March Ado About Nothing

Of course. If my rights are violated, I hit them where it hurts. Great strategy don't you think?

How would legal immigrants know who the illlegals where? I can't tell. I'm sure others can't either. But good luck with it.

How would your rights be violated by being asked to show valid ID or proof of citizenship?

What would prompt them to ask me for ID? That's where my rights would be violated. Why would anyones ask a Iraq war protester for their ID?

I think they would have probable cause to ask for identification from anyone holding a sign that would imply their illegal status.

I know this is kinda of a jack-ass point, but if they are in the streets not in a cross walk, are they not technically jay walking? I could be totally off basis here.

Either way, it does not matter, for even if we could identify the illegals we do not have the man power to deport them. What we need to concentrate on is a way to stop future illegal entry. I think for the most part we are stuck with the illegal aliens we already have for better or worst.

But if there was a permit for the march, would they still be able to use jay walking as an excuse to ask for ID?

@kevinb66, I don't know about that. Would you want to be pulled over for no reason? They would have to prove a reason for them to ask me for my ID, if I'm not mistaken.

If there was a permit for the march, then I think that permit only applies to people here legally. Illegal aliens do not get the protections of the Bill of Rights.

I never liked the idea of permits anyway. People should be able to march and demonstrate without government approval. But that is another topic altogether.

Adam Hobson, right. They are illegals. But what about someone like me that is a U.S. born citizen?

kevinb66, I could. But I see things differently then you. I see illegal immigrants used as scapegoat for Americans problems.

Show your ID and you are fine.

This is all theoretical anyway. No way would any politician have the courage to do this, nor would he have the man power or detention ability. Let's say 500k march, to be on the safe side you round up only 100k that you are almost positive are illegal. What exactly do you do with them? Detention camps? Long march south guarded by men with guns? All of these are PR disasters. There really is little we can do to directly force illegals back home. However, large fines and imprisonment to those who do employ them, might do the trick to make it less inviting to come here in the first place, since no one would risk hiring them.

I want "them" gone too, but there really is nothing humane, or that feels "right" that we can do to send them home. So instead, concentrate on guarding the borders. A real fence/wall is a great idea.

Adam Hobson it's not about been fine. I know I would be fine. But I wouldn't not be okay if I was asked for my ID. The only thing that would run through my mind would be "Why did they ask me? Is it because I'm Hispanic? Would they have asked me for my ID if I was another race?" So there would be problems there. They would have to ask the White, Asian, Black, etc marchers too. Then it would be a different matter. But it didn't happen, so I don't worry about it. If it ever does, and I feel that race has anything to do with it, then I would take certain measures so it doesn't happen again.

josethegeek: I do not want to assume anything, but what did you think about the proposal a few months back for Dubai Ports to operate the ports of United States cities? And if you were against it why? If not, then ignore this line of questioning, for at least you are not a hypocrite on this matter, and I commend you for that.

@josethegeek

how do we round them up? we don't. They do it for us. See, you fine the employers heavily for hiring or knowingly keeping on illegal immigrants. Monitor the employers hiring closely and then when the work is dried up for them they leave. Word will get out fast enough that eventually they'll stop border jumping.

Adam Hobson, I was not against it. Unless they could prove that we would actually be in risk of a terror attack, then there was no basis for them to turn it down. If it had been a company from a western country I'm sure it would have been different. I believe that the deal left a bad taste on Dubai companies, and that in turn means less money invested in the U.S. and money invested in other countries.

@Shawn Gordon. That could work. But I'm still sticking to my decision. Hopefully soon we will find out what will happen. If the illegal immigrants win, great! If not, then America will find out what happens when there is no one to handle the jobs nobody wants.

josethegeek: So you are not a hypocrite, and I am glad I asked before making myself look like an ass. I am not sure where that leaves us in this discussion ... If you want, feel free to protest and demonstrate all you want and if anyone abuses your rights, count a few us newsviners in to blog for your justice. (I am not sure if asking for ID really is an abuse, though I can easily see how that process could be abused to become such an abuse.)

Shawn,
How could this possibly work? Do you realize how many agents it would require to monitor this? You would need to open a whole new division of the INS or Border Patrol Agencies and hire thousands of Agents, train them, pay them, pay for transportation, pay for vacations all to keep "Undocumented Workers" out of the kitchen in little taco shops in East LA and the fields of the Imperial Valley.

