The appallingness continues to escalate. From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — Under a new federal policy, children born in the United States to illegal immigrants with low incomes will no longer be automatically entitled to health insurance through Medicaid, Bush administration officials said Thursday.
Doctors and hospitals said the policy change would make it more difficult for such infants, who are United States citizens, to obtain health care needed in the first year of life. […]
Marilyn E. Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Medicaid program, said: “The federal government told us we have no latitude. All states must change their policies and practices. We will not be able to cover any services for the newborn until a Medicaid application is filed. That could be days, weeks or months after the child is born.” […]
The Bush administration claims that they have no choice under the Deficit Reduction Act. But although the DRA does tighten immigration requirements, it doesn’t say a word about infants; nor are infants born in the USA immigrants. They’re citizens, just as American as Bush’s own daughters. More from the Times article:
Doctors and hospitals denounced the policy change and denied that it was required by the new law. Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the policy “punishes babies who, according to the Constitution, are citizens because they were born here.”
Yet another example of how the “pro-life” party doesn’t give a damn about babies once they’re born. Medical care during the first year of a baby’s life shouldn’t be subject to a months-long wait for the government to process papers, and it shouldn’t place non-citizen parents in the position of thinking that they have to choose between exposing themselves to the INS and providing their child with the healthcare it needs.
Curtsy: Tennessee Guerilla Women.
Aside from the injustice, this is only going to cost more money. Just like having lots of uninsured people costs more because of emergency room bills and delays.
Republicans: The Party of Bad Economics and Heartless Villains
So let me see if I follow: they’re going to withhold Medicare benefits from eligible citizens because of who their parents are?
I’m no fan of illegal aliens, but this seems wrong to me, both from the legal viewpoint and from (more importantly) a moral one.
If we are going to give free healthcare away to children of illegal immigrants just because those babies are US citizens, we’re only going to encourage illegal immigration.
I’m actually surprised that this comment hasn’t been made here yet.
Oh, and for those of you wondering, that was sarcasm.
They aren’t withholding benefits from anyone. They are requiring that people using Medicaid file a Medicaid application.
Since the headline is “Republicans Take Healthcare Away From Newborns”, then it seems to me that you have already decided that illegal immigrant parents would rather let their child suffer than place themselves in any risk from the INS.
Real nice!
Oh, but they shouldn’t be placed in such situation, apparently because them brown people can not make good choices for their children without the intervention of wise leftists.
To clarify:
If your argument is that there shouldn’t be any sactions to illegal immigrant parents, then write so, but the headline is dishonest.
Because exposing themselves to the INS certainly wouldn’t do anything bad to their children.
What Barry has “already decided” is not the point here, nor is whether he is “nice” or not. The reality is, that some will, and some won’t. Thus the effect of the policy is that some newborn US citizens will get care, and some won’t, who otherwise would have.
Because there really are only two possible choices. Either every brown person makes good choices for their children (assuming that there are any good choices to be made). Or brown people are incapable of making good choices for their children. There’s no possibility that some brown people might be incapable of making good choices or that some may be capable of it, but don’t. Just like white parents.
That doesn’t appear to be his argument at all. He appears to be concerned about the healthcare of newborn babies, not about sanctions to illegal immigrants.
Here’s what the article said about the old system:
This system ensures that US citizens born of indigent parents can get care up to the age of 1. It does not grant any healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants. The only possible effect, therefore, of the policy change is to deny some US citizens of healthcare benefits. Amp’s title looks fine to me.
In other words, no one sees a problem about illegal immigrants practically using their babies as hostages?
False dilemma, Amp cares very much about preventing any and all sanctions to illegal immigrants, or “illegal” immigrants, as he likes to call them. His sudden heartfelt concern for enforcing citizenship benefits to babies who are legally citizens strikes me as bit hollow.
Hell, if the law didn’t state that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen he would support free healtcare for them anyway.
So, Tuomas, you’re saying that I’m a racist who thinks that “brown people” are stupid. Do I have that right? Because that’s what the above sentence implies.
I’d like to clarify that before I answer the rest of your comments.
Hey, I’m not a thought police.
I’m not asking you to be thought police. I’m asking you to explicitly explain what you intended when you wrote “because them brown people can not make good choices for their children without the intervention of wise leftists.”
Are you willing to explain your own words, or not?
I am saying that it can certainly be interpreted that way, and without any more unreasonable bad faith than this article is.
Tuomas:
Good God, Tuomas, you really are King of the Strawmen today.
There’s a simple observation here: If you make something harder to do, fewer people will do it. In this case, if you make it harder for people to get medical care for their children, fewer people will get medical care for their children. You don’t need to attribute incompetence or malice to the groups of people affected to come to that conclusion.
I am saying that you are leaving out the possibility of illegal immigrants actually doing the paper work (despite possible consequences) instead putting it all on the government.
As far as I can see, the responsibility of illegal immigrant parents is removed in your equation, as is the possibilty that they would behave differently. (Of course, I’m not saying that they will act as a hivemind, but the possibility for acting to the benefit of children should be included, thus the headline is dishonest and misleading).
Tuomas:
I think it is unreasonable and bad faith, given Amp’s consistent opposition to racism and classism
It is also a common rightwing strawman
(I might clarify that I was responding to an earlier version of this post that included a sentence since edited out. I read it earlier, and responded later without checking the new version. Indeed, contrasted to the improved version, my comment is more unreasonable)
Is that what you’re saying? Gee, that’s not how it read to me.
To me, it reads as if you were initially saying I’m a racist, but instead of saying so forthrightly, you implied it with a smarmy right-wing cliche. Then, when confronted, you weren’t brave enough to stand by your earlier accusation, nor decent enough to apologize for it.
At the very least, “it can certainly be interpreted that way.”
* * *
As Daran pointed out, it’s a safe bet that some non-citizen immigrants will decide they can’t risk applying for their child’s Medicaid, while others will apply. Given the high numbers of non-citizen immigrants, to expect anything other than a variety of decisions to be made by different people is ludicrously unrealistic.
