Born in the USA

[30A Skunkape]

Skunky et al:

Riddle me this-
why now?

We have citizens and elected officials wanting to amend an amendment to the constitution that's been in place for well over a century. Why the call to action today when violence in AZ is on a three year + downward trend, when deportations are on an upward trend, when the national guard has been committed to the borders, etc etc. Why not 4 years ago? Or 8 years ago? Why not 12 years ago or 16 years ago? Why now?

P.S. Same question for mass tea party protests against spending and taxes. Why now instead of during other recent times when spending was out of control and taxes were where they are now or worse?

I don't know that the Constitution needs to be amendeded for rational immigation reform. I am not concerned about violence, gangs, drugs, etc. Those arguments are the refuge of the racists and politicians whipping up the masses. My big concerns are a general sense of ignoring the laws and the ultimate exploitation of the illegals. I admire the spunk and work ethic the illegals have. There was a camp, and I do mean camp, of them in a vacant lot across the street from us in post Katrina New Orleans. I never fealt threatened by them...they were there to make money and worked their butts off. I gave them some old t-shirts I no longer needed one day and you would have thought I was handing out cash. Sadly, these shadow workers are often exploited with bad wages, unsafe working conditions, etc.

The high irony is that if there was a magic wand a tea party guy could wave and 'make them all go away', our cost of living would go up. That is a dirty little secret nobody wants to discuss, but it is true. Mango posted some excellent links a year or so ago, and it turns out that the cost of absorbing the illegals is a bargain when consideration is given to the cheap labor they provide. In dollars and cents, the status quo makes perfect sense. I was swayed by a debate on NPR a month or two ago when the human misery of illegals was taken into consideration. God help us all if we tolerate human exploitation in the name of cheap lettuce and $8.99 meals at Applebee's. The fact is that we need to make some difficult choices in regards to immigration, there are no silver bullets.

 

[Geo]

ALeonard, I hear ya but the hospital policy isn't to require ID and expect paymnent from only English speaking white people who can afford to pay.

If you went in without the ability to produce ID or form of payment you wouldn't be turned away.

So the same standards apply.

 

[Geo]

Great post, Skunky

 

[Alicia Leonard]

ALeonard, I hear ya but the hospital policy isn't to require ID and expect paymnent from only English speaking white people who can afford to pay.

If you went in without the ability to produce ID or form of payment you wouldn't be turned away.

So the same standards apply.

I said a health clinic and I worked social services Geo. I've been in the middle of this.You can sit there and tell me whatever you think it can or cannot do. I've seen it.

A hospital can triage you and if it is not deemed an emergency can turn you away. They do it every day.

 

[Bob]

I heard something last week about (and I might be wrong baout the statistic) one in five newborns here being delivered to an illegal immigrant. I don't care where they are from, it just violates common sense that being born here equates to citizenship. Forty weeks and a Social Security number...it isn't right.

Bob has simply determined some time ago that anyone who is concerned about illegal immigrants fears hispanics taking over. It is lazy thinking on Bob el loco's part.

this neer do well determined some time ago those protesting the loudest were lacking mellanin. the gentle epiphany happened to me some time ago, tv remote in hand, fully involved in the afterglow of pacifico and refritos. the channel was stuck on flocks news, and rachel maddow was being burned in effigy by heathens raised on meat loaf. i could feel the anguish of the pasty people, whose perspiring pink foreheads only hinted at the frustration of not ever having experienced ritualistic carbo induced mid afternoon rem.

 

[Geo]

I said a health clinic and I worked social services Geo. I've been in the middle of this.You can sit there and tell me whatever you think it can or cannot do. I've seen it.

A hospital can triage you and if it is not deemed an emergency can turn you away. They do it every day.

Ok, ok. But before we get too far into a discussion of hospitals' practice of providing/denying care to poor people let's remember we're discussing the idea that folks want to amend the constitution so that when the pregnant woman you mentioned is admitted and has a baby it won't be a citizen. How would this have changed the issue you bring up? I don't think it has much if anything to do with it. Whether or not the pregnant woman who can't speak English's baby ends up being an instant citizen will have no bearing on whether or not she is admitted.

 

[Alicia Leonard]

Ok, ok. But before we get too far into a discussion of hospitals' practice of providing/denying care to poor people let's remember we're discussing the idea that folks want to amend the constitution so that when the pregnant woman you mentioned is admitted and has a baby it won't be a citizen. How would this have changed the issue you bring up? I don't think it has much if anything to do with it. Whether or not the pregnant woman who can't speak English's baby ends up being an instant citizen will have no bearing on whether or not she is admitted.

No, my question was why does a non-citizen receive a level of care that a citizen cannot? I asked why are we not all held to the same standard?
It's just one more facet in the issue of illegal immigration and health care. Where, surprisingly enough, illegal immigration does not eat up more revenue than the uninsured. They are about equal if the physicians I interviewed in the past are correct. My original statement said it was something I could not understand, why there was a separate track for illegal immigrant mothers. It seems the only point you heard as you keep repeating it, was they did not speak English. I asked a question. Why not hold us to the same standard? Not that anyone in the scenario was bad for any reason. And I stand by my belief that much of it could be solved if one parent was a citizen, since it does not seem that anyone can get it together to secure the borders. People want to talk about fraud in health care, a lot of it goes on in this type of scenario as well since it is almost all publicly funded. Treat me the same if we both present, that was my point.

