Happy Cinco de Mayo to Jessica Colotl!

Because there’s no better way to celebrate Mexico defeating France than by graduating from an American college.

Miss Colotl, arrested at Kennesaw State University jail for not having a drivers’ license, was turned over to federal authorities and held in Alabama for more than a month. Since sending her to Alabama wasn’t punishment enough, Colotl was convicted in Cobb State Court of driving without a license, given 3 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. While that sentence is being appealed, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has extended the year-long deferment of her deportation hearing for another year, which will allow her to graduate college and possibly become a law student.

There’s no question that the immigration issue in America is a direct result of the abysmal failure of the federal government to secure our nations’ borders. Continuing federal incompetence prevents any meaningful discussion of what America’s immigration policy should be, foments anger and resentment, and has caused the deaths of thousands of Hispanics and more than a few Americans. The ongoing federal failure has also resulted in a backlash from states seeking to address the perceived effects of illegal immigration, since most states are powerless to do anything about the cause.

Those perceived effects basically boil down to costs –the costs of overcrowded schools and emergency room visits being the most often-cited examples. But since Plyler v Doe in 1982, it’s been a federal crime to deny free K-12 education to children in this country illegally. And since the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act act of 1986, It’s been a federal crime to deny ANYone medical treatment in an emergency room, regardless of citizenship or ability to pay. That’s right, during the “Reagan era” of untrammeled greed, America began giving away free education and healthcare to anyone who could get here –and Reagan himself signed a law granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Which leaves the states dealing with the consequences. Arizona has a famous law, Utah an improved, but less-noticed version. Georgia House Bill 87, which requires businesses to use the e-Verify system for their employees and gives police the authority to check the immigration status of anyone they have probable cause to believe has committed a crime –but which explicitly bans racial profiling– sits on Governor Deals desk. He’s promised to sign the bill, but is being pressured by immigrant activists not to. We shall see.

Jessica Colotl did not cause the problem of illegal immigration –though her case has brought some changes, including a new rule from the University system barring illegal immigrants from Georgia university that have had to turn qualified legal applicants away. She presumably wants to stay and become an American citizen:

“…I believe in the American system and I believe in American values… I am no different than any other American.”

We hear a lot about how “the rest of the world” resents America -our material goods, our standard of living, our way of life. It’s refreshing to hear someone born elsewhere say she believes in American values. I hope you’ll raise a glass to Jessica Colotl while you are out celebrating Cinco de Mayo tonight, because Americans should welcome and celebrate those people who want to join us, regardless of the criminally stupid failures of our federal government.



  1. saltycracker says:

    As long as you believe illegal really means law abiding below the radar, illegals are a net gain to the treasury, congress will vote to raise our credit card limit, the world will lend us the money for nothing and GA tax laws were followed, it don’t mean nuthin’.

    • Toxic Avenger says:

      The MDJ is easily the worst “publication” I have ever read. It’s incredibly and unabashedly partisan, and just stirs things up for its own sake. Anyone who reads it for journalistic purposes (as opposed to general humor) is dumber for having done so.

  2. OleDirtyBarrister says:

    Flagrantly violating the law and taking what is not yours is an American value?

    We are truly a stupid country to tolerate this mess.

    The hospitals should hire some smart constitutional lawyers to file claims for compensation in the US Court of Claims against the feds for takings. Forcing a private entity to provide goods and services under law without compensation at fair market value is a taking under the Fifth Amendment as far as I am concerned. If they organized and hit the feds with massive claims and Congress faced the prospect of having to find the money to pay judgments, Congress might start getting smarter.

    • DTK says:

      “Forcing a private entity to provide goods and services under law without compensation at fair market value is a taking under the Fifth Amendment as far as I am concerned.”

      There’s no claim here. EMTALA only applies to hospitals that take federal health care funding. You don’t want to be forced to accept all patients? Fine, just don’t bill Medicare.

      • OleDirtyBarrister says:

        He he he.

        Have you read many takings jurisdprudence cases?

        Specifically cases dealing with exactions? (Which began in the land use context but have a broader principle).

        Paying reduced rates for medicaid and medicare patients is supposed to be just compensation for having to provide services and products to an infinite number of patients just because?

        I don’t think so, and I’d love to press the issue in court.

        • DTK says:

          It’s already been pressed, and your argument lost. See Burditt v. U.S. Health and Human Services Dept.. 934 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1991).

