Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible. Subsidizing illegal immigration.

Who needs laws?

Maybe it will help if you think of the pregnant person as merely an incubator/womb for the baby US citizen, rather than as an actual person?

So giving out huge wads of cash to baby mamas here illegally and who have little means to support a family because they earn such little money.

Yay. Truly a fantastic idea that won't bring down the state even more. Ha yea right. Subsidization of illegal immigration and encouraging poverty.

Fast track to a 3rd world country.

Yep. Its sad.

Gmafb. I don’t support our current problem of open borders and I do think we need stricter border controls but the illegal immigrants I see here work their butts off and manage to support their families better than many Americans do with much tougher odds. They came here to work (and send money back home) and it’s evident anywhere you look that is what they are doing. They are not living in poverty for long but healthcare without insurance is completely unaffordable in this country as we know.

+1 we don’t have open borders but we actually need more immigration not less of you want there to be someone paying for your social security and supporting the economy when you get older. And the people coming here work way harder and take much higher risks to make their lives better than people born here

There’s a looooooooong queue at UCIS. They can all wait there like everyone else coming in legally.

Why do we, or any other country in the world for that matter, even have autonomy if we are going to use your stupid logic? You just continue to prove beyond a doubt thst libera,s and democrats are for open borders.

dp... in other civilized countries, if you need emergency healthcare, you can get it for free, or a nominal charge. Only the US charges stupid amounts of money for lifesaving healthcare.

So, if you want to follow how other countries do things, then we need to also curb healthcare costs in this country, and provide free healthcare to its residents.. notice, I stated "residents" and not "citizens" because in those countries, "residents" also get free healthcare, not just citizens.

In nearly 100% of civilized, first world countries, they're not insanely stupid either and don't have birthright citizenship that can be exploited.

So this idea of paying the health care of mothers here illegally *because they'll have American citizens* is just a really asinine argument of you're going to use examples from other countries to support your argument. Birthright citizenship is incredibly stupid as well, although that's a topic for another discussion.

To be sure, most affluent countries also didn't fight a civil war, which killed 2% of their population, over the legal right to enslave people. Which is where the 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) comes from. If you want to propose a constitutional amendment to get rid of the first sentence in the first section of the 14th Amendment, then you should get off DCUM and go get busy. In the mean time, the reality is that the babies are/will be US citizens, and all of us US citizens are better off when more of our fellow US citizens are born healthy.

Anonymous wrote:Nothin compares to undeserved privilege of being a citizen just because your parents were. Everyone should go to the back of the line at birth.

Stupid.

That's the way it works in nearly every country in the world. Countries have a right to autonomy.

Anonymous wrote:Denying basic healthcare preventative care means more people showing up at hospitals where hospitals are obligated to provide more expensive, lifesaving care, unless you prefer hospitals deny care and allow people to die outside their doors?

Then don't overwhelm the country with illegal immigrants who will be a tremendous burden on our healthcare systems, duh. They already placeassive strain on hospitals in California, Arizona, and Texas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps some terms you might understand:

Those babies will be American citizens. It is in the taxpayers’ best interests to maximize good health.

Yes. If they are going to be born here, then the labor and delivery will be in hospitals anyway, because a woman in active labor cannot be turned away from emergency care (this is already federal law).

A delivery where there is no prenatal care is an extraordinary role of the dice. These infants, if born here, are going to be US citizens after birth (that is also federal law). Bringing them into the world with significantly more poor outcomes is a greater stress on the system than providing adequate prenatal care. This does nto even have to be made on moral grounds -- an economic justification, purely about conserving resources, suffices.

It's the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

But yes, as a PP said, the OP's objection is not based on fiscal policy, it's based on the idea that people shouldn't ought to get stuff the OP thinks they don't deserve - even when it benefits everyone if people do get that stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible. Subsidizing illegal immigration.

Who needs laws?

Maybe it will help if you think of the pregnant person as merely an incubator/womb for the baby US citizen, rather than as an actual person?