Have you heard of fake documents? How do you think a lot of them get hired.

And as far as benfits to these people goes... There are quite a huge number that are older than you. Are you the kind of person that wouldn't give basic human rights to someone that's your senior? Do you ask if your food was cooked by a "Wetback" before you eat?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

This is engraved into the Statue of Liberty. There is no asterix on the engraving about standing in line and fill out this form in triplicate and then I'll lift my lamp.

Illegal aliens do not get the protections of the Bill of Rights.

False. Anyone on US soil for any reason gets the protection of the US Constitution. That's why we have a prison in Guantanamo for Iraqi insurgents.

Driving (at least in NC) means you agree to an implied contract that you can be stopped, checked for ID and/or breathalyzed. Exercising one's constitutionally protected right to gather and petition the government for a redress of grievances is not a license for the government to get your ID. Citizens are not legally required to carry ID in the US. Permanent Residents, green-card-holders are required to do so.

I would be very annoyed (I might not sue... ) if an officer asked for my ID without cause. One thing that makes America great is that we have a (relatively) smally government that doesn't care where you go or what you do, unless it hurts other people. (In most cases)

Another great thing is that this debate has stayed civil. Whoa, kudos.

Sometimes I think people forget the illegal in illegal immigrants. If they aren't supposed to be here, then what reason do we have to let them stay? Maybe without all of that illegal cheap labor we could get more American citizens a job. If they want to come to America so badly, then they can go through the system, just like everyone else.

Exactly, the only attention they're bring to themselves is that we have a problem with illegal immigrants.

@ josethegeek

Wait and see what happens when no more illegal immigrants are here to take jobs nobody wants? come off of that already, technically the illegal immigrants aren't here as they aren't documented. For the jobs no one wants - I'm pretty sure they'll get filled. I mean, I work in a construction industry - I do landscape architecture, but I also do the dirty, trench work too. I'm happy. I pay my bills, taxes and support my family, all within the confines of the law. I know many people who would LOVE the opportunity to work and are waiting for jobs to open up. The deal is that contractors look for cheap labor because it is more money in their pocket.

Generally the argument for keeping hte illegal immigrants has been one of a liberal side. I've noticed that the arguments (not necessarily here but elsewhere), has been that "everyone speeds, and that some people cheat on taxes, or some other form of law breaking action - so we can't condemn the illegals to deportation simply because they broke the law"... well to throw a liberal phrase back at SOME of the liberals - "two wrongs don't make a right".

I wrote an article about FAIR Vs. Right, and I think that article relates to this topic heavily. It may not be FAIR to deport them, but in my mind, it is right. We don't need to dwell on the past with things like "We started out as Immigrants"... that was the past and things have changed. We don't need to debate with "What if it was YOUR family getting kicked out" - its not my family getting kicked out, MY family filed papers back in 1790 according to the way the system worked back then. We don't need to talk about "what happens if..." - If... nothing is a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".

Some of us have a problem with illegal immigrants because we're tired of paying the way for these illegals taxes, health care, homes, and job security. I don't understand how a nation can, on one hand say "stay out of other peoples business when we think "war", but suddenly become the humanitarian when another country feeds us people we don't want or need. We're wrong to invade a different country, but when a different country wants to invade us - its cool. Show me the logic in that.

As a natural citizen, I feel that my rights and wishes should come before those who enter here later in life. I understand they don't choose where they are born, but hey - life's tough. We can't run around trying to make things fair and easy for others if we can't make them fair and easy for ourselves - THAT'S not fair, nor is it right.

Generally the argument for keeping hte illegal immigrants has been one of a liberal side. I've noticed that the arguments (not necessarily here but elsewhere), has been that "everyone speeds, and that some people cheat on taxes, or some other form of law breaking action - so we can't condemn the illegals to deportation simply because they broke the law"... well to throw a liberal phrase back at SOME of the liberals - "two wrongs don't make a right".

That's not really my argument, even though I've used something very similar to that. I just don't believe that this "really is" an issue of legality with all of the people that are using that angle. People don't care about whether people break laws because people do it every day. I'm saying that the "legal angle" is the easiest one to take because all you have to do to defend it is say:

"But it's illegal!"

