The truth about illegal immigrants and American health care
While the media focus has zeroed in on Rep. Joe Wilson calling out President Obama on health care for illegal immigrants, not much time has been spent on discussing the pros and cons of where Congress is taking us on the question of denying health care benefits to undocumented immigrants.
Paul Fronstin, of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, suggests that health costs passed along to the American taxpayer as a result of treating illegal aliens may not be the big expense we believe it to be.
Indeed, Fronstin’s research reveals that the total share of the healthcare system attributable to illegal immigrants comes in at about 1 or 2 percent, “with only a small slice of that paid for in public money.”
Fronstin points out that this could be the result of illegal immigrants tending to be younger and generally healthier than the overall population. He adds that studies further indicate that the undocumented go to the doctor far less often than those of us who are natural, American citizens.
While I don’t wish to minimize the argument that our government’s first responsibility is to American citizens, particularly in these difficult economic times, our emotional and political response to illegal immigration could very well end up costing us more in real dollars than it saves.
There are unintended consequences in turning our immigration issue into yet another diversion to the real issues presented in the health care reform debate, consequences that could be very damaging, both in cost and health, to the American taxpayer.
Experts point out that about $1 billion a year is currently paid by Emergency Medicaid, a federal program that covers emergency care for patients who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid but can’t prove their legal status. That leaves some $5 billion in costs uncompensated. While that $5 billion is a “blip” on the national health care system — some two-tenths of 1 percent —it can have some far reaching effects on legal citizens when it falls disproportionately on hospitals.
Carla Luggiero of the American Hospital Association points out;
So, although those [federal] programs do not reimburse for the care of undocumented and uninsured individuals, collectively we as society do end up bearing that cost.
Put another way, is our fixation on denying health care opportunities to illegal immigrants likely to prove penny wise but pound foolish?
Then there is the whole question of infectious disease.
Under current proposals, there will not be a change in the laws that require emergency rooms to treat those who come in with life threatening situations, whatever their citizenship status. I think most Americans agree that this is a good thing as we really don’t want to be a nation who turns away seriously ill people to die because they can’t pay.
But what of those who have symptoms that are not life threatening and, therefore, not eligible for medical treatment under a system that prohibits all but emergency care to illegal immigrants? An example might be an undocumented immigrant who presents with flu-like symptoms. Not a life threatening emergency – or is it? What if those symptoms could be indicative of a patient with the H1N1 ’swine’ flu? A condition that would be deemed, under law, to be ineligible for treatment could well turn out to be a life threatening emergency after all- not only to the illegal immigrant presenting but to those whom will be infected by coming into contact with the untreated carrier, many of whom will be naturally born Americans.
There is a significant cost that attaches to testing for infectious illness just as there is a cost in picking up the tab for immunizing against such disease. Yet, if we outlaw these tests and treatments for illegals, many of the ultimate ‘victims’ will likely turn out to be people legally participating in public health care programs like Medicare or Medicaid. That will leave the taxpayer to pick up a significantly larger bill than what would have been paid had we simply dealt with the problem at the source- even if that source is an illegal immigrant.
Clearly, illegal immigration is a significant political and emotional issue. But, as is so often the case, when you set aside the politics and emotion, we often find that reacting to either ends up costing the taxpayer more money. We should, at the least, consider that denying health care to illegal immigrants could , in the long run, prove to be a very expensive decision.
This is not so much a bleeding heart, liberal issue as it is a cost issue. So maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea for the Joe Wilsons, Glenn Becks, Boss Limbaughs, and all their friends in and out of Congress, to chill out a little on the emotional appeal that makes for good politics and spend a little more time doing the math.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“So maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea for the Joe Wilsons, Glenn Becks, Boss Limbaughs, and all their friends in and out of Congress, to chill out a little on the emotional appeal that makes for good politics and spend a little more time doing the math.”
All very well and nice and reasonable, Rick.
But these Amerikaners couldn’t care less about facts or math. We know better what this is really about, don’t we?:
Yeah…but it can’t hurt to try and focus them of the facts from time to time.
In response to another comment. See in context »Good luck with that.
In response to another comment. See in context »Geez….I see what you mean.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why is it the left always plays the race card? I am NOT a racist, and may I remind you the president IS half white!!
The very simple fact is that much of my salary already goes to the government and I would like to keep what is left of it! I EARNED IT!!!
Government is just getting too big! That’s really what the Tea Party movement is all about!
In response to another comment. See in context »Uh..okay…thanks for that…what does it have to do with the piece. This space is to comment on the post.
In response to another comment. See in context »Two minds are surely on one track this afternoon. Your piece is a great amplification of the story I just posted, which is an absolutely true story of one good friend. Thanks for spotting our single-mindedness.
The incident that occurred in Congress by Rep. Joe Wilson R-NC, illustrates the consequences of a blurring line between illegal immigration and health care. Our politicians have been alerted to the angry voices of the American people. For once they have disregarded the business campaign contributors and all the cloaked gifts given for services rendered by special interest lobbyists. Millions of US citizens are enraged with the status quo buying favors from our representatives that has led to our wilting economy. Today speaking on behalf of Washington committees on health care, the lawmaking emphasized that illegal aliens cannot access the new health reform package, that any person applying will be checked through government databases.