So giving out huge wads of cash to baby mamas here illegally and who have little means to support a family because they earn such little money.

Yay. Truly a fantastic idea that won't bring down the state even more. Ha yea right. Subsidization of illegal immigration and encouraging poverty.

Fast track to a 3rd world country.

Yep. Its sad.

Gmafb. I don’t support our current problem of open borders and I do think we need stricter border controls but the illegal immigrants I see here work their butts off and manage to support their families better than many Americans do with much tougher odds. They came here to work (and send money back home) and it’s evident anywhere you look that is what they are doing. They are not living in poverty for long but healthcare without insurance is completely unaffordable in this country as we know.

+1 we don’t have open borders but we actually need more immigration not less of you want there to be someone paying for your social security and supporting the economy when you get older. And the people coming here work way harder and take much higher risks to make their lives better than people born here

There’s a looooooooong queue at UCIS. They can all wait there like everyone else coming in legally.

Why do we, or any other country in the world for that matter, even have autonomy if we are going to use your stupid logic? You just continue to prove beyond a doubt thst libera,s and democrats are for open borders.

dp... in other civilized countries, if you need emergency healthcare, you can get it for free, or a nominal charge. Only the US charges stupid amounts of money for lifesaving healthcare.

So, if you want to follow how other countries do things, then we need to also curb healthcare costs in this country, and provide free healthcare to its residents.. notice, I stated "residents" and not "citizens" because in those countries, "residents" also get free healthcare, not just citizens.

In nearly 100% of civilized, first world countries, they're not insanely stupid either and don't have birthright citizenship that can be exploited.

So this idea of paying the health care of mothers here illegally *because they'll have American citizens* is just a really asinine argument of you're going to use examples from other countries to support your argument. Birthright citizenship is incredibly stupid as well, although that's a topic for another discussion.

I’m a conservative and I approve of this. Every baby is a blessing.

Denying basic healthcare preventative care means more people showing up at hospitals where hospitals are obligated to provide more expensive, lifesaving care, unless you prefer hospitals deny care and allow people to die outside their doors?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible. Subsidizing illegal immigration.

Who needs laws?

Maybe it will help if you think of the pregnant person as merely an incubator/womb for the baby US citizen, rather than as an actual person?

So giving out huge wads of cash to baby mamas here illegally and who have little means to support a family because they earn such little money.

Yay. Truly a fantastic idea that won't bring down the state even more. Ha yea right. Subsidization of illegal immigration and encouraging poverty.

Fast track to a 3rd world country.

Yep. Its sad.

Gmafb. I don’t support our current problem of open borders and I do think we need stricter border controls but the illegal immigrants I see here work their butts off and manage to support their families better than many Americans do with much tougher odds. They came here to work (and send money back home) and it’s evident anywhere you look that is what they are doing. They are not living in poverty for long but healthcare without insurance is completely unaffordable in this country as we know.

+1 we don’t have open borders but we actually need more immigration not less of you want there to be someone paying for your social security and supporting the economy when you get older. And the people coming here work way harder and take much higher risks to make their lives better than people born here

There’s a looooooooong queue at UCIS. They can all wait there like everyone else coming in legally.

Why do we, or any other country in the world for that matter, even have autonomy if we are going to use your stupid logic? You just continue to prove beyond a doubt thst libera,s and democrats are for open borders.

dp... in other civilized countries, if you need emergency healthcare, you can get it for free, or a nominal charge. Only the US charges stupid amounts of money for lifesaving healthcare.

So, if you want to follow how other countries do things, then we need to also curb healthcare costs in this country, and provide free healthcare to its residents.. notice, I stated "residents" and not "citizens" because in those countries, "residents" also get free healthcare, not just citizens.

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps some terms you might understand:

Those babies will be American citizens. It is in the taxpayers’ best interests to maximize good health.

Yes. If they are going to be born here, then the labor and delivery will be in hospitals anyway, because a woman in active labor cannot be turned away from emergency care (this is already federal law).