Regardless of if they turn in the Medicaid paperwork or not, however, their newborns will be denied medical care thanks to the Bush administration’s decision. Why? Because in the old system, the newborn was guaranteed a year of medical care. Under the new system, even if their parents apply for Medicaid for their newborn, it could be weeks or months before the newborn’s paperwork is processed, and during that time it lacks medical care. So the denial of medical care will happen to all children of noncitizen immigrants, not just those whose parents won’t risk filing paperwork.
Okay, I implied you were a racist, and I apologize since your post is better now (check #20).
Oh, whoops. That’s a good and important clarification. I can better understand your reaction now.
For the benefit of folks who are wondering, the original version of the post was just like the current version of the post, except it had two additional sentences at the end: “Fuck the Bush administration. They’re the KKK with a fancy oval office.”
The post was programmed to appear on “Alas” at around 12:30 or 1am, something in that range. Then, around 3am or 4am (I think – it was whenever I woke up and took a whiz), I thought better of it and edited out the last two sentences. Since no one had commented on it and the hours were so late, I thought no one would have read those sentences at that point.
(Then, later, I figured out that comments were broken, and fixed them – but that was after I woke up the next morning, so I didn’t make any mental connection.)
For the record, I stand by the meaning of my angry and now-deleted sentences, and I’m willing to say it flat-out: I think that the Bush administration is run by racists. I think that they never would have decided to interpret the law this way, if the typical image of an illegal immigrant baby was a white baby from England. I deleted those last two sentences because of their tone, not because of their content.
Fair enough. Apology accepted.
And I can understand you being pissed off by those now-deleted sentences.
I greatly appreciate coming clean on #24, and (for once) I’m glad the comments were broken then, because I dropped a much worse one then, which I immediately regretted.
I have little love for the Bush administration, I thought the post was sufficiently gutter-level discourse to let fly all guns, so to speak.
I do think that a law that makes everyone born inside the US borders is rather absurd and can only lead to perverse incentives (it is not completely the fault of the immigrants, but of the law that incentives illegal immigration by giving automatic citizenship to their children).
But then, any US citizen who thinks that this law sucks can freely advocate for changing it, instead of simply disregarding (like leftists do with other immigration laws /snark).
I think filing this under race and racism achieves that.
(#23, I mean, and to clarify, I think the intent of claiming Bush admin is motivated by racism is achieved by the said filing).
I do think that a law that makes everyone born inside the US borders is rather absurd…
I assume that you meant to add “,US citizens“, after the word borders. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it common world-wide that if you are born inside the borders (or more accurately, in the territory…) of a country that you are automatically a citizen of that country.
I’m surprised that it took until comment #11 for someone to seriously suggest what I did in comment #4.
Yep, the citizen part is missing.
I realize that it is somewhat common, but it’s still stupid.
I can’t understand why you would say that sarcastically. Can you explain to the slower ones why such concept is so erroneous to be worthy of sarcasm (demand: Moral reasons don’t count in this instance)?
Are children born to indigent US citizens automatically covered? Or do their parents need to wait for the birth certificats also?
Are the two classes of children– both US citizens– treated differently? That is one is deprived of care for the period of time required for paper work to be filled out, and birth certificates to arrive (which can take weeks) or are both deprived?
If only one is deprived, can this survive an equal protection claim? (Actually asking.)
Mind you, I’m not suggesting we can improve things by depriving both. It’s just that making one group fill out loads of paperwork and letting the other get benefits without it makes no sense. After all, if a kid is born here, they are American citizens. If they are born in a hospital, there are plenty of witnessees to the fact of their citizenship! Pretending “we don’t know without the papers” makes no sense!
Lucia – It isn’t, mostly, about citizenship. It’s about poverty. Confusion is reasonable on this issue because this is the most poorly written NY Times article I’ve read in a long time. Dishonest, timed for partisan effect (which will backfire, since a majority of people reading this story think “good”), AND badly articulated – a hat trick for the Grey Lady.
Children born to a mother who is already on Medicaid (and who has gone through the paperwork to get into the program) are automatically enrolled in Medicaid for their first year of life, under the reasonable supposition that the child is unlikely to arrive clutching a winning lottery ticket and is just as poor as mom. After that first year, they have to do their own application. Well, their parent or caregiver does, anyway – typically, mom just updates her status with the social welfare office (“still poor!” “ok!”). This hasn’t changed, I don’t think.
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid. However, hospitals are required under Federal law to give emergency treatment to anyone who shows up and says they can’t pay. This includes delivering mothers, and of course includes some illegal immigrants. These children have, in the past, been automatically enrolled in Medicaid for their year, even though their mother has not demonstrated indigent status the way that a citizen mother has had to.
All this policy change does is require illegal immigrants to meet the same hurdle as citizens: assert indigence to get on Medicaid by filing an application. The application process is not onerous and there is no burden of proof. (I imagine, or hope anyway, that they just do ex-post-facto spot checks to deter the occasional middle- or upper-class cheater.)
Citizenship has nothing to do with this, other than in the fevered minds of the Times; all the children in question are citizens and entitled to lawful benefits. It’s entirely about ensuring that everyone on Medicaid is legitimately indigent and eligible for the program.
Robert, according to the NYT, if indigent-not-on-Medicaid mom receives emergency care, it’s assumed that the baby is poor too and, being a citizen, is automatically enrolled. Are you saying this is incorrect?
I imagine, or hope anyway, that they just do ex-post-facto spot checks to deter the occasional middle- or upper-class cheater.
You are so funny.
Robert,
I was aware of the poverty aspect. What I was asking is this: Are the American children of impoverished illegal aliens treated differently from those of impoverished Americans. I’ve reread your post several times, and I’m still not sure I can tell. (I definitely can’t tell from the NYT article.)
If you have any links to resources providing extra information, I’d love to read the details.
The article doesn’t say that, Mythago. As far as I know, that isn’t the case. If you aren’t on Medicaid and show up in the ER with your baby, or to have your baby, you (and the baby) aren’t enrolled automatically. To get on Medicaid, you have to apply. The only exception is for babies born to moms who have already enrolled.
