This is an article a friend of mine sent me (knowing of my interest in illegal immigration). To be honest, I don’t know how accurate the overall article is. However, I do know that the general context of immigration law, both in Mexico and here in States, as outlined in the article, are correct.
MEXICO IS ANGRY!
Three cheers for Arizona
The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico do not like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.
The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico. It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.
A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona’s new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.
The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.
The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales, ”There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona” she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.
The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens.
It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their
own needs. Too bad those other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona.
Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!
New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...
1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps,
no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at
least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted.
Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
naturally born into this country.
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag,
no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or
his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted
and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All
assets will be taken from you.
Sound too strict?
The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!
They sound fine to me. NOW, how can we get these laws to be America’s Immigration Laws?
Before moving on to our next article, I have to pass this link on you. It comes from Americans for Legal Immigration (http://www.alipac.us). The link is to a transcript between CNN’s Room’s Wolf Blitzer, host of The Situation Room, and Mexico’s Felipe Calderon. The transcript is amazing, first for President Calderon’s audacity at demanding that our southern borders be open to allow the free flow of workers---legal and illegal, and secondly, his response to Wolf Blitzer’s questions regarding illegal immigrant’s into Mexico. In light of the above article, this is a must read. I’ll be looking forward to your comments! Here’s the link to the transcript:
Think the fight over “Obamacare” is over? Well, it isn’t. In fact, it’s far from over. Here’s an article which sent to me by the All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care---HR 676 and the Nurses Professional Organization here in Louisville, Kentucky. The article is written from a decidedly Democrat point of view, but the general sentiments regarding socialized medicine are generally the same as the conservative Right. It’s presented here to give you, the reader, another perspective on the argument against Obamacare.
Health Care Bill Does Not Fix Health Care SystemBy Peter Shapiro
Passage of President Obama's health care reform in late March made for
great political theater. Here was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, skillfully
maneuvering the bill through Congress after many had given it up for lost.
Here was House minority leader and Republican point man John Boehner,
reduced to ranting about 'Armageddon' and predicting the end of
civilization as we know it if the bill passed. Here were Republican
legislators egging on the mob of teabaggers who massed outside the
Capitol, hurling racist and homophobic slurs at Representatives John Lewis and Barney Frank as they went inside.
I'll admit the scene worked on my emotions. The Republicans' tactics were
ugly and cynical and I was happy to see them fail.
Now that the dust has settled, however, a hard look at the legislation
that prompted all the fuss suggests that, far from 'fixing our broken
health care system,' it merely reproduces some of its worst features.
The bill does nothing to lessen the grip of the private insurance industry
on our health care system. It won't bring exploding health care costs
under control. It does little to change the shameful disparities in access
to treatment in a society that treats medical care as a commodity to be
bought and sold, rather than as something all of us need and deserve.
What it will do is require everybody to buy health insurance, with federal
subsidies for those who can't afford the premiums on their own. The price
tag of these subsidies is $447 billion over the next ten years. That's
money that could have gone to pay directly for medical treatment but which
will, instead, wind up in the pockets of the insurance industry - one more
corporate bailout at taxpayers' expense.
To help pay for it, public hospitals that treat the uninsured will have
their federal funding slashed by $36 billion. Eight years down the road,
union health plans and other job-based health insurance will be slapped
with a 40% 'excise tax.' Protests from organized labor succeeded in
getting this tax modified somewhat, but not eliminated from the bill.
The bill does expand eligibility for Medicaid, the federal health care
program for the poor. And it is supposed to make it harder for insurance
companies to deny legitimate claims or refuse to cover 'high-risk'
patients. Insurance industry lobbyists, who actually helped draft the
bill, swallowed these reforms in part because they'll get 30 million new customers out of the deal, and in part because over the years the industry has proved adept
at evading every government attempt at regulation.
Physicians for a National Health Program, which has led the fight for a
single payer system comparable to what other developed countries have,
likens the bill to morphine for a cancer patient. It lessens the pain for
a while, but it doesn't stop the cancer from spreading. Health care in the
U.S. costs twice as much as in most other countries, mainly because the
administrative costs of maintaining a private insurance system soak up
nearly one in every three dollars we spend on it. And a big chunk of that
money goes to buy politicians. The health care industry spent a record
$266.8 million last year making sure nothing got into the bill that would
seriously threaten its profits.
I've heard some interesting arguments over whether we're better or worse
off with this law on the books, but it's really beside the point. The
battle for universal, equal access to care still lies ahead, and it won't
be won until those of us who are victimized by the health care system have
more political clout than those who profit from it.
