Question for "Medicare for all" supporters... Does that include illegal aliens?

Crossing the border illegally is a violation of the law. Remaining in the country after your authorized departure date is a violation of the law. Working without the proper visa is a violation of the law. Using fraudulent documentation to obtain employment in circumventipn of the law is a violation of the law. Operating a motor vehicle without a driver license is a violation of the law. Failing to report income is a violation of the law. Failing to pay taxes on unreported income is a violation of the law. Child endangerment is a violation of the law. Some of these are misdemeanors, some are felonies. With the exception of young children who were brought here by their criminal parents, evety single illegal alien present in the country has violated at least one of these laws, if not multiples.

Ad hominem fallacy. I am not the topic of this thread.

 

It's sad that you have to explain something which should be common sense. But the "I'm too stupid" game is the one they prefer

 

Nope. Every illegal immigrant is guilty of not obeying immigration law.

 

They think we’re not paying attention.

 

it's purposeful

 

Oh absolutely. Orwell predicted it.

 

So you assume they crossed the boarder illegally. Wild baseless assumption

What is an "authorized departure date"? Quote the laws you are referring to because it looks to me like you're just pulling nonsense out of your ass.

And then start explaining what the hell is the relevance of this. What does any of that has to do with "belonging here"? Are you saying that anybody who breaks a law "doesn't belong here"

You are obviously desperately grasping at straws I mean.... you even assume that they are driving without a license, that they don't pay taxes, that they endanger children (the only one who we know endangers children is Donald Trump... and I would agree with you if you say that, because of that, he doesn't belong in this country)....

What a load of crap! Obvious sign that you have no arguments.

 

Wrong!

And this is precisely the reason why the term "illegal immigrant" is inadequate.

 

No, I state factually that millions have illegally crossed the border over the past several decades as has been well documented and acknowledged by people on all sides of the issue. This is not under dispute and the fact that you would attempt to deny this unassailable fact is ample evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

If you enter the country on a visa, you are required to depart on or before the expiration date of the visa. This is another unassailable fact. This is, again, the normative state of international customs and immigration law. Some nations entreat with one another for visa-free travel. For example, the USA and the EU have a bilateral visa waiver treaty which allows citizens from either jurisdiction to enter and stay for up to 90 days without a visa. You are required to leave on or before day 91. Similarly, we have treaties with Mexico and Canada that allow a 180-day visa-free stay. You have to leave on day 181 or obtain a visa if you wish to stay longer. That is your authorized departure date and it comes from various treaties among nations and not from my ass as you fallaciously assert.

If you do not comply with our immigration laws, you do not belong here. I can not make it any simpler for you.

No, you are describing yourself.

Many do. So many were in California that they began issuing licenses to illegal aliens. 11 other states followed suit. So that means any illegal alien residing in the 38 states that do not issue licenses to illegal aliens are breaking the law, also driving without insurance.

If they are working under the table, they can not even report the income. Some do. Many don't. Well documented. YOU EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED THIS FACT!

"Most illegal immigrants don't file tax returns." http://politicalforum.com/index.php...llegal-immigrants-benefit-this-country.549973
​

Taking a child on a thousand mile journey across deserts, rivers, riding on top of freight trains, is not endangering them?

Every word you've typed in this thread, yes.

I have stated my position clearly and supported it with facts. You have not. So look in the mirror.

 

Illegal alien is the correct legal term.

 

We used to use other terms to describe people coming into the US illegally but the Democrats said those terms were derogatory. I always found that interesting. Don't use derogatory language to describe a criminal. Criminals are bad guys. Who really cares what they are called.

 

I have "denied" no such thing. I am asking a simple question: why "shouldn't" they be here? What is your basis for such a blanket statement? And your response is that they crossed the boarder illegally. Which would not only a very poor reason to state that they don't "belong" here. But it's just not even factually correct.

You could, at a minimum, try to get your facts right. Though I'm not expecting you to get your arguments right anymore.

.
It's a violation like parking a SUV in a parking spot reserved for compact car is a violation. Or getting a parking ticket. You made it sound like it was armed robbery, or something... So, is your parameter that anybody who has ever received a parking ticket does not "belong" in this country?

Oh? You mean you can repeat the blanket statement over and over but you are unable to justify it?