E-Verify might be implemented for this very issue, that it has shown in the majority of cases remarkable successes in remove illegal alien workers from the working environment. E-Verify can solve this problem and bring sanity back to immigration enforcement. E-VERIFICATION OF EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN WORKER MUST BE MADE PERMANENT? NOT JUST VOLUNTARY POLICY, BUT AS A FULL FORCE OF OPERATION CARRYING STRICT PENALTIES. This operation will work under federal policies? But what about state laws? California as an example is a Sanctuary state for millions of illegal immigrants and their families? Other border states are also occupied by large proportions of unlawful populations of foreign nationals?
This last year has culminated in huge financial losses in California caused by millions of low income illegal aliens, which has created a third world community within the United States. There must be federal measures to bring under control, massive spending benefits for people who have no right from benefiting from those who come here legally or were born here. How can any public health care option work at a state level, when states like California ignore federal law, regarding financial refuge to indigent people? Our own people remain homeless and in many cases without hope, when legislators have prioritized, health care, education an overloaded jail system and easy welfare money for illegal immigrants?
The once golden state has been using taxpayer money, to support illegal aliens, when the same expenditures should have been adopted for a collapsing infrastructure. Highways, schools, tunnels, bridges and dams in a dangerous state of disrepair? Our legislators in many cases have been seduced by lobbyists and should be banned from any contact with our politicians. This will never happen, but something must be done? Millions have been spent on derailing the health care reform currently and in the past, as has immigration enforcement. Rescinding 287(g) federal training for local police enforcement of immigration laws, the NO MATCH LETTER and the cutting back on ICE raids on obnoxious businesses using foreign workers.
The order to crush E-verify was given to Sen.Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, but narrowly survived in the Senate chambers. Both political parties are equally to blame for not enforcing the 1986 Immigration Control & Reform Act that was inundated with fraud and a desire to weaken the laws. Now they want to rescind that law, offering yet another reform package that will never function? Let’s not kid ourselves! Huge veiled forces are at work to import as much cheap labor as possible with no restraints, lowering wages and an unconscionable burden on taxpayers.
DON’T LET THE POWERS IN WASHINGTON WHITEWASH THE FACTS! DEMAND THE ORIGINAL DESIGNED FENCE AND THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF E-VERIFY, 287 (g), THE SAVE ACT AND AS WRITTEN, THE 1986 SIMPSON/MAZZOLI BILL AND AMEND THEM IF NEED BE? NO MORE IMMIGRATION REFORM? DO THE JOB THEY WERE VOTED FOR? CALL YOUR POLITICIANS AT 202-224-3121 AND DEMAND THESE LAWS BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE? MORE ANSWERS FOUND AT NUMBERSUSA & JUDICIAL WATCH.
brittanicus,
I am in favor of verify for employers but actually employers can find out quite easily which of their employees are using bogus social security numbers. The IRS kicks back these numbers but still takes the cash if they file. What we need is a social security card that resembles a California drivers license or Passport, a card that is not made of cheap paper that can be easily counterfeited on any computer.
Recently had to renew my driver’s license my expired license and fingerprints were not enough to prove I was not an illegal, nor was my forty some years of driving history in the state, they wanted to see a passport and a birth certificate. Now this is the slippery slope we are on…showing our papers to get a bank account, a phone, cable TV…
My point is simple, we need low pay workers in this state, especially for agriculture…we are not a rural country any longer…we need a sane program for immigration.
In response to another comment. See in context »Good speech…but kind of off the point of the piece, no?
If you are interested in what I wrote, as opposed to just using it as an opportunity to rant on illegal immigrants, the point was to consider if barring health care to illegal immigrants might end up costing us more in the long run. You might come down on the side of, no – it won’t. That’s cool. But the point of the article was to examine the financial side of it, not the politics.
As for California – a state I’m uniquely interested in as I live in California, a few things–
You might begin by reading my response in these comments to bbbetty. Illegal immigrants are costing California about 1.2 billion a year in Medical payments resulting from emergency room visits-something you indicate you don’t have a problem with in your comment.
As you may know, the federal law requires that ER’s turn nobody away in order to assure we don’t allow anyone to die because they don’t have the money to pay.
As for deporting them once they get their emergency room treatment – okay by me. But let me ask you a question. Have you been to an emergency room in the past decade? Did you wait a long time? If you haven’t, you may just have to trust me when I tell you that emergency rooms waits are at a crisis point. So, you think that now ER employees, who are there to save lives, should now become INS agents…spend their time checking the legality of those wheeled in on a guerney with a gun shot or heart attack. How do you imagine that will impact on waiting times for the other folks – yes, the legal white people –who are in bad need of treatment? They may be less interested in the staff playing deportment cop and more interested in having their lives saved!
As for all of the other problems in California you lay at the feet of illegal immigrants, well ….