To which I say, big deal! Not only does repeating this over and over not address the issue, but every single person that repeats it doesn't seem to speak up about people who drive over the speed limit, or the many cases of underage drinking in America, or people performing oral sex in areas where doing so is (for some dumb reason) against the law.

I suspect that there is something else that bothers many who have issues with illegal immigration and that the "legal" issue is the one that is easiest to hide behind. For Christ's sake, we live in a country that believes that copyright infringement shouldn't be punishable -- even though it's a clear violation of the law. (But she's just a poor grandma... don't sue her evil RIAA!)

When we in America are consistent about which laws should be "acceptable" to break and which one's aren't -- I'll buy this moral stance about the legality of sneaking over the border to evade a lengthy and expensive process.

OK, that fair. Personally hiding behind the stance of "but it's illegal" isn't where I stand. I agree that if you stand on something you stand on all of it (like grandma and the RIAA), as well I feel I've explained across several 'vines' about my entire feeling and why.

I strongly disapprove of speeding (in certain cases), and have never condoned nor taken part in drunk driving (ever), and... never drank underage (honestly). I understand not everyone is like me and therefore I will not hold everyone to my standards, this still doesn't change the "two wrongs don't make a right", nor does it change the fact that so many people want the US to stay put and NOT invade another country, but say it is okay for the US to be invaded.

For addressing the issue, which has been done all over the place, it seems to be in a stalemate. nobody wants to budge on their feelings about the legality. The civil aspects are also moot, but result in a stalemate based on bias. I think this is why everyone is harping the legality of it all. It is the only "black and white" (cut and dry - I know what you're about to say josethegeek),side of the whole deal. Once we can establish the common ground on the legal side - then we can move on to the personal side of it.

@Bahia

What is with everyone assuming I'm racist. I work in LANDSCAPE, I work daily with illegal immigrants and I do not treat them differently despite their LEGAL status. I don't deny them CIVIL rights and many times have stood up in their defense when some white kid comes up and starts making fun of them, calls the stupid, or just in general is an ass towards them. I know they are also people, and have the same wants I do. They work hard, I acknowledge and appreciate their efforts, but there is no consolation prize here.

I've said this before:

I ask them "Why are you here?" and they say "To send money to my family"
- This is very honorable - they want to support their family. Okay.

I ask them "Do you like Mexico?" and they say "Yes."
- Okay.

I don't want to deport anyone because I dislike their color or accent or religion. That's not only an insulting assumption but rude, and in poor taste. All you've done by using racial slurs and ethnic titles is wash away any credibility you had with me. You sit there and claim to side with the illegal immigrants and then proceed to single out a nationality, and THEN use racial slurs in regards to what you speculate I might say.

You are the second person who has quoted the Statue of Liberty, yet make it evident you might not know much more than its made of copper and believe it has writing on it. I'll venture to say you may actually know what state is is located, but not much more. Please, before you use an icon for a debate - understand what it means, where it came from and why it is there as well as what the script means. Here's a small clue - the monument has NO writing on it nor did you cite the whole passage. Not only have I stood before The New Colossus", but I take fancy in understanding certain aspects of a country whose military I was enlisted.

@Brian

You are addressing a good point, the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

ACLU, Asian Law Caucus, National Council of La Raza, LULAC, MALDEF, and maybe even the NAACP

From my point of view, these groups are more interested in self promotion and grandstanding then Civil rights. The only time they care about the rights of anyone is when it will let them get in front of a news camera.

Actually, not such a good point. It would be an extreme stretch to read the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan vs Sitz regarding sobriety checkpoints as a blanket endorsement of random police stops anywhere, anytime. And even the current conservative court would have difficulty reconciling the constitutionality of specifically targeting protestors exercising their First Amendment rights.

This is not yet a police state, although judging from the enthusiastic response to the idea from many of you here, I don't doubt that it may not be long in coming.

Stopping cars randomly on the highway for seatbelt violations might possibly fit under the Sitz decision, though I doubt it. The Court struck down random stops for drug searches in 2000.

Do not jump to the conclusion that simply because the police are doing something, it must be legal. How do you think these cases arise in the first place?

I figured I would repeat myself in this comment-thread... sry if it bothers you.

Driving means you give your implied consent to be searched, breathalyzed or to have your ID checked. At least, it does in NC. Here is the statute.

