regular, whatever doubts the employer might have. Doing so would be “discriminatory.”
I agree that employers are at a disadvantage when it comes to verifying documents but it is possible to spot questionable SS#‘s and California Drivers’ Licenses are very difficult to duplicate. And, I’ve seen some pretty flaky looking documents that had been accepted by employers. Prior to 1986 most just wanted them to fill in the blanks on the job applications because back then it was “illegal” for them to work but it was not “illegal” to hire them. Today supposedly both are “illegal” but if the law were enforced many companies would find themselves in a bind not because of documents but because they wouldn’t be able to fill their labor needs.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
My statements of fact are not “assumptions”.I hope that above explains why your assumptions are inaccurate.
And they are accurate.
The arguments against my statements basically are that I am being uncharitable. And that, somehow, illegal immigrants have a right to be here.
W
Walt_Oliver
Guest
**Please respond to posts only in the threads in which they are posted. The threads get impossible to follow when cross quoting is done. Thank you for your cooperation.
Walt**
Walt**
I
Ituyu
Guest
My statements of fact are not “assumptions”.
And they are accurate.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
I
Ituyu
Guest
All your facts with their perceived implication could all easily be resolved by simply opening that little door of “legalization” which they should have been allowed through from the beginning. They were not allowed the “legal” option through no fault of their own. So they took the alternative that any reasonable and responsible person would do. They got a job that allows them to put food on the table.The illegals are being allowed to work here, to get free medical treatment, to get free educational benefits, to have their children become automatic citizens of the United States, and to bring in to the United States a variety of contagious diseases and to come in with criminal backgrounds.
Under the procedures followed by LEGAL immigrants the disease, educational, and criminal situations are routinely screened. In addition, legal immigrants who might appear on a terrorist watch list are also screened. Illegal immigrants can evade legitimate screening.
It allows employers of illegal immigrants to underpay the illegals which puts citizens and legal immigrants at a disadvantage.
The legal immigrants and legitimate citizens also must pay taxes to provide the benefits being accorded to the illegal immigrants.
All of that constitutes a privileged status which puts LEGAL immigrants and legitimate citizens at a disadvantage.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Quote:The illegals are being allowed to work here, to get free medical treatment, to get free educational benefits, to have their children become automatic citizens of the United States, and to bring in to the United States a variety of contagious diseases and to come in with criminal backgrounds.
Under the procedures followed by LEGAL immigrants the disease, educational, and criminal situations are routinely screened. In addition, legal immigrants who might appear on a terrorist watch list are also screened. Illegal immigrants can evade legitimate screening.
It allows employers of illegal immigrants to underpay the illegals which puts citizens and legal immigrants at a disadvantage.
The legal immigrants and legitimate citizens also must pay taxes to provide the benefits being accorded to the illegal immigrants.
All of that constitutes a privileged status which puts LEGAL immigrants and legitimate citizens at a disadvantage.
Originally Posted by Al Masetti forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*The illegals are being allowed to work here, to get free medical treatment, to get free educational benefits, to have their children become automatic citizens of the United States, and to bring in to the United States a variety of contagious diseases and to come in with criminal backgrounds.
Under the procedures followed by LEGAL immigrants the disease, educational, and criminal situations are routinely screened. In addition, legal immigrants who might appear on a terrorist watch list are also screened. Illegal immigrants can evade legitimate screening.
It allows employers of illegal immigrants to underpay the illegals which puts citizens and legal immigrants at a disadvantage.
The legal immigrants and legitimate citizens also must pay taxes to provide the benefits being accorded to the illegal immigrants.
All of that constitutes a privileged status which puts LEGAL immigrants and legitimate citizens at a disadvantage.*
All your facts with their perceived implication could all easily be resolved by simply opening that little door of “legalization” which they should have been allowed through from the beginning. They were not allowed the “legal” option through no fault of their own. So they took the alternative that any reasonable and responsible person would do. They got a job that allows them to put food on the table.
A
AKG
Guest
While I prefer that people who immigrate to the United States become legal citizens, I understand why many Mexicans find this difficult. The Mexican culture is very cohesive, and there is a bond
of community that is not found in many other cultures.
The rich spirituality that is weaved within the Mexican community is to be admired. There is a deep love for Our Lady, and identification with the sorrowful and suffering Jesus in whom is found solidarity and redemption.
of community that is not found in many other cultures.