I’m not sure why you think the prospect of Medicaid fraud funny. The program is (deliberately) made easy to get into, so that people who probably have poor government-interfacing skills anyway won’t be deterred from getting coverage. That’s a magnet for fraud, and in fact Medicaid fraud is estimated at around $1.5 billion per year. It’s good that the bar is set low so that people can get on the program without too much trouble, but that also requires us to be vigilant against abuse, particularly if we want to maintain popular support for the program.
Lucia –
No, there is no difference in the treatment of children of citizens and children of illegal immigrants. Both are eligible for Medicaid upon application.
There is a difference of circumstance, in that citizens can get on Medicaid and thus their kids can get an automatic enrollment at birth – and illegals can’t do that. But the children themselves are treated the same; it’s their parents who are differentiated.
I’m not sure why you think the prospect of Medicaid fraud funny.
I think the suggestion that hospitals are doing things to deter people with money from pretending they are eligible for Medicare is funny. The link you post notes that Medicare fraud is increasing complex and hard to detect–that’s because the real losses are not from suburbanites shaving their income to get health insurance, it’s from criminals (and organized crime groups) setting up complex billing scams.
That aside, the NYT article suggests that if a non-Medicare mom comes in for labor, Medicare pays for it because that’s a Medicare service you still get if you are an illegal alien (thus, not eligible for Medicare); in the past, babies were enrolled automatically, now they’re not. I’m perfectly willing to believe the NYT got it wrong.
Seems the best solution would be to get the word out that you will not be deported for enrolling your citizen hcild in Medicare. And not to make you wait weeks for the damn application to be processed.
Seems the best solution would be to get the word out that you will not be deported for enrolling your citizen hcild in Medicare.
Eh. Why shouldn’t you be?
Jake Squid said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it common world-wide that if you are born inside the borders (or more accurately, in the territory…) of a country that you are automatically a citizen of that country.
In Japan, a person born of two non-citizens on Japanese soil is not a citizen. A child born in France is only a citizen if it is stateless; e.g., if two Mexicans had a child in France, then it would be a Mexican citizen, would not be stateless, and would not be a French citizen. A child born to two non-citizens in Germany is not a German citizen. At least, according to Wikipedia.
A search of the records of the debate for adoption of the 14th Amendment shows that there was a similar intent for American law, but the courts have subverted the law since then. I hve no problem with a child of a legally resident alien becoming an American citzien, but a child born of people here illegally should not benefit by their parents’ crimes.
Switzerland also does not confer citizenship solely due to birth in Switzerland; you must have a Swiss citizen as at least one of your parents. There are apparently a number of countries that don’t automatically grant citizenship to all born within their borders.
Portugal, Italy, Australia – I’m going to stop looking, now. Lots of countries don’t grant citizenship to a child born of parents where neither one is a citizen of that country.
Eh. Why shouldn’t you be?
In this case, because it would interfere with getting healthcare for a newborn citizen.
but a child born of people here illegally should not benefit by their parents’ crimes
Should they be punished for their father’s crimes? And it’s not limited to illegal aliens, either; if a child is born of a noncitizen mother who’s here legally, do we deprive the child of citizenship?
Citizenship by birth is a bit of an American oddity, but IMO it’s one of those oddities that makes us better than other countries. We don’t care if you had the right bloodlines, or are a member of the proper ethnic group.
In this case, because it would interfere with getting healthcare for a newborn citizen.
Sometimes incentives suck. Perhaps mom and dad should reconsider their prospective plans to drop an anchor baby in America, and get to the end of the legal immigration line with everyone else.
I favor a vigorous legal immigration policy to bring in quality immigrants from all over the world, to make our nation stronger. At the same time, I favor ruthlessly deporting anyone and everyone found to be here illegally. The easiest and fastest way to do that is to make each and every contact with officialdom a one-way ticket home for illegals. That produces a cultural context where you cannot live comfortably as an illegal, which will drastically reduce the incentive to try.
The easiest and fastest way to do that is to make each and every contact with officialdom a one-way ticket home for illegals.
That’s neither the easiest nor fastest way, as officialdom will then be spending a large chunk of time and money writng those tickets (let alone trying to enforce them), and it won’t remove any of the incentives to be here.
I’d like to think we care about the anchor babies rather than our jackboot INS thug fantasies; see Amp’s previous point.
And the intention is to incentivise the newborn citizen to do what, precisely?
And the intention is to incentivise the newborn citizen to do what, precisely?
There is no intention to incentivize newborns. But newborns have parents.
Robert:
But citizens don’t need to meet that hurdle. They can turn up, say they can’t pay and demand birth care, just like illegal immigrants, and obtain Medicaid for their child for one year that way.
Or they can show indigence obtain it in advance. So there are two routes for a citizen, but only one for an illegal immigrant. The implication that the latter have some advantage is simply wrong.
I read them, and didn’t attempt to comment during the period comments were broken.
They can turn up, say they can’t pay and demand birth care, just like illegal immigrants, and obtain Medicaid for their child for one year that way.
No, they can’t. Just like illegal immigrants, they have to enroll the child in Medicaid. Nobody can just show up. Children of people already enrolled are covered, but the enrollment had to be done ahead of time.
It used to be that anyone could just show up. Now it’s that no one can just show up.
So you would deny newborn babies healthcare, in order to incentivise other people. How many babies would you be willing to see die under this incentives plan?
Barry was right. So-called pro-life Republicans really don’t give a damn about life.
In other words, you don’t see a problem of illegal immigrants using their babies as hostages. No straw man.
“I will make the baby suffer if you check my papers!”
“Uh, we’d better not ever ask about those papers.”
Me:
In case it wasn’t clear, I was referring to the previous system.
Robert:
No, they can’t. Just like illegal immigrants, they have to enroll the child in Medicaid. Nobody can just show up. Children of people already enrolled are covered, but the enrollment had to be done ahead of time.
I assume you’re talking about the new policy.
If I’m not mistaken, an indigent citizen can apply for cover before birth, thus obtain cover for their child from birth, while an indigent illegal citizen could only apply for cover for their child after birth, leaving a gap during which the child is not covered.
