Some Katrina Victims Face Deportation

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I meant the comment exactly like I said it. If it offends you that's your personal problem...not mine because that offense comes from your side of the conversation, not mine. I don't have to be politically correct about irresponsible reproductive habits...even if it's driven from false and misguided religious teachings. But no where in that comment is there reference to beasts - so get your mind out of the gutter.


Please reread what I posted. I said I take offense at the term 'popping out' - not that you called them beasts. Since when is a request for a more civilized vocabulary when dealing with people a PC demand?

It is a shame that your response is as filled with virtiol as it is. Including the comment about my mind being in the gutter. I'm not a 17 year old pimply kid. I won't cringe or fall to my knees in agony if you decide to take my attack out of context and make it personal.

Neither will I spark a hijacking of Loam's post - which is a good one by the way.

Regardless of your political or religious beliefs, human beings should be treated with respect and not contempt. If you don't have it for others than at least have it for the people on this board. I didn't insult you and gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding your comments. Your attitude is unwarranted.




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Send all illegals and the problems they cause back to their own counties. Do it any way possible, as fast as possible.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I'm not American but this frankly applies to any country, why the hell should the countries rightful citizen's be paying to help and house people that shouldn't have been there anyway? Havn't they got enough for free already?
While the illegal's are being looked after, good honest American's that deserve help and have a real right to it will not be getting it.
They should count themselves lucky they are not being punished and they get a free ride back to where they belong.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I don't see what all the fuss is about, frankly. Our government provided those people with life saving help in a desperate time of need, DESPITE the fact that they are illegals. Compassionate Mr. Uncle Sam at it again. Oh we're such a cruel, wicked nation.
It does not change the fact that they still need to be outta here. They, and you loam, should be happy they are getting to go home at all in anything other than a body bag. I'm not the biggest Bush administration supporter, but I gotta give credit where it is due.


[edit on 20-9-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
OK, where did anyone get the idea that I'm pro illegal immigration??

A primary point of this thread was to identify yet another short-sighted government "solution" to a very complex problem that will NOT BE SOLVED, or even remotely mitigated, by this approach. I can not agree with the strong disincentive this policy creates for illegals WITH CHILDREN from seeking needed assistance or medical attention FOR THEIR CHILDREN under emergency circumstances. I have no problem with "deceptive-you-won-the-lottery" tactics, but emergency care should be off limits!

Frankly, I'm disappointed so many are prepared to support such an INEFFECTIVE policy at the potential expense of a child's health, welfare and safety. No one seems to have addressed that issue directly in this thread. Moreover, I doubt any of you have directly witnessed the unintended horrors perpetrated on these children because of the unfounded (or perhaps, now justified) fears on the part of their illegal immigrant parents that seeking such medical attention for their children will result in deportation. AGAIN, (as if this should even matter in any event), MANY of those children are AMERICAN CITIZENS! To ignore the consequence of this type of policy is beyond callous!

As I said earlier, you want to control immigration? Apply substantial funding to boarder control. Assert severe CRIMINAL PENALTIES to US employers in violation of the law who employ illegals and therefore create the incentive for them to come to this country in the first place. Need I suggest that these REAL solutions haven't been pursued because they conflict with certain industry and corporate interests? Or better yet, (something I have personal knowledge of), how many affluent leaders of the community employ these illegals for domestic childcare, yard services or housework, and nonetheless publicly speak in hypocritical outrage about the need to address the problem of illegal immigrants?

Give me a break. THIS IS DENYING IGNORANCE? Will you allow the government to apply this thin veil of wallpaper as evidence of their commitment to resolve the problem of illegal immigration in this country? Thanks, but no thanks. I’d rather protect the children and, as Valhall unwittingly suggested, go after the real “accomplices” in this situation.


[edit on 20-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
OK, where did anyone get the idea that I'm pro illegal immigration??


Nowhere. I don't think you are, but:


A primary point of this thread was to identify yet another short-sighted government "solution" to a very complex problem that will NOT BE SOLVED, or even remotely mitigated, by this approach.