I have no doubt that there is a cost attached to the state due to the high volume of undocumented workers in the state. However, the notion that they are the cause for our financial problems is just beyond ridiculous. The cause of our financial problems would fill more space than I have here, but let me just say that some of the state’s leading conservatives are friends of mine — one a recent finance director (Republican) and a well known voice in California on all things budget. He would be the first to tell you that there are issues we have resulting from illegal immigrants but he would laugh you out of the room if you tried to tell him that the illegals were the cause of our financial problems.
He would probably also ask you if you voted for Prop 13? If you said yes, then, if you’re lucky, he might spend some time telling you how YOU are the largest part of the reason this state faces such a horrible problem. I voted for Prop 13. I know how surprised I was when I learned I was part of the problem when I thought I was part of the solution.
I have no problem with E-Verify. The law says that you have to be documented to work and we should follow the law. But do you think that its an accident that employers in the State of California ignore the immigration laws? They do so because they know what I know – if you think our state economy is in trouble now, ask the small business owners in this state what would happen if they had to actually fire all of their illegal employees. That whole small business part of our tax base that constitute our most important employers. Say goodbye because a shocking number of these businesses would be long gone if they had to give up their illegal employees in exchange for the legal employees that come with the highest employer tax contributions, workers comp, etc., etc.,etc. in the country.
I don’t employee illegal, undocumented workers, neither in my workplace nor in my home, so, yeah, I put my money where my mouth is.
By the way, most of the counties in California – being Replubican and conservative, are scratching their heads over your comment that California is a “sanctuary’ state. I think they would tell you that there is nothing “sanctuary” about their county. I’m talking about places like Orange County, Fresno, Bakersfield, and on and on and on. San Francisco? Yes – very much a sanctuary city. But the large cities of S.F. and L.A. are not the state of California.
In response to another comment. See in context »Our local paper, the Mercury News, here in CA just reported that in CA alone, it is costing California taxpayers over $1.2 billion a year for medical treatment for illegal aliens. That does not include the taxpayer subsidized health care illegal alien kids are getting. That is 1/10 of our budget deficit.
The paper has also reported that illegals are costing the state at least $5 billion a year, which is 1/4 of the state’s budget deficit.
So Mr. Ungar obviously does not have the facts when it comes to illegal alien health care costs or uage of services.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that 59% of illegals are without any insurance.
At a medical center in Nevada, it is costing taxpayers $24 million a year for the dialysis treatment for 80 illegal immigrants, a cost that is not reimbursed by the government. Google it.
You should note that the Dept of Homeland Security estimates 70% of foreigners in this country illegally are Mexican. Mexico has national health insurance, yet they come her and force Americans to pay for them to have anchor babies and provide medical treatment.
Illegals should be given emergency treatment, but once stabalized, they should be deported.
If our government enforced our democratically passed immigration laws, instead of refusing so that special interests can benefit, then we would not have the infectious disease problems were are now experiencing.
We were told by our public health official that TB, once wiped out in our county, is now rampant, with all the illegals coming in without being checked. My child caught TB from an illegal kid at school. He would not have if our government had been doing its job.
And on health care reform, just think. Our immigration laws says that employers cannot hire foreigners who are here illegally. But without verification and enforcement, 12 million illegal aliens are using forged documents and stolen ids to illegally obtain jobs. What is to stop them from using the same fraudulent documents to get taxpayer subsidized health care?
It is high time for E verify to implemented nationwide. It is also high time for the Social Security Administration to send employers notice of when there is a discrepancy with respect to the use of a SSN.
It is high time that we return to the rule of law, one law for everyone applied equally.
Right now, the pro illegal immimigration advocates want preferential treatment for lawbreaking Hispanics (the Pew Hisapnic Center study says almost all illlegals are Hispanic), over law abiding people of all other races and ethnic groups, trying to immigrate legally.
Why should Hipanic Americans have a greater right to family reunification with their lawbreaking relatives, than Americans of other races and ethnic groups for thier law abiding relatives?
Pro illegal immigration advocates are racist.
bettybb-
so, here’s the thing — I love disagreement. But if you are going to disagree based on an article, in this case the piece from the Mercury News, you should (a) read the entire article and (b) get the information right from the part you appear to have read. I both read the article and understood it. This is particularly useful if you are going to suggest that “Mr. Ungar obviously does not have the facts when it comes to illegal alien health care costs and useage of service.”
You see, Mr. Ungar does have the facts.
The 1.2 billion dollars you reference is, indeed noted in the article. Of course, if you had kept reading you would have seen that the article points out that health care services for undocumented immigrants in California is limited with the exception of emergency room services. YOou may – or you very well may not – know that emergency services are barred from turning anyone away pursuant to federal law. Futher the 1.2 billion dollars is paid by Medicaid In California this is Medical), which is funded in part by the federal government and part by the state.
As for useage of services, you obviously did not read the remainder of the article so I thought I might reprint it for you here. Maybe you’ll take a moment to read it this time.
