Ariz. may require hospitals to check citizenship

[Ruiz]

Ruiz, you are all over the place with your argument.

It is quite simple. If a doctor or hospital does not wish to inquire about a patient's immigration status then the medical facility should not take tax dollars which are conditional upon asking.

Just as a Rescue Mission should not accept food for distribution that comes with the condition of not sharing the Gospel.

If you don't agree with the conditions set by your benefactor - then find a different benefactor.

Don't act with dishonor by accepting what you want and then ignoring the conditions that you agreed to.

What amazes me is that Republicans are more concerned for people's status than people.

Do you think people in China should have to register their church because it is law in China?

Evangelicals have said, "no." They believe this is an overstepping of the state. Liberals have bashed evangelicals on this stance saying that we should not be encouraging people to disobey the law. My stance is similar to evangelicalism. The church and private non-profits are there to minister, not there as tools of the state. I know a hospital in an Islamic country that is run by Christians. In that country, you must report people who convert to Christianity. The church gets funds at times from the city. Should the hospital obey?

 

[Ruiz]

No I would not have brought it on myself. The illegal alien brought it on themselves. Had they obeyed the law they would not be in their predicament. Supporting the obedience to the law does not create the predicament, disobeying the law creates it. Pretty simple logic and fact.

And thank you for recognizing the true nature of the law.

Yet, was jesus more concerned about keeping the law of the person caught in adultery, or the person? The law was clear and her disobedience brought about the situation. However, Christ was more concerned for the person. The crowd would not have been wrong to cast a stone, but Jesus was not about condemning individuals in that way.

I do not think Doctors should be people who hunt for illegals. They are in the caring business. That should be their job.

Let me be quite honest on this. This is a reason I left the Republican Party and despise the modern Christian Right. I am conservative, strongly so. However, you come across as more nationalistic than Gospel centered.

 

[mandym]

Yet, was jesus more concerned about keeping the law of the person caught in adultery, or the person? The law was clear and her disobedience brought about the situation. However, Christ was more concerned for the person. The crowd would not have been wrong to cast a stone, but Jesus was not about condemning individuals in that way.

So is it your position that Jesus did not want any laws enforced?

I do not think Doctors should be people who hunt for illegals.

This is yet another overstatement that discredits your position. No one suggested or insists doctors should hunt for illegals.

They are in the caring business. That should be their job.

Not to be overly repetitive but if someone comes into the hospital with a gun shot should that not get reported?

Let me be quite honest on this. This is a reason I left the Republican Party and despise the modern Christian Right. I am conservative, strongly so. However, you come across as more nationalistic than Gospel centered.

Which completely ignores legitimate concerns about our borders and is clearly an overstatement of the situation. Probably out of emotion. Either way disingenuous.

Do you know what the real and very clear concerns about the border are? It is also about our economy. Do you know what those concerns are? Nationalism has nothing to do with it. But it is a great way to demonize someone.

 

[Ruiz]

So is it your position that Jesus did not want any laws enforced?

My position is that Jesus did not want her stoned and had compassion on her.

This is yet another overstatement that discredits your position. No one suggested or insists doctors should hunt for illegals.

This law would require them to be chief enforcers of the law to ensure no one is illegal. Doctors should be doctors, not enforcers of this law. Pastors should be Pastors, not arms of the legal system.

Not to be overly repetitive but if someone comes into the hospital with a gun shot should that not get reported?

There is a distinction. If someone has a gun on any property that I own that I didn't want them, I would report them. Why? For my protection as well as others. The immigrant is not threatening them. Yes, if ultimately that property owner wants to report people, so be it. Yet, should I be required to report them? No!

Which completely ignores legitimate concerns about our borders and is clearly an overstatement of the situation. Probably out of emotion. Either way disingenuous.

Do you know what the real and very clear concerns about the border are? It is also about our economy. Do you know what those concerns are? Nationalism has nothing to do with it. But it is a great way to demonize someone.

I addressed the immigration issue earlier. Are there problems on the border? Yes! In fact, I think the government laws have added to the problems, not helped. With immigration, however, there have always been problems. I am not trying to make light of them. However, I also do not want to close our borders to them. Throughout our history, people wanted to limit certain groups like hispanics, the polish, the Irish, the Cubans, or any other immigrant group we found undesirable or causing too many problems. Yet, in the first generation you normally have vast poverty and added crime. The second generation become productive and more helpful. By the third generation, groups see great leadership in their ranks.

I am a second generation person. Yes, my mother's family grew up in poverty in Spanish Harlem. I don't know all the details, but I had relatives involved in the mafia and others in crime. So, yes, I understand the problems you face more than you know, for I have seen the problems first hand within my family.