And here is the Fourth Amendment, with which any such statute must comply to be enforceable:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

While it is possible under certain circumstances to waive one's Constitutional rights, an 'implied' contract is unlikely to be sufficient.

And forgive me for repeating myself, but I am again amazed at the enthusiasm with which some are willing to part with the very liberties that we claim are so essential for everyone in other countries to have.

kevinb66: That's a good summary. Note that all the situations described are well short of arbitrarily stopping people whenever and wherever, and even further from specifically targeting a lawful protest.

Note also that all of these checkpoint decisions require that everyone be subject to the stop; the police cannot pick and choose. I can only imagine the cheery disposition of all of the pro-checkpoint voices here when it is their turn to sit in traffic for an hour or two at a checkpoint ID'ing illegal aliens.

A full discussion of the merits of the Fourth Amendment probably deserves its own article or seed...

Actually, if my supermarket carried produce picked by people who were paid a fair wage, I would certainly choose to buy it, and I bet the program would be successful. American Apparel is certainly doing well.

There are fair trade products, I know coffee is one of them. American Apparel is doing well because it basically has a monopoly on a niche market, not a bad move if you can find one. But of course I wonder if the "cool" and "hip" factor or American Apparel or FairTrade coffee would carry over to produce like lettuce. If you are able and willing to pay more for a fair trade product I am all for that.

I don't understand how you can single out one small part (the legality) of a large issue and declare that all is complete. Using your judgement, everything is black or white, right or wrong; There is no complexity in your world. So therefore, I can say that war is wrong on the simple ground of people will be killed. I won't look into the reasons, nor the possible outcomes. Simply, I will make a judgement on one irrefutable fact, that killing people is illegal. Problem solved, right?

well actually, killing people, as an act of war is not illegal.

While your comparison might be fun it is not very apples-to-apples.

Perhaps a better comparison would have been government whistle-blowers. Should we put them all in jail because they divulged classified material? Or should we thank and protect them when they expose something truly helpful (to the populous, not the government)? Using legality as a touchstone, we could never count on a whistle-blower to protect us from our government (who can classify anything deemed harmful to our national security). My contention was with using legality as the one and only comparison; I apologize for not knowing the rules of war. I've tried to do some research in regards to those rules, and just don't have the time to read through each Geneva convention before I respond. I'm sure there's something in there about civilian casualties though...

sorry, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheeck. You know, killing kind of goes hand in hand with war. It's an unfortunate by product. I don't think anyone expects you to know the full text of the Geneva Convention..

It is hard to get U.S. citizenship, especially for 12 million of them.

As I understand it, it's a huge pain to get citizenship currently, and reforming those regulations wouldn't be a bad idea.

But allowing people who flagrantly break the law of a country in which they're not even citizens is a bad idea, in my opinion. Why even have any form of immigration be illegal, if we're not going to enforce that illegality?

Exactly, whats a law for if the people breaking it, blatantly display the fact by marching it the streets announcing their crimes, and we do nothing about it. I dont think it can be that hard to get citizenship, I have many friends and family who are here legally, my father-in-law is one of them. He took the time to learn the language, he pays taxes, and votes. He is now an American in the truest sense of the word. There is no excuse, however, for breaking the law.

I would support freeing all criminals arrested for possession. Drug-related robbery or murder is another story.

Well, yes, I didn't mean to suggest that I'd include and crimes committed connected to drugs, just possession/trafficking/etc.

Out of curiosity though, why? Despite the illegality of the drugs being wrong, in my opinion, should we be removing the punishment for breaking the law, simply because the law changed? It's not so much important that someone had a joint on them, or whatever, but that they chose to break the law as it was at that point in time.

Well, a pragmatic view would say that our prisons are crowded with pot-smokers and if we kicked them out we could save some money :)

A more moral view would say that if we deem a law unjust we should then free the people affected by it. An extreme example would be if a corrupt government came into power and put lots of dissidents in jail. If a new regime decided it was wrong to jail dissidents, it would be right to free all those previously jailed, despite the fact that they willingly committed crimes. Smoking a little weed is a lot less noble than resisting a corrupt regime, of course, and if you believe that criminalizing drug possession is not unjust but simply a dumb idea, I could see how you might not want to free already incarcerated drug users.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I do believe it's unjust...I'm just not certain I can say that I feel we should free people who have willingly broken the law, regardless of the morality of said law.