“But the most recent Santa Clara County estimate found that about 250 to 300 illegal immigrants a year are admitted to Valley Medical Center after arriving at the emergency department, approximately 3 percent of the hospital’s 10,000 annual emergency room admissions.
“The undocumented cost is not as high as people might imagine,” said spokeswoman Joy Alexiou. “The largest number of our folks who come through the emergency department are uninsured either because they lost their jobs or they lost their health insurance.”
Several recent studies confirm this, revealing California’s uninsured population to be overwhelmingly citizens and other legal residents.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “noncitizens are significantly less likely to use the emergency room than citizens” — some 13 percent of those surveyed, compared to 20 percent of citizens. Some stay away for fear of coming into contact with officials who might report them as undocumented.
In Santa Clara County, the Healthy Kids program, which insures low-income children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medi-Cal, asks no questions about citizenship status. A total of 9,600 kids are now enrolled in the program, which has been replicated in dozens of other California counties.
Yet in a report released last week by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, surveyors found that two-thirds of the state’s uninsured are U.S. citizens; of 51,000 households surveyed, another 15 percent were legal residents, and 20 percent were noncitizens without green cards.
“This is a population that is obviously not draining down public services, or even private services,” said Shana Alex Lavarreda, director of the nonpartisan center’s insurance studies. “They’re just uninsured.”
Now, if you want to argue as to whether or not we should make emergency room services available to illegal immigrants, or allow them to die if that is your preference, this is certainly your right and you are very welcome to make such an argument here.
In response to another comment. See in context »But, if you are going to accuse me of not having the facts, something I take rather personally as you may have noted, you better be prepared to have yours correctly. In this instance, you most certainly do not.
Does it matter where the $ is coming from? It is STILL 1.2 billion of taxpayer $! – going to people who are here illegally!
In response to another comment. See in context »What do you suggest we do with these illegal immigrants who come to the emergency rooms (which is where the money is being spent)?
In response to another comment. See in context »By the way, bettybb-
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m truly very sorry that you had to go through a terrible experience of having a child with TB. Given this terrible ordeal you had to live through, you might consider another approach. I know that you-like me- feel that your child’s health is more important than any amount of money. Would you not have been better off if we created an environment in California where an illegal immigrant or anyone else could safely go into a clinic without fear of being “caught” or turned away because they have no insurance coverage, to be treated for their illness. Had that been the case, maybe you and your son could have spared the ordeal. I pay alot of taxes in California and I would gladly pay a little more to protect your son and my own.It kind of goes to the point of my article — it can, in the long run, be less expensive in both health and costs to make care available to these people in the proper setting. See my point?
betty- I keep coming back to your comment because I find it is troubling me.
I don’t think you are wrong for being concerned about the impact illegal immigration has on our economy and, in your case, your son’s health. I do think your racist comment was a bit over the top, but I think I can understand why you might be so upset.
I would just say this to you because you appear to have so much anger o this topic. I presume you were born in this country as was I. Let’s face it – we lucked out. We didn’t do anything more than get lucky in the fact that we were born in this country and all the things available to us as a result.
The people who are coming here- yes, illegally- want the same thing you and I want. They want a better life for their own family, whether here in the US or back in their own home where they are able to live better because of the money their parent sends back for them to live on – more money than that parent could hope to earn for his or her family in their country of origin. Can you blame them? Wouldn’t you do most anything to make life better for your family?
I don’t defend breaking the law and I understand that our government’s priority needs to by its own citizens. But should you really hate these people for trying to do better for their families? After all, it is exactly what you are trying to do – preserve what we have in this country for the benefit of your own family.
I’m not saying you should endorse, agree or accept people breaking the law and I think our laws should be upheld. But I don’t think that needs to be accompanied by hatred for people who only want the same thing we want.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t blame anyone for wanting a better life. Just do it legally!
In response to another comment. See in context »Yet your comments appear to reveal an element of hate that is inconsistent with this statement.
In response to another comment. See in context »Long comment, Brit, but worth reading. I don’t think the wall is worth much but E-verify in conjunction with fines and jailtime for illegal *employers* would do the trick if only we wanted it done.
The fact is, as you allude to, that too many “Amerikaners,” seemingly on the other end of the spectrum from the Beck/Wilson/Limbaugh dorkacracy like having our own American bantustan, with over 40 million people, perhaps half illegals, living in poverty, cleaning our toilets and plucking our chickens. And then feeling good about “helping our little brown brothers.” Lord, it’s thick, it’s it?
Rick, we should not be thinking of the necessity of quasi-legalizing illegal immigration, we should be implementing the policies that get them out of the USA. Let’s not let policy be made by the proverbial wagging tail but by what’s the greatest good. Making 33 million new Americans per decade is about as far from the greatest good as one can get.
bob
1. Where did I say anything about making more people legal? What I’m saying is let’s get the emotion (which you clearly feel) and the politics out of it and do the math. Like it or not, these people are here. If you threw the net tomorrow, you couldn’t get them all out. Since that is reality, what is the the most cost effective way to protect our families’ health and our national and state pocketbooks? That’s the point.
