Which part are you referring to:
–that even if there is “general public antipathy” it might not apply to every case, especially one as is exceptional as this
–that is not possible to determine the causality of chronic disease
I hate to shatter your faith but even though I believe in those moments of courage charity and nobility that people exhibit and hope for the best, I am also reminded of how petty and self serving people can be and how quickly they will lie cheat and steal for a couple of bucks.
want more?
I think we need to address whether we’re talking about illegal aliens who happen to be residents of the area, and illegal aliens who helped in the rescue and cleanup efforts.
Would the hypothetical Republican amendment have differentiated between the two?
The governments of Canada and the UK and France and Australia all offer (some) benefits to illegal immigrants.
I can’t see many of the rescuers being illegal immigrants; it is more likely that the immigrants who have developed illnesses were bystanders watching the events unfold; most rescuers would have been with the various municipal services, which would necessitate citizenship.
AIUI, most of the people who claim to have developed illnesses as a result of the attacks are cleanup workers, some percentage of whom surely were undocumented.
I was referring to the low rate of crime on September 11th, and in the days following it. Not saying that some time down the line someone didn’t engage in 9/11-related fraud.
Yes and yes.
That is, a congressman may well feel that the general public antipathy to providing illegal aliens with benefits extends to cases like this, and/or it’s possible to rule out certain causes of certain chronic disease to the extent that this law would benefit from permitting those sorts of determinations.
Forgive me if I’m wrong here, if the Democrats would have opened the bill up for debate, couldn’t the Republicans have offered amendment after amendment on everything from abortion to creationism in schools until the end of time and wouldn’t have taken 2/3 to close debate anyway?
If so, I don’t blame them for not opening it up for debate given the tenor of debate in the current congress.
Speaking of empty buzzwords, whatever happened to “compassionate conservatism”?
Should we have a provision in the bill to deny medical benefits for people who have too many unpaid parking tickets, or convicted of posessing marijuana, or evading taxes? Those too are illegal activities. Why are we only singling out illegal immigrants here?
Just because someone breaks the law doesn’t mean we should lose all humanitarian concern for them.
read your own post, what does
mean?
Honest, I wish it wasn’t true but the world is full of people who eagerly scam money from charities or as a charity. If there are billions of dollars at stake you can count on scumbags trying to get a piece. In fact some of those scumbags are in congress steering millions to their scumbag freinds for a little kickback.
Point #1: You have no direct evidence of this. You can make assumptions and interpretations, but the fact is that public opinion on this unknown.
Point #2: Sorry, but here you and other conservatives are simply wrong. There is no net benefit from precluding people from receiving healthcare, particularly for chronic diseases. I remember you bringing up this idea in the healthcare threads and you still don’t seem to understand. The causality of chronic disease is so multi-faceted that it is impossible even for the top scientists working with the best researchers to determine with certainty the extent to which an individual’s disease is due to genetics, diet, behavior, etc. And the cost of such an attempt would dwarf that of simply providing healthcare to anyone who claims eligibility (whether that eligibility is simply universal as would be the case with single payer, or 9/11-related as is the case here).
The illegal alien thing was a poltical game for the republicans. It’s bullshit. Maybe some congressman trying to impress his district wanted it in there. Maybe some Dems who didn’t want it in tried an end run to pass the bill. Just stop the petty BS and vote yes or no, Then have the balls to stand by your vote.
So what if a congressman’s position is: “I want to give this care to everyone covered by the bill except illegal aliens, who had no business being there in the first place?”
What should he do?
He should have to answer as to why he hates the victims of 9/11, just as a Democrat would have to do were the tables reversed.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why a hypothetical undocumented immigrant who helped on 9/11 shouldn’t be taken care of by us. “He shouldn’t have been here” doesn’t count. It’s a moot point, irrelevent to the good deed he did. Butch shouldn’t have been in the pawn shop basement, but that’s irrelevent, because the fact is he WAS there, and Marsellus recognized and rewarded his good deed.
And I still want to know if this immigrant is in fact hypothetical, or if there is reason to believe that undocumented immigrants did help on 9/11 and would be seeking medical assistance? Are these repugnant fucks denying aid to those who pitched in on our darkest day JUST to score points on the current hot-button issue, or is there reason to believe that they are earnestly trying to save a significant amount of money?
They’re (ostensibly) not trying to save any money, since the bill appropriates a limited amount of funding regardless of the number who might be entitled to it.
He should decide whether, on the whole, the benefits outweight the deficits, and vote accordingly. IMO, the idea of denying benefits to everyone because a very few aliens might claim them, who despite their status provided valuable service in a time of emergency, is reprehensible.
He should make a decision based on his perception of the relevant priorities - preferably utilising an evidence-based approach - and then be prepared to back up that stance when questioned about it.
Seems to me that would be a fairly common position for a politician to be in.
He should recognize that perfect purity is absurdly impractical. If you’re going to dole out a big hulking wad of cash for the deserving, you may reasonably expect that someone undeserving will sneak in for a piece of the action. Even diamonds are flawed. No reason to throw it away.
But I want to thank you for, once again, bringing the desperately important issue of liberal hypocrisy to our attention. I shudder to think what horror may befall our Republic if this crucial issue is not constantly brought to the center of our focus.
He should get real. The man either has too much of a hard on against illegal aliens or it’s just a political tool for him. Either way it’s just not necessary for this bill. Does the amendment to prevent giving the money to illegal aliens also have a practical way to tell who in NYC is illegal and who isn’t? Are we going to require everyone with a foreign sounding name in NY fucking City to produce citizenship papers.
Maybe the amount is way too high to begin with and we need to narrow the filed of who gets a piece to prevent waste. That’s fine. To single out illegal aliens seems like bullshit to me, unless you plan on using the bill as a means to expose and deport them.