Welfare Tab For Children Of Illegal Immigrants Reaches $600M

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by macman

 

I had a big post written out and deleted it. The only thing I have to say to this is making a profit and making a killing are two entirely different things. What you are suggesting is that making a killing is ok. In my book its not.

i was gonna stay out of this one cause i'm not familiar with the injuries ... however, i can assure you that manually manipulating bones (dislocation) involves Dr hands on care (extended service - always = more $$) vs the bone setting (cast) provided by a 'technician' within standard operating procedures = less $$ every time.

i'm also aware the location of the hospital plays a vital role in pricing structures (MC baselines) ... the differential between the injuries and the technique applied to each, does somewhat justify the exorbitant price difference (not that i believe $3g was a good price, i don't ... but i do understand why such a difference) It is not gouging ... $10 = 1 Tylenol / totally unreasonable = imho Gouging at an extreme.

Also, as another poster mentioned, you COULD have negotiated his $3g bill had you requested such, BUT, the hospitals depend on your ignorance of their 'errors' (intentional or not) ... as mentioned before, it IS a business.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
If they know that these people are illegal, why are they giving them benefits instead of deporting them? If they've had a kid here, let the mom and kid stay and deport everybody else; single parenting is rampant in this country and it can be done. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but it's doable; it's done all the time.

The Children are not Illegal, they are US Citizens.

Deporting one parent would increase the dependancy on welfare not reduce it. Single moms, often divorced or abandoned are the largest recipients of welfare.

How is deporting a bad thing? The children are the product of an illegal, who committed a felony in the process of getting here.
Deport them. If the child can stay, stay. If not, back to country of origin.
The anchor baby system was bastardized to accommodate this. If you look at the original law, it is clear that this is not how it was intended on being used.
Thanks progressives and the application of case law. Yeah

We are all products of Anchor babies, yourself included, unless you are native american.

Not a left/right thing, but a principle of our nation and there are plenty of prominent conservatives who found the repeal the 14th Amend thing offensive...save the BS.

It is insane that the same folks that scream about holding to the constitution are the ones that want to repeal it.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Which is why I added in the part about "if they've had a child here" because I'm aware of the fact that any child born in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. And as far as welfare goes, I'm aware that single moms depend upon welfare a lot of the time, but the situation described sounded to me as though we have entire illegal immigrant families on welfare. This means that letting the mom and child stay but deporting the rest of the family would have the net effect of significantly reducing the welfare payments.

Well you are confused then. The welfare payment is determined by US Citizen needs...actual US citizens qualify for welfare, not illegals. So one child represents a certain payment to the illegal immigrant parent as custodian. So a family of 3 one being a child who is a us Citizen gets the same payment as a simple mother and child.

Originally posted by Pervius
The United States also signed Compact of Association with the countries of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia so they can come to America and get 100% free welfare, healthcare, school for their kids, Section 8.....

There's more than illegal immigrants sucking America dry because the Federal Government is handing out the National Treasury.

The $600 million number is likely only 1 State's burden. The Federal Government FORCES the States/Territories to hand out alllll that free stuff....yet the Federal Government doesn't fund all those handouts. The Fed only funds 50%, States and Territories were forced to fund the rest. See why we're insolvent?

Hey thanks for pitching in and sharing what is 'news' to me ... i had no idea such 'compacts' existed.
However, one correction for you ... the $600Mil is for ONE COUNTY for one year ...not the state. (imagine that)
yep, our insolvency is compounded by many factors and burdens, but this is certainly a HEAVY one that we have no need to continue promoting.

*** To those who think i'm ok with the war expenditures ... don't go there, i am totally against all current and past wars of the last 2 decades. Nothing truly good for America has come out of any one of them.

General Lee - thank you for your kind words and sharing yet another truth many don't want to admit. But, it is what it is and the only way to deal with it is to first, understand it. All of it, not just the parts we think we understand but the whole ball of wax and it's getting bigger by the day.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by maybereal11
The Children are not Illegal, they are US Citizens.
Deporting one parent would increase the dependancy on welfare not reduce it. Single moms, often divorced or abandoned are the largest recipients of welfare.

Actually, the children are born with a Right of Citizenship which is not technically or legally applicable to themselves until age 18 (like every other American child - or younger, if legally emancipated)

Nonsense...Are you telling me that none of us are US citizens until the age of 18? They are citizens at birth.

Originally posted by Honor93
My question for you would be, what 'special' rights do you think they have (children of illegals) that American children do not????
American children born to criminals are removed and placed as a ward of the court ... why should ANY child of an illegal/criminal be treated differently?