A delivery where there is no prenatal care is an extraordinary role of the dice. These infants, if born here, are going to be US citizens after birth (that is also federal law). Bringing them into the world with significantly more poor outcomes is a greater stress on the system than providing adequate prenatal care. This does nto even have to be made on moral grounds -- an economic justification, purely about conserving resources, suffices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible. Subsidizing illegal immigration.

Who needs laws?

Maybe it will help if you think of the pregnant person as merely an incubator/womb for the baby US citizen, rather than as an actual person?

So giving out huge wads of cash to baby mamas here illegally and who have little means to support a family because they earn such little money.

Yay. Truly a fantastic idea that won't bring down the state even more. Ha yea right. Subsidization of illegal immigration and encouraging poverty.

Fast track to a 3rd world country.

Yep. Its sad.

yep, forced birth is 3rd world country level. That's what Rs are after. They want to force you to give birth, but don't to provide medical care delivering the baby or taking care of the baby. Very third world.

I'm pro choice , but believe the current defacto open border policy rewarding thieves is nuts.

sure, but what I stated is still true. Rs want to force women to give birth but not want to pay for it.

Nothin compares to undeserved privilege of being a citizen just because your parents were. Everyone should go to the back of the line at birth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, genius.

The fiscally prudent thing is to have zero illegal immigration, they way you spend $0 on subsidizing them to have tons of kids.

We know. Simple logic goes way over your libs' heads.

The most effective way to have zero illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal, like it was when my grandfather came to the US.

In any case, health insurance for prenatal and post-natal care and childbirth doesn't "subsidize" anybody to have "tons of kids." It certainly didn't for me. I have two kids. Never once did I think, "Wow, my health insurance is paying for this, maybe I'll have four more!"

So you, as an American taxpayer, can provide welfare and education to all of the world's peasants? You do realize that we can't even fund what we spend now, right?

Of course we can. We just choose not to, because people are overly attached to their 2nd mansions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, genius.

The fiscally prudent thing is to have zero illegal immigration, they way you spend $0 on subsidizing them to have tons of kids.

We know. Simple logic goes way over your libs' heads.

The most effective way to have zero illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal, like it was when my grandfather came to the US.

In any case, health insurance for prenatal and post-natal care and childbirth doesn't "subsidize" anybody to have "tons of kids." It certainly didn't for me. I have two kids. Never once did I think, "Wow, my health insurance is paying for this, maybe I'll have four more!"

So you, as an American taxpayer, can provide welfare and education to all of the world's peasants? You do realize that we can't even fund what we spend now, right?

Ah. So you don't actually oppose illegal immigration, you oppose immigration, period.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, more people will get the health care they need. That's great news!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, genius.

The fiscally prudent thing is to have zero illegal immigration, they way you spend $0 on subsidizing them to have tons of kids.

We know. Simple logic goes way over your libs' heads.

The most effective way to have zero illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal, like it was when my grandfather came to the US.

In any case, health insurance for prenatal and post-natal care and childbirth doesn't "subsidize" anybody to have "tons of kids." It certainly didn't for me. I have two kids. Never once did I think, "Wow, my health insurance is paying for this, maybe I'll have four more!"

So you, as an American taxpayer, can provide welfare and education to all of the world's peasants? You do realize that we can't even fund what we spend now, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible. Subsidizing illegal immigration.

Who needs laws?

Maybe it will help if you think of the pregnant person as merely an incubator/womb for the baby US citizen, rather than as an actual person?

So giving out huge wads of cash to baby mamas here illegally and who have little means to support a family because they earn such little money.

Yay. Truly a fantastic idea that won't bring down the state even more. Ha yea right. Subsidization of illegal immigration and encouraging poverty.

Fast track to a 3rd world country.

Yep. Its sad.

From a friend that knows this community they do earn money but they are the Nanny that you pay off the books to save on taxes.