 

[Geo]

No, my question was why does a non-citizen receive a level of care that a citizen cannot? I asked why are we not all held to the same standard?
It's just one more facet in the issue of illegal immigration and health care. Where, surprisingly enough, illegal immigration does not eat up more revenue than the uninsured. They are about equal if the physicians I interviewed in the past are correct. My original statement said it was something I could not understand, why there was a separate track for illegal immigrant mothers. It seems the only point you heard as you keep repeating it, was they did not speak English. I asked a question. Why not hold us to the same standard? Not that anyone in the scenario was bad for any reason. And I stand by my belief that much of it could be solved if one parent was a citizen, since it does not seem that anyone can get it together to secure the borders. People want to talk about fraud in health care, a lot of it goes on in this type of scenario as well since it is almost all publicly funded. Treat me the same if we both present, that was my point.

I thought I was with you but maybe not.

I honestly don't mean to make it sound like I am stuck on/making it about whether or not illegals speak English. I only said that cuz I thought the crux of where you started was:

1) non-English speaking woman
2) no ID
3) receives services

Here's your quote-

A non-english speaking woman without id can receive services and will not be asked for the same info. They can bring a note from a neighbor, or nothing.

I don't know if we view the situation the same. I don't see it as a case of citizen vs. illegal. I see it as Have vs. Have Not. Correct me if I am wrong but my belief is if a pregnant woman goes to the ER that she and her baby will receive care whether she does/does not have insurance, is rich or is poor, is white or brown, speaks english or not, is legal or illegal.



As such, I *am* of the belief that the same standard applies- you will receive care whether you can afford it or not.

I'm not of the perspective that it is unfair when both people receive treatment- the one with insurance who can afford to pay their bills and the poor person without insurance who has no clue how to pay. Both should be able to have their babies wherever they are at the time and any issues with creditors or the INS can be dealt with another time. Maybe if we were talking about nose jobs and calf implants I might agree.

But regardless of if we agree or disagree on whether the standard is really the same in this scenario I am still of the opinion that it has nothing to do with the issue of changing the 14th amendment.

The poor person having the baby can't afford to pay (but won't be turned away) whether that baby is given citizen status or not.

EDIT: I seek to understand you.
What is the heart of your beef? That they are illegal and still receive care? That there doesn't seem to be an expectation that they can pay but there is with you? That there doesn't seem to be an expectation for them to fill out forms and provide ID but there is with you?

 

[Alicia Leonard]

I thought I was with you but maybe not.

I honestly don't mean to make it sound like I am stuck on/making it about whether or not illegals speak English. I only said that cuz I thought the crux of where you started was:

1) non-English speaking woman
2) no ID
3) receives services

Here's your quote-


I don't know if we view the situation the same. I don't see it as a case of citizen vs. illegal. I see it as Have vs. Have Not. Correct me if I am wrong but my belief is if a pregnant woman goes to the ER that she and her baby will receive care whether she does/does not have insurance, is rich or is poor, is white or brown, speaks english or not, is legal or illegal.



As such, I *am* of the belief that the same standard applies- you will receive care whether you can afford it or not.

I'm not of the perspective that it is unfair when both people receive treatment- the one with insurance who can afford to pay their bills and the poor person without insurance who has no clue how to pay. Both should be able to have their babies wherever they are at the time and any issues with creditors or the INS can be dealt with another time. Maybe if we were talking about nose jobs and calf implants I might agree.

But regardless of if we agree or disagree on whether the standard is really the same in this scenario I am still of the opinion that it has nothing to do with the issue of changing the 14th amendment.

The poor person having the baby can't afford to pay (but won't be turned away) whether that baby is given citizen status or not.

EDIT: I seek to understand you.
What is the heart of your beef? That they are illegal and still receive care? That there doesn't seem to be an expectation that they can pay but there is with you? That there doesn't seem to be an expectation for them to fill out forms and provide ID but there is with you?

They are both poor, one is a citizen, one is not. They present at a clinic, not a hospital. One has to give information, because they are a citizen, the non-citizen does not. That was the point, Why not come here and have a child if it is easier for a non-citizen than a citizen. Period.

Edit, of course both deserve care, but the one who cannot afford it and is a citizen will be looked at inside and out, have to jump through hoops and stacks of paperwork and if their spouse or so has a job, probably be billed at some point, when they are no better economically than the one who does not have to supply info, because they have none.

 

[Geo]

They are both poor, one is a citizen, one is not. They present at a clinic, not a hospital. One has to give information, because they are a citizen, the non-citizen does not. That was the point, Why not come here and have a child if it is easier for a non-citizen than a citizen. Period.

So then you're saying that you'd either

A) prefer not to have to provide information at the clinic like the illegal
B) prefer that the illegal be required to provide information at the clinic like everyone else

Am I with you?