So yes, it appears that citizens born of illegal immigrants are discriminated against under the new policy.
Tuomas:
It is a strawman.
Nobody on this side of the argument is suggesting that illegal immigrants would deliberately threaten to harm their own baby in order to extort some benefit from the state, and that is not the scenario we are discussing anyway.
No, instead you’re suggesting that we not enforce our laws because enforcing our laws makes life difficult for people who are breaking our laws. A distinction without much difference, I’m afraid.
Citizenship here means something. For that to continue to be true, we have to get, and keep, control over our borders and who we welcome as members of our polity.
Enforcement of laws – particularly laws which have been allowed to slide for decades for the sake of corporate greed and/or sentimentality – is going to hurt people. It will hurt them more the more roots they are permitted to plant in the theoretically forbidden soil. Nonetheless, it has to be done, and it’s going to be done – so arguing (from sincere compassion, I have no doubt) for more encouragement to settle illegally is misplaced kindness.
Or so it seems to me.
No, you are preemptively folding before that threat.
Mythago wrote:
Perhaps I should be more blunt: Parents who would rather see their children suffer than face uncomfortable questions about their own status aren’t something I see as being remotely good parents.
Yes, that’s a judgement, or a strawman, depending on who you ask.
Should they be punished for their father’s crimes?
No. So I say steer a middle course. Give a newborn child born in the U.S. healthcare, on the grounds of compassion. But do not grant it citizenship, and when the child is healthy enough to travel, deport it and it’s parents across the same border they crossed to get into the U.S.
I only read about half the replies before I needed to respond. Forgive me if I have duplicated what someone else said.
Tuomas, get down to the realm of practical for ONE minute with me ok? Forget about twisting words and talking about hypotheticals.
Have you ever applied for government aid of any kind? Have you ever had a newborn? I’ve done both (and FYI, I’m a legal citizen with a lot of higher education and a good bit of common sense. I also happen to be married, white and I look at least on the outside middle class – this means that everything was EONS easier for me than it would have been for many other people). And I would not have wanted to have to do both simultaneously.
1st, let me tell you something about having a newborn – I was still recovering myself. I was surviving on almost no sleep, still bleeding and caring for stitches. It hurt to walk for about the first week because I was so freaking sore. I was feeding my child through breastfeeding which meant that I had a child latched to me for most of my life. The time she wasn’t latched, we were usually headed to the Doctor’s office. You see, she was jaundiced, which is VERY common in newborns, and although highly treatable when it is caught early on, if it goes UNtreated it causes serious lasting effects. In her first 2 weeks of life I think we were at the peds office around 7 times. Want to take a wager as to what that would have cost me without insurance? I’m just trying to get you to think about the implications of this particular law. You just had a baby and now in order to get this baby the medical care that can save her life, prevent serious mental and physical “defects”, you need medical care. But in order to get that medical care, you now have to fill out an application.
I filled out that application. I applied for my state’s version of medicaid not long ago when my husband lost his job and we couldn’t afford the $800/month cobra payments and I hadn’t yet found a job with benefits. It took me at least 4 hours to complete, gather all the necessary supporting documents, make copies of everything and get it together – this was WELL after my daughter was born and sleeping through the night so I was actually lucid and able to think. I have a copy machine IN MY HOME (my printer can make copies) and I actually have a decent filing system for pay stubs, electric bills etc. Once I actually COMPLETED the application, it took over a month to hear back. Then, we were denied because somewhere down the line, someone internally had doubled our income. It took an hour on phone to get to the right person (and both my husband and I speak English perfectly) and even then, it took them 2 days to “get the files” look it up and get back to us. By the time we received our medical cards in the mail and could begin using coverage it was well past 6 weeks from the time I first applied.
Just THINK about the REALITY of the situation of all of that with a newborn who needs medical care and tell me if you still think this bill doesn’t mean taking healthcare away from newborn CITIZENS.
This law was pr0bably passed because there current (old) laws created a significant incentive for people to immigrate illegally in order to have kids in the U.S.
People who are suggesting there will be no health care at all are missing a few things. First of all, to the degree it’s less of an incentive there will, in theory, be fewer infants. Second, no U.S. hospital will deny emergency care to an infant. Third, if the parents have only the interests of the infant at heart, they’ll register–if not, it seems a bit odd to blame the government. And fourth, there is–in theory–care available in one’s home state. So a registration followed by deportation is not inhumane.
Of course, it remains the choice of the parents as to what they wish to do in the matter.
Oh, and just FYI, when you have regular old health insurance, the baby is automatically covered at birth by whoever is covering the mother. That’s standard. You then have about 1 month from the time of birth to fill out a one page application to have the baby added as a dependent under the plan, change plans, whatever. About the only new thing you need is the baby’s social security number.
If I’m not mistaken, what this law means is that BEFORE if a woman was covered under medicaid at the time of birth, the child was automatically enrolled at birth. NOW if a woman who is on medicaid gives birth, a separate application must be filled out for the infant rather than automatic enrollment, which is pretty standard for all OTHER insurance companies. I guess I have to know what the application form is to really be sure, but I’m guessing it’s not the one page form you fill out for other insurance companies. And the waiting process is, I would be willing to bet, a whole lot longer.
As far as the fact that emergency rooms will still treat a child, yes that is true, but I think we all know that emergency room care for ANYONE who could have been seen by a primary care provider is more expensive. Overall, I’m suspect as to whether or not this system actually will save money – well baby checks are frequent for a newborn, cost effective and a pretty good intervention point to prevent lasting harm and develop good health patterns and habits. What this laws smells like to me is yet another way for politicians to seem as though they are being “tough” on illegal immigrants and “cracking down” on illegal immigration and the “sneaky” ways people find around it. Clearly a discussion about how we should handle immigration in this country is the backdrop of this discussion and there are those who think we should tighten the borders and those who think differently. That is it seems to me a separate discussion. Let’s take the new law at face value and discuss it – is it taking away newborn care? And if it is not, then what is the fiscal rationale for its inception anyway? Wasn’t that the point? We are overspent, so we are cutting this part of the program. Let’s talk about what the ramifications of that are: moral, political AND financial. I suspect the financial ramifications are not quite what is purported. The moral implications are pretty clearly reprehensible (in my not so humble opinion) – we’re talking about basic care for BABIES after all. And the political ramifications, well I’m not sure, but I’d love to hear your opinions.