However, I have cousins who now own companies, who went to a military academy, who obtained much respect in other areas. One of my relatives worked for a highly respected newspaper and did well for them. My generation is much better. We came in poverty and with many problems, but we stayed and are something better.

As well, I would never have become a Christian in my mom's native land. God brought my family here so I can hear the gospel.

Yes, I do have a passion for the gospel that invokes emotions. Rather than kicking people out, I want more to come in so we can better share the grace of God. That maybe emotional, but I will take it.

 

[carpro]

OK, I stand corrected on that the hospital does not have to refuse treatment. However, many illegal aliens would not go to the hospital for fear of being deported.

That's OK , too.

They should go home voluntarily in any case, or be deported.

They are here illegally.

Illegality appears to be a difficult concept for liberals to understand.

 

[carpro]

This law would require them to be chief enforcers of the law to ensure no one is illegal. Doctors should be doctors, not enforcers of this law.

That's simply untrue.

The Arizona law requires absolutely nothing of doctors. That's a red herring argument.

 

[mandym]

I want more to come in.

Bingo! There in lies the motive.

And I do not think there is room for debate between us any further. May God bless you in all you do.

 

[Ruiz]

That's simply untrue.

The Arizona law requires absolutely nothing of doctors. That's a red herring argument.

It requires of caregivers to be the arm of the executive branch. that is wrong. Not a red herring, the issue is still the same.

 

[Ruiz]

Bingo! There in lies the motive.

And I do not think there is room for debate between us any further. May God bless you in all you do.

So you don't want more to come in? So you want to keep people out?

I am not sure what point you are making, unless it is purely political. Yes, do I want people to come to me to hear the Gospel. Yes! Am I more concerned with people coming to my country where we can minister to them than stay in theirs where I may have more limitations? Yes!

Are you not concerned for their souls (which is the context of my statement)?

Throughout the generations, people have come here. America took in all people, rich and poor. Today, we take in people too. Yet, we usually limit that amount.

Economically (and, remember, I hold to Austrian Economics, not liberal by any stretch of the imagination), we need immigrants to come in. Financially, we do not have enough workers without the immigrants to sustain our standard of living, even if we make all the cuts the Republicans are proposing. Thus, without more workers, it will be impossible to sustain ourselves financially. Now, I am not saying all i care for about these immigrants is financial. Yet, if you want to take this on a pure rationale level, we need immigration. Without immigrants our debt would be much worse than it is today as they have contributed to society.

So, yes, I want more people in our country. That is what made us great. People coming from all around the world and making their home here. The Irish-Catholics, Dutch, the Pilgrims, Hispanics, Italians, Chinese, and Japanese. They helped make our country the greatest country in the world. Yet, many were considered nuisances. Some tried to limit immigration. I am so glad that throughout our history, they didn't.

BTW, it was the conservatives throughout history who were for free trade, more open borders, and lenient immigration policies. Today, Republicans seem to be more against free trade, more open borders and more lenient immigration policies. Amazing, Obama seems more conservative in these areas than the fear mongering Republicans.

 

[Ruiz]

That's OK , too.

They should go home voluntarily in any case, or be deported.

They are here illegally.

Illegality appears to be a difficult concept for liberals to understand.

You have no compassion on them?

I have criticized Democrats by saying that they measure compassion by how much the government spends instead of how much they sacrifice personally. Republicans should hear the same thing, instead focusing on the law, they should focus on people. Why don't you go out there and reach out with the Gospel to them, feeding them, and giving them the shirt off your back. You may learn to love some of us hispanics and discover the vast majority are here because their families are starving back home. You may actually decide that you need to support them in their native land by giving of your own money to help them live, and eat, and drink.

Both parties are not compassionate but both like to think they are.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I simply don't think that hospitals are the place to enforce border controls. The purpose of a hospital is to treat the sick, not act as immigration officers.

I wonder what the response would be if an American travelling abroad had his or her spouse's treatment delayed, even for a moment, while their nationality was checked?

 

[carpro]

It requires of caregivers to be the arm of the executive branch. that is wrong. Not a red herring, the issue is still the same.

Only if you want to dramatize a non issue.

It requires nothing of doctors. Your argument is specious.

 

[carpro]

You have no compassion on them?

I have criticized Democrats by saying that they measure compassion by how much the government spends instead of how much they sacrifice personally. Republicans should hear the same thing, instead focusing on the law, they should focus on people. Why don't you go out there and reach out with the Gospel to them, feeding them, and giving them the shirt off your back. You may learn to love some of us hispanics and discover the vast majority are here because their families are starving back home. You may actually decide that you need to support them in their native land by giving of your own money to help them live, and eat, and drink.

