Comments on: RISHELL TALKS ABOUT IMMIGRATION

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 04:00:19 +0000

In fact, I would say that Mexico has found a way to appease the socialist desires of their populace without spending a cent:

Send them north.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:57:25 +0000

That’s not true. For one thing, there is no EMTALA in Mexico. If you can’t pay, you don’t get treated at the hospital.

As a result, many US hospitals near the Mexican border have gone bankrupt treating Mexican nationals who came across the border for the healthcare which EMTALA mandates that the hospitals provide.

When nobody pays the bills, the business goes bankrupt. EMTALA has been described as the textbook definition of an unfunded mandate.

But, just in case you don’t believe me, ask yourself this:

Does Mexico have the tax base to provide even a tenth of the freebies that the US does on a per-capita basis?

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:01:33 +0000

I would guess there are a lot more taxpayor “freebies” in Mexico than in the United States. It’s a far more socialist nation than we are.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:24:57 +0000

Probably though, if it weren’t for all the taxpayer freebies to be found in the USA, they wouldn’t be very likely to come over here since, although the wages are higher here, so also is the cost of living.

But then, without all of those taxpayer freebies, the costs of which are hidden in every single product and service you buy, maybe the cost of living would be lower?

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:21:40 +0000

Many of the illegal aliens had jobs in Mexico. They left them for higher pay in the USA.

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:38:02 +0000

Anon 1033: It’s a little hard to prove because we can’t go back and live the same 10 years without NAFTA, but I suspect NAFTA significantly did reduce Mexican illegal immigration to the US over what it would have been had NAFTA not been enacted. The (simplified, but valid) reason is that NAFTA spawned a great deal of cross-border siting of manufacturing in Mexico that swept up a lot of workers who might otherwise have come here and generally raised the level of economic activity in Mexico. Of course, NAFTA doesn’t do too much to affect Central Americans outside Mexico, but that would argue to extend NAFTA-type arrangements to other regions, as this Administration has been attempting to do.

By: Earl

Earl — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:54:40 +0000

Our government’s trade policies are the cause of illegal immigration? Balderdash! It is our strong economy, coupled with the corruption of the Mexican and central american governmnt institutions that cause the illegals to want to sneak into this country. That the Feds have dropped the ball, I will agree, but Rishell should focus on what she can do. Fix the problem, not the blame. How about following CO’s lead and deny state and local benefits and services to illegals? Rishell would never advocate for this, as it would piss off the Mexicanos Sin Borderas and the WWP.

Plus, there is NOTHING in her past advocacy that would make her pledge to comabt illegal immigration credible. As a matter of fact, there’s plenty there to indicate that she would resist any and all attempts to comabt the problem.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:33:17 +0000

One of the promises made with NAFTA is that it would reduce illegal immigration.

This isn’t just from memory–I went through the newspaper archives and did a search.

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:58:13 +0000

It’s interesting to see liberal Dems try to blame the immigration issue on trade agreements such as NAFTA. They have always hated economic stimulus such agreements bring. Organized labor and the left side of the Democratic Party were apoplectic when Clinton/Gore took a page from traditional Republican economic policy and went to bat for free markets in NAFTA. Now you see candidates like Rishell try to turn the clock back to link immigration issues to free trade. This is facially stupid and, unlike a lot of trade issues, stupic in a way that the average voter can see through quite readily. Of course, as you point out, it would be more understandable if she were running for Congress, instead of the state legislature (but it still would be dumb).

By: manassascitizen

manassascitizen — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:06:33 +0000

She is just trying to play both sides. Have you noticed how many folks who support illegal immigration blame the Feds for not doing their jobs? That is just a cop out.

It will be interesting to see how she handles this issue in a debate. Jackson Miller is very clear on the issue, he does not support illegal immigration, and is trying to do something about it.