# Ambulance stopped by ICE, PT's papers inspected, PT deported



## Alan L Serve (Oct 26, 2017)

> She was traveling in an ambulance to Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi when federal immigration officers stopped the vehicle at a checkpoint.
> Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ained-by-ice-officers-after-emergency-surgery



This is an awful precedent to set and an awful policy for ICE to employ. Ambulances must be free from this sort of interference by federal authorities. Do we want to create an atmosphere where people who are in legitimate need of medical care will hesitate to call for help based on their immigration status? Humanity is more important than immigration status and we're in the business of humanity.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> This is an awful precedent to set and an awful police for ICE to employ. Ambulances must be free from this sort of interference by federal authorities. Do we want to create an atmosphere where people who are in legitimate need of medical care will hesitate to call for help based on their immigration status? Humanity is more important than immigration status and we're in the business of humanity.


You don't work in a border state do you? We already have illegals who don't want to call ems for fear of pd showing up with us and questioning immigration status of the pts family


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 26, 2017)

TransportJockey said:


> You don't work in a border state do you? We already have illegals who don't want to call ems for fear of pd showing up with us and questioning immigration status of the pts family



Neyt, Komrad, I am in an interior state. Since when do we allow any law enforcement into an ambulance when there hasn't been a crime committed? It's a gross violation of HIPAA for police to barge into an ambulance where no crime has been committed and demand identifying documents.

It is time to start charging ICE agents with federal crimes for this sort of inhumanity and HIPAA violation.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Neyt, Komrad, I am in an interior state. Since when do we allow any law enforcement into an ambulance when there hasn't been a crime committed? It's a gross violation of HIPAA for police to barge into an ambulance where no crime has been committed and demand identifying documents.
> 
> It is time to start charging ICE agents with federal crimes for this sort of inhumanity and HIPAA violation.


No it's actually not. Police aren't bound by HIPAA. And there have been documents cases of cartels using fire and ems equipment to try and smuggle goods ans peoples over the border.
As for police these are esrablished cbp checkpoints that are all within 100 miles of the border


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Neyt, Komrad, I am in an interior state. Since when do we allow any law enforcement into an ambulance when there hasn't been a crime committed? It's a gross violation of HIPAA for police to barge into an ambulance where no crime has been committed and demand identifying documents.
> 
> It is time to start charging ICE agents with federal crimes for this sort of inhumanity and HIPAA violation.


Since when do we interfere with law enforcement? In my system LEO has pretty much ultimate authority. We could have a patient that is in custody say they want to go to the hospital but if the officer states no then we are required to comply with the officer. 

Doing our job does not get us or patients excluded from normal procedures. 

It’s going to be very hard to charge ICE agents with federal crimes for doing what is in their federal job description and duty.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 26, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> Since when do we interfere with law enforcement? In my system LEO has pretty much ultimate authority. We could have a patient that is in custody say they want to go to the hospital but if the officer states no then we are required to comply with the officer.
> 
> Doing our job does not get us or patients excluded from normal procedures.
> 
> It’s going to be very hard to charge ICE agents with federal crimes for doing what is in their federal job description and duty.


Law enforcement certain do not have ultimate authority. They are bound by the Constitution and federal laws. When a crime hasn't been committed they have no legal authority to demand a person's papers. What is this- Nazi Germany?


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Law enforcement certain do not have ultimate authority. They are bound by the Constitution and federal laws. When a crime hasn't been committed they have no legal authority to demand a person's papers. What is this- Nazi Germany?


Actually if you're within 100 miles of the border they do have authority to conduct border checkpoints. They're all over the southwest.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Law enforcement certain do not have ultimate authority. They are bound by the Constitution and federal laws. When a crime hasn't been committed they have no legal authority to demand a person's papers. What is this- Nazi Germany?


Except that it was discovered she was in the country illegally (doesn’t illegally mean a crime has been committed?). These check points are very real and normal things in all border states. At these border checkpoints they are legally able to question immigration status. You are more than welcome to visit them in CA, AZ, NM, and Texas to get more information and tell them that what they are doing is illegal, they absolutely love when people do that.

We aren’t rounding all illegals up and putting them into concentration camps and leading them single file into the gas chamber so no, this is not Nazi Germany.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 26, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> Except that it was discovered she was in the country illegally (doesn’t illegally mean a crime has been committed?). These check points are very real and normal things in all border states. At these border checkpoints they are legally able to question immigration status. You are more than welcome to visit them in CA, AZ, NM, and Texas to get more information and tell them that what they are doing is illegal, they absolutely love when people do that.
> 
> We aren’t rounding all illegals up and putting them into concentration camps and leading them single file into the gas chamber so no, this is not Nazi Germany.


It doesn’t work that way. Law enforcement must have a clear and articulable reason for stopping a person and conducting an investigation (such as checking papers). Unless the color of her skin is reason enough, right? No. That’s racism.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 26, 2017)

TransportJockey said:


> Actually if you're within 100 miles of the border they do have authority to conduct border checkpoints. They're all over the southwest.


This is entirely unconstitutional.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> It doesn’t work that way. Law enforcement must have a clear and articulable reason for stopping a person and conducting an investigation (such as checking papers). Unless the color of her skin is reason enough, right? No. That’s racism.


Uhhh, it does work that way every minute of every day in the border states...

Here are some resources for you:
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-authority-for-the-border-patrol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps


----------



## StCEMT (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> This is entirely unconstitutional.


They aren't citizens, the Constitution isn't for them anyway.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 26, 2017)

StCEMT said:


> They aren't citizens, the Constitution isn't for them anyway.