That's what I thought.

This is my point about the whole discussion. Some may not "belong here'. But many do. Your blanket statement is indefensible.

More baseless assumptions. You can only justify your statement if you base it on baseless assumptions.

And now you acknowledge my point. "Some do"...

Not when the child is in worse danger if they don't.

Look...If nothing else, let's get one thing straight: You are the only one here making blanket statements. Don't try to ascribe any to me. I know that wingnut media likes to present the world as "black" and "white". "Belong" and "don't belong". "Our ideology" and "their ideology". ... The only "blanket" statement you can be 100% of is that blanket statements are always wrong. They are the tool of ideologues who don't want you to notice that there are gray spots between the left and the right, between capitalism and communism, between right to choose and right to life, between all guns and no guns.... And this is why wingnut media is so popular. Because "gray spots" require too much mental effort.

 

The penalty for noncompliance with our immigration laws is deportation. Hence, if you entered the country through a means other than a lawful port of entry, or if you have overstayed a visa or a visa waiver, you are subject to deportation. IE, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE.

Please specifically enumerate the facts I "have wrong."

Fallacy: Ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread.

Fallacy: False equivalency. The penalty for illegal parking is a fine, possible impound of the vehicle. The penalty for noncompliance with immigration law is deportation (at minimum).

Please cite the post in which you allege I made this claim. I made no such claim.

Fallacy: Straw man, non sequitur. Your false equivalency conflates a parking ticket with an immigration violation. They are two distinct bodies of law with two distinct penalties.

The justification is that we are a society governed under the rule of law.

You thought wrong.

The penalty for noncompliance with our immigration laws being deportation, no noncompliant individual "belongs here."

My position is based on documented facts.

Yet you've contradicted your own argument.

There is a process for application to emigrate to the United States (or anywhere). Individuals who wish to provide a better circumstance for their children should make an application, not expose their children to untold hazards for an uncertain outcome. This is irresponsible and endangers the child.

CAUTION: VIDEO CONTAINS VERY GRAPHIC FOOTAGE.




Falling off the train is certain death.


This is called a "rape tree." The intimate garments of rape victims along the migrant trails are hung like trophies on trees. Women and girls are routinely raped by coyotes, other migrants, and "bad hombres" they encounter in remote areas.



These are some of the dangers encountered by children when their parents drag them through the desert instead of making a proper application for immigration from their home country.

I am making factual statements in support of my rational argument.

All above irrelevant. Please try to stay on topic.

 

I have. On every instance. In the previous message, that illegal immigrants entered illegally.

In this one that immigrants are automatically subject to deportation if they don't enter through a lawful port of entry or if you overstay their visa. Or, bottom line in all of this, that they don't "belong here" Your factual inaccuracies are too many and too frequent. But your refusal to justify your blanket statement is what has us going around in circles.

Please don't misuse terms if you don't understand them. Your arguments are the topic. And the fact that you can't express them clearly is very relevant.

The false equivalence is the one you draw between how somebody entered and "belonging here". I'm trying to make some sense of it, since you refuse to.

Some immigrants are deported.... some are not! Some immigrants belong here... some don't. You clutch to a nonsensical statement. And throughout this discussion you haven't even been able to explain what "belong here" even means.

Huh?

What "claim" are you talking about? You're not even reading anymore.

You have not justified your claim that what you claim are "illegal immigrants" (a misnomer that I use only so we both know what we're talking about) "don't belong here". I hold that some do... some don't. You insist on a blanket... "cover-all" statement. You have failed to justify this. And you have resorted to factually inaccurate statements, accusations based on poorly understood logical fallacies, and simply... not reading.

The rest looks like a bunch of pornographic crap with no relation to this topic. It's a waste of time. If you have any real point to make.... make it. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

 

In English, please.

Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.

8 U.S. Code § 1227 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227
​

Fallacy. Ad hominem: I am not the topic of this thread.

Wrong. Medicare for illegal aliens is the topic.

Fallacy: Ad hominem: I am not the topic of this thread.

don't
[dohnt]

verb
contraction of do not.

-

belong
[bih-lawng, -long]

verb
to have the proper qualifications, to be proper or due; be properly or appropriately placed, situated, etc.

