Outrageous

The difference in wording makes all the difference.

Quote:

The White House on Friday said it would bar illegal immigrants from purchasing health coverage through a proposed insurance marketplace. But the administration also said that the federal government would continue to require hospitals to provide emergency treatment to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense.

The question of how illegal immigrants would fare under a proposed overhaul of the health care system came into sharp focus on Wednesday during President Obama’s speech to Congress. Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, shouted “You lie!” when Mr. Obama insisted that his health care overhaul would not insure illegal immigrants.

And the Obama administration’s determination to show that immigrants will not benefit from the health system overhaul highlighted the extraordinary sensitivity to the issue at a time when lawmakers still remain divided over whether the government should pay to provide health coverage for all American citizens.

A White House spokesman, Reid Cherlin, said that the president’s proposals would bar illegal immigrants from purchasing private insurance through the new government marketplace, known as an exchange, and that verification of immigration status would be required for anyone seeking to purchase coverage.

Although Mr. Obama in his speech referred to his “plan,” the White House has not developed a written legislative health care proposal and does not intend to do so, instead relying on committees in Congress, which have drafted several versions of the bill, some running more than 1,000 pages.

Mr. Cherlin said the White House was considering various enforcement options, including the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, which states now use to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing government aid programs for which they are not eligible.

Mr. Cherlin said the president’s position on immigrants was in keeping with a long-standing view that he first articulated during last year’s presidential campaign.

The White House said that illegal immigrants would still be able to purchase health insurance through the private market, as they can now, but acknowledged that the private market was certain to shrink after the creation of the new marketplace.

Many illegal immigrants must now seek medical treatment in emergency rooms, which by law cannot turn them away. In recent years, the federal government has spent $250 million a year to reimburse hospitals for bills that go unpaid as a result. The White House said those reimbursements would continue.

A draft of the health care legislation approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would allow illegal immigrants to purchase insurance through the new marketplace, but would bar them from obtaining government subsidies to help low-income individuals and families afford coverage.

Under that House bill, illegal immigrants would not be subject to a new requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance. Some non-citizens legally residing in the United States would be required to purchase health insurance, but they would be barred from obtaining subsidies even if their income were low enough to otherwise meet the eligibility requirements.

Senators who have been negotiating a compromise health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee said on Friday that they were contemplating steps to prevent illegal immigrants from benefiting from the health system overhaul, but some aides said they did not believe lawmakers intended to bar illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance at full cost, through the new exchange or otherwise, should they be able to do so.

The White House position could draw a backlash from advocates for immigrants.

source

So to appease the shrills, the president is considering proposals which would use methods states already use to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving aid where they are not eligible.

In any event, Wilson was the one who lied, illegal immigrants were not covered under the proposed health care reform bill. The issue of enforcement is another topic.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't think that's fair at all, Advocate. Quite the contrary, actually.

How is he different?

Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that he's civil, logical, and not driven by irrational delusions?

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck, ... Thanks to you and Dys for the kind words.

Unfortunately, I'm not always up to that standard, but I try.

I do note that my civility and logic failed to persuade you. That, however, is one of the (increasingly rare) pleasures of this forum - testing one's ideas and understanding against those of one who disagrees - and doing so without the need for, or goal of, crushing the opposition. It is the encounter with the different perspective or point of view of one who interprets events differently that offers the possibility of better understanding all around. It's a dialogue, not a contest.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It is the encounter with the different perspective or point of view of one who interprets events differently that offers the possibility of better understanding all around. It's a dialogue, not a contest.

it should be a combat of ideas, to see what ideas hold the most promise.....seem to be most supported by reality. However, this should be done amongst ladies and gentlemen, we are all brothers and sisters here. The general lack of civility at a2k is inexcusable. You are a happy exception to the rule, most of the time.

I do agree (i think) with your take that a lot of what we do is comparing of realities, yours, versus mine and so on. Given how segregated our society is the ability to do this at a2k is a rare treat.

