English proficiency is required to become U.S. citizen. You have to be a U.S. citizen to vote. So why do all the voting booths have English and Spanish on the ballots?

I was very against everything becoming multilingual in Arizona in the early nineties. Now everything everywhere is posted in English and Spanish and its about as common to hear Spanish as Well as English spoken everywhere you go. The problem I have is not with the Spanish spoken but the fact that so many cannot speak any English!

So when I said the ER is used by some instead of a GP I didn't say the ER is used by some instead of a GP.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Thats interesting GR.
Asking for and getting a copy of the title doesn't prove anything, I'm guessing you havn't thought that through when you have purchased a car from a private owner(or even a dealership).
If you want to offload a stolen car you set it up as a ringer with all the needed paperwork to make it look legitimate.

This statement of yours makes absolutely no sense at all. The facts remain that the uninsured will visit the ER because the chances of being turned away are zero.

Wrong. They do not go to the ER or Urgent Care because they have no GP. Some do, this is true, but ER use is not just the uninsured.

After hours, for example. You have a sick kid, and you're perhaps worried about flu, or the kid's been puking, and you're worried they might be dehydrated. You go to the peds ER, urgent care, whatever. It has nothing at all to do with insurance or having a GP.

Pay to have a practitioner send them to the ED? At a loss here, things must be very different where you are. If you went to a GP, they'd refer you to a specialist (avoiding the ER, even if they sent you directly to the hospital to be admitted). A GP would not turf you to the ER unless you coded in the office, lol. That's not how it works.

Nowadays, there are usually 2 levels with most systems in the US. "Urgent Care," which is sort of an ER light. It's really designed as a sort of triage to deal with the people we're talking about here who may or may not be badly ill. The ER, while more ideally the level 1-2 trauma center, also takes whomever walks through the door. So they get urgent care traffic, too.

Even the ER docs are sometimes not down with what is, and is not emergent. My wife gets many a call at 2am from some damn ER doc who seems to be unaware that my wife only considers it an emergency if the patient will promptly: die, lose an organ, or has unmanageable pain. Of course it'd feel like an emergency to the PATIENT. Ie: you get hematuria (bloody pee). Most of us would promptly head to the ER I bet. Wife gets the call, and if it's not loads of frank blood, she's usually not concerned enough to go in.

Like I said, ER use is complex.

AVGWarhawk is right regarding them not being turned away, however. Show up at the ER, and you get treated, period. Illegals know this. In some states this is a significant issue. But ERs are overused in general, IMO.

Absolutely 100% emphatically agree!!!!!

As noted above, the ER is the place to go for any old aliment in todays world. Such a shame when there is intermediate care providers that are open all night. I have three within 5 miles of me. I had a bladder infection (blood in urine)...I was not ER bound....I went to the intermediate that prescribed Cipro. That was it. Later went to my GP for direction on finding the cause of said infection...went to urologist. No one sent me over to the ER. I have had three lung collaspes (spontaneous pneumo-thorax). All ER type medical issues. I went to the ER all three times. Chest tubes, yadda yadda yadda. The point is, the ER will not turn anyone away. The smaller intermediate medical buildings will not turn you away but they will want payment when the consult is completed. They will want your copay at the very least....if you carry insurance. If you have any outstanding bills they will want payment. In the ER....nope, catch up with you later. The hospital knows full well payment is not forthcoming but non-the-less treatment was administered. Many unisured know this is status quo and will go to the ER for just about anything. Such a shame when resources are stressed when a real emergency arrives at the ambulance doors.

Exactly, and again, that is because it is impossible for triage to deal with. You cannot be sure it's not a real emergency for "illness" issues without a proper workup. Doing said workup in triage is no different than doing it back in a room, it takes the same time regardless. So having a doc do triage saves exactly nothing. Once he does a workup, he's done whatever code is billed.

Clearly some stuff is obvious—trauma, etc—but we're talking about distinguishing a cold, from the flu, from Hantavirus here. The fact that 99% are a cold, 0.999% are flu, and 0.001% are hantavius doesn't help, cause turning them all away based on having a cold ends up with some deaths.

edit

Because in the voting booth, it is important for the voter to fully understand what they are voting for. The voting booth is not the time for an impromptu English test.

Yes.
The english test should have been passed already.

The reason its in multiple languages is because there has always been a drive by the left to allow non-citizens to vote. Thus, no english proficiency required.