Robert,
wait a minute, did I just read that you think the medicaid application is EASY? REALLY? Like I said, I filled out my state’s version of the application and it was by no means easy, required a laundry list of supporting documentation and access to my bank accounts. Have you ever filled one out? NONE of that shit is easy, and I’m literate, and reasonably well organized.
Granted, it was a smidge easier than the food stamp application, but that’s not saying much since by the time it was all said and done, I said, “Fuck it, we’ll just have raman noodles for a while till I get a damn job. I’d rather spend my time looking for a job.” Then of course, once I got the state health insurance they said, ‘You know, most people on this also qualify for food stamps and WIC – you should really fill out those forms too.’ And I did not because like I said, I was angry and frustrated and still trying to keep everything together and more interested in using my energies to finding a damn job. Health insurance on the other hand was not something I could give up on, but if it were, I would have.
There you go – the impossible and lengthy applications DO INDEED prevent people from acccessing services. And the denial and appeals process is meant to dissuade people. I get it. I don’t agree with it, but I get it.
I haven’t personally filled one out; my wife did while I helped, about five years ago. (When my wife became pregnant, we were both out of work and on the verge of bankruptcy; it was Medicaid for her or nothing.) It wasn’t a trivial process, but it wasn’t onerous; about an hour in the social work office. The social worker did most of the work.
Since the program is administered state by state, perhaps your state is exceptionally hard on applicants (or perhaps Colorado is exceptionally easy).
Kate: I am thinking practically. Someone has to pay for healthcare. As long as coverage isn’t universal, it makes perfect sense to demand that the parents comply to those. After all, it is not “free” healthcare but government-provided one.
I do think that the American healthcare system is overly bureucratic (I support UHC), but that’s somewhat different matter.
I don’t think people get to break the law just because they have a BABY.
comply to those…
I mean the filing of applications etc.
If Republicans are responsible for the fact that someone who is here illegally decides to let their child suffer rather than file an application, then it would seem to me that one could as easily hold the various political activists who have championed for the law to say that everyone who happens to be born on US soil is a citizen, responsible for human smuggling and all the human tragedies created by it. And IMHO the case would be stronger there.
Bottom line: In countries where illegal immigration is actually illegal (and healthcare covers citizens only, and path to citizenship isn’t as easy), there isn’t a human catastrophe of millions of people having their healthcare “taken away” from them.
This is why the immigration debate is indeed intrinsically related to the issue. Daran wrote that if you make something harder fewer people will do it. This applies to illegal immigration and anchor babies.
(sorry, fourth post in a row)
I know getting US citizenship is rather hard… But it does have the crucial birth exception.
Full disclosure first: I haven’t read the whole comment thread. I’m pretty sure no one has said this yet, though, because it’s way outside the US mainstream:
Forget whether the babies should be covered or not. The parents should be covered. Medicaid should extend to every person on US soil who does not have sufficient means to have private insurance or the ability to pay medical expenses out of pocket.
Why? Well, I’m a bleeding heart liberal who wants everyone to live as long and as healthily as possible, so I’d do it on humanitarian grounds. But there are at least two other reasons: economics and public health.
First, public health. A fairly large minority of immigrants come in with communicable diseases (tuberculosis being one of the more famous ones.) If not treated, these diseases will spread throughout the community. I trust I don’t have to elaborate further on why these diseases need to be treated as efficiently as possible?
Second, economics. Currently, hospitals in the US are not allowed to turn away patients based on their ability to pay or perceived ability to pay. So anyone physically in the US can get emergency medical care by presenting his or herself to the ER. But emergency care is expensive and people without insurance–even middle class people without insurance–can’t pay the bills, which means that the hospital eats the cost. If it’s a public hospital then the cost is passed on to the taxpayers.
And disease that is severe enough to warrent an ER visit is generally both more difficult and more expensive to treat than disease diagnosed earlier in an office visit–or prevented altogether by preventative care. So more public money is spent on emergency care than would be spent if we just treated everyone when their first symptoms appeared–or before. Seriously, preventative colonoscopies for every illegal immigrant over 5o would probably be cheaper than treating the colon cancers that we get stuck with because by the time people get symptoms they’re generally too sick to deport.
There are also subtler economic effects. Immigrants, illegal or legal, contribute to the economy. It’s hard to hold a job when you’re dead or dying of end stage disease. So treating everyone early creates more taxpayers (and most illegal immigrants do pay taxes), fewer disabled people, etc. Everyone wins but the undertakers.
Well, that’s one more reason to oppose illegal immigration. They come bearing diseases.
By driving down wages and reducing innovativeness due to cheap labor making it unnecessary.
By driving down wages and reducing innovativeness due to cheap labor making it unnecessary
So make them all legal and eligible for minimum wage. No more decreased labor costs. Seriously, why shouldn’t anyone who wants to move to the US? It’s not like most of us “natives” aren’t descended from immigrants, frequently illegal, too. And we’re far from running out of room. It’s not like Finland or any other small country that can’t absorb a large number of immigrants.
Hope this isn’t threadjacking, but…My proposal for immigration in the US is basically allow anyone who gets to the US and doesn’t have either a criminal record , outstanding warrants, or history of involvement in terrorist organizations against him or her can stay. If they do have one of the above, they can still apply (some arrest records are really indications of political, not criminal activity), but it isn’t automatic. Anyone who stays for a set amount of time (five years is my first suggestion, but this may need tuning) without coming to the negative attention of the government (getting arrested, applying for food stamps, participating in terrorist activities) gets citizenship or permanent residency, if they want it. Again, those who do have some record with the government are eligible to apply, but don’t get automatic citizenship.