Unreal.
How do you know if someone is or isn’t a citizen? You don’t and therefore the Constitution always applies prior to investigation.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Unreal.
> How do you know if someone is or isn’t a citizen? You don’t and therefore the Constitution always applies prior to investigation.


By questioning them at border checkpoints which is legal to do..


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 26, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> By questioning them at border checkpoints which is legal to do..



This Ambulance going from one hospital to another did not cross an international border. Are you OK being stopped by LE while transporting a sick patient in order to allow LE to pretextually investigate? This child needed surgery which was delayed.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> This Ambulance going from one hospital to another did not cross an international border. Are you OK being stopped by LE while transporting a sick patient in order to allow LE to pretextually investigate? This child needed surgery which was delayed.


It does not need to cross the border in order to be questioned. 

Did you read the article? They stopped the ambulance and questioned the patient and then allowed transport to continue to the hospital as they followed. She was taken into custody after she was discharged from the hospital. It was gallbladder surgery and not something like cardiac cath. Delaying transport for maybe a max of 10 minutes is not going to have a huge impact on her gallbladder.


----------



## Old Tracker (Oct 26, 2017)

Peculiar, we are right on the border and get calls, mostly for abdominal pain or late term pregnancies, that are absolutely suspicious and ICE/Border Patrol wants absolutely nothing to do with it. They darned sure make it clear that they want absolutely nothing to do with possibly having to pay for any type of medical care.

As to the OP, you gotta live and work down here to understand.  The whole thing might have to do with the new policies re: immigration violation crack downs. ICE doesn't just randomly pull a name out of a hat.

Oh, and it would be ethnocentrism, not racism, since most Hispanics/Latinos are caucasians.


----------



## StCEMT (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Unreal.
> How do you know if someone is or isn’t a citizen? You don’t and therefore the Constitution always applies prior to investigation.


It's not my job to investigate. I will still provide equal level care. However, if law enforcement does want to investigate, assuming I have no suspicion of critical medical problems, I won't stop them. Just like I waited until PD was finished gathering their information on the car accident I worked today before leaving. 

But you can't say something is unconstitutional if 1. They are known to not be a citizen and 2. Can't say what amendment is being violated.


----------



## CALEMT (Oct 26, 2017)

It's grossly obvious that he doesn't live in a border state and has absolutely no idea of these proceedings.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> This is entirely unconstitutional.



Going by the intent of the Constitution, it absolutely is. But for all practical purposes, the 4th amendment has been completely erased over the past couple of decades. There is very little constitutional protection from search and seizure for anyone anymore, natural-born citizen or not, reasonably suspected of a crime or not. That is a simple, unfortunate fact of modern life in America. 

You are well aware of civil asset forfeiture, I assume?


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 26, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> It's grossly obvious that he doesn't live in a border state and has absolutely no idea of these proceedings.



Did post #3 give it away?



> Neyt, Komrad, I am in an interior state.


----------



## VFlutter (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> What is this- Nazi Germany?



Godwin's Law... You lose all respect and credibility to your argument after that. 

Health care is a limited resource not a right. Yes we are in the business of humanity but we would quickly go out of business if we were to care for every human on this planet whom do not contribute back to the common good. It is a tough world we live in.


----------



## Tigger (Oct 26, 2017)

These border checkpoints have been around ever...gasp they even exist in new england and new york. Everyone stops, they ask if you're a citizen, you keep driving if you say yes and "don't raise suspicion." I am not entirely sure how that is acceptable, but that how it be in New Hampshire and Vermont at least.

Also, I very much enjoy working with our local officers. But I don't kowtow to them either. If I think someone in custody should go to a hospital by ambulance, that is what will happen. If they're fooling around scene and the patient wants to go to the hospital, that's what we're doing. They can come meet us. It turns out that most potential criminal activity is not very time sensitive. We are fortunate to work mostly with officers that want patient's medical issues dealt with first and I am thankful for that.


----------



## CALEMT (Oct 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Did post #3 give it away?



Rhetorical statement. 

In regards to the original post, they did follow the ambulance to the hospital after stopping it at a checkpoint. I fail to see what the issue is here.


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 27, 2017)

Old Tracker said:


> Peculiar, we are right on the border and get calls, mostly for abdominal pain or late term pregnancies, that are absolutely suspicious and ICE/Border Patrol wants absolutely nothing to do with it. They darned sure make it clear that they want absolutely nothing to do with possibly having to pay for any type of medical care.


In case anyone didn't know that, this is 100% correct.  Anyone under arrest gets medical treatment paid for by someone that is not the patient.  That is why cops hate arresting people who get taken to the hospital, because then they get stuck with the bill.


Old Tracker said:


> Oh, and it would be ethnocentrism, not racism, since most Hispanics/Latinos are caucasians.


unless they are black Hispanics, like my buddy whose family is from the Dominican Republic.  Sorry random tangent





DesertMedic66 said:


> They stopped the ambulance and questioned the patient and then allowed transport to continue to the hospital as they followed. She was taken into custody after she was discharged from the hospital.


Which is how most LEOs operate around here.  Under most circumstances, unless there is a need to imminently arrest a person, they will notify hospital security or hospital PD to notify them prior to discharge (especially if they are being admitted), and arrest them one they have been discharged from the hospital.  


Alan L Serve said:


> How do you know if someone is or isn’t a citizen?


You know, I always wondered about this.  If I get stopped, and I can't or won't provide proof of citizenship, will I be detained until I do? so if I leave my wallet on my end table (which happen all too often), and ICE (or any law enforcement agency) stops me, do they have a legal right to detain me until I can prove I have a legal right to be here?  or until I can prove I am who I say I am?  am I legally required to even provide them my name?  could I tell them my name is Alan L Serve, and provide no documentation that I am who I say I am?  Isn't it their job to prove I am not Alan L Serve, and prove I'm guilty of a crime, not my job to prove I'm innocent?  is it illegal to provide false information about your identity to a law enforcement officer?  Don't we have rights against self incrimination, and if providing my real name would incriminate myself.........


