ICE arrests parents at Childs hospital before surgery but that is not my concern

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I do have some compassion for the kids.

I also do not want to be cruel.

But, this can not continue.

Time to enforce our Nation's law...

Then ENFORCE the EMPLOYERs that recruit and pay these immigrants. Without local capitalists avoiding paying taxes and paying slave wages there would be no incentive for people to cross the border illegally.

Take away the incentive and they won't come.

Gotta think systemically... think more then a single move at a time...

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Thank you for your time. It's clear nobody here will be leaving with anything other than the thoughts and leanings they came in with.

You have said 200 mouthfuls with that one sentence.

Welcome to the internet. LOL, i see you understand how things work already.

originally posted by: luthier
Why aren't more trump supporters outraged he isn't enforcing employer laws?

I mean 8 million go to work everyday, in known locations, and the employers rarely share the harsh penalties that the laborer does.

I wonder why meat packing plants with 100's don't get raided?

Or why people aren't outraged their tax dollars are really going for their employers profits through low wage subsidies (welfare)

You think people aren't upset about it?

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Grambler

Too bad we cannot change that law to not include children from parents who are here illegally. It would at least get rid of that incentive.

Thing is that I don't think it's a law. I believe it's resting on an interpretation of "natural born citizen" as found in COTUS and made in a SCOTUS ruling. So there would either need to be a new law made to change that or for SCOTUS to overturn the prior ruling to change that understanding of the phrase.

# you #in scumbags.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: luthier
Why aren't more trump supporters outraged he isn't enforcing employer laws?

I mean 8 million go to work everyday, in known locations, and the employers rarely share the harsh penalties that the laborer does.

I wonder why meat packing plants with 100's don't get raided?

Or why people aren't outraged their tax dollars are really going for their employers profits through low wage subsidies (welfare)

You think people aren't upset about it?

I do because all I hear about is cracking down on a some laborers here and there. Absolutely zero on how the trump administration is going to go after employers.

Have you heard anything about that? Serious question because I don't understand why the main focus is on the laborersame when the profits of employers are being subsidized by taxpayers.

a reply to: luthier

If they're serious about "enforce the laws on the books," then they will be going after employers because it is illegal to employ illegals.

Or do you think they're only going to enforce some laws on the books without saying so? That may be, but until we see for sure we won't know.

Right now, they're going further with enforcement than many a previous admin has, so we will see just how far this all goes.

a reply to: ketsuko

The selective enforcement of laws undermines the entire system. And is a major reason why I tend to ignore laws. If it isn't common sense, it doesn't need to be a law. And if we have laws not being enforced by anyone on the books, it doesn't make sense to have any laws at all. Yes...that is a "baby with the bath water" statement. But consider: why ignore one law and not another? Why convict me for breaking one law, while ignoring all the others that are broken each day? 600,000 laws that we are bound to follow...the sheer volume of legality we wear as a yoke, itself, undermines the entire system.

Who knew that being a human was so inheritently complicated. I wonder how we managed to survive all those millenia without laws.

The real kicker here is that this whole discussion is coming about because we have never, ever concerned ourselves with it. We spent the entirety of our national history unconcerned with enforcing our borders. We have allowed the people we elect to create rules of engagement that have turned enforcement agencies into eunochs. Side note: same with our military. The only theaters we have ever "lost" in (along with countless American lives) are the ones where we created rules of engagement that castrated our ability to act.

I used to get angry at the politicians. Now Im angry with my neighbors. The same ones who keep wasting votes by voting on the 2 party candidates. It is my neighbors, and their abject apathy, that continue to row this boat.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Laws? Rules?

Meh...

Okay maybe 1 or 2...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We are either a nation of laws or a nation of despots. I would prefer to be a nation of laws.

I agree we have way too many of them, but the only real way to figure out what needs to be changed/repealed is to actually enforce what's there first to see where the real problems are. Then you have to get people in power who are willing to actually give up some of that power by repealing some laws and changing others.

And let me know when you see pigs flying because that's when it all will actually start to happen.

a reply to: ketsuko

a reply to: joemoe

They are not citizens and this was clarified in The civil rights act of 1866 But the supreme court is overlooking that fact.