And everyone gets medical care while they’re hanging out, regardless of legality. Because the only way to prevent immigration altogether is to make the country so unappealing that no one wants to come here. Bush is doing an admirable job, but many foriegn governments are doing even better jobs making their countries unappealing. So they’re going to come, diseases and all. Might as well deal with it.
So I say steer a middle course.
That’s not a middle course; that’s a radical change in the definition of citizenship.
Well, there you have it then. The Death Penalty is the only effective way to curtail illegal immigration. Threat of deportation is clearly not enough. These illegals and their anchor babies and diseases and drain on the economy will ruin us all if we don’t put a stop to it. I’m not sure that just implementing execution for illegal immigration is enough. I’m thinking, what with the advent and success of reality TV and all, that televised mass executions of illegal immigrants broadcast live from sports stadiums is the way to go. Stop illegal immigration and get a boost to the economy. It’s a win-win proposal.
(/sarcasm)
Yup.
But then again it is a change that some folks seem to force. I would prefer, of course, if illegal immigrants would not come into the U.S. at all. And I would prefer, barring that, that if we are NOT going to stop them from coming, we not spend a lot of money giving them services once they’re here.
But if–as some feel–we shouldn’t really deter them from showing up, and we shouldn’t deny them services, and we essentially shouldn’t do anything, it seems, which might actually result in fewer folks coming into the U.S. illegally… well, I might agree. If. If, that is, you are willing to trade off the OTHER vast incentive of automatic U.S. citizenship, even for an illegal immigrant.
Hey, it’s not the first choice I’d have made; I think it’s otherwise a nice law. But it doesn’t make sense why you’re sticking on that now. Hell, if law is the problem, we shouldn’t be supporting illegals in the first place. So the “it’s our legal tradition!” vis a vis citizenship doesn’t really go with the other arguments that well.
Seriously, why shouldn’t anyone who wants to move to the US?
Because the vast majority of the people already living here don’t want them to.
All? What about the about 5 billion people who live in poorer countries, are you seriously suggesting that you can just hand them citizenship like candy and not have problems? If you’ll do that, you’ll find out that the comers won’t end so quickly.
Or just those who have already snuck in (how is that fair, btw)?
Actually, I’ve always thought combining reality TV with immigration would work better with the policies that the “we can’t deport them because that’s not nice” -crowd is espousing.
The Immigrant (Euro version):
Watch a group of Africans get loaded in overcrowded, barely seaworthy rusted can, posssibly drowning in the process, climbing over spiked fences and running away from border guards!
But fear not — The ones who made it and survived the ruthless Darwinian survival of the fittest (and the most ruthless) will be awarded citizenship and plenty of government benefitsbecause deporting them would violate “human rights”.
Missed last season? Fear not! The endless toil of irresponsible leftists and “human rights activists” who can’t quite straight out say that they want completely open borders (because they secretly know what a socioeconomical disaster that would be, and because they can’t convince the voters on that) will ensure that the whole thing will keep on going for a long, long time, and become an actual business in the origin countries!
Oh shit! I just realized that’s actually happening! And there’s an US version that is markedly similar.
The reality is indeed more remarkable than the fiction.
Hey, I was being sarcastic about the disease part. Sort of.
Ach, I should have proofread for redundancy (the fear nots).
Who wants that?
People generally want to stop illegal immigration, not immigration altogether And it’s not rocket science on how to do that — by not giving illegals amnesty or any other benefits and punishing employers who hire illegals.
You know, you could make the country unappealing to illegals.
I would agree with that.
Unfortunately, the new policy seems to give them citizenship and deny them healthcare.
But then again it is a change that some folks seem to force.
How so? As somebody’s already pointed out, wrestling over what constitutes citizenship is as old as the Nation; the problems of citizenship-by-birth are not new and strange. I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden, THIS immigration crisis is SO HORRIBLE that we must destroy our model of citizenship. How could the Framers have foreseen Medicare?…
As long as we’re talking about middle courses, there’s certainly a lot of room between “let them all in” and “use their babies to drive them out”. We could restructure categories of immigration, allow guest-worker programs, increase the numbers of certain visas, and so on.
I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden, THIS immigration crisis is SO HORRIBLE that we must destroy our model of citizenship.
Well it is. Because we say so. No, we need no knowledge of past mass immigrations to be able to assert this as fact.
What is being said now by the anti-immigration folks is almost exactly the same things said in the 1890’s and the 1910’s, 1920’s & 1930’s.
The bizarre belief held by these people that immigrants (legal or no) drag down the economy by lowering wages while adding zero to the economy is always good for a larf. Especially given that many of these people are anti-minimum wage. Let the market determine it! And, of course, these illegals get paid and spend nothing, thereby siphoning our precious riches to the south! (Tangent: Why is it that they don’t worry about the Irish illegals these days?) Of course one can see how much wealthier Mexico has become while the US has lost wealth in the last three decades. Oh, if only we had tightened our borders in the 70’s.
It also never ceases to amaze me how they’ll never answer when asked how their ancestors got here. Were they legal or not? Most of them don’t know. They don’t care because they, themselves, are citizens. I’ve got mine, kill the buggers who want a share.
Watch a group of Africans get loaded in overcrowded, barely seaworthy rusted can, posssibly drowning in the process, climbing over spiked fences and running away from border guards!
Because, lord knows, they are doing so well that only an open immigration policy would prod them to do such a thing. Just ask the Cubans – if a Cuban makes it to US soil, voila! We grant them citizenship! What? We don’t? We deport them back to Cuba where they can face punishment? Then why do they keep trying to get here? Oh, right, right. Because they can easily become US citizens. It makes perfect sense.
The awe-inspiring lack of critical analysis combined with a total belief in one’s own beliefs as fact and an utter unwillingness to entertain alternative views makes this one of the least likely conversations to be anything other than a dismissal-fest.
Yeah for Jake Squid comment #78.
It is nice when somebody actually has a clue about immigration history and law. I wanted to put up a post summarizing some of these issues because this debate is the same old soup warmed over, and over and over.
“Yeah for Jake”? How about, “Jake, who are you arguing with?”