The rich spirituality that is weaved within the Mexican community is to be admired. There is a deep love for Our Lady, and identification with the sorrowful and suffering Jesus in whom is found solidarity and redemption.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Is this really just your first post or were previous posts lost in the crash? Well welcome to the boards. Hope you’ll have the time to post some more. BTW, you’re right about their cohesiveness. What some people don’t understand that these enforcement only provisions attacks the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of many a “legal” immigrant. I worry about how much damage we might do to the family unit.While I prefer that people who immigrate to the United States become legal citizens, I understand why many Mexicans find this difficult. The Mexican culture is very cohesive, and there is a bond
of community that is not found in many other cultures.
The rich spirituality that is weaved within the Mexican community is to be admired. There is a deep love for Our Lady, and identification with the sorrowful and suffering Jesus in whom is found solidarity and redemption.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It doesn’t resolve anything to say one people has a right to inhabit a particular place because their ancestors once did, because it could almost never be determined who was where in prehistoric times. Indian tribes in the U.S. were constantly at war with one another, and various tribes displaced others in particular locales. The Apaches, for example, once lived on the southern plains; but were driven from there by Comanches who had previously lived in the Rockies, and on and on and on. Then, in the time before recorded history, almost nothing is known.
In Northwest China are the graves of the Tarim mummies, seemingly of Celtic culture and Caucasian in ancestry. So who should occupy northern China? The Irish? The Chinese would, and ought to, resist irridentist Irish claims if they were ever made on that basis.
A nation is a group of people who, ideally, are cohesive and share at least a modicum of common belief as to governance, and who occupy a particular plance and do, indeed, govern it. Many things go into making a nation. Not the least of those things is a sense of being a part of that particular nation and its culture. Many recent immigrants do not consider themselves part of this body politic and have little desire to adhere to the culture or even the laws of this nation. Ancestry has little to do with it, as the nation called the U.S. has many people of varied ancestral origins; some new here some old. But until recently, such immigrants resolved to become part of the body politic and respect it as a nation having a right to exist and to exist in its particular way.
People who come into one area for the purpose of displacing the then inhabitants and/or displacing the common elements of their culture, ought not to be considerd to have a right to do so. Whether or not the current inhabitants displaced others in the past is irrelevant, as every people on earth displaced another at some time or other.
In Northwest China are the graves of the Tarim mummies, seemingly of Celtic culture and Caucasian in ancestry. So who should occupy northern China? The Irish? The Chinese would, and ought to, resist irridentist Irish claims if they were ever made on that basis.
A nation is a group of people who, ideally, are cohesive and share at least a modicum of common belief as to governance, and who occupy a particular plance and do, indeed, govern it. Many things go into making a nation. Not the least of those things is a sense of being a part of that particular nation and its culture. Many recent immigrants do not consider themselves part of this body politic and have little desire to adhere to the culture or even the laws of this nation. Ancestry has little to do with it, as the nation called the U.S. has many people of varied ancestral origins; some new here some old. But until recently, such immigrants resolved to become part of the body politic and respect it as a nation having a right to exist and to exist in its particular way.
People who come into one area for the purpose of displacing the then inhabitants and/or displacing the common elements of their culture, ought not to be considerd to have a right to do so. Whether or not the current inhabitants displaced others in the past is irrelevant, as every people on earth displaced another at some time or other.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
How much damage “we” might do? You forget that such separations were a matter of choice on their part, not ours, and are something they could easily solve by going back to the place where their relatives live. The fact that someone might be a “legal” immigrant does not give him the right to impart that status on another. That is the right of the polity only. When one accepts “legal” status, that status has conditions. When the ancestors of most Americans moved here, they knew full well that they would likely not see again whatever family they left behind unless they revisted the “old sod” themselves. They knew that was a condition of their acceptance of legal status here and respected it. If immigrants “damage” their families by leaving them behind in a less fortunate homeland; a homeland to which they do not return for economic reasons alone, that is not the fault of the United States or its citizens, and it is not the duty of the United States or its citizens to relieve them of the consequences of those choices, particularly when doing so would be to the damage of those who constitute this body politic.What some people don’t understand that these enforcement only provisions attacks the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of many a “legal” immigrant. I worry about how much damage we might do to the family unit.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Ridgerunner… both of our posts are very well put.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Uh huh, you ‘Want your cake and it too’. What we’ve done to other’s is okay but when we’re afraid other’s are taking over, it’s not okay. The fact of the matter is that nobody is displacing us, we’re fading away and they have nothing to do with it.A nation is a group of people who, ideally, are cohesive and share at least a modicum of common belief as to governance, and who occupy a particular plance and do, indeed, govern it. Many things go into making a nation. Not the least of those things is a sense of being a part
It’s their fault our birth rates have dropped and our population is aging. And, it’s their fault that we need their labor. It’s their fault that they’re here and it’s their fault that some of us are afraid.