No they are not. They are removed only if there is no one to care for them...If the parent goes to jail and thier is not fit guardian or if the home is unsafe. The idea that once anyone in this country is accused or convicted of breaking any law that the children are removed form the home is false and silly.

So, back to the issue ... the children are not any more 'entitled' than their illegal parents (so says the law). Why should we re-write, re-establish or redo laws that already exist but are seldom enforced? Wouldn't it be more prosperous, convenient, effective and certainly more desirable to enforce existing laws?

Confusing and unsupported. Saying "so says the law" may sound official...but doesn't make what you are saying remotely accurate.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by macman

 

I had a big post written out and deleted it. The only thing I have to say to this is making a profit and making a killing are two entirely different things. What you are suggesting is that making a killing is ok. In my book its not.

Funny, as it is all based on your opinion of what is profit and what is excess. Who are you to decide this?
The great thing about the US, is if you don't like it, your dollars are spent else where.
And please spare me with the whole "that have the market corned" BS.
There are alternative means of health care. You just need to look.

Originally posted by Honor93
First, NO illegal pays 'income taxes' legally, period. EVER (and those are the taxes that support welfare programs ... not gas taxes or sales taxes or any other taxation)

yes, they pay tax on their beer, booze, smokes, party favors and vehicles ... other than that, they provide minimal benefit but exorbitant problems. They do not contribute to the tax base that SUPPORTS them. They do not contribute to the COMMUNITIES that support them.

Wrong.

www.palmbeachpost.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.truth-out.org...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
If they know that these people are illegal, why are they giving them benefits instead of deporting them? If they've had a kid here, let the mom and kid stay and deport everybody else; single parenting is rampant in this country and it can be done. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but it's doable; it's done all the time.

The Children are not Illegal, they are US Citizens.

Deporting one parent would increase the dependancy on welfare not reduce it. Single moms, often divorced or abandoned are the largest recipients of welfare.

How is deporting a bad thing? The children are the product of an illegal, who committed a felony in the process of getting here.
Deport them. If the child can stay, stay. If not, back to country of origin.
The anchor baby system was bastardized to accommodate this. If you look at the original law, it is clear that this is not how it was intended on being used.
Thanks progressives and the application of case law. Yeah

We are all products of Anchor babies, yourself included, unless you are native american.

Not a left/right thing, but a principle of our nation and there are plenty of prominent conservatives who found the repeal the 14th Amend thing offensive...save the BS.

It is insane that the same folks that scream about holding to the constitution are the ones that want to repeal it.

No I am not. My Great Grand parents came here legally. They passed through customs and immigration, became US Citizens and had a family.
Please spare me YOUR BS.
As fro the 14th amendment, re-read it. The current application is a bastardized version of the original intent. Read what the applications was for and come back.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

go to the businesses that hire ilegals and fine the businesses. once there is no benifit to the business to hire people under the table all of the ilegals will move on

We are all products of Anchor babies, yourself included, unless you are native american.

Not a left/right thing, but a principle of our nation and there are plenty of prominent conservatives who found the repeal the 14th Amend thing offensive...save the BS.

It is insane that the same folks that scream about holding to the constitution are the ones that want to repeal it.

No I am not. My Great Grand parents came here legally. They passed through customs and immigration, became US Citizens and had a family.
Please spare me YOUR BS.
As fro the 14th amendment, re-read it. The current application is a bastardized version of the original intent. Read what the applications was for and come back.

Sure you are. Your grandparents were Anchor Babies and their parents status as "Legal Immigrants" had nothing to do with your grandparents becoming citizens when they were born here.

What part are you not understanding?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Originally posted by maybereal11
We are all products of Anchor babies, yourself included, unless you are native american.

Not a left/right thing, but a principle of our nation and there are plenty of prominent conservatives who found the repeal the 14th Amend thing offensive...save the BS.

It is insane that the same folks that scream about holding to the constitution are the ones that want to repeal it.

you are beyond confused to make a statement like that.
fyi - the native indians emigrated here also ... Pangea ring a bell?

also, i would presume you do not understand what quantifies an 'anchor baby' ... it is not JUST a child born to an illegal. It also includes the children sired by a 'traveler' who didn't remain to support their offspring or the country supporting them (Obama for example). Anchor babies have been around long before today's immigrant issues.