I suppose, as you mentioned, if they were breaking a law with intent to challenge the government, or something of that nature, it might be different, but by and large, the pot smokers I have known (including myself) smoke because we want to, and simply disregard the law.

Here's a thought -- why don't these people put forth the effort to make their own country a better place to live. Why do Americans have to hold everyone's hand? The illegal aliens suck our resources and send billions back to their country in addition to the generous aid our Government provides.

@Melissa726. That is what the Native Americans probably thought when the first settlers came to America. Why couldn't they just stay in England and fix their government? That is what lots Americans thought of all the immigrants that came after them. It's a cycle. I don't think it will ever end.

So you are asking someone to sacrifice their life to fix their country rather than seek a better future in the US? What makes you or me better than someone who was born into slums? Ugh... Melissa, please re-evaluate your reasoning. To me it's very hurtful. It's the same line of reasoning that prevents the developed world from investing additional resources into solving crises like that of Darfur, former Iraq, Iran, or even going back to Russia and Germany (remember when they split up Poland and the world just stood by?): their problems, let them deal with it just so long as I am nice and warm. In the meantime MY relatives were taken away by the government and shot (reality, not an exaggeration) and people would lose lives for merely suggesting the idea of defection because US chose a policy of containment rather than confrontation.

Melissa, I hope you reconsider your position as one superior to those less fortunate. I am an American, immigrated here with my parents, and I am proud and grateful for this country, but NEVER would I diminish the suffering and risk that some illegals endure to come to this country. And to say "don't come here, just fix your place up" to me is unconstructive and grossly unfair. Justify closing borders for stability, for crime control, etc. but don't say "go back and fix your country first".

A lot of the problems in Mexico come down to government corruption, and that is very very difficult for the average man or woman to fix. Imagine spending a quarter of your income on bribes, and maybe you'll understand why so many people want to come to the US.

Does 1 million people marching in the streets HERE alter the line of thinking in the White House? Nope. Yet, in a FAR MORE corrupt country its supposed to change things?

I don't get the logic.

Because many are US citizens.

Or, their governments are corrupt and/or ruled by a dictator. A few people in the streets (1 million / 20 countries = 50,000) isn't going to make the dictator think "Hey, some people don't like the way I rule this country. I think I will resign and make this country into a democracy". It would be nice, tho.

I believe right after the Iraq war started, more than a milllion protested against it. It kinda didn't change too many minds

If 1 million U.S. citizens -- or more -- marched in the streets of the United States of America against...say...a war that was fought under false pretenses, the White House should alter its line of thinking?

How about 10 million people from other countries around the world join those U.S. citizens in solidarity.

Are you on record as saying the White House should alter its line of thinking?

:)

What happened to the good old days, when if people were unsatisfied with their country/government on a large enough scale, they simply *changed* it, by force?

Does no one do that anymore? It's always seemed somewhat strange to me that we feel like we need to push people and help them overthrow their government....when several hundred years ago, after getting pissed off enough, several countries simply *DID* overthrow their governments.

I'm tempted to say, until the people unite and take care of it themselves, they don't deserve the quality of life and freedom they ask for.

Vincent Grayson. I will say this again. Then why didn't the English Immigrants fix England instead of coming to the Native American's land? Why didn't the Irish, Italians, Germans, Polish, etc stay in their country and fix it?

Because there weren't enough of them? Because it was hundreds of years ago and many things were different? We can argue about the seizure of the Americas from those living here, but that was a drastically different situation (we showed up, and took what we wanted, there was no legal processes involved)

When we wanted freedom from what we deemed oppression from England, you know what? We *took* that freedom.

When the French wanted freedom from their @!$%#ty system of government, what did they do? They *took* that freedom.

Nowadays, we seem to just assume people want freedom really bad, despite not displaying any obvious outward attempts to secure that freedom, and we "offer" to do it for them. I can't imagine a group of people given their freedom largely by an outside source will treasure it nearly as much as those who fought and died, by their own free will, for it.

...T-BONE. I meant the Irish, Italians, German immigrants. But I'm sure you knew that.

It really wouldn't be so hard to round them up.

Perhaps the very fact that doing so would be pretty easy means that this whole debate is a well-timed wedge issue and that sometime around November we'll stop hearing about it.

