" We, in California, will never be able to elect enough people to put an end to illegal immigration because immigration is a federal issue. CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, FLORIDA, or any other state, does not have the Constitutional power!
Obviously if we have not been able to do much about immigration with a Republican dominated House, Senate, and President, there are some very powerful forces at work and they ain't all liberal."
Yes, the entry is a federal issue, but providing illegals with services is a state matter. Remember prop. 187? Gray Davis managed to get it overturned through some fast and loose manipulations of the judicial system, but the point is that that aspect of it is a state matter. So your second point is moot/irrelevant as far as this aspect goes.
"If small business employs people and either does not provide the benefits or pays less than it takes for the employee to purchase the benefits, they are a burden and not backbone."
I see. So it would be better if there were no small businesses and the employees of small businesses are unemployed and/or on welfare. Good plan. Makes sense.
Sheesh. Another socialist. I don't know how you can reconcile the need to complain about congress not doing anything about illegal aliens and in the same breath you want to foist government-mandated, taxpayer-funded universal health care on us.
Prop 187 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge and Davis dropped the appeals process in favor of mediation.
But please explain why the same problem exists in Texas and Florida. Those are conservative states - why do they comply if medical care and education for illegals is a state issue?
BTW, hospitals may refuse to treat illegal immigrants and the indigent, but they give up federal money in doing so. Is it possible that feeding from the government trough is more profitable for Texas and Florida than taking a conservative stand.
I see. So it would be better if there were no small businesses and the employees of small businesses are unemployed and/or on welfare. Good plan. Makes sense.
For the employee who works without benefits and earns too little to provide them for himself, welfare would give him a state provided medical plan. Do you think its smart to not provide medical coverage for low wage earners? Do you want to encourage work or welfare?
The point is, that if a business is not profitable enough to pay a sufficient wage so that his employees can purchase medical care for themselves in the free market place, or provide medical insurance as a benefit, then the state (tax payers), by picking up the slack, is subsidizing his business. Please explain why the low wage worker is a bum and the business paying poverty wages is respectable.
Being a pragmatic person, I think it would be rational, and better, to recognize and accommodate reality - that low wage earners also need medical care from time to time. Further, that small businesses with low profit margins NEED low wage workers to stay in business and that the low wage worker does play a necessary roll in the economic life of the US, just as small business does. Rather than regard the low wage earner as a morally defective bum, we should give him the same respect we give to the low wage employer.
Makes just as much sense as capricious enforcement of our immigration laws by this Republican administration. IMHO, government should be congruent, law should match policy and enforcement.