2. Interesting think I’ve noted today. I read one liberal referring to conservatives as “Americkaners”. Now I notice that you, coming at it from a more conservative perspective, calling the liberals “Amerikaners” i”m wondering where the whole Amerikaner thing is coming from as I feel like I missed something along the way.
In response to another comment. See in context »Haven’t we already done the amnesty thing?
The problem with repeated amnesty is that illegals won’t get the message. We are a nation of pansies and the rest of the world knows it!
If Americas problems were handled with good parenting skills, we would be better off. Eg, I tell my child not to lie. It’s wrong. Now, when she lies, there’s a consequence. What are we saying to illegals when we provide amnesty every few years? “Duh, sure, come on in…I know it’s wrong, but don’t worry…we’ll reward you with citizenship in a few years…” This is what we do?!
No! I’m not against immigration! Just do it the right (legal) way! And if you don’t, then we send you home!
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick,
1. I didn’t say you support legalizing those illegals currently here. I said, “we should not be thinking of the necessity of quasi-legalizing illegal immigration, we should be implementing the policies that get them out of the USA.” Quasi-legalization includes providing of medical care for illegals and their families, granting of driver’s licenses, not handing traffic offenders over to INS, etc.
When you say, “even if we threw the net we couldn’t get them all out,” you are thus resigning us to quasi-legalization policies. We can get them all out (exclamation point). How? Jailtime for illegal *employers*. Obama is quietly doing that. Read liberal columnist Froma Harrop. This is The Policy Page. So what about *that* policy, Rick?
2. I hadn’t ever seen the use of the word of Amerikaner to describe the winking American mentality concerning illegal immigrants but it perfectly well jibes with the economic reality: these unfortunate people are a major constituent of our own American bantustan–40 million people living in poverty. Bantustans, we’ll recall, were bogus, impoverished “nations” within South Africa, pretending at self-rule, Very satisfying to the power elite.
So, I use the term “Amerikaner” to describe the self-deluded elite who pretend to love our illegal underclass but secretly just like having cheap servants in their homes and low labor costs in their businesses.
Finally, back to the topic, I’ll accept the premise that the illegal immigrant impact on medical costs is *merely* $5 billion, but in CA, with perhaps a third of the nations illegals, that totals $1.7 billion. ER’s, the usual first resort of illegals I’d suppose, have closed all over the state. Those that remain simply pass along the cost of pro bono care to those who *can* pay. Like the $13,000 bill we got for a 48-hour hospital stay, five meals, two short blood panels and four bottles of saline solution (exclamation point).
In response to another comment. See in context »Again, Rick, is this good policy?
You are spot on…we have immigrants coming from countries that have lots of exotic pathogens and poor record of immunizations of things like smallpox and measles and malaria, if they get sick and cannot be treated all of us are in trouble. We should keep in mind that Aids, West Nile, and now Swine flu are all imported. The bird flu is next on the impossible people to people killer. Thankfully small pox is nearly extinct or a policy of excluding the sick could be suicidal for a city.
Another silly issue is this no money for abortions…that will go far to warm women to the Republican party…deny them a constitutional right.
So, lib -do you think this is a reason to treat them when they get here or a reason to be more effective at keeping them out…or both?
In response to another comment. See in context »We should treat them, it is the right think to do morally, legally and for the public’s safety. I do think illegals are impacting jobs beyond kitchen and agricultural jobs however they now dominate the construction industry in California where an American contractor will bid a job and then use illegals to do the work.
Now as a whole I find illegals as extremely hard working and usually they are sending money back home to their families but they are exploited.
In response to another comment. See in context »Illegally entering this country is not an “immigration issue.” It’s a law issue.
Monkeys who perceive an injustice will act against their own interests for revenge on the unfair monkeys. Humans have the same tendency; the behavioral economists have reproduced the result in experiment after experiment. This syndrome infects the “illegal immigrant” discussion. The anti-II crowd are willing to cut off their own noses to spite the face of those they don’t feel have “earned” the right to the benefits of American citizenship.
As a result, Rick, I’m afraid your reasoned plea will fall on deaf ears. Those that blame their own problems on illegals want revenge not sound economics.
Good comment, mristerb! Really good! If you don’t mind, I may use this point in a future post on this. I will credit you!
In response to another comment. See in context »Those who bring up the undocumented aliens issue up in regard to the health care debate don’t give a damn about the costs. This is all about keeping their rabid base ginned up and nothing more. Just watch and see what happens as the debate to repeal DOMA moves center stage (very soon).
True that!
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick,
I would like you to consider whether or not it is part of the T/S ethos to encourage the kind of dialogue that you are encouraging. Here are your last two exchanges:
1) “As a result, Rick, I’m afraid your reasoned plea will fall on deaf ears. Those that blame their own problems on illegals want revenge not sound economics.” (ad hominem, accusatory and prejudicial comment)
To which, you, Rick, responded, “Good comment, mristerb! Really good! ”
2) “Those who bring up the undocumented aliens issue up in regard to the health care debate don’t give a damn about the costs. This is all about keeping their rabid base ginned up and nothing more.” (ad hominem, accusatory and derogatory comment.)