I
Ituyu
Guest
One of the major goals of our Immigration policies is to keep families together. At least part of that, is our recognition that the disintegration of the famly unit leads to many social ills. Building idiotic fences and mass deportations, without considering the impact on the family unit, are a direct contradiction of our stated goals. This is just another aspect of the anti-immigrant politics that just don’t add up.How much damage “we” might do? You forget that such separations were a matter of choice on their part, not ours, and are something they could easily solve by going back to the place where their relatives live. The fact that someone might be a “legal” immigrant does not give him the right to impart that status on another. That is the right of the polity only. When one accepts “legal” status, that status has conditions. When the ancestors of most Americans moved here, they knew full well that they would likely not see again whatever family they left behind unless they revisted the “old sod” themselves. They knew that was a condition of their acceptance of legal status here and respected it. If immigrants “damage” their families by leaving them behind in a less fortunate homeland; a homeland to which they do not return for economic reasons alone, that is not the fault of the United States or its citizens, and it is not the duty of the United States or its citizens to relieve them of the consequences of those choices, particularly when doing so would be to the damage of those who constitute this body politic.
W
wabrams
Guest
So we shouldn’t build a fence so we don’t split up families? That doesn’t add up.One of the major goals of our Immigration policies is to keep families together. At least part of that, is our recognition that the disintegration of the famly unit leads to many social ills. Building idiotic fences and mass deportations, without considering the impact on the family unit, are a direct contradiction of our stated goals. This is just another aspect of the anti-immigrant politics that just don’t add up.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Well in a way Wabrams. I thought you said that you were following along? The fence has many negative impacts that can be addressed, this is one of them. I’m afraid that we’re being lied to about this fence. Some say it’s about our National Security and that’s been shown here to be a canard for none of the 9/11 terrorists came over our southern border, they all came here legally. It’s been said that they are guilty of immoral actions but the Church is steadfast in its support for their Human Rights from a Pro-Life perspective. It has been offered as a way to stop “Criminals” but most of the “crimes” are a function of our failure to allow to provide the job market with sufficient labor to meet our needs. It has been said that the fence will save American jobs, but the vast majority of economists believe that they create MORE jobs, more economic and population growth that are essential to our well being including our National Security. So, then it is easy to see that the arguments for the fence will NOT net us any gains. It is easy to see that it will only make matters worse by harming the environment, wasting valuable tax dollars and slowing down our economy. It is easy to see that it is a waste of our valuable resources, time and money! And, it is easy to see that the fence will have other negative implications for our nation, many which have yet to be considered. The fence won’t work and even more depressing…It will make matters worse. We have every reason to believe that the fence will result in the death of thousands more people. But maybe you can give us a reason that makes the fence a good idea?So we shouldn’t build a fence so we don’t split up families? That doesn’t add up.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Some posters are attacking a straw man.
Some posters are attacking the idea of a wall because it would not have prevented 19 terrorists who overstayed their visas or who had outstanding bench warrants or who were detected on their dry run rehearsals or whose names were in a personal computer in Minnesota but which was protected by the Gorelick Wall or by gutless bureaucrats at the FBI.
What the protesting posters are suggesting is that what we need is ONE, and only ONE, solution that will protect us from all terrorism for all time.
AND, that if we can’t have ONE fix, then we shouldn’t have any protections at all because its just all too complicated.
The fact is that we need a variety of protections.
We KNOW that a million illegal border crossings take place each year. The simplest way to reduce the flow is with a wall.
Next, we reduce the incentive for people to illegally cross the border. And we do that by simply enforcing laws already on the books. And by converting Mexico from an oligarchy to a democracy. Just as a couple of examples.
The terrorists aren’t stupid.
They are adaptable.
They can shift and do shift from one tactic to another and use multiple tactics.
Just, for a second, take a look at Karl Keating’s current e-letter describing the folks (“cyber terrorists”) who have been attacking the Catholic Answers Forum.