----------



## Old Tracker (Oct 27, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> You know, I always wondered about this. If I get stopped, and I can't or won't provide proof of citizenship, will I be detained until I do? so if I leave my wallet on my end table (which happen all too often), and ICE (or any law enforcement agency) stops me, do they have a legal right to detain me until I can prove I have a legal right to be here? or until I can prove I am who I say I am? am I legally required to even provide them my name? could I tell them my name is Alan L Serve, and provide no documentation that I am who I say I am? Isn't it their job to prove I am not Alan L Serve, and prove I'm guilty of a crime, not my job to prove I'm innocent? is it illegal to provide false information about your identity to a law enforcement officer? Don't we have rights against self incrimination, and if providing my real name would incriminate myself.........



The odds are, even if you don't have any id, that you would be allowed to continue. Driver's license means nothing really, there are states that issue them to all comers. Having been in the Border Patrol and worked a checkpoint as well as city patrols, I can tell you there are quite a few things that would clue an agent in that he/she might be dealing with someone who is here illegally.

Much of it has to do with the way the present themselves. Physiologically, people who are "wrong" give off signs, physically and verbally, that there is something not quite right here.  It could be something as simple as a mode of dress or hair style. It also could be little things such as they are diaphoretic on a cool day or in an air conditioned vehicle. Could be they are unwilling to make eye contact. 

In this case it appears to have been that they presented a letter from an attorney stating she was enroute for medical care.
http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_d5455398-bab9-11e7-af71-3fda37940af7.html

They did not drag her off the ambulance in handcuffs.

Sounds cold, but they were doing their sworn duty.  There is nothing in the oath that states they will uphold the laws "except in certain cases."


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 28, 2017)

_ICE _deported this little girl from her hospital room earlier today. She wasn't even half-way done recovering from surgery and they dumped her across the Mexican border. She was brought to the US at 4 months old and this is the only home she has ever known.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> _ICE _deported this little girl from her hospital room earlier today. She wasn't even half-way done recovering from surgery and they dumped her across the Mexican border. She was brought to the US at 4 months old and this is the only home she has ever known.


You are aware that with the vast majority of gallbladder surgeries (removals) the patients are discharged from the hospital same day? It doesn’t require a 2 week hospital stay...


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 28, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> You are aware that with the vast majority of gallbladder surgeries (removals) the patients are discharged from the hospital same day? It doesn’t require a 2 week hospital stay...


You do realize she is as American as you? She was brought her at 4 months old and has no life or memories of Mexico. Right?


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> You do realize she is as American as you? She was brought her at 4 months old and has no life or memories of Mexico. Right?


Unfortunately due to poor choices made by her parents her legal stranding doesn't make her American


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 28, 2017)

TransportJockey said:


> Unfortunately due to poor choices made by her parents her legal stranding doesn't make her American


The only people who have the right to determine who does and doesn't live on this continent are the Native Americans. All others are illegal European invaders.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> The only people who have the right to determine who does and doesn't live on this continent are the Native Americans. All others are illegal European invaders.


Go see hiw well that holds up in court. I'll wait.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> You do realize she is as American as you? She was brought her at 4 months old and has no life or memories of Mexico. Right?


You are making it seem like the big bad ICE agents snuck into the hospital slapped her in handcuffs as she was recovering from a heart transplant when that is far from the case. 

I was born in the US on US soil which means I am a legal citizen of the US. She was not born in the US and was brought over illegally. Legally speaking she is not American.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 28, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> You are making it seem like the big bad ICE agents snuck into the hospital slapped her in handcuffs as she was recovering from a heart transplant


That's pretty accurate.


----------



## TransportJockey (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> That's pretty accurate.


No actually it's not


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> The only people who have the right to determine who does and doesn't live on this continent are the Native Americans. All others are illegal European invaders.


Oh god, not this argument. How long ago did that happen? Times have changed greatly. We have laws that clearly state who is a citizen and who is not a citizen and how one goes about becoming a citizen.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> That's pretty accurate.


That is far from accurate. ICE agents are just like any other enforcement agency. They have laws that they are tasked with investigating. If you are in the county legally then you have nothing to worry about. 

A gallbladder surgery is vastly different from a heart transplant. 

I highly doubt they had a SWAT team storm the hospital and throw her down to the ground and cuff her.


----------



## E tank (Oct 28, 2017)

Chase said:


> Health care is a limited resource not a right. Yes we are in the business of humanity but we would quickly go out of business if we were to care for every human on this planet whom do not contribute back to the common good. It is a tough world we live in.



Very much agree with the first sentence. But a qualifying test of "contribution to the common good"  for the provision of health care is a subjective and utilitarian idea that can be applied to anyone who the "in charge" folks approve or disapprove of. It can't work that way and be ethical. 

I think a humane and civilized society like ours can find ways to assist people like the one in question here while at the same time acting on our right to sovereignty and protection of our borders. It certainly doesn't need to be an either/or proposition as the OP seems to be suggesting.


----------



## CALEMT (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> The only people who have the right to determine who does and doesn't live on this continent are the Native Americans. All others are illegal European invaders.



Then by your rational shouldn't you be on a boat or plane back to Europe where you belong? 

Seriously this argument? At this point it sounds like you're just trolling. Is it unfortunate? Yes. But her parents made poor life choices and this is the end result. She was born a Mexican national, not an American citizen and was in this county illegally.


----------



## VFlutter (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> The only people who have the right to determine who does and doesn't live on this continent are the Native Americans. All others are illegal European invaders.



