August 4, 201412 yr Yes. Check the years prior to 1776. I guess I'm speaking of more recent history, after we were recognized as a country in 1783. :sneaky:
August 4, 201412 yr Yes. Check the years prior to 1776.The entire population of the U.S., including slaves in 1776 was a fraction of the number of illegal immigrants currently living in this country (less than 4 million total, perhaps less than 3 million).
August 4, 201412 yr The point is that there are vaccination requirements and screening for visa applicants seeking to enter the U.S. but no such requirements for those entering illegally because...they break the law and circumvent laws and regulations designed to protect the public's health. I only listed the vaccination requirements and it took only a few seconds to find that information. In addition to vaccination requirements, there is also a required medical examination and medical survey for visa applicants. Interview Preparation - Medical Examination FAQs Even if illegal immigrants do not pose a big threat to American citizens who have had the required vaccinations, they pose a risk to each other because they will likely live among other unvaccinated illegal immigrants. If they fall ill, then in many cases U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook to treat them. There are very logical and well thought out reasons for our immigration laws and our imperial president has no legal or moral right to disregard or waive them for political expediency. Unless it's an executive order.
August 4, 201412 yr No offense to anyone in this thread, but I think that anti-vaccine people like Jenny McCarthy who don't vaccinate are doing just as much damage as illegal immigration when it comes to people not being vaccinated.
August 4, 201412 yr Somebody's been watching an "Outbreak" movie marathon. I was thinking just that...wow!!
August 4, 201412 yr The entire population of the U.S., including slaves in 1776 was a fraction of the number of illegal immigrants currently living in this country (less than 4 million total, perhaps less than 3 million). We can go that route or we can look at percentages of natives (then) / legals (now) vs. immigrants.
August 4, 201412 yr We can go that route or we can look at percentages of natives (then) / legals (now) vs. immigrants.Oldog75 observed that we have never seen the number of illegal immigrants to this country that we have seen over the past few years. You suggested that he should look at the years before 1776. The population numbers for 1776 shows that if every person who came to this country prior to 1776 were considered to be an illegal immigrant, the number does not come close to equaling the number of illegal immigrants that have flowed from Mexico through our southern border.
August 4, 201412 yr Oldog75 observed that we have never seen the number of illegal immigrants to this country that we have seen over the past few years. You suggested that he should look at the years before 1776. The population numbers for 1776 shows that if every person who came to this country prior to 1776 were considered to be an illegal immigrant, the number does not come close to equaling the number of illegal immigrants that have flowed from Mexico through our southern border. You are right. Numbers don't tell the story here. Percentages would be the better route.
August 4, 201412 yr You are right. Numbers don't tell the story here. Percentages would be the better route.Numbers do tell the story. A country of only 4 million people that was very rich in natural resources was in much better position to absorb immigrants than a country of 300 million+ that is $17 trillion in debt. We cannot afford the bill for illegal immigrants.
August 4, 201412 yr Numbers do tell the story. A country of only 4 million people that was very rich in natural resources was in much better position to absorb immigrants than a country of 300 million+ that is $17 trillion in debt. We cannot afford the bill for illegal immigrants. I agree with your last sentence. We do need action. Unfortunately, we can't agree on that action. Now, about those two Ebola patients...good idea or bad idea?
August 4, 201412 yr I agree with your last sentence. We do need action. Unfortunately, we can't agree on that action. Now, about those two Ebola patients...good idea or bad idea? I would probably have treated them outside the country, either on a ship or at Guantanamo had it been my call, but from what I understand about Ebola, the risk of treating them at Emory is not that great. The influx of illegals carrying much more infectious diseases into the country and being clandestinely dumped around the country is a much greater threat, IMO. Edited August 4, 201412 yr by Mitch Rapp
August 4, 201412 yr Yes, we should treat him here and no I find it hard to believe people would believe this is a government conspiracy, but to each their own. That is their issue not mine. If this were my son, I would want the best care possible for him no matter where that was. I don't think anyone is making Emory do this, they are one of the best equipped to handle this type of disease and the foremost expert Dr. in the world. I am not an expert by any means, but I do believe the CDC knows what they are doing. Lastly, this is just the right thing to do for an American in this situation.
August 4, 201412 yr A former student of mine, now a biologist sent me this link. Good stuff, though there is a bit of language that you might need to overlook. Ebola is already in the United States ? Aetiology
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.