“.You can’t self-immigrate. You can’t claim jurisdiction because you happen to walk into the United States.

“Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those ‘not owing allegiance to anybody else … It’s only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.’ Now this was familiar language.



.
Source: www.cnsnews.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

I see it opposite. The only way to whittle it down is to look and see what is completely ignored. You cannot find liberty by diving deeper into tyranny.

We like to think we are a nation of laws. But we aren't. And it starts at the top: if my government can feel free to ignore the enforcement of laws, why I should I not feel free to ignore the following of laws? Goose meets gander, and all that jazz.

The only way this happens: If people stop voting for the 2 parties. This also means that any 3rd party infiltrated by the assholes that are from the 2 parties gets dropped like the sack of excrement that it is. The reason this doesn't happen is because people are tribal, and they are stupid. The TEA party is a good example of this.

a reply to: Black_Fox

It could all be summed up with, "Keep your hands to yourself".

Seriously. That is the gist of all that matters. Don't touch me or my things. There isn't much else that really needs to be done. At least on a federal level, where individual rights are supposed to be protected. State and local get a whole nuther level of tyranny they can invoke. So we can have things like maintained streets, and other services that civilization seems to enjoy.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We are either a nation of laws or a nation of despots. I would prefer to be a nation of laws.

We are a nation of despots masquerading under the guise of law. And have been for a long time.

How can you honestly say we're a nation of laws when the amount of justice our "justice" system provides depends on how much money you have? When the law applies equally among all economic classes we might be close to being a nation of laws.

Until then, we're about the furthest thing from it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ketsuko

I see it opposite. The only way to whittle it down is to look and see what is completely ignored. You cannot find liberty by diving deeper into tyranny.

Liberty is the opposite of tyranny, so it stands to reason that you'd be correct in your thoughts here.

We like to think we are a nation of laws. But we aren't. And it starts at the top: if my government can feel free to ignore the enforcement of laws, why I should I not feel free to ignore the following of laws? Goose meets gander, and all that jazz.

No, we're not, not really. I mean, why should we be? Our govt. ignores it's own laws. Ignores treaties that it signs, and has for many, many years. We're agreed, again.

The only way this happens: If people stop voting for the 2 parties. This also means that any 3rd party infiltrated by the assholes that are from the 2 parties gets dropped like the sack of excrement that it is. The reason this doesn't happen is because people are tribal, and they are stupid. The TEA party is a good example of this.

It's like we're twins... This should worry you, greatly!

The two party system is broken, assuming for the moment it was ever anything but broken...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I disagree.

There are plenty of laws I doubt you'd be willing to give up that people ignore all the time.

Want to repeal murder laws?

How about the ones on rape or theft?

The problem with your approach is that for every law ever passed, there will be people willing to ignore them.

Now I want the greatest amount of liberty, but I also want a working immigration system. At one time, all of the laws there were passed for a reason. Some of them are redundant and some of them are irrelevant, but until we know for sure which are which and discover it through enforcing them to see which ones actually work and where the problems are, then we won't know.

I ultimately want a system that is as streamlined and rational as possible which means the fewest laws but the most sensible ones too.

originally posted by: matafuchs



Now, after all of that, I hope you read the article because i have one question.

Who is paying for the childs treatment in the hospital?

He suffers from pyloric stenosis which will require surgery. You are talking 10's of thousands of dollars. I am not saying that a child should not be treated but there are kids who are citizens who need this help too. We cannot be the wallet to the world for all of their problems.

Inside your original link, there is another link to a story by NPR .In that link, it is stated the 2 month old child is a U.S. Citizen, therefore Medicaid is paying for the treatment.

a reply to: retiredTxn

I think the question is metaphorical. I think we all assumed it was the US taxpayer footing the bill.

a reply to: ketsuko

I feel the point is, we the taxpayers are footing the bill. Whether any of us like it, under the rule of law, the child is a U.S. citizen. The OP attempted to make it about taxpayers footing the bill for all the world. The parents are here illegally, but the child was born here. The parents received nothing but a healthy baby, living at home with them in Brownsville, TX.