So what? Literally ever single Civilization in the history of humanity has invaded and conquered to some degree. From the Mayans, the Nordic countries, to the Middle East, and even the Native Americans. The Lakota killed the Cheyenne who killed the Kiowa and so on. So which group would you like to decide who gets to stay on the continent?


----------



## Alan L Serve (Oct 28, 2017)

DesertMedic66 said:


> Oh god, not this argument. How long ago did that happen? Times have changed greatly. We have laws that clearly state who is a citizen and who is not a citizen and how one goes about becoming a citizen.


Fruit from the poisonous tree. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened as everything stemming from that is invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 28, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Fruit from the poisonous tree. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened as everything stemming from that is invalid.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree


So then by your own standards, why are you still in the US? Unless of course you’re Native American. 

Your argument has gone from misinformed to straight up asinine.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Oct 29, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Fruit from the poisonous tree. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened as everything stemming from that is invalid.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree



The problem with applying that principle here is that the entire history of human civilization is one of tribes and nations enslaving and forcing their cultures and religions on others and taking land and resources from others by guile or by force. America is certainly not uniquely evil in that way, regardless of what modern leftists would have us believe.

As a general ethical principle, I am as much of an advocate of the NAP as anyone, which is in fact where my disdain for enforcement of unjust laws (especially through the aggressive, militarized style of modern American policing) comes from.

However, even the grandparents and great-granparents of those of us alive today never had any control over - and therefore bear no responsibility for - events that took place hundreds of years (or more) ago. There comes a point where we really have no choice but to just accept that as good enough. What is the alternative?


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 31, 2017)

Old Tracker said:


> Much of it has to do with the way the present themselves. Physiologically, people who are "wrong" give off signs, physically and verbally, that there is something not quite right here.  It could be something as simple as a mode of dress or hair style. It also could be little things such as they are diaphoretic on a cool day or in an air conditioned vehicle. Could be they are unwilling to make eye contact.


so if they don't look like they belong, they can be detained?  maybe they look Mexican, that's grounds for detainment?  what about if they look asian?  what if they have a funny accent, like those people who are south of the border?  if they haven't updated their hair style in 15 years, that means you can put them in cuffs..... Everything you said just screams of profiling and racial discrimination.


Alan L Serve said:


> You do realize she is as American as you? She was brought her at 4 months old and has no life or memories of Mexico. Right?


You do realize that she isn't an American right?  her parents broke the law years ago, and snuck into the US with their infant daughter.  She is a Mexican citizen, from mexico, living in the US.  She has no US passport, has no SSN, and while she has lived here almost all her life, that doesn't change the fact that she is here illegally, and is not an american.  

Last I checked, there wasn't a status of limitations on when someone can hide from the law for X number of years and their legal status would automatically change from illegal immigrant to legal one.

Her parents caused her to be in this situation; while I'm sure you blame the big bad ICE agents, for doing their job and enforcing the law, why don't you focus your moral outrage on the the people who are the root cause for this situation: those who snuck her in, bypassing all the legal routes of immigration and citizenship (which, for the record, are neither cheap nor easy for good reason), and put her in the crosshairs of the ICE agents.


----------



## Old Tracker (Oct 31, 2017)

You make profiling sound like it's a bad thing?  What is profiling?  Using your experience and knowledge as an index of suspicion.  In the situations I was referring to, it is basically, for males, the manor of dress and hair styles. It usually takes several months for those to change once they are here. And I am speaking of Mexicans and Central Americans when I say that. The manor of dress and hair styles are what would be a "reasonable suspicion" to make contact with the person and ascertain their status.  All good with the courts, established over and over again. If they are documented or it is established they are here legally, after a matter of minutes, they are on their way.  US cops do that all the time, New York City just happened to take it to extremes. Sounds harsh, but in reality it isn't.  Asians I do not have a clue about.

Highway checkpoints, within 100 air miles of the border, have been found legal, by the courts, over and over again also.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Nov 1, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> so if they don't look like they belong, they can be detained?  maybe they look Mexican, that's grounds for detainment?  what about if they look asian?  what if they have a funny accent, like those people who are south of the border?  if they haven't updated their hair style in 15 years, that means you can put them in cuffs..... Everything you said just screams of profiling and racial discrimination.
> You do realize that she isn't an American right?  her parents broke the law years ago, and snuck into the US with their infant daughter.  She is a Mexican citizen, from mexico, living in the US.  She has no US passport, has no SSN, and while she has lived here almost all her life, that doesn't change the fact that she is here illegally, and is not an american.
> 
> Last I checked, there wasn't a status of limitations on when someone can hide from the law for X number of years and their legal status would automatically change from illegal immigrant to legal one.
> ...


America is a country of immigrants. She is more American than some "real Americans" I've met.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Nov 1, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> America is a country of immigrants. She is more American than some "real Americans" I've met.


What is your definition of American? Because it usually means a legal citizen or native of the country. She is neither a legal citizen or a native of this country.


----------



## StCEMT (Nov 1, 2017)

Remi said:


> What is the alternative?



To no longer reply to his posts all around sounds like a good one considering the track record to date....


----------



## CLCustom1911 (Nov 1, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Law enforcement certain do not have ultimate authority. They are bound by the Constitution and federal laws. When a crime hasn't been committed they have no legal authority to demand a person's papers. What is this- Nazi Germany?



During a traffic stop, law enforcement has the authority to demand identification from all occupants. And yes, cartels have used ambulances AND humans to internally smuggle drugs.  

You weren’t there, didn’t see what the officers saw, didn’t interview the subjects at the scene. And NPR is far from a politically unbiased source of information.