To which you, Rick, responded, “True that!.”
Personally, I am not a racist, I don’t blame illegals for my problems, I don’t want revenge on this unfortunate class of people, I do want sound economics, I do care about costs, I don’t want to keep anyone “ginned up”, AND I do want the illegal immigrant industry shut down–by penalizing illegal *employers* with fines and/or jail.
I suggest you apologize and either 1) try to hunker down on the article or 2) pull the plug on this discussion and move on. In either case, you will need to moderate the discussion better than you have.
In response to another comment. See in context »Still, I hope you’ll stick with the topic, difficult as it is. There is very little space for progressives to make our case against this massive subsidy to Biz and to the servant-keeping classes.
Bob – an interesting comment and more than a little confusing.
First, you picked one line of misterb’s comment that I responded to. I think you should have printed his entire comment. I not only think it was a great comment, I actually used it today in a post that I wrote. So, I’m afraid I have a very different point of view than you might with respect to his comment.
Secondly, I happen to completely agree with the second comment you reference. While it may be ad hominem, I would welcome you to watch the video tape of the demonstration in Washington this past Saturday. Are you suggesting that the people who compare Obama to Hitler, not to mention the other racially motivated attacks are non ad hominem? Why would you imagine I have an obligation to avoid such issues?
You then appear to be castigating me for not staying on-topic, if I understand you correctly. This is particularly confusing. If you have a moment, please read the original post. Then read your own comments to the post. I can’t quite see where you have stayed on point, therefore you seem to be saying that I should have, somehow, moderated you out of the discussion. I don’t agree.
For starters, I don’t remove people’s comments. Sometimes I call them out to make them more available to others on the site but I don’t erase comments. That would not be the True/Slant ethos.
So, with all due respect, I just can’t figure out what or why you feel I owe some apology. I am very pleased that you come to read this post. I think you might agree that work very hard to respond to comments. But I’m not going to edit people out because you aren’t comfortable with what they say and I’m not going to be dishonest in my own comments when I feel a certain way. Frankly, I don’t see where I was disrespectful to anyone. I also don’t see where the two comments were such that they would intimate that anyone is a racist. That simply played no role in those comments.
There were, however, a number of comments to this post that I found very angry and hateful with respect to illegal immigrants. You will notice that I did not remove those posts and, in fact, responded to them and called them out to give them due attention.
As I say, I am very pleased that you choose to read this page- and I will most certainly continue the conversation on this issue.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, and Bob, I just went back and looked again at the second comment I responded to which troubled you. What I was responding to with my “true that” was the part of Brian’s comment where he referenced what was going to happen when DOMA comes up. Sorry, but I think he’s absolutely right. I, frankly, also agree that many of the people who are shouting about illegal immigrants are not concerned about the economics- its about something else, as Brian suggests. If they were concerned about the economics, why did they not take the information I provided in the post and do some research on this rather that simply reacting with all those angry comments = not directed at me but towards illegal immigrants? What exactly was wrong with Brian’s comments? Brian and I disagree often- just ask him! But when I think he’s right, why should I not say so?
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey y’all, sorry I came late to the party.
As this whole healthcare issue has been playing out, it has been interesting to see how much ire has been raised. What is it about healthcare that makes so much difference? The sticking point on gay marriage? Healthcare. The big question on illegal immigrants? Healthcare. What really engages the public mind with domestic poverty? Healthcare. Why?
As to illegal immigrants, what strikes me, is half of the term itself. Illegal. That means there are those who are allowed, and those who are not. What are the methods we use to determine who comes and who comes illegally? How productive they, what their skills are, where they are from, etc. This is prejudice, and mostly on a class scale. There was a time when “illegal immigrants” wasn’t a phrase used. We wanted anyone and everyone. Some people think there would be a flood of new immigrants. I disagree. Most who want to come, do, just illegally. If they were legal, we would gain tax revenue, and spend less money on keeping out people, and we could spend that saving on….something.
Placing our privileged selves in their Third World bare feet is a humbling experience. I would do whatever it took to get myself from Africa, Latin America, or most of Asia, to somewhere better. Kinda about freedom when you look at differently. I’m pretty sure we like freedom in America.
Illegal aliens get FREE healthcare now! Imagine that! You are in this Country ILLEGALLY and get FREE health care!
Illegal aliens have made America the dumping ground for all their illegal alien children, then we have to school them and give them free medical care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSe3C5vMafM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZnX9JRo5M&NR=1
I for one, am sick and tired of these ILLEGAL ALIENS snubbing their nose at our immigration laws and the many other laws of this Country. If our Federal Government can not ENFORCE our immigration laws, and get these ILLEGAL ALIENS out of this Country, then let the States do it! One way or another, an end has to come to this illegal immigration, and not with AMNESTY! Amnesty will only encourage more ILLEGAL ALIENS to invade our Country and reward those who broke our laws and raped the American taxpayer in many ways…depressing our wages, taking our jobs, overwhelming our schools with their ILLEGAL ALIEN children, driving without a license or car insurance, all the crime from stolen identities to rape, drugs and everything else.
