They also (largely) speak English too. Don’t discount the language difference either. It’s easier to discriminate when you can’t understand the other.
Context is your friend. The argument is that the Mexicans are treated differently from other illegals and allowed free access into the States because of “racial profiling”, as opposed to it being a matter of proximity.
So the question is, if the Canadians decided to run for the boarder would we change our policy and stop them, because they aren’t brown, like the Mexicans; who we apparently allow free access based on their skin color or “race”.
You pointed out no such thing. You said we’d all be able to tell they were illegal by looking at them, but you didn’t demonstrate how that would actually be accurate.
The problem was her lack of insurance, not illegal immigrants, unless you can prove otherwise. When the other doctor lied for her, was his lie
“There are no illegals, so we can treat her” or was it more like “She’s not insured, but this is a bigger emergency than you diagnosed, so we need to take care of it?” I’m guessing the latter is closer to what happened, which shows what the problem was.
Now, if you wish to argue that Americans deserve medical coverage, regardless of whether they can afford private health insurance, you’d likely find me agreeing with you on many points. That’s not the argument you’re making, as far as I can determine you’re wrong, and I won’t be agreeing with you until you cough up some actual evidence.
The only difference appears to be that the claims made in the other thread were backed up by bad evidence while your begged question in this thread was backed up by no evidence.
Feel free to keep flailing away, but I see no point in continuing this rather silly sidebar.
One more time for the pridefully dense: It was a logical assumption. If you thought it not, all you had to do was ask for evidence. But, you didn’t. Instead you took the time and effort to shoot down a claim NOT made in this thread, hoping you could disparage the claim I did make by association.
At this point let me offer some advice… Step 1: Stop digging.
Probably. You’ve obvioulsy decided to cement yourself to your illogical and unsupportable position.
I’m not surprised. Diasppointed, but not surprised. You’ve been wrong before and I’ve seen that you have a very difficult time admitting your mistakes (never mind apologizing).
But perhaps this can be edifying after all. Tell me, is your refusal to acknowledge a mistake the result of a passage in the SDMB Moderator Rulebook? Or is it due solely to a an over-large but delicate ego on your part. If it’s the latter, I’d suggest trying it a couple of times. No need to start right out with an apology, I wouldn’t want to shock your system, just an acknowledgement of error here and there.
No doubt you won’t feel yourself the first few times, but you’ll sleep better. The peaceful sleep that comes with honesty and honorable actions. Unlike the sleep you will likely have tonight.
If you find you can’t get out of the block on this new way of interacting in the world, I’d suggest saving the exchange we’ve had in this thread. Read it over at a later date. Show it to people you respect that have a good grasp of both logic and the rules of debating.
Meanwhile, you’re stuck with a huge, ugly, well-earned stain on your Mod Cape.
That is all.
How come, given that the vast majority of working-age adults in the U.S. illegally are employed and/or living in households where at least one adult is employed (.pdf. labor force data starting on p. 25), I see practically nobody arguing that any financial burden U.S. taxpayers are bearing for medical treatment for people here illegally is really a subsidy for those U.S. businesses that don’t provide health insurance to their employees?
Why is this not a universal health care coverage issue rather than a “screw the illegal freeloaders” issue? And as I doubt most people would end up in the ER if they could afford to treat health problems before they became emergencies, why is it not also a “why is basic health care so goddamn expensive in this country?” issue?
Eva Luna, native-born U.S. citizen employed continuously since age 15, but who had to pay $4500 out of pocket when she broke her leg 2 days before her health insurance took effect at her new job
(P.S. Check out the whole report, as well as the others on the Pew Hispanic Center site; maybe I’m just an immigration geek, but I found them fascinating.)
Actually, I provided exactly the statement that was necessary:
Your begged question was a bullshit claim for which you have failed to provide any evidence.
All the rest was commentary.
You have now spent the better part of numerous days choosing to hop around trying to get me to “connect dots” or some such thing when any seventh grader could read my opening remark and see exactly what I intended. Meanwhile, your begged question remains a dishonest rhetorical device.
To me it speaks volumes that no one has come forward to support this **Magellan01 ** Ad nauseam distraction, hard not to see it has been a furious defense of an Appeal to Fear in a rhetorical cloak and begging the question to boot. This is actually a good thread to save, but it I don’t think tomndebb is the one that will be embarrassed for it.
randyjet even if you are going to other country I csn
I think we should backtrack and find where the problem is. I know that tomndebb has tried to, but Magellan01 is unhappy with that. Let’s go back to where the problem first happened, shall we? I’d like to see some kind of resolution here
Sensitive keyboard posted too soon…
**randyjet ** if you are going to other country, I can not stop thinking that in practice you will be a freeloader with their heath care at the beginning, since you would not have really paid enough taxes yet, but many foreign developed “crazy” countries would not have it another way. And that is because eventually they know your “freeloading” status would disappear later.
Back to the US, it is interesting to notice that in your argument you are ignoring that on the table is a plan to make the illegals pay for any taxation they have not paid, meaning that eventually there will be no excuse for the lousy health care that we have in the US.
Based on the last posts, we have only a defense of a rhetorical point. The only resolution now from **Magellan01 ** is to deny that there is any place to go back for a resolution.
Maybe you will have better luck on making him defend his position rather than his rhetoric.
Hey, you’re welcome. I’m here to help!
I realize you didn’t thank me for a thing. You’re welcome anyways.
The illegals from countries other than Mexico get a free pass into the US despite being illegal. Yes they are darker and get treated better than Canadians, and all others who get deported right away as do Mexicans. If your documents coming from Europe are not in order, you are held in jail, and deported. If you are from a country other than Mexico to the south, you get a ticket and are sent on your way.
If we had one million Canadians illegally crossing our northern borders, I would advocate putting the US ARMY on that border as well and throwing them back across.
Again you presume to state my position before I have said anything about it at all. I never said that I opposed the Senate bill. I DO think that enforcement should be dealt with as the first priority and then some method should be found to legalize many of the illegals. I am not for an amnesty and have fought against the slander being promoted by the opponents of such a plan as it being one.
Given that your only souce for this odd claim is a single statement that you claim to have heard in a speech from President Bush, I think you ought to investigate the accuracty of this information. I neither trust your memory nor the President’s speech-writers (or his ad-libbing) to provide accurate information. I suspect that this is a false claim.
(And before you whine about my failure to research the claim–I already have, but the rules of engagement say that you made the claim, you support it with evidence.)
In Bush’s speech he mentioned the fact that he proposed to build more detention facilities to reduce the number of illegals who are simply given a ticket and let go until they are supposed to show up for a court hearing. He did not say he was going to end the practice, just reduce the numbers. My problem is that there is no law that says all illegals are entitled to A/C, TV, beds, hot showers, and the like. The problem could be solved very easily by giving them the same kind of facilities the US troops in the field get. Tents, and cots.
My evidence is that I lived on the border for years, have talked to the BP folks, have reported illegals to them on many occasions, and then of course, Bush’s speech which let the dirty little secret out. I will go to the BP web site and see what they officially have to say, but I doubt I will find much. You can find the same thing in the news reporting as well. So I guess that all of us are liars and you have the truth despite NOT having any of those factors in your favor.
Cite? Proof? Anything that isn’t a rant?
:dubious: Waiddaminnit – why exactly do you view that as a problem?!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060520/D8HN6IV00.html
you can check it out here and/or go to jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase
It took only a few minutes to find these by the way.