It’s pretty clear you don’t work with police in the normal course and scope of your duties, aren’t familiar with case law pertaining to law enforcement checkpoints, or case law as it pertains to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  

When we (law enforcement) are at a scene, we are in charge. If a person is injured and needs to be arrested, guess what? They go to the hospital we say they go, get treated, and the justice system works it’s broken course.


----------



## Old Tracker (Nov 1, 2017)

Update:

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017...-cbp-congress-detention-child-cerebral-palsy/


----------



## VFlutter (Nov 1, 2017)

That update is very helpful and outlines a lot of what is wrong with these types of situations - knee jerk emotional reactions by the media and people without accurate facts. They were not traveling in an “ambulance” and the agents were never noticed of her cerebral palsy, not that it matters. 

Again, it seems like everything they did was appropriate


----------



## RocketMedic (Nov 7, 2017)

Horrible optics, though. BRAVE VIGILANT AMERICAN DEFENDERS OF AMERICA DEFEND AMERICA FROM CRIPPLED POST-SURGICAL IMMIGRANT CHILD!!!!


----------



## Alan L Serve (Nov 13, 2017)

CLCustom1911 said:


> During a traffic stop, law enforcement has the authority to demand identification from all occupants.


That is literally untrue. Law enforcement can only demand ID from a person who is suspected of committing a crime. A "hunch" or "sixth sense" doesn't count- it must be an articulated reason based on something the LEOs have seen. If you're not suspected of a crime but someone in your party is then you can voluntarily give your ID to the cops but you are certainly not required to do so.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/09/can-you-refuse-to-identify-yourself-to-police-officers.html

http://www.laweekly.com/news/can-you-refuse-to-identify-yourself-to-police-5082793

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes


----------



## BobBarker (Nov 22, 2017)

CLCustom1911 said:


> During a traffic stop, law enforcement has the authority to demand identification from all occupants. And yes, cartels have used ambulances AND humans to internally smuggle drugs.
> 
> You weren’t there, didn’t see what the officers saw, didn’t interview the subjects at the scene. And NPR is far from a politically unbiased source of information.
> 
> ...


Law Enforcement does not have the authority to "demand" identification from all occupants in a traffic stop unless they have reasonable suspicion the passengers doing something or if the occupants committed an offense also. Just because a driver is stopped for speeding, etc., doesn't mean the passenger has to identify himself, he wasn't the one who committed the offense.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Nov 24, 2017)

Billy D said:


> Law Enforcement does not have the authority to "demand" identification from all occupants in a traffic stop unless they have reasonable suspicion the passengers doing something or if the occupants committed an offense also. Just because a driver is stopped for speeding, etc., doesn't mean the passenger has to identify himself, he wasn't the one who committed the offense.


There are some on this EMS internet forum who believe police officers hold unlimited ability. They forget about the US Constitution. I am glad to see one who, like myself, believes in the rights of private citizens to remain private.


----------



## VFlutter (Nov 24, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> They forget about the *US Constitution.* I am glad to see one who, like myself, believes in the rights of private *citizens* to remain private.



Key words...


----------



## Alan L Serve (Nov 24, 2017)

Chase said:


> Key words...


Anyone in the US is entitled to be secure in their possessions and effects. Demanding "papers" is a throwback to Nazi Germany. Is this what you want?


----------



## BobBarker (Nov 24, 2017)

Chase said:


> Key words...


You do realize the Constitution and bill of rights applies to everyone in the US regardless of citizenship status right? We might not agree with it, but that's what it is. I learned this back in High School history class


----------



## CALEMT (Nov 24, 2017)

Billy D said:


> You do realize the Constitution and bill of rights applies to everyone in the US regardless of citizenship status right?



Ummmm this is not the case. The bill of rights and constitution applies to American citizens and not illegal aliens.

Actually if you want to get technical the bill of rights applies to the government and what they can and can not do to US citizens.


----------



## BobBarker (Nov 24, 2017)

CALEMT said:


> Ummmm this is not the case. The bill of rights and constitution applies to American citizens and not illegal aliens.
> 
> Actually if you want to get technical the bill of rights applies to the government and what they can and can not do to US citizens.


The courts have ruled the same protections and rights apply to illegal aliens. Read _U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1896 and the 14th Amendment. In the 14th amendment, it specifically states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. NOTE that it says ANY person_


----------



## VentMonkey (Nov 24, 2017)

Aliens aren’t people, immigrants are.


----------



## CALEMT (Nov 25, 2017)

Billy D said:


> The courts have ruled the same protections and rights apply to illegal aliens. Read _U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1896 and the 14th Amendment. In the 14th amendment, it specifically states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. NOTE that it says ANY person_



Ok noted.


----------



## Old Tracker (Nov 25, 2017)

Billy D said:


> The courts have ruled the same protections and rights apply to illegal aliens. Read _U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1896 and the 14th Amendment. In the 14th amendment, it specifically states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. NOTE that it says ANY person_



Key words in the quote are “citizens of the United States.” In the case of illegal aliens, a deportation hearing is due process.

I anticipate that many of the bad rulings on these matters will be overturned in the coming years by the new crop of justices being nominated to the different benches.


----------



## BobBarker (Nov 25, 2017)

Old Tracker said:


> Key words in the quote are “citizens of the United States.” In the case of illegal aliens, a deportation hearing is due process.
> 
> I anticipate that many of the bad rulings on these matters will be overturned in the coming years by the new crop of justices being nominated to the different benches.


The key words are "any" person."Any" refers to any, not just legal. Illegal alliens are still entitled to due process and rights of legal citizens in the US. It takes 1 minute to research that on Google. For example, read the court case I posted.