It’s time for ZERO TOLERENCE with these ILLEGAL ALIENS. It’s time for them get out of this Country and back in their own Country where they belong. When we get rid of the ILLEGAL ALIENS, we will get rid of all the problems that go with them. THAT IS A FACT!
Don’t hold back delewarebob, tell us how you really feel!
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian,
In response to another comment. See in context »I have mixed feelings when I read these rants. On the one hand, my family is of mixed ethnicities, Jewish/Chinese, and so my hackles go up when I contemplate the psychic space from whence come some of these rants I encounter. But on the other hand, the high levels of immigration, both illegal and illegal, have profound impacts on wages, fiscal solvency, the culture of crime and on the environment, both national and global.
Instead of putting yourself into the place of an illegal immigrant try also to put yourself truly in the place of a Sumatran, human or rhino or tiger, whose forest abode is being decimated to make patio furniture, or fry oil or SUV tires for the average American. What would they want our policy to be? To keep adding 33 million apex consumers a decade or to stabilize/reduce our population? To switch from a growth economy to a sustainable economy not based on an endless stream of exploitable labor and resources, to reduce our aggregate consumption?
Huh? Do you even see the rank hypocrisy of what you wrote Bob? Let me break it down for you, if I may;
“But on the other hand, the high levels of immigration, both illegal and illegal, have profound impacts on wages, fiscal solvency, the culture of crime and on the environment, both national and global.”
That argument is as old as immigration itself, hence saying like “coolie wages” and “no Jews allowed” Seems you know very little about your own ethnic history. And frankly who the hell are you to be telling people they should be living a subsistence existence because it suits your environmental policies. Do you even realize how amazingly smug that attitude of yours is?
In response to another comment. See in context »Seems this topic brings out the worst in everyone, Brian. Angry flaming all over the place. But I’ll overlook the bait to point out the issue I *think* you’re getting at (unless your issue is simply venting anger).
In response to another comment. See in context »Let me explain to you how I understand the ethnic history of this country. This country was built on the premise of discrimination and slavery, slave wages. In approximate order: indentured servants, slaves, Irish, Chinese, Italians, Jews, Eastern Europeans and finally, with the election of a Afro-American president, having come to the end of overt discrimination, now on illegal immigrants. I don’t see the smugness in recognizing a pattern of discrimination and exploitation and trying to put a stop to it.
If you believe as I do that American over-consumption has massive impacts on forests, the climate, indigenous economies then where is the greater good in creating 33 million new Americans a decade?
Smug or not smug, do you actually think turning everyone into Americans is a solution to global poverty? And who gets to be an American? Shouldn’t we be sending tickets to Central Africans in consideration of their distance from our porous border?
BTW, Mexico, the largest sending country, is a wealthy nation able to afford all its citizens the standard of living of the world average, not far below Hungary, Slovakia or Poland. It isn’t my fault that Mexico keeps 40 million of its people in poverty. And if you’d like to see our nation stop keeping its own 40 million people in economically-structured poverty you’ll try to understand what I’m putting forth here.
(I don’t mind furthering the discussion, but you’ll need to keep a civil tongue, Brian.)
OK, back to my near-vegan diet, my electric bike in place of a car for about 4,000 miles a year and our $13/month per person electric bill.
Your “I have mine so screw them attitude” doesn’t really warrant civil discourse, so no I’ll pass on further discussion with you on this subject, I think I’ve made my view pretty clear as to what I think of what you put fourth.
That’s not my attitude, as I explained, but have a nice day. And while you’re having a nice day think about just how many Americans the rest of the world can tolerate. No one has a right to be an “American”, not the kind we are, with our a/c, our suvs, our beef, our large pets, our faraway vacations. I don’t suffer liberal guilt; I simply continue to reduce my consumption . . . and lobby for a sustainable America that isn’t pillaging those not “lucky” enough to be us.
Now you’re blaming the world’s woes on my dogs, too friggin funny.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oookaayy-
First, being Jewish is a religion – not an ethnic. I’m Jewish but that is my religion – not my ethnicity.
Secondly. Bob – any chance you might have at making your point (although I have to admit that Brian seems to understand what you are saying better than I do)- is pretty much destroyed by the following statement –
“BTW, Mexico, the largest sending country, is a wealthy nation able to afford all its citizens the standard of living of the world average, not far below Hungary, Slovakia or Poland.”
Are you kidding here? Clearly, you don’t understand the first thing about Mexico. For instance, you don’t understand that the economy of Mexico is diversely different in the North than in the South. You clearly have no idea what life is like in Southern Mexico where poverty is beyond anything you can conceive. I could go on, but there are books written about this and I only have the space allowed here to comment.
Tell you something else you might not understand- since so much of your comment is based in American history, you might want to spend a little time studying American history as it pertains to virtual theft of the western states from the nation of Mexico. Did you know that when the US ripped off the California territory, gold was discovered in Northern California two years later? Did you know that had Mexico retained this territory these additional two years, the entire development of North America would have been very different indeed. Again, this simply scratches the surface.