-

here
[heer]

adverb
in this place; in this spot or locality
​

In accordance with 8 U.S. Code § 1227 as I stated above. What's your point?

Oh, so you do understand the meaning of the phrase "don't belong here."

Those who are in compliance with our immigration laws belong here.

In case you missed it the first time:

don't
[dohnt]

verb
contraction of do not.

-

belong
[bih-lawng, -long]

verb
to have the proper qualifications, to be proper or due; be properly or appropriately placed, situated, etc.

-

here
[heer]

adverb
in this place; in this spot or locality​

You stated "You made it sound like it was armed robbery, or something..." You attributed a claim to me that I did not make. I asked you to cite the post in which I allegedly made this claim. You have not done so.

Fallacy: Ad hominem. I am not the topic of this thread.

Please cite the post in which I used the phrase "illegal immigrant."

Well you are wrong. Immigrants who are in compliance with our immigration laws do belong here. Aliens who are out of compliance do not belong here.

The law does not equivocate.

Justify what? The rule of law?

You have deployed several fallacies in our exchange thus far, most notably the very common ad hominem in which you tried to infer imagined personal attributes in an attempt to discredit me personally rather than advancing a factual rebuttal to my argument. This tactic is most often deployed by debaters who have not adequately prepared their argument. It is the lowest form of discourse, and easily betrays the weakness of the user's position.

Unfortunately I've read every ridiculous word you've written.

You attempted to refute my claim that illegal aliens dragging their children through the desert are endangering them by stating that "Donald Trump is more of a danger" to the children of illegal aliens than are their irresponsible parents. Why am I not surprised that you deny evidence presented of the very real objective dangers to which these children are exposed on their perilous involuntary journeys? Children are dying, being raped, kidnapped... but you take the position that the real danger to these children is Donald Trump. Such a position would actually be laughable were it not so depraved.

This whole discussion has been a waste of time.

I made my point in the OP.

Of course you are. Or you wouldn't be sitting in front of a computer like me.

 

I did not ask when. I asked why.

 

​

And some may even be deported. After a long process....

The rest is nonesense. As a matter of fact, this is nonsense. You have been unable to answer the most basic questoin: why don't they belong here?

 

Of which most illegal migrants do not qualify for.

 

Haha. I've told you nine times why. You just don't like the answer. And you have yet to tell me why they do.

 

And I have told you many times. I don't like idiotic answers that do not respond to the question. Like, in this case, quoting out of context.

(b)Deportation of certain nonimmigrants
An alien, admitted as a nonimmigrant under the provisions of either section 1101(a)(15)(A)(i) or 1101(a)(15)(G)(i) of this title, and who fails to maintain a status under either of those provisions, shall not be required to depart from the United Stateswithout the approval of the Secretary of State, unless such alien is subject to deportation under paragraph (4) of subsection (a).

section 1182(a) of this title) shall not apply to a special immigrantdescribed in section 1101(a)(27)(J) of this title based upon circumstances that existed before the date the alien was provided such special immigrant status.​

...etc.

 

Any statement that includes the word "most" supports my case, given that what I am arguing against is a blanket statement that was supposed to cover ALL illegal immigrants.

There are so many things for which most illegal immigrants don't qualify that when you put them together, the aggregate of the small number that does qualify debunks any such blanket statement

 

Speaking of idiotic answers. An individual admitted as a nonimmigrant is not an illegal alien. Nice try.

What the hell kind of legal cite is that?

 

Absolutely not. In my country, only citizens are entitled to public health. There's no way we could afford it if it was provided to foreign nationals.

 

Is there a large population of foreign nationals in your country? You live in Uzbekistan?

 

Since you know you have lost this argument, you make absurd arguments, which you refuse to define. You refuse to define them, because you know how silly tat ib doing so, you;ll show how weak your argument is.

Overstaying authorized period of stay in the U.S. can result in very serious consequences.

If you overstay a visa, or have entered the country illegally, then you are residing in the US illegally.

I suppose you are correct in saying that the term "illegal immigrant" can be a Editmisnomer, since the person illegally residing within US borders may not have any intentions of ever actually immigrating to the US to become a US citizen. They may never wish to learn our language or customs, only seeking to live in the US, enjoy the freedoms they have, leach off our generous social welfare programs, and live in the shadows as an illegal resident.