----------



## GMCmedic (Nov 25, 2017)

Billy D said:


> The key words are "any" person."Any" refers to any, not just legal. Illegal alliens are still entitled to due process and rights of legal citizens in the US. It takes 1 minute to research that on Google. For example, read the court case I posted.


They still cant vote or buy firearms (depending on what appeals district) .


----------



## luke_31 (Nov 25, 2017)

Billy D said:


> The key words are "any" person."Any" refers to any, not just legal. Illegal alliens are still entitled to due process and rights of legal citizens in the US. It takes 1 minute to research that on Google. For example, read the court case I posted.


That is true they do have due process, it's called an immigration court hearing.  Where we fail is in the right to a speedy hearing for them. There aren't enough judges to hear them in a timely fashion so a lot slip through the cracks and stay or get told to leave/ agree to leave to be able to legally immigrate later but choose to ignore the order and just stay. The system isn't perfect, it's not broken completely, but there are serious issues that need to be addressed through legislation and executive actions.


----------



## Alan L Serve (Nov 25, 2017)

luke_31 said:


> That is true they do have due process, it's called an immigration court hearing.  Where we fail is in the right to a speedy hearing for them. There aren't enough judges to hear them in a timely fashion so a lot slip through the cracks and stay or get told to leave/ agree to leave to be able to legally immigrate later but choose to ignore the order and just stay. The system isn't perfect, it's not broken completely, but there are serious issues that need to be addressed through legislation and executive actions.


Wow, you are very wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...ect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#3341ffb44f1d
*Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes*
In _U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark_, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In _Fong Yue Ting v. U.S._,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.


----------



## E tank (Nov 25, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Wow, you are very wrong.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...ect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#3341ffb44f1d
> *Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes*
> In _U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark_, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In _Fong Yue Ting v. U.S._,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.



And what is the obligation of the "immigrant" to observe statutory and constitutional law? So it only goes one way, eh? Got it.


----------



## DrParasite (Nov 25, 2017)

Billy D said:


> The courts have ruled the same protections and rights apply to illegal aliens. Read _U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1896 and the 14th Amendment. In the 14th amendment, it specifically states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. NOTE that it says ANY person_


I might not agree with his overall there here, but I do give @Billy D props for actually citing an actual court case that supports his statement.


Billy D said:


> The key words are "any" person."Any" refers to any, not just legal. Illegal alliens are still entitled to due process and rights of legal citizens in the US. It takes 1 minute to research that on Google. For example, read the court case I posted.


That's not what the court case said..... yes, they entitled to due process, but they aren't entitled to ALL the rights of US citizens.  Voting in national and state elections, being elected to public office, get a driver's license (although some states are now allowing this), obtain a social security number, etc.

Since you brought up a case, I suggest you look at _Zadvydas vs. Davis_ (2001), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled  that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."  

So, while due process does apply, they don’t have a right to a government-paid lawyer in immigration court. They do have some rights, but a US citizen has ALL their rights.


----------



## luke_31 (Nov 26, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Wow, you are very wrong.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...ect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#3341ffb44f1d
> *Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes*
> In _U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark_, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In _Fong Yue Ting v. U.S._,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.


You do understand that the term alien referred to people who didn't illegally enter the country. Those Chinese persons entered the country as a workforce essentially the equivalent to a modern work visa which granted them the rights. The sticky point in this whole situation is that illegal immigrants enter the country not always through actual immigration checkpoints. The rulings that have been used are stretching previous rulings and it is in fact questionable as to who is right. President has been set in the past to actually block whole groups of people from entering the country before. Just as much as there is president to naturalize groups of illegal immigrants who are already in the country. Also I don't see how the case you cited even states that illegal immigrants must be allowed to remain in the country once they have arrived here. I suggest you look at the laws of Mexico our neighbor to the south, they are actually much harsher then we most likely ever will be with respect to illegal immigration.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Nov 26, 2017)

The issue at hand isn't really whether or not non-citizens have a right to due process. They do, and we should all support that because due process is nothing but simple fairness. Anyone detained anywhere in the world for any reason should have the opportunity to explain themselves and plead their case and receive humane treatment and a fair disposition. That's all "due process" means in this context.

More importantly, some people are really missing the point of constitutional protections in the first place.

Law enforcement having the ability to stop and search anyone for no reason other than the fact that they are within 100 miles of the border is _clearly_ a direct violation of the intent of the 4th amendment. Does the law allow authorities to apprehend people who are here illegally, who they otherwise wouldn't? I'm sure it does. But what else does the law do? It requires suspension of 4th amendment protections for _everyone_, not just the few who are stopped who are found to be here illegally and eventually deported. It increases unnecessary interactions between law enforcement and the public, every one of which is an opportunity for conflict. It also has resulted in a massive expansion of the use of civil asset forfeiture, which is an Orwellian practice where law enforcement is allowed to literally steal your property even if you are not charged with a crime.

Think about it: you can be a white female with red hair and a Boston accent and a MA driver's license, driving a car with MA plates west across I-8 on your way to visit a friend in San Diego and be pulled over for no reason whatsoever, aside from the fact that you are within 100 miles of Mexico. The officer can search your car, your laptop, your cell phone, and your luggage. For no reason. At all. If you have a couple thousand cash on you for some reason, or any valuable property at all really, they can take that from you under civil asset forfeiture with only a vague explanation that the cash or property was likely to have been acquired as a result of criminal activity, or to be used for criminal activity. No evidence or even suspicion of an actual crime is necessary. The process for getting that property back is arduous and time-consuming and people are often unsuccessful.

And before you say "well, maybe that could happen in theory, but it never would in the real world", things like that _have_ happened, and not only a few times. Look in the right places and you'll find all sorts of accounts by law-abiding citizens being harassed by law enforcement and having their property stolen when they had done absolutely nothing wrong and were never charged with a crime.