Finally, Bob – first you castigated me for the conduct of my blog asking me to apologize for something that still remains a mystery to me and seeking to define the ethos of True/Slant for me. Now you are telling Brian how to behave on my blog. All due respect, Bob – why don’t you leave it to me to police my own page? I’m the one who does the work that brings the commenters and I don’t recall having appointed you as my the blog cop. Frankly, its really offensive. My suggestion would be that you get your own blogging opportunity where you will have every right to police it in the manner you choose. As I’ve said previously, you are more than welcomed here. You have an interesting point of view. But your efforts to decide what is best for my page and how it is conducted are insulting and I would appreciate it if you would knock it off.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick,
In response to another comment. See in context »Basta ya! This is tedious. I speak fluent Spanish and have delightedly travelled the length of Mexico four times, train/car, and spent a summer in Chiapas, southernmost state, working on a medical project two days horse ride from the nearest road, where I saw indigenous peoples who speak no Spanish made landless by the signature of a single judge in Mexico DF. Met Zapatistas before the term was coined.
Perhaps you should reconsider your statement that I clearly don’t understand the first thing about Mexico, Rick.
Also, Mexico has a terrible Gini Index. Though its per capita income is not far below Poland, Hungary or Slovakia, its 40% poverty rate, its 40 million people in poverty, is due to its corrupt, feudalistic and racist government. If wealth were evenly distributed in Mexico, the average family of five would have a household income of $40,000/year. Check nationmasters.com or any other source.
Yes, having passed history in high school, I am aware of the injustices Americans have inflicted on Mexico, and, Rick, having also read about ecological collapse, I still do not think it’s a good idea for the US to be growing at 33 million people a decade. Do you? If so, why? If not, what do you propose?
We could and should pay reparations in some form to Mexico. But having Mexicans and other immigrants become USAmericans is to inflict a strange revenge on all the other unfortunate people of the world who have to breath the fumes from our tailpipe.
Anyway, I’m glad you are policing your blog now. I’ll be happy to answer your questions and clarify my positions as soon as I can get to it, but I didn’t feel like being in a shouting match, exclamations points, and all.
BTW, Jewish religion, ethnicity and nationality are interrelated and not clearly distinguishable. For example, I consider myself an ethnic/cultural Jew, who does not practice Judaism and who has not accepted Israel’s standing offer of citizenship to all Jews.
Well, bob, so long as you’ve determined that Jewish is a combined religion, ethic and whatever, I guess that about settles it. We don’t really need to contemplate what religious experts have to say about this,After all, you appear to have the matter settled. And to make sure that this issue is henceforth viewed according to your own dictates, I’ve sent your comment along to my old friend who is the President of the American Jewish University here in Los Angeles. I would, in turn, pass along his comment to your particular definition of Judaism but I know you are a bit on the sensitive side, so why go there?
You know, I had forgotten when responding earlier today to your comments to my “empathy” piece that you were the fellow who chided me for not properly policing my post. While I hadn’t realize, prior to your notifying me, that this was your role to determine, I can’t tell you how pleased I am that you are now somewhat more satisfied with the job I’m doing in this regard. What a relief!
And how was I to know that you were an expert in Mexico! I mean, four car trips and a week n Chiapas! I simply could not be more embarrassed. And while I tremble at the notion of disagreeing with an expert, I feel I should point out to other readers who may view this comment that the poverty rate is estimated to be closer to 50% under the poverty level with a full 20% living in extreme poverty. With the expected 7% contraction in the Mexican economy this year, the number is, sadly, likely to grow worse.
As for your remarkably oversimplified explanation of the reasons and causes of poverty in Mexico, I hardly know where to begin. Nevertheless, I will be sure to let my friends who teach economics at University of Guadalajara know of your theories so they can re-write their text books. Please don’t misunderstand-I only lived in Mexico for seven years so I wouldn’t pretend to have your depth of knowledge. And as I only served as a consultant to the State of Jalisco on developing their software and video gaming industries as a mechanism to improve sectors of the economy, continue to consult the largest mobile phone chip manufacturer in the country and still speak each year to the largest software association in that country, I recognize that I should defer to your week with the Zapatistas… before they were Zapatistas.
Finally, as for the tedium I am causing you, I certainly understand and am most apologetic. It must be most difficult for a learned man such as yourself, expert in law, the history of nations and their economies and one of the great philosophical thinkers of our day to put up with so weak a mind that is, sadly, my cross to bear. But I think we both know the solution to that one, yes?
Seriously, Bob, I work really hard to keep up with commenters to the blog. I try to answer and debate with everyone whom I can. With all due respect, bloggers who just want to show us all how smart they are really aren’t looking for debate. So, henceforth, I will give you none. Write whatever you wish. Complain about my perceived hostility. Chide me for not doing my job to your satisfaction. Hey, whatever makes you happy. I’m here to please.
Since you speak fluent Spanish, you will understand the following:
In response to another comment. See in context »No voy a comunicar con usted!
(slang spanish…I learned it by speaking it.)