I don't quite see how you arrive at all that from this: "a handful of illegal immigrants who fled Hurricane Katrina have been ordered to appear for deportation hearings." A handful. As in like 2, 3, or 4. Out of how many? I'd be willing to bet there were more like tens or hundreds which took their life-saving help quite readily, and just as readily disappeared back into their secret illegal American existence without any hassle from the law at all.

And here I further have to applaud the administration's tactic of actually letting almost all go with no hassles, but still sticking a few pins in as a reminder that "hey, you are still illegal here." Quite clever, really.


That leads us to:


I can not agree with the strong disincentive this policy creates for illegals WITH CHILDREN from seeking needed assistance or medical attention FOR THEIR CHILDREN under emergency circumstances. I have no problem with "deceptive-you-won-the-lottery" tactics, but emergency care should be off limits!


The reality is loam, that 99% were off limits to "pressure and persecution." They were treated, given food, water, and who knows what else. But persecution and prosecution are two different things, and again they defined this tough line quite nicely IMO. This "strong disincentive" you speak of, when compared to what actually is happening, is blown way out of proportion. And almost disinformationally so, I might add. The bottom line here loam is that there was only a very slight disincentive, almost as if to say "take what you need for now, but don't get too comfortable." So please, let's keep things in perspective. It is unlikely anyway that the vast majority of illegals would even have access to the news of the few deportation cases in order to create that disincentive.

Which pretty much renders the rest of your post, well....shall we say- a little unwarranted?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I still haven't seen any proof that there was "deception" used here. These people have absolutely NO right to "emergency care" provided by the government without risk of deportation when they are found to be here illegally. I haven't seen a stick of evidence that anyone, or their CHILDREN, have been denied health care or food or shelter.

I don't see any evidence for what you're saying.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   


The groups said the protection is needed because immigrants fearing deportation, including some with U.S.-born children, are not seeking help at shelters because officials are asking for Social Security numbers in order to enter.


Source: AP News

Out of curiousity, since when did a social security number become a prerequisite to receipt of humanitarian aid?

-koji K.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Hmm, well now that could certainly change my perception on this, and I am checking out various shelters to confirm they are requiring SS numbers prior to admission. K, so far the Red Cross. I called their national hotline. I asked her specifically about illegal aliens. The lady on the phone was floored when she heard that, put me on hold, got 3 different supervisors to say that is absolutely false. They DO NOT require SS numbers for anyone, illegal or not. You a Katrina victim, they will help.

I'll call a few others.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I don't have a problem with illegals being rescued and being treated in life-threatening situations. But they simply have no right to get a penny from the government, period.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Salvation Army referred me to the Red Cross for shelters.


Well could be some smaller shelters are requiring SS numbers, but so far, evidence to the contrary exists as far as the Red Cross, which is operating at least 26 shelters in the Houston area, alone. And I talked to the national people.

I am very skeptical of that report, koji_K, and if it is happening, then I think I'll put the burden of proof on these "representatives of Latin American and Caribbean communities." Until then, I remain not convinced.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Hmm, well now that could certainly change my perception on this, and I am checking out various shelters to confirm they are requiring SS numbers prior to admission. K, so far the Red Cross. I called their national hotline. I asked her specifically about illegal aliens. The lady on the phone was floored when she heard that, put me on hold, got 3 different supervisors to say that is absolutely false. They DO NOT require SS numbers for anyone, illegal or not. You a Katrina victim, they will help.

I'll call a few others.

[edit on 20-9-2005 by TrueAmerican]


Sorry, but this can't be true. They are doing background checks on all evacuees at certain camps. They have identified sex offenders, criminal backgrounds, etc. There's only one way to do that. SSN was never supposed to be used for tracking, but then again...a whole lot of other stuff wasn't supposed to happen either. Yes, they are checking people and it's got to be by their SSN.