None of the arguments you’re blithely putting in the mouths of those of us who are opposed to illegal immigration are, in fact, arguments that we’re making. If you want to have an argument with some other anti-immigrationists, somewhere, who hate all immigrants and believe that their family arrived in America through parthenogenesis, great – but good luck finding them, because I never have.
Of course, it’s a lot easier to mock the argument from parthenogenesis than it is to mock the argument from national security.
Jake Squid re: #28
Actually what your referring to is birthright citizenship and no, it is not the norm. In fact quite a few nations have phased it out because it is patently ridiculous that citizenship would be granted for crossing a border illegally or legally for that matter without citizenship. In fact if you take the time to read the 14th amendment, and most especially the commentary there can be no doubt that birthright citizenship is in no way shape or form what was intended by that most excellent piece of legislation.
In 2004, Ireland was the last EU state to still have birthright citizenship, and in that same year they ended it. So in this instance you cannot sniff and explain how enlightened Europeans are compared to us benighted ‘Mericans.
As to #78, well this is fine example of canards are us. Considering that the “robber barons” of those earlier times specifically demanded an immigration level that would indeed drive down wages. In fact two of the times you specifically mention were during recessions! In economic circles there is this theory you may have heard of — supply and demand — supply and demand makes no value judgements as to the worthiness of the people in question, I have no doubt many if not all are fine human beings, which has precisely nothing to do with wages. May I recommend reading Otis Grahams “Unguarded Gates?”
Yes of course many of those debates were racist in tone, I’m not debating that, but there was an effect on wages as there is now. I know, wages in my industry has been devastated by illegal immigration.
All the best,
Jake
Jesus, still this argument. If you found out that some of your ancestors was a result of rape, what then? Would you feel an obligation to repeal laws that punish rapists?
No?
Hey, it is! Good thing it’s a straw man!
I didn’t say they drag down economy as a whole, I specifically pointed out two effects it has on economy. The effect of plentiful cheap labor on innovativeness is well admitted, even by people such as Jared Diamond (on his book Guns, Germs and Steel).
As for minimum wage, well, ever heard of “unemployment”? You might want to check the unemployment rates of say, Muslim French youths.
But that’s more controversial.
Ah, zero-sum logic. It actually hurts Mexico. Why do you want to hurt Mexico, Jake?
That is why you have 12 million illegal immigrants, because you deport them so effectively.
Let’s see: Cubans. How about this policy, for example:
Tus, it makes perfect sense for Cubans to attempt crossing over to the US. Duh.
You say:
Oops, Jake.
It’s amazing that you throw incredible amount of condescension and sarcasm towards everyone who disagrees with you, all the while getting your facts wrong.
That, and the total refusal to accept responsibility for the negative consequences of the policies you support.
It would be nice.
Perhaps make US nationality by birth (place) be dependent on at least 1 parent being a US citizen? Then you have a clearly defined citizenship (passed by blood, or by partial blood + being in the country).
Secondly, if you make the penalties for being illegal actually painful then people won’t do it, here in Euroland our deportation policies are really terrible, the person just has to say they could catch a cold in their home country and we don’t deport… :( Immigration is a good thing, countries want a flow of skilled workers and required field, we do not need more people on the dole (unemployment benefit) or people clogging up the system without adding to it (Surely the point of a society is to contribute to something greater than yourself… actually strike that, people have rights now not responsibilities).
Australia has a good system, immigration for skilled workers they need, shown to the door for people they don’t need.
What about the about 5 billion people who live in poorer countries, are you seriously suggesting that you can just hand them citizenship like candy and not have problems?
Naw, only the ones want American citizenship (that’ll eliminate a majority) and have the initiative to get here unaided (that’ll eliminate a majority of the rest.) Those that fit that criteria will be active, intelligent people who are willing to work to meet their goals. In short, just the people any sane government would want for its country. Ok, I feel a little guilty about the brain drain effect, but if a country wants to keep its citizens it should treat them better.
I don’t know if tough immigration policies actually discourage illegal immigration or not. I’ve never seen any studies on the issue. But I do know from personal experience and the level of complaint in professional journals that such laws discourage foriegn graduates from taking postdocs, medical training positions, and other professional positions in the US. Since the US doesn’t train enough PhDs and MDs to fulfill its needs, this quickly becomes a problem.
In 2004, Ireland was the last EU state to still have birthright citizenship, and in that same year they ended it.
And Ireland is begging for immigrants now. Literally. They’ve got signs up in the subways talking about job opportunities in Ireland and what a lovely place it is to live. So you see how well ending birthright citizenship has worked out for them. I’d as soon not follow that model, though to be honest it’s not the citizenship laws but the birth control laws that kept me from exploring the option.
Like training them as MD’s only to watch them immigrate to the US, because the income tax is lower (government-provided education isn’t cheap) and the wages are higher ?
I’ve never claimed they do. It is true that I’m not a big fan of immigration or emigration for various reasons (such as cultural clashes, and the fact that Third Worlders have no ambition to build a better society because the option of going West is omnipresent), but my main problem with illegal immigration is the lunacy of “See that carrot? Don’t try to eat it or I will beat you with a stick! However, if you manage to eat it, then enjoy the meal!” -nature of incentive systems it offers.
Immigration should be handled legally, and with the consent of the people already citizens. Whether this means giving everyone citizenship or no one is up for decision by the People.
Do you really believe that?
Every country wants highly educated immigrants.
What on earth does this have to do with how easily illegal border crossers are given citizenship, or how many welfare tourists are let in?
Considering that the “robber barons” of those earlier times specifically demanded an immigration level that would indeed drive down wages.
The robber barons may have thought that immigration would lead to lower wages, but in fact the effect appears to be minimal
Hey, I asked people to correct me if I was wrong and people corrected me. I have some minor quibbles with citing Australia after having looked at their policy, but that is the exception to the rule in the examples noted.
As to condescension, well, yes. Some of the anti-immigration people commenting here are the same folks who made racist comments in the not too distant past in a thread or two about immigration to the US. The same people who don’t see the relevance between how their ancestors arrived here, the fact that the US is a nation of immigrants and their position now. The same people who state things like, “By driving down wages and reducing innovativeness due to cheap labor making it unnecessary…,” without any consideration of what may be added to the economy by these very same people. The same people who I have never seen admit to factual error in these threads.
