Posts Tagged ‘immigration status’

When Joe Wilson Shouted ‘You Lie!’ At Obama, IT WAS BECAUSE OBAMA WAS LYING

August 12, 2011

When it comes to Barack Obama, if you ALWAYS assume the man is lying, you will turn out to be right an astonishingly high percentage of the time.

I wrote about this immediately after the event in my article, “Joe Wilson’s ‘You Lie!’ Over Illegal Immigrants Most True Statement During Obama Speech.”

HHS: Obamacare-Funded Health Centers for ‘Migrants’ Won’t Check Immigration Status
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law. 
 
Of that $28.8 million, “approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers,” Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.
 
Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.
 
“Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,” Andrews said.
 
Further, the grant recipients are required to serve “all residents” who walk through their doors.
 
“The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status,” said Andrews. “Rather, it simply states that health centers are required to provide primary health care to all residents of the health center’s service area without regard for ability to pay.”
 
These Obamacare disbursements seem to contradict a claim President Obama famously made in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009.
 
The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama said then.
 
When Obama said these words, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted out from the House floor: “You lie!” After the speech, Wilson called the White House and apologized for his remark and issued a statement saying he was sorry for it and President Obama accepted his apology. However, five days later, led by then-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.), the House voted 240-179 to rebuke Wilson for his outburst on the House floor

The grants announced by HHS yesterday aim to support community health centers that provide health care free-of-charge or at a reduced price to people making up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
 
Because the health care centers receiving $8.5 million in Obamacare money “to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers” will not check the immigration status of the migrant workers who seek their services it is inevitable that they will serve illegal aliens.
 
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, illegal immigrants make up an estimated 25 percent of all migrant farm workers, with disproportionate amounts residing in California, Texas, Florida, and Georgia.
 
“As a result of the concentration of unauthorized immigrants working in certain occupations, there are some occupations where they also represent a high proportion of workers. For example, 25% of farm workers are undocumented immigrants,” Pew said in a 2009 report.
 
The $28.8 million in ObamaCare grants announced yesterday are part of the New Access Point grant program for community health centers. Migrant Health Centers are a special type of community health center that specifically targets migrant farm workers.
 
“These awards demonstrate a commitment to improving and expanding access to quality health care for local communities. We are removing barriers that stand in the way of affordable and accessible primary health services,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement on Tuesday announcing the grants.
 
“The Migrant Health Center program provides support to health centers to deliver comprehensive, high quality, culturally-competent preventive and primary health services to migrant and seasonal farm workers and their families,” the HRSA says on its Web site.

The Democrats censured Joe Wilson – because unlike a Democrat cheating on his taxes, questioning the messiah is TERRIBLEin spite of (or because of) their own dishonesty.

And, of course, now history proves it: the night Obama gave his speech, there were only two honest words that night.  And they were Joe Wilson’s words, “You lie!”

I wrote an article in October 2009 titled, “Obama: PLEASE Stop Lying To Sell Your Health Care Plan.”  That was very unfair of me.  Because asking Obama to quit lying is rather like asking the sun to stop shining.  Shining is what the sun does by its very nature, and lying is what Obama does by his very nature.

I also wrote an article that same October, “How CBO Scored Baucus Health Care Plan As Deficit Neutral.”  In fact I’ve written several articles trying to explain how ObamaCare’s costs were a flat out LIE:

ObamaCare Increases Health Cost By $311 Billion While Threatening Access To Care

Documented Fact: Obama, Democrats LIED About Reducing Health Care Costs

CBO Reveals That ObamaCare Will INCREASE Prescription Drug Prices

HHS Secretary Sebelius Affirms Obama Administration Double-Counting Same $500 Billion

Democrats ‘Fix’ ObamaCare Numbers By Leaving Out TRILLIONS In Additional Spending

It’s kind of like what Nancy Pelosi said:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Only the TRUTH would read:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what lies are in it, after it’s passed and it’s too late to stop our takeover and destruction of the health care system.”

And so, once again, we find out for the factual record that DEMOCRATS LIED:

Report: Obamacare Hides $50 Billion in Annual Costs
Tuesday, 09 Aug 2011 01:18 PM
By Tom O’Connell

New research suggests that Obamacare comes with $50 billion in hidden annual costs, reports DailyCaller.com. The plan’s budget apparently does not take into account the insurance costs of workers’ spouses and children, meaning the Treasury could be tapped for hundreds of billions of dollars in the first decade the plan is instituted.

“The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost estimate of this [because] they were expressly told to do their modeling on single [person] coverage,” Richard Burkhauser told the Caller.  Burkhauser, a Cornell University economist and professor, coauthored a report on the plan published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

These unaccounted costs “will almost certainly add to the deficit, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others have estimated,” Paul Winfree of the Heritage Foundation told the Caller.

The plan’s estimate that 75 percent of workers would remain on employer-backed insurance plans is also much too high, according to Burkhauser, whose research suggests a figure around 35 percent.

“This study shows yet another way that Obamacare’s cost will be much, much higher than supporters led the American people to believe,” said Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute. “Anyone who’s serious about the federal debt should make Obamacare’s trillion-plus dollars of new entitlement spending the first item to put on the chopping block.”

Let me just echo with Joe Wilson in my words to Obama: “YOU LIE!!!

Advertisements

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

May 16, 2010

We keep hearing people who claim that the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070) is “unconstitutional.”  But it keeps turning out that those who are decrying it on the mainstream media haven’t actually bothered to even read the law.

Well, the Arizona law is ever bit as “constitutional” as the federal law – considering it basically IS the federal law with even more limitations added to it.

Oh, you’ve got the crowd that says that a state can’t protect its own citizens.  The fact that the federal government has refused to do its job and protect Arizona from illegal immigrants for the last 25 years means nothing.  Let an out-of-control situation continue for ANOTHER 25 years, such people say.

Well, baloney, say three law professors who did something that AG Eric Holder and most liberals have refused to do – and actually bothered to read the law before demonizing it:

REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
By EDWARD SIFUENTES  May 13, 2010 7:44 pm

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors.

However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.

The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on UC San Diego’s campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.

Arizona’s law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person’s immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.

Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.

Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

“I don’t see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy,” Alexander said.

Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.

Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government’s failure to secure the border.

In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.

“The problem is the application of the law,” said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. “On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race.”

Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally.

The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.

“Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course,” he said. “Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional.”

The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person’s immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person’s status.

Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person’s apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.

Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.

“I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced,” Schwarzschild said. “But it certainly doesn’t, on its face.”

CORRECTION: Law professors incorrectly identified

The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the three law professors who took part taught at UC San Diego. They teach at the University of San Diego School of Law.

We apologize.

In any event, ANY law enforcement officer can abuse ANY law.  If the left wants to abolish this law because a police officer could conceivably abuse it, let’s abolish all laws and have total anarchy instead.

We get to the root of the real issue: the people who are protesting this anti-immigration law are not doing it because it’s “unconstitutional,” but rather because they are opposed to any form of action to deal with the soaring and searing crisis of illegal immigration.  They are open borders fanatics; they are leftwing ideologues who want illegal immigrants from Mexico to be able to undermine the vote of legitimate citizens and impose the next failed socialist Utopia.

They don’t want the United States to do ANYTHING to control our borders.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  If there’s something wrong with it, then cite the relevant passage in your argument.  Don’t give me any of your bogus penumbras and emanations in which you gaze into a crystal ball and find things that aren’t even there simply because you want to see them.

Otherwise, let’s have less complaining, and more shutting the hell up.