At Camp Gruber in Oklahoma they have already identified all sex offenders at the camp and have stated they won't publically ID them while at the camp, but if those people choose to stay in Oklahoma they will turn their identities over to the communities they move to.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
This "strong disincentive" you speak of, when compared to what actually is happening, is blown way out of proportion. And almost disinformationally so, I might add. The bottom line here loam is that there was only a very slight disincentive, almost as if to say "take what you need for now, but don't get too comfortable." So please, let's keep things in perspective. It is unlikely anyway that the vast majority of illegals would even have access to the news of the few deportation cases in order to create that disincentive.

Which pretty much renders the rest of your post, well....shall we say- a little unwarranted?


There is nothing disinformational about the point I raise. Illegal immigrants, out of obvious necessity, rely upon information (or disinformation, as the case may be) from other illegals. It is a well documented fact that many illegals avoid medical treatment for their children (even the US ones) precisely because of fears related to possible deportation. If you believe that such stories will not reach the ears of those in the illegal immigrant community, you are simply wrong. They spread like wild fire, and admittedly, with potentially gross exaggerations.


During 911, the federal government explicitly provided assurances that illegal status would not result in deportation for those seeking emergency assistance. Whereas, during Katrina, DHS has refused to make similar such assurances, reinforcing illegals' deportation fears.


As for Valhall:


Originally posted by Valhall
I still haven't seen any proof that there was "deception" used here.


I never asserted "deception" (other than perhaps unintentionally by my general agreement with Majic's post), rather I have made the point that this reinforces the existing fears and concretely disincentivizes these illegals from seeking emergency assistance FOR THEIR CHILDREN. I did not think there was anything obtuse about what I had written.



Originally posted by Valhall
These people have absolutely NO right to "emergency care" provided by the government without risk of deportation when they are found to be here illegally.


I never said they have a "right", but I do believe we have a moral obligation to ensure our policies are not paid for by the needless suffering of their children.



Originally posted by Valhall
I haven't seen a stick of evidence that anyone, or their CHILDREN, have been denied health care or food or shelter.
I don't see any evidence for what you're saying.


Again, Valhall, I NEVER said they were being DENIED health care or food or shelter. I don't know whether they have or not. What I did say is that this policy encourages that de facto outcome.

Finally, of course they need SSN and DOB and NAME and ADDRESS as the identifiers to criminally screen the evacuees. THIS I know with an absolute certainty.


[edit on 20-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam


Finally, of course they need SSN and DOB and NAME and ADDRESS as the identifiers to criminally screen the evacuees. THIS I know with an absolute certainty.


[edit on 20-9-2005 by loam]


THIS we agree on. See my post above. They definitely are doing background checks.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Salvation Army referred me to the Red Cross for shelters.


Well could be some smaller shelters are requiring SS numbers, but so far, evidence to the contrary exists as far as the Red Cross, which is operating at least 26 shelters in the Houston area, alone. And I talked to the national people.

I am very skeptical of that report, koji_K, and if it is happening, then I think I'll put the burden of proof on these "representatives of Latin American and Caribbean communities." Until then, I remain not convinced.


Good job in making the calls. Well, as it stands, it's just an allegation in a news article, so it could be true or it might not be. I would not be surprised if some shelters, such as the FEMA ones, were doing this, as part of the criminal screening to keep sex offenders out and such. I'm guessing the Red Cross, which generally is organized to work all over the world, most likely has a framework that doesn't rely on SS numbers.

Speaking generally, I understand security is a concern and you don't want sex offenders or general freeloaders trying to get into these shelters. But there just seems something spooky about this level of screening. That's just my natural paranoia speaking, though.

My real concern is that, IF they are asking for SS numbers, they are only doing this because they can, because Americans have SS numbers. If this kind of thing occured in a lesser developed country without identity numbers of this kind, they would still have to cope somehow, and they have. An example would be the Red Cross shelters for the Kosovar refugees- and they even made do despite the fact that people weren't just trying to get in to mooch or rape, but to kill as many people as possible. Like I said before, it's essentially the opportunism of it that pisses me off.

-koji K.





top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join