Everyone understands that the TERRORISTS being transferred from Gitmo to New York for trial, will enjoy the same Constitutional protections of an American citizen. This protection is provided by the XIV Amendment, Section 1, known as the "Equal Protection Clause." The Terrorists are clearly NOT United States citizens.
Now certain members of Congress, advocating health care reform legislation, tell us "Illegal aliens" would NOT be covered by their proposed legislation. While the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on this issue, it has ruled on cases that might give an indication of how they will ultimately rule. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education, they ruled, separate but equal, is not constitutional.
Brown v. Board of education only came into being, because public education existed. It is logical to conclude that if Public Health care comes into being, Illegal aliens could NOT be excluded. Illegal alien children can not now be excluded from public education. It is hard to believe the proponents of public health care, that also claim it would not cover Illegal's are not aware of this.
Joel
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
No, what's hard to believe is that Joel continues to write stuff about which he has no clue. Brown v. Board has no application here.
ReplyDeleteThere is already a government-run health care system in the U.S. called Medicaid. Illegal immigrants are banned from receiving Medicaid benefits. That is perfectly legal and has withstood court challenges. If there is some sort of "public option" for health insurance, it's perfectly legal to ban illegal immigrants from receiving it.
Marc says Illegals are banned from Medicaid, yet they receive it just the same...hmmm..don't take my word for it though, maybe Marc should visit the local clinics and find out what illegals use to pay for their anchor babies. Me thinks, that Joel is onto something.
ReplyDeleteWhat an Obamanation this all is.
ReplyDeleteIllegals are banned from Medicaid. If any of them use it, that's against the law. However, their "anchor babies" are citizens and they are entitled to all the welfare that U.S. citizens receive. The only way to change that is to change the Constitution and make it so that kids of illegals aren't automatic citizens.
ReplyDeleteSo, no, Joel isn't "onto something." His legal analysis that somehow Brown v. Board applies to this situation misreads Brown and doesn't understand the laws regarding who is eligible for welfare and who isn't.
There is also a government program called Medicare and illegal aliens are not eligible regardless of their age. You have to be a US citizen to qualify for Medicare.
ReplyDeletePublic Option simply offers Medicare type benfits for all.
Joel is completely missing the point. I don't understand how Brown vs. Board of Education applies here. How is 1954 ruling applicable to 2010 Supreme Court?
Perhaps you think that the Brown decision was incorrect?
alex and marc, let me get this straight, you say it is illegal for illegals to use medicaid or medicare! do you really think people who are breaking the law by being here, working using someone else ssn's (another illegal act) really give a sh@t about it being illegal to use medicare or medicaid!
ReplyDeleteyou can not possibly be that stupid!
People will always break laws and commit fraud. That's the whole pupose of making it illegal. If they break the law they should be prosecuted. Now whether or not they're being pursued and prosecuted is a different question.
ReplyDeleteTo 9:27 -- Your point really isn't valid. Joel is trying to say that, constitutionally, Congress can't exclude illegal aliens from health care services because of Brown v. Board. I'm simply pointing out that Joel is ignorant both of what Brown says and the laws governing welfare programs.
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm sure some illegal immigrants do apply for Medicaid. I'm sure they don't care if they are breaking the law. State workers are supposed to check the eligibility of those who apply. There are also plenty of U.S. citizens who try to get Medicaid and Medicare illegally. The fact that some receive benefits from these programs illegally indicates we need a lot more enforcement of eligibility criteria. I'm all for that.
The question is: Does our congress lie to us?
ReplyDeleteThe answer:
No.
They never lie.
Marc
ReplyDeletePointing out Brown v. as a reference serves as a logical argument that will undoubtedly be used to include illegal in public health care. I feel sorry you do not understand the difference between medicare and universal health care under a public plan.
Just as a public education can not be denied to illegals, it is likely they will also not be denied insurance. You also might wish to check on the report from the commission regulating medicare, which reveals HR3962 bends the cost up not down to the tune of over $250 billion.
Take your head out of the sand. BTW, do you belong to BUILD ?
The question is: Does our congress lie to us?
ReplyDeleteThe answer:
Yes.
They are politicians.
politician=bent truth.
There is no enforcement,pull up to the welfare office and get alook out the new cars they drive up in!
ReplyDeleteAlex and Mark, don't quit your day jobs, cuz the DNC needs YOU!! Seriously, Joel is saying that Brown vs Education set the precendent and it takes alot to set a new precedent when it comes to legal issues, but you guys aren't counting on us Rednecks to be able to get that, are you?
ReplyDeleteIs the Pope Catholic?
ReplyDeleteJoel,
ReplyDeleteBrown vs. Board of Education was about segregation, it reversed "separate but equal doctrine" established in Plessy vs. Ferguson. The court ruled that 1896 Plessy decision violated Fourteenth Amendment, which deals with US Citizens and majority of legal residents. It had nothing to do with providing education for illegal aliens, unless you compare African American students to illegal aliens.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteI know you think Brown v. Board serves as a "logical argument" for this, but it doesn't. Brown v. Board was talking about treating U.S. citizens differently due to their skin color. It said nothing about non-citizens. If you are going to cite a court case on this topic, you'd have been a lot smarter to cite Plyler v. Doe, although that won't really support your claim. Plyler v. Doe is a lot more relevant than Brown v. Board, though.
The courts have held that it's perfectly constitutional to deny non-citizens welfare benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid. In fact, in 1996 Congress said that legal immigrants couldn't receive Medicaid until they lived in the country for five years. No constitutional issues there, as the court said in Rodriguez v. United States and Lewis v. Thompson. As far back as the 1970s the Supreme Court, in Mathews v. Diaz, held that Congress has the power to set limits on what benefits immigrants receive. Courts have generally held that states, though, cannot impose such limits.
And I know full well why the current health care bills are a bad idea. I've been doing all I can to prevent them from becoming law. However, my opposition is based on what's actually in the bills. There's no need to spread false information about this legislation. The reality is bad enough.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that Brown delt with segregation which harmed African Americans. Do you not see a parallel being applied to any of the minorities that are illegal? My point is that I believe the court will. Please read the XIV ammendment, section 1 known as the equal protection clause.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteI have read the equal protection clause. All I am saying is that Brown vs. Board is not a good example and I do not see a parallel between African American or any other "equally protected under the law" minority group and illegal aliens.
A little off topic, contrary to Marc, I believe that health care bill is a good idea and I fully support the public option, although I doubt it will pass.
I just don't understand why people would be against easily accessible healthcare benefits. If this country is able to fight two wars, bail out bank, etc., we can certainly afford to provide health care to those who need it.
Thank you
Alex,
ReplyDeleteWe may agree on the interpretation of Brown v. Board, but I disagree with you on the health care bill. We may be fighting two wars, bailing out banks, etc., but we are doing so on borrowed money. We can't afford what our government is already doing and we certainly can't afford to spend even more on a bill that will only increase health care costs do little to enact the fundamental reforms we need.
Marc & Alex;
ReplyDeleteIt is possible we are debating a moot point. The non-partisan and independent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the Medicare portion of health care bend the cost curve up $289 billion. Not down as claimed.
This could be the death knell of health care, which would be unfortunate, as parts need to be fixed. I urge you to read the statement, which I hope Joe will post While we might disagree on how the court would ultimately have ruled and on what they would base the ruling, I found your arguments rational and it was a pleasure to debate you.