          “As his final attempt to escape DAB’s assessment, Burditt claims that EMTALA effects a public taking of his services without just compensation in contravention of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

          Assuming arguendo that professional services constitute property protected by the Takings Clause, Burditt has not shown that EMTALA effects a taking. EMTALA imposes no responsibilities directly on physicians; it unambiguously requires hospitals to examine and stabilize, treat, or appropriately transfer all who arrive requesting treatment. Its provision for sanctions against physicians who knowingly violate its requirements is merely an enforcement mechanism that does not alter its explicit assignment of duties.

          Governmental regulation that affects a group’s property interests “does not constitute a taking of property where the regulated group is not required to participate in the regulated industry.” Whitney v. Heckler, 780 F.2d 963, 972 (11th Cir.) (temporary freeze of Medicare payments is no taking because physicians are not required to treat Medicare patients), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 813, 107 S.Ct. 65, 93 L.Ed.2d 23 (1986); accord Minnesota Ass’n of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Public Welfare, 742 F.2d 442, 446 (8th Cir.1984) (state law limiting fees that nursing homes voluntarily participating in Medicaid may charge non-Medicaid patients effects no taking “[d]espite the strong financial inducement to participate in Medicaid”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215, 105 S.Ct. 1191, 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985).

          Two levels of voluntariness undermine Burditt’s taking assertion. Only hospitals that voluntarily participate in the federal government’s Medicare program must comply with EMTALA. See 42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(1)(I) (West Supp.1991) (hospitals eligible to receive Medicare payments if they agree, inter alia, to comply with EMTALA). Hospitals must consider the cost of complying with EMTALA’s requirements in deciding whether to continue to participate in the Medicare program.

          Second, Burditt is free to negotiate with DeTar or another hospital regarding his responsibility to facilitate a hospital’s compliance with EMTALA. Thus, physicians only voluntarily accept responsibilities under EMTALA if they consider it in their best interest to do so. Accordingly, Burditt’s claim under the Takings Clause is without merit.”

  3. saltycracker says:

    Now the Convention & Visitors Bureau has jumped in with AG and other business interests to ask Deal not to sign HB87……if we can’t exploit these people their interests are set back….Right see cheap labor and left sees potential party numbers…..both exploit….

        • Calypso says:

          The left actually can see more than one thing at a time…while conveniently ignoring the adjective ‘illegal’ in the term ‘illegal alien’.

          There, I finished your statement correctly for you.

          • benevolus says:

            It’s the conservative ally “big business” that ignores the illegal part. “The left” in general just wants a humane response to the problem.

            • Calypso says:

              What is inhumane about requiring them to go through the lawful immigration process like others before them have done?

              • benevolus says:

                Many on the right seem to want to round up as many buses as we can and dump them in the desert near Cuidad de Juarez and drive away. Including the kids apparently. That wouldn’t be so bad if they were rocks or leftover patio furniture, but they are humans. Regardless of their having broken the law we have to treat them as humans. This isn’t a TV show where you get to vote someone off the island and they just walk off the screen.

                • Calypso says:

                  I think you are inventing a scenario, that I’ve never heard proposed, to justify in your mind your opposition to others who require immigration laws to be followed.

                  Sorry for the run-on sentence. I get paid by the word.

  4. sunkawakan says:

    It’s laughable when people start whining about securing the borders. How much would you like to spend? I’m sure for a few hundred billion we can do so, but that doesn’t stop tunnels, and so on. Talk about a money pit.

    Why not do something creative and issue something akin to an alien registration number – no, not an amnesty – and allow them to pay the same taxes as all legal citizens?

    • Bloodhound says:

      Why not? Because they will not adhere to such registration. They have the benefit of harvesting the Golden Egg without feeding the Goose that laid it.

      Why would they register when the border is porous?

      • benevolus says:

        I’ll tell you how I know that HB87 is racist at is roots and not about law and order or economics:
        – The penalty for being here illegally and trying to work is not less than 1 year in prison or a fine up to $100,000.
        – The penalty for the white guys who hire illegal immigrants is… undefined, left up to the discretion of the AG to pursue, or not.
        – And the excuse an employer needs to avoid even being in technical violation is spelled out right in the law.
        – And the law says that IF the AG investigates an employer, s/he must also investigate potential violations of employees. It does NOT say that investigations of illegal workers should also result in investigation of employers.

  5. Bloodhound says:

    Try setting in a hospital with the $22K per day meter running, worrying about how in the world you are going to pay the bill while looking at the bi-lingual signage, paid for by paying customers for the use of those who never intend to pay. See those moochers walk in and out in droves smiling and laughing, enjoying the fruits of the taxpayers, knowing that if a bill for the services rendered ever does find them that they will slip into the shadows or across the border for a short period before returning under a new alias.

    We are all fools to have allowed this curse to be fixed upon us.

Comments are closed.