0 Replies

Earlier in this thread someone asked why didn't Arnold get the same treatment because of his "not born in the U.S." background. Partially, because you don't have to be a natural born citizen to serve in the Senate, in Congress or as Governor of a State. You do have to be a natural born citizen to be eligible for POTUS. However, and this is a big however, am I the only person who remembered how giddy the politicians became when Arnold with all his star-power became Gov of California???? There was talk of changing the Constitution in order for a person of foreign birth to take office. I'm glad the talk died down, but I know I not the only person who agrees with Snood about the hoo haa that has followed Obama.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Glitterbag - that talk hasn't died down, on the contrary. The people you call "natural born" are deemed U.S. citizens because of jus solis, but by jus sanguinis (applicable in most other countries) children born here of illegal immigrants wouldn't be citizens. The change involves repeal of only a clause of a single constitutional amendment, as you know.

3 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

... but by jus sanguinis (applicable in most other countries) children born here of illegal immigrants wouldn't be citizens.

Nor would the children born in the USA by legal residents and/or temporary visitors. (The only exceptions to this automatic granting of citizenship are the children of foreign diplomats stationed in the USA.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Yes, though after 2 or 3 generations it depends on the specific country - I saw this first hand with children of English families born in Hong Kong who might no longer be able to claim British citizenship after the 3rd generation - and certainly didn't want to become Chinese.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I think that might have to do with the British Nationals (Overseas) status.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

but by jus sanguinis (applicable in most other countries) children born here of illegal immigrants wouldn't be citizens.

Nor should they be, UNLESS, and its a big unless, the parents choose for the kids to be US citizens.

Heres how it would work.
A couple here illegally would be given a choice after they have a child.
The child would be allowed to stay with the parents and all of them would be immediately deported. OR, the parents would give up their child and then be deported.
The child would be granted US citizenship, with all of the benefits thereof.
The child would be raised here in the US while the parents would be deported.
Either way, the parents get deported.

It would be their choice to keep their child or surrender the child.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I also remember people questioning whether or not McCain's natural born status was legit because we was born in Panama (or somewhere out of the country).

That line of questioning was not unique to Obama.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

No just unique in how credible and how much air time the story gets despite Obama providing a copy of his birth certificate and the state of Hawaii confirming he was born there.

Hawaii Confirms Obama's Birth, Again

‘Birther’ Boom

0 Replies

@maporsche,

McCain was born in a US military hospital in the then US zone of the Panama canal, where his parents served in the US Navy - there never was the least question (legally) that he's a natural-born US citizen UNTIL the 2008 election loomed, with Obama as a candidate. Remember McCain had ran for president before, in 2000, and for senator many times before, and that question was never raised by anybody then.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Precisely my point - it depends on the country, and in that case UK law applied.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

MM - it still would require a constitutional amendment, as far as I can figure out, though I'm no constitutional expert. The 13th was passed at a time where there had been no importation of slaves for 60 years, so anyone in condition of involuntary servitude then living in the country could safely be assumed to have been born here. It was a quick and easy way to free the slaves - but the illegal alien problem was not recognized at the time, so you can't blame the legislators for not thinking of it.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Correction, the 14th Amendment was meant: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Sorry.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Precisely my point - it depends on the country, and in that case UK law applied.

Yes, that's why I mentioned exactly the British Nationals (Overseas) status - not really your point, I think, but UK law Wink

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I remember that UK law changed at about the time Mrs Thatcher foolishly decided to hand over territory that had been ceded in perpetuity - Hong Kong and Kowloon. The local Brits felt quite strongly about it. Governor Patten was absolutely hilarious negotiating with the Chinese - in flawless Mandarin - as he insisted on bringing along his dogs to all meetings.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Due to the expiration of the lease of the New Territories on 1 July 1997 Thatcher actually couldn't do a lot more - besides starting a war, perhaps.

British National (Overseas) are are Commonwealth citizens, but not British citizens. And that (legal staus) didn't really change with/after the Sino-British Joint Declaration: before it, they got the British Dependent Territories citizenship , but weren't British citizens neither.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Not so - I remember the time very well because I was working in Tokyo. "Ceded in perpetuity" means what it says. The lease on the New Territories was irrelevant to the Hong Kong - Kowloon area and there was never the least mention of a war, any more than there has been with Spain about Gibraltar.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know