The reason it is in multiple languages is because America has always had multiple languages.
US citizens are not required to be proficient in English, or any other language for that matter.
An American can be free to speak nothing but some old Polynesian language.
But hey don't let little things like facts stop you making rubbish up.

That is true for natural born citizens, but not naturalized citizens.

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title08/8-1.0.1.3.65.html

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00b92ca60aRCRD

And yes, naturalized citizens are held to a higher standard than natural born citizens. One wonders how many high school graduates could pass the naturalization tests. :)

For the first 140 or so years our country was in existence, non-us citizens were allowed to vote. Up until the 1920's most states allowed non-citizens to vote, so I doubt this is a "left" agenda.

www.age-of-migration.com/na/casestudies/12.4.pdf

Platypus - the move to only allow citizens to vote was made as the country moved "right". Also - currently - the push to have illegals vote (though its done quietly) has been from the left, because the left caters to the hispanic community a lot more than the right.

Like it or not, that is simply fact.

Well it is not a matter of whether I like it or not, but a matter of whether you have citations to support your assertions.

That "fact" echos a conspiracy theory steamwake has been pushing lately

Given the ease with which Haplos last assertion about votes and the drive for illegals to votewas shot down, do you expect this assertion to stand up?

The democrats consistently enact laws in the US to do things like give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The democrats also consistently oppose laws to require ID checks for voters. This is self-evident to anyone who pays attention to US politics. It's explicit in party platform documents.

The goal for the latter is clearly to enable voter fraud, it can have no other purpose. The former means that even with ID checks (should they lose that battle in a legislature), the illegals have valid IDs.

The democrats also consistently push of federal "immigration reform" that involves amnesty for extant illegals, along with a "path to citizenship" for said illegals. In this case it's not nefarious, it's just an obvious ploy to buy votes—"we're the guys who made you legal—vote for us!" In addition it plays into the real voter demographics that show hispanic (the primary illegal population) voters to tend more democratic than republican (think it's like 60-40).

Contrary to the way you portray opponents of the government not enforcing immigration law, most republicans I know are for tight control of who comes in—mostly for national security reasons—and increased LEGAL immigration and guest worker programs. Unlike the dems, they don't want amnesty because they think it's wrong to reward illegal behavior. I'm in this camp. Make the illegals leave, then come back in legally under a system that allows many more in legally. No amnesty because that gives people that broke the law and "cut the line" to benefit. There is no way anyone already in the US illegally should be a citizen faster than someone playing by the rules.

Meaning that if an amnesty was passed to take effect tomorrow, IMHO it's entirely unfair for someone illegal in the US tomorrow to get their citizenship faster than someone who applies LEGALLY tomorrow. That's entirely unfair to the guy playing by the rules.

Might be interesting to make a novel amnesty whereby they get t be citizens in every way except the vote. Illegals taking advantage of amnesty should NEVER be allowed to vote. That's a reasonable punishment for cheating. They are welcome to instead leave, and come in legally if they wish to vote.

I can confirm. Last go around I waltzed in and voted. No one ask me for anything other than if I was breathing.

Yes sir. I could have gone to several schools holding the elections booths and voted multiple times.

No argument there. Democrats love 'undocumented' people...after all, illegal sounds so crass....

Not all republicans are in favor of keeping illegals out, either. It's not monolithic.

Some hope to buy hispanic votes, for example ("see, I was instrumental in making you legal, vote for me!" (McCain, for example)).

Others have constituents that gain from the workers—some agriculture, for example (CA, notably).

So you can see strange bedfellows. Che-shirt wearing, "La Raza" folks (if german-americans called themselves THE race, just imagine...) commies who vote democrat forming an alliance with suit-wearing republicans who have as the major employer in their district a chicken farm/plant that employs hundreds of illegals to put process the meat.

Overall, however, it's the left that pushes for non-enforcement—the powerful on the left, that is. The voters themselves are in favor of border control because a worker might be a democrat, but he knows he is ultimately competing with illegal workers, as well as having to live with crime, crowded schools for his kids (and teachers having to teach in 2 languages), delays in ERs, etc. That's why there is a disconnect between the public and democrat politicians. The pols are looking at their power base looking forward, the voters just want security in their jobs, neighborhoods, etc.

What state do you vote in. I am an election official here and this just does not sound right.