We SHOULD have tests for people to get in.

I'm not sure that making things "more" difficult is going to solve the problem of people coming in illegally when there are legal avenues. I suspect that the opposite is true.

Here's a thought -- why don't these people put forth the effort to make their own country a better place to live.

Here's a thought -- why don't you try living under an oppressive corrupt government for a couple of years and then report back to me about how easy it was to "put forth the effort to make their own country a better place to live."

And what are the proper channels? Do you know or care to find out? It is really hard and not as easy as uninformed people like you make it to be.

actually dukem you pointed to the wrong page. PLR isn't the only means of living here legally. You could become a citizen as well. Though, most of the people who are flying their flags over the US flag seem to be, at first glance, failing one of the requirements.

favorable disposition toward the United States.

sorry dukem I shouldn't have said wrong page - rather that you only pointed to a portion of the relevant information (as you need PLR before you can become a citizen).

Not to mention, people deserve trials; they may have extenuating circumstances. Also, just because someone doesn't have "proper identification" doesn't mean they are illegal. Oftentimes, I don't carry ID if I am not driving anywhere. I am not illegal, and it is quite legal for me to do so. This just goes back to the endless comment-thread above.

What happens if we kicked out all the illegal immigrants? Prices would still rise, because it would be cheaper to import produce than to pay workers a living wage. So, American businesses would suffer. Is that what we want?

Honest question: Do illegal immigrants even get welfare?

@insert_name_here. I don't believe so. If children are born in the U.S. from Illegal parents, I don't see why their children shouldn't. They are citizens if I am not mistaken.

But some illegals do die for some of these people that so despise them.

The first combat casualty of the war in Iraq was actually an Illegal Immigrant.

I'm not speaking about Jose Guitterez's situation - but on a related note joining the US Armed Forces is a means of accellerating the Naturalization process.

I see: So now we make exceptions for soldiers?

But it's illegal! (Or I thought that's how it went?)

Perhaps you should check out the laws. I just want the law to be enforced. The law permits an accellerated naturalization process for people willing to serve in our Armed Forces.

@finalcut. But if you are breaking the law why should naturalization process be accelerated? According to some, he is breaking the law. So there shouldn't even be a naturalization process at all, much less an accelerated one. So why even let Jose Guitterez go to Iraq and loose his life? Why let him go to another country and represent the U.S.A? Makes no sense to me. If they are criminals, why send them to go represent you and me? Last I remember... Criminals aren't allowed to serve in the Armed Forces. Or maybe I heard wrong. As soon as they knew he was an Illegal Immigrant they should have deported him, right? But no ... they let him enlist. It just make not sense at all to me. Maybe someone can take the time to explain it to me.

@ Melissa

Actually we do have a test you must pass before you are granted legal citizenship. They call it the "Citizenship Test". It's about 100 questions long and covers things like "When if American Independence Day?" to "Who wrote the National Anthem?". I helped my best friend Myke study for this test when he came over from Canada.

What makes me sad about this test is that there are questions on it that most Americans don't know. Like "How many stripes are on the US flag?" and "What do the colors on the US flag represent?"

Brian:

Enlistment into any branch of the US Military, by citizens of countries other than the United States is limited to those foreign nationals who are legally residing in the United States and possess an Immigration and Naturalization Service Alien Registration Card (INS Form I-151/551 - commonly known as a "Green Card"). Applicants must be between 17 and 35; meet the mental, moral, and physical standards for enlistment; and must speak, read and write English fluently.

The US Military branches cannot assist foreign nationals in obtaining admittance into the United States. Questions concerning immigration to the United States should be asked of the US Embassy. Only after immigration procedures are completed and an applicant is legally residing in the United States may an application for enlistment be accepted.

I only sort of agree to that - Doctors are ethically bound to help those in need... and breaking an arm is pretty serious (not to mention hurts a lot)... I don't want to see them physically suffer, that's just mean and cruel. I agree that it should be for emergencies, yes. I don't think they should receive health care like annual visits and get prescriptions and so on. Just because they are a drain economically really sint grounds to up and strip keeping them healthy enough to go back home. I know that if I saw an illegal immigrant who I KNEW was an illegal immigrant that was very sick - Id help them get to a doctor and pay for it from m pocket is need be, but on a large scale basis - no.