Skip to comments.Editorial: Targeting illegal immigrants
Posted on 05/09/2009 7:12:49 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
What is it about illegal immigration that unhinges otherwise reasonable people, leading them to propose inhumane and unworkable remedies to the problem?
But that's no excuse for legalizing discrimination, which is precisely what would happen under a state ballot initiative now in the signature-gathering stage and targeted for next year's June election. If passed, it would require all parents of newborns in California to prove U.S. citizenship or legal residency in order to receive their baby's birth certificate. Those who could not would have to pay a $75 fee for a certificate noting the child's "Birth to a Foreign Parent." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security would be alerted to the discrepancy. And finally, in willful ignorance of previous California Supreme Court rulings, the measure would attempt to deny health benefits to illegal immigrants. Those are federally mandated benefits, beyond the reach of state law.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
He said with a lisp.
Let's turn the tables. What is it about illegal immigration that turns otherwise reasonable Americans into Quislings?
They should try Mexicos policies on illegal aliens! What a bunch of crap.
Amnesty Pushers Concoct Six Straw Men
Sounds like a winner to me, but it will never be enacted — even if passed by the people — in California. It’s a non starter..
Lord help me, that was funny!
The will of the people (REAL U.S. CITIZENS) means nothing to the government of California. Why waste the time??
Once again the LA Times displays its true loyalties: not to Americans, and Americans’ best interests, but to people from other countries who break our laws and become parasites on the taxpayers. I hope enough people in California have the guts to get this passed. It should have been the law long ago, and had it been, perhaps California wouldn’t have gone broke as fast and as deeply as it has. This is yet another exhibit of why the LA Times, like so many other newspapers, is circling the drain.
“What is it about illegal immigration that unhinges otherwise reasonable people”
It is about race. No one would be mad if they were white russian or irish illegals (oh that’s right, no one is mad about the russian or irish illegals).
No doubt they'd have no problem with every one of them being replaced on the board by these criminals....at one-twentieth the salary.
What are you talking about.I want *everyone* violating our immigration laws/regulations expelled....no ifs,ands or buts about it.In my neck of the woods there are lots of Irish illegals (I'm of Irish blood myself!) and I want them *all* out.Same with any Canadians,Brits,Germans,Italians,Australians,Nigerians,etc,etc who are here illegally.
Ok if this is legalizing discrimination against illegals then are laws against bank robbery discriminating against bank robbers? Idiots!! Illegal immigration is illegal and attempting to pass laws do deal with it are not discrimination; it is an attempt to regulate an illegal activity.
Some are so stupid they swallow this crap- but what makes me angry are people who know it has nothing to do with discrimination and use that to gain support for illegal immigration issues. Why don't these people just tell the truth- they are for illegal immigration. Talking around the bush is just a ploy to keep the support of the people who aren't that smart. Just as the Pro-Choice people will not say they are pro-abortion...pro-choice surely isn't about what flavor of ice cream to buy so why don't they admit what it is they are supporting. The double speak is annoying.
What is it about the water they drink in Southern Californa that makes LA Times editors so moronic?
“It” is about sheer numbers and associated costs. Are Mexican illegal immigrants more visible? Yes, they are more visible outside of the southwest, Pacific coast and Florida. There is a problem even there, where they aren’t so visible too, though, so the old racist slur isn’t going to wash. You’re really reaching, in order to taint people who merely want the law upheld, in the face of how many tens of millions? Nobody appears to really know, and why is that? Public services are being sorely strained, at a time when many states no longer have the ability to fund the basics, let alone liberal pipedreams like free healthcare and schooling for every foreign national who wants to crash the gate.
You don’t speak for me. Militarize the border (including ports) and throw every mick and Ivan out of the country. I am an American of Irish decent from Boston. My family emigrated legally, paid taxes, served their nation in time of war and integrated with this country. They didn’t see America as one big free lunch when you walk over the border. They saw it as the opportunity it still is.
1) It is fitting and proper that we "discriminate" against criminals. By definition, criminals put themselves outside the law and thus cannot claim all the sympathies a society accords its more just members.
2) It is also no excuse for legalizing illegality. These immigrants are in the country illegally and are not legal beneficiaries of our largesse.
3) The assistance provided these illegals robs legitimate citizens, who then absorb the suffering while doing nothing to earn it. It is grossly unfair that law-abiding citizens be burdened with the care of lawbreakers.
If there were 20-30 million Caucasians from any Country living here illegally, I would still be mad.
Police at all ERs and medical clinics with orders to check citizenship. Same results for illegals.
Do that for a month and you would see the illegals flee on their own and you could reduce and then eliminate the police presence at medical facilities.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
At least the citizens are trying. The initiative wouldn’t be necessary if the legislature were responsive to the public.
I fail to see how this is "discrimination", much less how it legalizes such. I do know the difference between "to be discriminate" and "discrimination", though. To be discriminate is to be selective based on experience and knowledge; discrimination is stereo-typing based on race, etc. and having no provable substance to it.
And finally, in willful ignorance of previous California Supreme Court rulings, the measure would attempt to deny health benefits to illegal immigrants.
This statement is quite laughable, as the the LAT itself calls for the wanton disregard of the people's will and laws they pass (Prop. 8, for example). For the LAT and their ilk, the people are above the government, not the other way around.
Funny, how the LAT will call for the people to disregard what the government says when it suits them, but attempt to tell them they must obey the law when they (the LAT) agrees with it.