[quote=joec] . . . I actually don’t agree with Sanders on the whole immigration thing. I probably support NO benefits to make it so people actually don’t want to come here illegally (and forcing everyone else to pay).
At this point, I only want someone who will try to dismantle and hopefully take all the pork and special backside door deals, etc…out and simplify things.
Healthcare for all, make it like every other country (yes, I am ok with NOT treating certain things (and we just die)) and save millions for every company out there and one less headache for companies to deal with. It will cost a lot of money, but companies don’t have to pay for it anymore (directly).[/quote]Well, joec, I’m all in for that wall that Trump proposes (min of 20 feet high and solid smooth thick concrete or steel). As I posted before, If Trump gets the Republican nomination, I see him stumping at the Tijuana Estuary just south of Ream Field this summer/fall amid top brass of the USBP, Homeland Security, as well as SD Mayor Kevin Falconer, Supvsrs Dianne Jacob and Greg Cox in attendance with the latter three posing for the MSM each clutching with one hand a long black and white “snow pole” sunk in the sand. That pole will mark the west end of “the wall.” Likewise, the same exercise will be conducted by the Trump campaign just west of El Paso, TX, inside the NM border where NM Gov Susana Martinez and other TX and MX representatives will hold the snow pole for the cameras amid shouts of Trump, Trump, Trump and USA, signifying the east end of the wall. (The Rio Grande is the natural border between TX and MX.) This proposed wall will be just under 1000 miles long. The Rio Grande will still have to be manned by the USBP on the TX side but it is much less porous than the ~1000 mile land portion of the US/MX border due to the fast-moving river in most areas.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting or having a wall to separate the US from MX. People residing on the other side are free to attempt to cross through a manned checkpoint …. legally. With all the money we save on worker’s comp claims, jeeps and vans and the USBP chasing around people in the hot scrub trying to save illegal border-crossers from the elements and having to operate temporary holding facilities, we can have more gates, if necessary and “man” them a little more thoroughly (see the two paragraphs below) at as least most of the gates (not used for Sentri-Pass holders).
I also feel that non-US citizens attempting to cross thru a manned border gate with anything less than an official document which gives them the right to RESIDE in the US should be “vetted for entry” a little more thoroughly, depending upon time of day and other factors.
Examples: (1) Minor kids with backpacks attempting to cross into the US the early-morning hours on foot, with or without a parent and with or without an obvious school uniform on (this includes teenagers driving through in the early morning hour and adults driving school-age kids through in the early morning hours) and, (2) females trying to cross into the US who are obviously in the third trimester of pregnancy, whether or not they are the drivers or a passenger of a vehicle or are on foot.
I’m very skeptical of “universal health coverage,” mainly because I’ve always had a “real” insurance policy (a PPO), but I’m going to look into how that works exactly (esp if a “supplement” can be purchased, such as with Medicare). I like the idea of having a lot of insurance companies to choose from and having a policy which worked Nationwide for everything (incl a non-emergency doctor visit). I understand the problem of these companies previously redlining people with pre-existing conditions and that’s why I think we should go back to having a “state pool” where each “high risk” applicant is placed with a reputable carrier and the carriers are evenly rotated so that every one doing biz in that state has the same amount of high-risk insureds (just like with auto insurance). The rest of us policyholders could pay a little more so that these “high risk” people had “affordable” policies.
The above would still be cheaper than Obamacare, IMO. We wouldn’t have the expensive middlemen in the form of (incompetent) state “exchanges” mucking up the works and we wouldn’t have subsidies or the individual mandate so the IRS would be out of the picture. Insurance premiums would be cheaper overall because we wouldn’t be required to buy an “ACA-compliant” policy and we would have 6-10 carriers competing with each other to offer individual PPO plans and not just ONE like we do now in CA under the ACA. The poor can go on Medicaid and the Medicaid programs can remain “expanded” to catch people who are too poor to purchase polices but too “asset rich” under the old Medicaid rules to qualify for it.