The law's shortcomings will provide ample organizing opportunities in the
fight for true reform. Here are a few:
1. Medicaid. It's financed with matching state and federal funds, and
while the federal government may have the money to pay for expanded
eligibility, most states don't. Oregon, where I live, already has a very
liberal program of health care for the poor, but the state is so strapped
for cash that it actually has to hold a lottery to determine which
eligible people get benefits. And because an underfunded Medicaid program compensates doctors so poorly, many doctors are already reluctant to take Medicaid patients. The new law promises to make it easier for poor people to get care; we
should be prepared to hold politicians' feet to the flames if it doesn't
2. Rate hikes. Since everyone will now be required to buy insurance or
pay a fine, insurers are likely to take advantage of their captive market
by jacking premiums up even more. There should be organized, angry
protests every time it happens.
3. Underinsurance. Before the law passed, a woman with 'pre-existing'
breast cancer was apt to be refused coverage. Now she can't be denied
coverage - but she may find that her new policy won't pay for the extra
round of chemotherapy or surgery she needs. Nothing in the law spells out
what benefits must be offered for insurance plans to qualify for the
government-run 'health insurance exchanges' that will be set up in 2014.
The requirement that everybody buy insurance will mean a proliferation of
cut-rate policies that are of no use when you most need them. When
policies like that go on the market, we should read the fine print and
expose them for what they are.
4. Inadequate regulation. Supporters of the new law boast that it outlaws
'rescissions,' the practice of cancelling a policy as soon as a
policyholder files a claim. But rescissions were already illegal! State
regulators simply didn't enforce the law. We need to keep a close eye on
them and demand that they do their job.
5. Employer mandates. "If you like the coverage you have, you can keep
it," says Obama. But it's really your boss's decision, not yours. The
penalties for employers who cancel their coverage are too small to
discourage them from cancelling or cutting back on increasingly costly
employee benefits. Unions can expect continued brutal fights over health
insurance at contract time. Whenever it happens, they shouldn't hesitate
to point out that health benefits shouldn't even be on the bargaining
table - the government should be picking up the tab for everybody,
regardless of where they work or how much they make. Only by advocating
for health care for all can unions win public sympathy when their own
coverage is under attack.
6. Penalizing the uninsured. A lot of people who can't afford to buy
coverage, even with federal subsidies, will get stuck with stiff fines for
remaining uninsured. They need to become organized and visible and demand
7. Discrimination. Denying coverage to immigrants is a particularly ugly
and pointless feature of the new law. Preventing sick people from going to
the doctor doesn't 'secure our borders' or discourage people from coming
here, as anti-immigrant propagandists claim. It just means more needless
and untreated illness and more pressure on overburdened hospital emergency
rooms. Full access to health care is a key component in the battle for
8. Federal deficits. As costs keep rising, subsidizing insurance premiums
will inevitably add to an already huge federal deficit. There will be
intense pressure to cut necessary social programs, including Medicare, to
pay for it. In defending those programs, we should be prepared to raise
the issue of single payer - pointing out that a universal
government-funded health care system would save the taxpayers billions and
make those cuts unnecessary.
It's common for politicians like President Obama to say they support
single payer 'on principle' but don't consider it 'realistic.' The truth
is that it's the only realistic solution. Nothing else will solve our
health care crisis. We have to keep the heat on until we get it.
Peter Shapiro is a member of the National Association of Letter Carriers
(NALC) Branch 82 in Portland, Oregon. He also co-chairs the Health Care
Committee of Portland Jobs with Justice.
This article was originally distributed by FightBack News Service at
Our last poll was about the Tea Party Movement. We asked how influential the Tea Party would be in this November’s General Election. 20% of you thought it would very influential. Another 20% thought it would key, but only in close elections. But a whooping 60% said it would actually have a negative impact.
Recent elections show that the Tea Party has an impact on elections, but thus far, it seems only in the Republican primaries. Its influential has not been essential to a candidate’s victory, but it certainly has had a serious impact. The question is how will Indies and conservative Democrats vote? Will they join with the conservative in the Republican Party, and with disenchanted independents to support Tea Party backed candidates, or will the Tea Party be seen as being too conservative? Most Americans, after all, do not live at the political extreme of either party. Americans, as a whole, tend to be in the middle; some slightly to the Left and others slightly to the Right. One this for sure thought is that this fall’s elections will prove to be a critical litmus test for the Tea Party and its ability not just to sustain the movement, but to grow it.
NOTE: We were unable to add a new poll to this edition of AO due to problems with our site host, Blogger.com.
Post a Comment