Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > Michael Oke, II wrote: >> Sure there are people that are giving these resources to them and they >> expect something in return but that hardly makes it right, either for >> people born in this country or those that followed the laws and legally >> earned the right to be here (or there, depending on where you are when >> you read this). >> > So you are all about government regulating where and how people can > economically compete, and which people can compete. So it follows you > are in favour of government doing *exactly the same thing* with > companies. Ergo, you are a socialist. Are you not? Yes, in a sense of the word, I am for the government regulating that only legal residents and citizens be allowed to compete. That hardly makes me a socialist, even by your wacky definition.
> >> This is not about competition, it's about legality. >> > Nope, this is about the *making* of laws. This happens before laws get > written. So, when you vote your congressmen, do you want them to be in > favour of free competition or do you want them to be in favour of state > regulation of the market? Nothing whatsoever to do with free competition as I fully support it. It does have to do with the legal right of somebody to work in America. > >> The U.S. does have social security, as broke as it is, in every sense of >> that word. > So when a foreigner asks for that social security you just give it to > him? No? You don't? So how is this foreigner getting hold of those > "resources" you keep talking about? In theory, no we don't except that we do. Now a foreigner is not permitted to come to America and demand social security benefits but that isn't what I was speaking of when I mentioned it. As for getting a hold of these resources, in most cases they merely apply and are given. Is that hard to understand? If you want to know why, I recommend that you contact the legislature of California and ask them. > >> And we don't have social medicine? How untrue. You would >> merely have to spend an evening in the emergency room of almost any >> hospital in southern California to know that. > So Virgil, and Pete, and ......whoever. Are just whiners. They are > really against the system, they are communists in disguise. Pretty sure that they aren't altho Pete seems to straying into a different area of late. > >> Illegals use them as >> their personal doctors and, guess what, the hospitals have to treat them >> with little hope of being paid for said treatment, so don't talk as if >> there isn't social medicine, just because it doesn't match your skewed >> definition of it. >> > So you should issue laws that only citizens or legal foreigners may use > hospital services, and get rid of anti-immigrant laws. > Then foreigners would not be able to get hold of your precious resources > (for they would be *paying* for whatever they get, be it with money or > work). > Let see, why wouldn't we do just that, legislate that illegals can't receive treatment? Because we would be labeled as inhumane, I'm sure. Not to mention that the liberal members of the legislature would not be able to pander if that fence post was removed. Best idea, remove the illegals and then it is a non-issue. Anti-immigrant laws? America has immigration law, as does every other country in the world, to the best of my knowledge, now we just need to enforce them. ::michael _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