Some have suggested that this border exception be extended not just to the physical borders with Mexico and Canada, but to a 100 mile radii of international airports and even to the coastlines. I think it is probably only a matter of time.

This is why you should take a conservative view of constitutional protections. You should want to see these protections used by as many people as possible, as often as possible. It isn't about "getting the bad guys", it is about giving up individual liberty. Use it or lose it. Once it's gone we'll never get it back.

"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither".


----------



## Old Tracker (Nov 26, 2017)

REMI, I agree with your sentiment, but law enforcement CANNOT, particularily Border Patrol, just randomly cannot pull someone over for no reason. They have to be able to articulate reasons for pulling a vehicle over and for a road stop (as opposed to an established check point on the highway) and establish/show a connection (the word used is NEXUS) to the actual border.  In the past Mexico used to sell to types of gasoline, NOVA and ESTRELLA.  Nova exhaust reeked to high heaven and was identifiable at a distance when the vehicle went by. Also, little things like 8 or 10 heads in a sedan are a clue, a stack of tortillas in the rear/front window with wrappings from Mexico, was also another clue that the vehicle had been across the border.

Check points are legal by Immigration Law. Having drugs, in quantity at a checkpoint will usually end up in someone being turned over to DEA or state of local authorities.

Asset forfeiture used to be a good tool. Now it is abused, particularly by local and county officers operating under a blessing from DEA. The war on drugs is fueled by statistics, immigration violations not so much.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Nov 26, 2017)

Old Tracker said:


> REMI, I agree with your sentiment, but law enforcement CANNOT, particularily Border Patrol, just randomly cannot pull someone over for no reason. They have to be able to articulate reasons for pulling a vehicle over and for a road stop (as opposed to an established check point on the highway) and establish/show a connection (the word used is NEXUS) to the actual border.  In the past Mexico used to sell to types of gasoline, NOVA and ESTRELLA.  Nova exhaust reeked to high heaven and was identifiable at a distance when the vehicle went by. Also, little things like 8 or 10 heads in a sedan are a clue, a stack of tortillas in the rear/front window with wrappings from Mexico, was also another clue that the vehicle had been across the border.



OK, perhaps they have to come up with _some_ excuse, but they don't need to meet the typical standards of probable cause in order to search you and everything you have with you, including your electronics. It's just like civil asset forfeiture. They need to have _some_ reason, I would imagine, to take your stuff, but it doesn't need to be a good one, and the citizen has no recourse for having their basic civil rights violated. 

Just because a policy makes it easier for the cops to get a few more bad guys, does not make it a good or a just policy. The ends do not necessarily justify the means.

I have read quite a few accounts of people who had no connection to the border and were stopped and searched and had their stuff taken.


----------



## Old Tracker (Nov 26, 2017)

When asset forfeiture first was being used it was a good tool.  It has since been perverted into a revenue generating tool or profit sharing tool from the feds to the state and locals.  The key to asset forfeiture is that it only takes a "preponderance" of the evidence to lose your property. So, just to be plain, I agree whole heartedly with you on that.  It is a shameful thing.

Asset forfeiture, highway check points, and searches at the border, are actually all separate issues covered by different statutes and different levels of evidence needed.

I think I have mentioned in previous posts, that the Border Patrol has no statuary authority to seize drugs. They do that under a Memorandum of Understanding with the DEA, who have essentially made them the uniformed branch of the DEA.  It's all about numbers to present to Congress. Drug seizures make better headlines and news conference than the arrest of 15 or 20 ordinary folks trying to sneak into the country.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Nov 26, 2017)

Old Tracker said:


> When asset forfeiture first was being used it was a good tool.  It has since been perverted into a revenue generating tool or profit sharing tool from the feds to the state and locals.  The key to asset forfeiture is that it only takes a "preponderance" of the evidence to lose your property. So, just to be plain, I agree whole heartedly with you on that.  It is a shameful thing.
> 
> Asset forfeiture, highway check points, and searches at the border, are actually all separate issues covered by different statutes and different levels of evidence needed.
> 
> I think I have mentioned in previous posts, that the Border Patrol has no statuary authority to seize drugs. They do that under a Memorandum of Understanding with the DEA, who have essentially made them the uniformed branch of the DEA.  It's all about numbers to present to Congress. Drug seizures make better headlines and news conference than the arrest of 15 or 20 ordinary folks trying to sneak into the country.


What is your background, @Old Tracker? Just curious.


----------



## Old Tracker (Nov 26, 2017)

3 years in the Border Patrol (Class 132B) stationed in Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas. From there, over a weekend, I went to the Customs Patrol, at Falcon Dam, Tx...still in Starr County. From the Customs Patrol I was promoted to Special Agent (GS-1811, same job series as DEA, ATF, FBI agents). Wrote affidavits, sworn to search warrants, executed the same. Made vehicle stops...based on reasonable suspicion, arrested people, and testified either as a witness or the case agent in federal court. Also worked some conspiracy cases and quite a few money laundering cases.  Did that for an additional 17 + years.

Retired with 32 years of federal service, including Navy (submarines) time. Had a small business for awhile, indentured myself for a year just to learn how to drive an 18 wheeler. Took an EMT class just to learn something about it, and now I are one.


----------



## BobBarker (Nov 26, 2017)

GMCmedic said:


> They still cant vote or buy firearms (depending on what appeals district) .


Neither can US citizens who are felons or on parole...