Smart and adaptable.
Multiply that by a thousand times and you get some idea of what the entire country (and the whole world) is up against regarding the Islamic terrorists / extremists (or whatever is the current Robert Bay approved PC descriptor).
The wall along the border would be just one of the needed building blocks of this country’s protective defenses.
Some posters are attacking the idea of a wall because it would not have prevented 19 terrorists who overstayed their visas or who had outstanding bench warrants or who were detected on their dry run rehearsals or whose names were in a personal computer in Minnesota but which was protected by the Gorelick Wall or by gutless bureaucrats at the FBI.
What the protesting posters are suggesting is that what we need is ONE, and only ONE, solution that will protect us from all terrorism for all time.
AND, that if we can’t have ONE fix, then we shouldn’t have any protections at all because its just all too complicated.
The fact is that we need a variety of protections.
We KNOW that a million illegal border crossings take place each year. The simplest way to reduce the flow is with a wall.
Next, we reduce the incentive for people to illegally cross the border. And we do that by simply enforcing laws already on the books. And by converting Mexico from an oligarchy to a democracy. Just as a couple of examples.
The terrorists aren’t stupid.
They are adaptable.
They can shift and do shift from one tactic to another and use multiple tactics.
Just, for a second, take a look at Karl Keating’s current e-letter describing the folks (“cyber terrorists”) who have been attacking the Catholic Answers Forum.
Smart and adaptable.
Multiply that by a thousand times and you get some idea of what the entire country (and the whole world) is up against regarding the Islamic terrorists / extremists (or whatever is the current Robert Bay approved PC descriptor).
The wall along the border would be just one of the needed building blocks of this country’s protective defenses.
F
Fremont
Guest
Sure the fence is a good idea.Well in a way Wabrams. I thought you said that you were following along? The fence has many negative impacts that can be addressed, this is one of them. I’m afraid that we’re being lied to about this fence. Some say it’s about our National Security and that’s been shown here to be a canard for none of the 9/11 terrorists came over our southern border, they all came here legally. It’s been said that they are guilty of immoral actions but the Church is steadfast in its support for their Human Rights from a Pro-Life perspective. It has been offered as a way to stop “Criminals” but most of the “crimes” are a function of our failure to allow to provide the job market with sufficient labor to meet our needs. It has been said that the fence will save American jobs, but the vast majority of economists believe that they create MORE jobs, more economic and population growth that are essential to our well being including our National Security. So, then it is easy to see that the arguments for the fence will NOT net us any gains. It is easy to see that it will only make matters worse by harming the environment, wasting valuable tax dollars and slowing down our economy. It is easy to see that it is a waste of our valuable resources, time and money! And, it is easy to see that the fence will have other negative implications for our nation, many which have yet to be considered. The fence won’t work and even more depressing…It will make matters worse. We have every reason to believe that the fence will result in the death of thousands more people. But maybe you can give us a reason that makes the fence a good idea?
The USCCB and some others claim the fence will increase the dangers and risks to those attempting to enter the US illegally. That is true and that is one of the intentions and purposes of the fence. In their flawed and distorted perspective such people view this as a negative.
On the contrary, it is very positive. Increasing the difficulty, increasing the danger and increasing the risks of illegal immigration are a valid and reasonable ways to deter and discourage potential illegal immigrants.
Another example is that in addition to the laws banks have armed guards, vaults, alarms and other security systems to deter and discourage violations of the bank by making violations more difficult, more dangerous and far riskier. There is a real danger and risk of harm and even death to those who try. Such efforts work pretty well. Most of us do not try to rob banks.
As some percentage if potential illegal immigrants think twice about the situation and chose not to attempt to enter the US illegally the fence will do its job and be a worthwhile investment. I hope it will be a large percentage and I hope those people will successfully refocus their efforts to law-abiding and productive objectives.
Neither the US, nor any other country, has any legal or moral obligation to make it easy and safe for people to violate our laws and engage in unlawful behavior. Again on the contrary, it is just and appropriate for the US, and other countries, to take steps to deter and discourage unlawful behavior in the best interests of the common good.
For those who choose to proceed with unlawful behavior in spite of the new dangers and risks that is their personal choice. They choose to place themselves in peril. If they suffer harm or even death that is the result of their choices and they are solely responsible for the consequences. Their fate is not the fault of the fence, the US government or anything or anyone else.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.