I don't support repealing the 14th either ... just proper enforcement of it.
I never insinuated this is a right/left issue and i'm not sure what you're suggesting with that but this is a country-wide issue, not just a CA thing or a NY, FL, TX thing and deserves everyone's attention and focus to resolve the issues at hand.

So, after reading ALL of your posts, i now wonder if you are going to contribute to an answer or just more whining and BS rhetoric?

Originally posted by maybereal11

We are all products of Anchor babies, yourself included, unless you are native american.

Not a left/right thing, but a principle of our nation and there are plenty of prominent conservatives who found the repeal the 14th Amend thing offensive...save the BS.

It is insane that the same folks that scream about holding to the constitution are the ones that want to repeal it.

No I am not. My Great Grand parents came here legally. They passed through customs and immigration, became US Citizens and had a family.
Please spare me YOUR BS.
As fro the 14th amendment, re-read it. The current application is a bastardized version of the original intent. Read what the applications was for and come back.

Sure you are. Your grandparents were Anchor Babies and their parents status as "Legal Immigrants" had nothing to do with your grandparents becoming citizens when they were born here.

What part are you not understanding?

Um, you are wrong.
What part of "Great Grandparents came here legally, went through immigration, became US citizens" do you not understand?
Illegals come here, illegally. Don't complete the process to become US citizens, have children who automatically become US Citizens by exploiting the law and then tax payers are supposed to provide financial support for the illegal parents and child.

Very cut and dry.

The tax money given to illegal immigrant parents for their children is a carefully designed plan by TPTB to help maintain and attract a cheap workforce.

It also serves to outrage middle-class tax payers and give them a sense of hopelessness no matter how they vote.

reply to post by maybereal11

just so you know, i have errands to run but i will return to address your over the top, nonsense.
Better get your 'law books' out cause you have no clue of what you are trying to imply. And yes, until age 18, every child is at the 'mercy/whim/calling' of their parent(s).

NO child may demand any 'rights' afforded their parents until age 18 or sooner if emancipated. A minor child minus (illegal) parent = WARD of the court ... regardless of citizenship ... so says the law.

If you are born of a criminal, you don't get to 'choose' your future upbringing (at any age short of emancipation) ... nice try buy not gonna fly.
ps: if you believe otherwise, then explain why minors are not afforded 'freedom of speech' rights in school, in public or in a 'controlled' setting. If they are not afforded that 'right', they certainly have no others, until age appropriate or as the Federalist papers state specifically ... age of suffrage. (in the US, that's 18)

Originally posted by Honor93
fyi - the native indians emigrated here also ... Pangea ring a bell?

Across the Bering Straits...by foot...no anchor involved.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

But he argues that the money is collected by the illegal immigrant parents, putting a painful burden on taxpayers, including those who are legal immigrants.

Who really gives a sh!t! Children are children, regardless of where they come from...they need support.
But hey, who could care less about those illegal immigrant children...nothing but a "burden", money is what matters.

reply to post by Logarock


Not at all, like i said start a thread about The American Health System compared to the majority of other civilised countries...and how much better they are looking after their citizens health.

I'm happy to discuss it with you....

reply to post by Honor93


You are just wrong. My grand parents were not anchor babies. They were children on LEGAL US CITIZENS.
Thanks
Children on illegals and/or foreign travelers to the US are granted citizenship, but are anchor babies.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

But he argues that the money is collected by the illegal immigrant parents, putting a painful burden on taxpayers, including those who are legal immigrants.

Who really gives a sh!t! Children are children, regardless of where they come from...they need support.
But hey, who could care less about those illegal immigrant children...nothing but a "burden", money is what matters.

They are a burden, you don't spit out kids with the expectations that some one else will pay for them. When you have extremely irresponsible breeding practices and motives, it is NOT right to put the cost of that lack of responsibility, on to the people that are having kids responsible and trying to give their children a good future. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them, they don't care because we're paying for it. I guarantee if Americans were hitting them as hard in the pocket book as they are us, they wouldn't hear of it or do it.
We also have few renewable resources as is, and if you do the math on the population growth, it doesn't paint a pretty picture. I bet my city has more baby strollers than it does cars.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

But he argues that the money is collected by the illegal immigrant parents, putting a painful burden on taxpayers, including those who are legal immigrants.

Who really gives a sh!t! Children are children, regardless of where they come from...they need support.
But hey, who could care less about those illegal immigrant children...nothing but a "burden", money is what matters.

The children are the responsibility of the parent, legal or illegal.
But hey, who cares. The Govt will take of them, right? Via taxes and so on.