Law and Borders

The Weekly Standard ^ | 2/28/2005 | Tamar Jacoby

[hchutch]

Again, when juries nullify the law, what then?

Did that part NOT sink in?

[Luis Gonzalez]

What would you pay a dishwasher?

[bayourod]

All the federal government requires is that emergency room of hospitals that participate in Medicare stabilize anyone brought to them without regard to ability to pay.

State, local and hospital policies may require more, especially if the hospitals are non-profit or established by charitable foundation trusts.

Writing off $7 million seems insignificant for a county hospital unless you are in a small county. That's what county hospitals are for.

Most for-profit hospitals don't admit people without insurance or the ability to pay.

Do you and your family go to the county hospital or a private hospital?

[jackbenimble]

The borders can't be sealed against laborers as long as the demand for them exists anymore than the borders could be sealed against alcohol during prohibition or drugs today. At best all you can do is drive the price up.

We are in full agreement on that. And a lot of the illegals achieve that status by coming here legally and overstaying their visas. To solve the illegals problem we need to crack down on employers as well as sealing our borders.

But this article was about our borders, national security and a guest-worker program. My comments were responsive to that topic.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"John and Ken interrupted her because every time they asked her a tough question she answered a different question."

John and Ken interrupted her because they are terrible interviewers who had no interest in her opinions, and all sorts of interests in their own.

Let the people decide.

[Just another Joe]

How do you do that exactly?

OK, the problem with mass deportations, as I see it, is that everyone says the economy will take a huge hit. Right?
If the guest worker program is started, the companys that now hire illegals will be required to hire legal guest workers. Correct? (How they are going to require this when they can't do it now I don't know)
If the companys can hire the legal guest worker then the illegal immigrant will be out of a job. (Why take the chance if you don't have to?)
At this point you deport the illegal and the economy isn't affected.

Why would they do that?

You let them know that if they want the job, they go home first.
If they don't go home, and a legal guest worker applies for that job, they are out of a job and deported. That's why they would do that.

It wouldn't be fast but I would rather see everyone start from the beginning than see someone that broke our laws get preference.

[Just another Joe]

The President's plan does NOT allow them to go to the front of the line.

Really?
Can you point me to that? I don't really think you can as the definitive points haven't even been outlined.

As I see the plan right now in it's general outline, those that are here already will be allowed first choice.
If I'm wrong I apologize.

[bayourod]

"But to say that the national partys don't see the votes that could be counted on in the future is naive. "

When they become citizens they will vote their interests just like everyone else. Fortunately Hispanics tend to pro family, pro military, pro traditional values, and have strong work ethics. Bush got 40% to 45% of the vote and we will get more if we can just keep the anti-Hispanics from making gratuitous hateful statements about Hispanics.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So...your plan is for people who live in Mexico to apply for jobs currently held by illegal immigrants so that the companies are forced to fire the illegals and hire legals.

So...for every illegal you fire, one legal comes in and the illegal just shrugs his shoulders and goes home instead of trying to find other work here.

The employer who willingly hires illegals will of course post job offers to replace his illegal workers, and the employer who unknowingly hires illegals would do the same.

Riiiiiight...

[jackbenimble]

If you are so worried about national security, why all the focus on MEXICO?

Maybe because the ARTICLE was about our borders, national security, guest worker plans, and Mexico?

Have you answered my questions about how you are going to pay for the extra $19 billion of costs of giving social benefits to guest workers. Or how you are going to pay to deport them after 3 or 6 years? Maybe I missed your post?

I am against illegal immigration for many reasons. National security is just one of them. The cost to taxpayers is another. All that cheap labor is expensive. A third is that it is simply illegal. There are more.

[Just another Joe]

When they become citizens they will vote their interests just like everyone else.

And you don't think they will give preference to whatever party did the most to get them citizenship.
That's still naive.

What is your focus with "anti-Hispanics"?
I have never made an anti-Hispanic comment on this forum.
I have made anti-illegal immigrant statements, but I don't care what backround they are.

[sheana]

We have 5 hospitals in our area. 1 is county and all others are private. They all accept medi-cal and treat anyone according to the federal law.
The difference is the private hospitals receive a small amt of monies back for the treatment of illegals. The $7 mil the county hospital wrote off for the treatment of illegals was totally pd for by the taxpayers.
And why do you have to make everything so personal? It is none of your business where I and my family go for treatment.

[Just another Joe]

And that's my point. If you don't have a plan to MAKE the employer hire legal guest workers, guess what? They won't.

There will have to be a "get tough on the employer" focus to any plan put forth in order for it to work.

[hchutch]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html

"Some temporary workers will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. Those who make this choice will be allowed to apply in the normal way. They will not be given unfair advantage over people who have followed legal procedures from the start."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-1.html

"Fair and Meaningful Citizenship Process: Some temporary workers will want to remain in America and pursue citizenship. They should not receive an unfair advantage over those who have followed the law, and they will need to be placed in line for citizenship behind those who are already in line. Those who choose the path of citizenship will have an obligation to learn the facts and ideals that have shaped America's history."

[jackbenimble]

What would you pay a dishwasher?

A living wage?

I don't hire dishwashers but I suppose if I did, I would pay whatever the marketplace required after the distorting effect of an unlimited supply of cheap illegal labor was removed.

I might invest in dish washing equipment that kept the labor cost to a minimum.

[Just another Joe]

I was not speaking of preference in gaining citizenship.
Once they are legal I have no problem with them seeking citizenship, if that is their desire. I agree with the excerpts that they should not receive preference.

I was speaking of them receiving preference in becoming legal guest workers.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[hchutch]

Again, should we waste assets and personnel who are supposed to be protecting our national security interests to chase after busboys, gardeners, janitors, maids, and nannies?

I don't think we should. So, if anything, this program would enhance national security.

Cheap? Well, if you think tightening the border to the poitn we can prevent it is going to be cheap, guess again. They've done manpower studies. Get back to me when you have looked up what sort of density was needed for Operations "Gatekeeper" and "Hold the Line."