That is what I mean by lack of critical analysis.
It seems to me that there are two or three (or more) key elements to discuss in order to have any kind of productive discussion.
1) The moral aspect.
2) The economic aspect.
3) The context of the immigration being discussed.
On the moral aspect, you may never achieve agreement, but at least you may understand the basis of somebody’s position.
On the economic aspect… simplistic statements about how cheap immigrant labor ruins the economy is just fodder for the flame wars. And that is, almost without exception, the first vaguely economic statement made in every one of these threads. Tied to this bullet is the social aspect of using race or nationality or religion to keep labor from organizing. Something that has been used over and over in the 400 + years of Anglo North American history.
The context of immigration under discussion is one that is too often buried. US history and population has a very different relation to immigration than European or Asian history and population over the same period. That often leads to flailing, failed analogies. There is, IMO, a strong argument to be made that immigration is responsible for the economic, societal and technological strength of the US. This last is often given lip-service but then dismissed because these immigrants (whatever the current worrisome group) won’t be adding to any of that (in so many words).
And then of course flame meets flame, straw meets straw:
That, and the total refusal to accept responsibility for the negative consequences of the policies you support.
Can you show me a single example of this?
…all the while getting your facts wrong.
Which ones? The ones I asked to be corrected on? When somebody shows me that I was factually wrong, I tend to admit it and often thank them for correcting me and providing me with information that I lacked. Read back through the archives here and you’ll see a lot of examples of this.
It may surprise you, but I have had my mind changed on issues by people far more right wing than any I see commenting here. The difference is that those people had well thought out views that could be articulated without being offensive, that could be sustained throughout a discussion without being actively hostile and while conceding some points to their opposition.
Of course, internet discourse doesn’t tend to lend itself to that sort of respect, so it would take real effort on the part of both sides. Something I have long given up hope for, as should be obvious.
New York Times?
Can someone please explain to me what the fuck this has to do with ANYTHING? At ALL?
You seem to be under the impression that Cubans who manage to get to US are deported, and you were wrong as I pointed out.
You are also under the impression that giving benefits (including amnesty/citizenship) to illegal immigrants would increase illegal immigration is a laugh-worthy issue that deserves sarcasm and mockery.
Use your imagination about the incentive system you support.
Drown Cubans, for example.
That’s not “lack of critical analysis”. It is disagreeing with the premise that illegal immigration is completely positive issue.
Where have I said that illegal immigrants do not contribute to economy in any way?
I agree with Daran on #76 on this specific case.
New York Times?
With references. Google scholar should get you the original papers. I admit it was lazy of me to post to a secondary source.
As to the question of do most people want to immigrate to the US or Europe, I’d have to say that I don’t think so. Admittedly, my evidence is not the best, but I’ll give it to you anyway.
1. I’ve visited several third world countries. When I told people I was from the US, the usual response was something on the lines of “better you than me” rather than envy. Admittedly, the countries involved were Costa Rica (where people mostly shuddered at the idea of living in the US), Mexico, and Chile post restoration of democracy. Not necessarily the most desperate of countries.
2. I remember reading in an article on immigration that something like 20% of Mexicans would move to the US if they could. That’s not a small number, but it’s far from a majority. And this was in the 1970s when things looked worse there. Unfortunately, I have no memory of the source so can’t really evaluate the accuracy of the claim.
3. I volunteer periodically to do physicals on asylum seekers to document abuse that occured in their home countries. Nearly always, these people went through multiple episodes of horrible abuse before finally giving up and abandoning their countries. If people are willing to go through seven episodes of being tortured in prison rather than leave their country, they probably don’t want to leave their country.
What’s that “nation of immigrants” supposed to prove? That the US has no moral right to ever restrict anyone from immigrating there?
Dianne:
But they reduced wages. Usually with economic growth, wages increase.
You seem to be under the impression that Cubans who manage to get to US are deported, and you were wrong as I pointed out.
Yes, I was wrong. My fault for running off a quick response to a hypothetical that ignores all underlying reasons.
You are also under the impression that giving benefits (including amnesty/citizenship) to illegal immigrants would increase illegal immigration is a laugh-worthy issue that deserves sarcasm and mockery.
And you’ve shown this to be factually wrong, how? Oh, by your statement that you don’t know if tough immigration policies actually discourage immigration? Gotcha. And, actually, it isn’t what I was mocking. I was mocking the specific and, IMV, inaccurate statements that the stereotypical anti-immigrant screed contains (not caring for citizens who are the children of illegal immigrants is good policy and in no way constitutionally questionable, for example (comment #4)). Perhaps my mockery isn’t up to minimum standards of clarity. I’ll keep working on it.
re: How ones ancestors arrived in the US:
Can someone please explain to me what the fuck this has to do with ANYTHING? At ALL?
Why should immigration policy be different now than when your ancestors arrived here? Does it matter to you whether your ancestors were legal or not? If not, why does it matter to you whether current immigrants are legal or not? Are you going to renounce your citizenship and emigrate to your ancestral country of origin if you find an illegal immigrant in your past? If not, and you are against citizenship by birth, why not? If you can’t see if determining whether or not a double standard exists here is relevant, I can’t help you.
But, hey! Let’s just all flame each other. Why actually hear anything that might possibly alter our current positions? That’s too hard. Like this!
Use your imagination about the incentive system you support.
Drown Cubans, for example.
And this shows how I possess a “total refusal to accept responsibility for the negative consequences of the policies you support?” In what way is that comment vaguely reality based or actually an example to substantiate your claim? It is neither. I honestly don’t think you have any idea what policies I support wrt immigration if this is your response. I do think that you may have some idea of what policies I oppose, however. These are two different things.
Nice try, but you left out the rather crucial word “illegal”. If legal immigration is hard, then this is one incentive for illegal.
Jake Squid, you might want to clarify what sort of immigration poilicies you do support.
So far, I’ve seen you display great amount of dislike towards people who actually want to reduce illegal immigration.