Both parties are not compassionate but both like to think they are.

It's a legal issue. Emergency care will still be administered.

Your "compassion" argument is specious as well.

Fact is you have no argument. Enforcing the law is not illegal, no matter how much you'd like for it to be.

 

[carpro]

I simply don't think that hospitals are the place to enforce border controls. The purpose of a hospital is to treat the sick, not act as immigration officers.

I wonder what the response would be if an American travelling abroad had his or her spouse's treatment delayed, even for a moment, while their nationality was checked?

The purpose of a government supported hospital is to treat it's citizens and not waste taxpayers money doing it.

The purpose of a corporate hospital is to make a profit while treating patients.

There is no obligation to provide free medical care to those that are in this country illegally.

In answer to your query, the hospitals abroad would most likely require payment by American citizens, almost non of which would be in the country illegally. Other nations don't allow invasion by illegals.

Also they would not inquire about citizenship for "emergency" treatment.

Neither will we. It's the law. Treatment is required...for medical emergencies, not routine medical care such as colds coughs, rashes, and hangnails.

 

[Ruiz]

It's a legal issue. Emergency care will still be administered.

Your "compassion" argument is specious as well.

Fact is you have no argument. Enforcing the law is not illegal, no matter how much you'd like for it to be.

It is a non-issue. I do not want a secretary, an administrator, or the like being the arm of the executive branch. I don't want hospitals being the arm of the executive branch.

It is about compassion. It is about caring for people in need over and against their national origin. It is about saying, "they are human first and we should put first them being human."

We should care for people like the Samaritan, not like the pharisee. The pharisee may ask, "ARe they a Jew, Gentile, clean, or unclean" before helping. The Samaritan says, "a friend in need is a friend indeed."

Only the most obtuse conservative wants to take advantage of people when they are sick. Let hospitals hospital, let law enforcement be law enforcement. Yet, leave them both alone.

There is no rational reason to have hospitals play law enforcement. And, in the end, people will suffer for it. And Republicans don't care

 

[Ruiz]

Fact is you have no argument. Enforcing the law is not illegal, no matter how much you'd like for it to be.

I am not against enforcing the law. I am against forcing hospitals to get involved in this process. Their job is care, not law enforcement.

 

[carpro]

It is a non-issue. I do not want a secretary, an administrator, or the like being the arm of the executive branch. I don't want hospitals being the arm of the executive branch.

Then base your argument on that issue, not concocted lies , half truths, and "compassion".

Do you also object to employers being used as an arm of the federal government for immigration control?

Don't forget that hospitals are employers too.:thumbs: They are already "involved".

I have a feeling you just object to immigration enforcement. Period.

 

[Ruiz]

also, there is something called the constitution. In that Constitution I should be considered innocent and should not be searched or stop unless there is probable cause. The fourth amendment means that in order for people to question me for the sake of considering that I am illegal, they must have probable cause.

By definition, this would be unreasonable. They want to ask everyone without probable cause as condition to being treated. Rather, I think they should ask no one except those they have probable cause (and that, for law enforcement only). Being hispanic or any other nationality is not probable cause.

 

[Ruiz]

Then base your argument on that issue, not concocted lies , half truths, and "compassion".

Do you also object to employers being used as an arm of the federal government for immigration control?

Don't forget that hospitals are employers too.:thumbs: They are already "involved".

I have a feeling you just object to immigration enforcement. Period.

Thanks for calling me a liar, that was not only offensive but shows your character in this argument.

I am against the employer mandate. It is both unfunded and burdensome to the employer. If an employer makes a mistake, they can be fined severly even though they went through all the proper steps. It is a mandate that costs employers too much money with severe penalties to the employer. This is not a business friendly law.

Rather, the cure is to open up immigration faster and much broader with penalties only to those who are illegal, not to the employer. Too often, when auditing records it is seen the employers did everything they were required to do but they are still punished.

Because of the tax laws, we should require basic identification for tax purposes. However, we should not require employers to be involved in this issue. Just another government regulation that hurts business.

 

[carpro]

Thanks for calling me a liar, that was not only offensive but shows your character in this argument.

I called you nothing, but you have repeatedly lied about the obligation of doctors to enforce the law.

Or maybe you just didn't understand. I think you did understand and your deception was intentional.

My "character" is usually questioned by those who tell lies and get called on it.

I don't mind at all. It's human nature to try to point the finger the other way. No want likes to get caught in a lie.

Of course, you could simply admit you were mistaken. But you haven't and I doubt you will.