----------



## BobBarker (Nov 26, 2017)

DrParasite said:


> I might not agree with his overall there here, but I do give @Billy D props for actually citing an actual court case that supports his statement.
> That's not what the court case said..... yes, they entitled to due process, but they aren't entitled to ALL the rights of US citizens.  Voting in national and state elections, being elected to public office, get a driver's license (although some states are now allowing this), obtain a social security number, etc.
> 
> Since you brought up a case, I suggest you look at _Zadvydas vs. Davis_ (2001), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled  that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."
> ...


Correct, they don't have all their rights, but they have basic rights (1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc.). Also, not all US citizens have ALL their rights. Specifically felons....A felon who is a US citizens can't buy/own a firearm (2nd amendment) and can't vote while they are on parole. They also waive their 4th amendment right when they are on parole (search clause).


----------



## phideux (Nov 27, 2017)

One point that should be made here too. Alot of times people say that folks here illegally are a drain on the countries resources including the health care system. Well this girl is here illegally, brought here by her parents who are also here illegally. This non-ambulance, medical transport sedan sounds like the good old "Medicaid Cab", who is paying for that ride??? Who is paying for her medical care and surgery??? Are her parents, here illegally, paying for all of this??? Or are they getting any sort of Medicaid or public assistance to pay for it??? I can barely afford to go to a doc when I am sick, even though I have "insurance", yet people here illegally do get free stuff like Medicaid, that I have to pay for, and they get all their medical care and rides back and forth to medical care for free.

If they were so worried about her legal status, and it is a well known checkpoint, why didn't they take a different route to the hospital???


----------



## Alan L Serve (Nov 27, 2017)

phideux said:


> One point that should be made here too. Alot of times people say that folks here illegally are a drain on the countries resources including the health care system. Well this girl is here illegally, brought here by her parents who are also here illegally. This non-ambulance, medical transport sedan sounds like the good old "Medicaid Cab", who is paying for that ride??? Who is paying for her medical care and surgery??? Are her parents, here illegally, paying for all of this??? Or are they getting any sort of Medicaid or public assistance to pay for it??? I can barely afford to go to a doc when I am sick, even though I have "insurance", yet people here illegally do get free stuff like Medicaid, that I have to pay for, and they get all their medical care and rides back and forth to medical care for free.
> 
> If they were so worried about her legal status, and it is a well known checkpoint, why didn't they take a different route to the hospital???



Do you imply that illegal immigrants receive state Medicaid?


----------



## phideux (Nov 27, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Do you imply that illegal immigrants receive state Medicaid?



I'm not sure what she is receiving, but everyone hears stuff about what people here illegally receive as far as aid. I just want to know who is paying for her "non-ambulance, medical sedan" rides, along with her surgery and before/aftercare. Is it her parents who are not in this country legally, or is it us???
I couldn't afford to have Gallbladder surgery along with the before and aftercare even though I have insurance and work at the hospital that would be performing the surgery. Due to the co-pays and deductibles. Plus they then say that I wouldn't qualify for any type of transport back and forth to the hospital and would have to find my own way. So the question I just asked was who is paying for this???
I'm just tired of a huge chunk of my paychecks being stolen to pay for people to get stuff that I can't afford for myself.
What do you think the local authorities would do if you were to sneak across the border into Mexico and you were caught in a check-point after living there for awhile with your family, who also illegally crossed the border, while you were on your way to the local hospital. You wouldn't be treated as hospitable as you would be up here on this side of the fence. Plus you would sit in a ****-hole of a third world style prison for quite awhile until you were deported back to the US. So would the rest of your family after they rounded them up.


----------



## phideux (Nov 27, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Do you imply that illegal immigrants receive state Medicaid?



Working in the ER, out in triage, I've seen patients come up to registration with a Mexico ID card and a Medicaid card.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Nov 27, 2017)

phideux said:


> *I couldn't afford to have Gallbladder surgery along with the before and aftercare even though I have insurance and work at the hospital that would be performing the surgery. Due to the co-pays and deductibles.* Plus they then say that I wouldn't qualify for any type of transport back and forth to the hospital and would have to find my own way. So the question I just asked was who is paying for this???
> *I'm just tired of a huge chunk of my paychecks being stolen to pay for people to get stuff that I can't afford for myself.*



This is an issues that has nothing at all to do with immigrants, illegal or otherwise, because they probably make up a small minority of welfare recipients.

If we want to live in a welfare state, we have to pay for it.


----------



## Old Tracker (Nov 27, 2017)

Even if we don't want to live in a welfare state we still pay for it.


----------



## VFlutter (Nov 27, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> Do you imply that illegal immigrants receive state Medicaid?



There are legitimate ways that illegal immigrants can receive state Medicaid although probably that common. Fraud is probably a bigger issue. Still does not take away from the fact that they cause a substantial burden of non-reimbursable medical care. 
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/o...ity-for-non-citizens-in-medicaid-and-chip.pdf

Likely a bias website but still breaks down the estimate 17+ billion in estimated medical costs 
https://fairus.org/issue/publicatio...n-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers


----------



## Alan L Serve (Nov 27, 2017)

phideux said:


> Working in the ER, out in triage, I've seen patients come up to registration with a Mexico ID card and a Medicaid card.


I do believe this is what they call "fraud".


----------



## phideux (Nov 30, 2017)

Alan L Serve said:


> I do believe this is what they call "fraud".


Yeah it's fraud. But why would the state issue the Medicaid card, or sign anyone up without the proper _ID?  I think that is one of the real issues, it isn't politically correct to fully identify folks signing up for entitlement programs anymore, lest we trample their civil rights  and get labeled as racist pigs nowadays._


----------



## GMCmedic (Nov 30, 2017)

Billy D said:


> Neither can US citizens who are felons or on parole...


This is not in the least bit relevant other than to contradict post #58.


----------

