What's brown and white

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

What's brown and white

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I see it more as local government following precedence set in other communities recently at trying to stem the problem of illegal immigration that the Federal government has thus far been very loathe to do much about. Not racism. Would the charge be racism if there was a more diverse ethnic mixture in the body of illegal immigrants in the area and nation as a whole?

The local government is removing certain incentives for illegal immigrants. Who is really harming innocent children then? Our government by not taking care of the children of those who are not here legally? No, the parents by not coming here with their children legally or by then having children here after they have come here illegally.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I don't think there is anything racist about it. I was upset to read about it in our local paper under a title that labeled the actions as Anti-Immigration. It is not anti-immigration but anti-illegal alien. It seems to be quite easy to label actions taken by local and federal government to slow down/eliminate illegal immigration as anti-immigration and racist but it is a blatant mischaracterization.

Farmer's Branch is basically trying to do what the federal government is not doing, and that is inforce immigration laws. What part of illegal is not understood? Their very presence in the US is illegal so why should they have access to employment, a place to live and government programs? They shouldn't be here at all. That is what has to be realized first and foremost.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 10:16, 2006-11-15

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I am not in favor of this sort of thing, but I would note that legal mexican immigrants often are...

I approach immigration and concerns centered on the topic from a religious perspective of live and let live, and give and let give... and I know... it annoys the hardliners who think illegal immigration is ruining our country.

I think we should be doing more to reach out to these people. I think if we did our darndest we would find that we would have the means as a country to feed every person that crossed the border and give them a better life. What would inspire patriotism and the next generation more, than if we welcomed them with open arms, and love in our hearts?

That would be amazing.

--Ray

TitusTodd · Senior Member

It does little good for the future of Mexico and its citizens if we allow unfettered immigration into this country and it would be harmful to the US in trying to support the immigrant population. It would be difficult for the US to support a large immigrant population - in jobs, healthcare and other services. There is little incentive to change Mexico for the betterment of its citizens (by its citizens) when so many illegally go into other countries and send money back.

My prior post may sound cold but I intended it as a "harsh" reality. Illegal immigrants take jobs away from legal immigrants which is why many legal Mexican immigrants may support a move such as what Farmer's Branch has made. There are difficulties created with the situation in Farmer's Branch which many will first blame Farmer's Branch for. The fact that families are torn apart because of action taken on illegals is not the fault of Farmer's Branch or the Federal government on a national basis. Who got the family in that situation in the first place? The ones that came in illegally to begin with.

Individuals and families will do almost anything to better their situation, especially when the situation they are escaping from is very bad. They'll take risks, they'll endanger their lives. Can I blame them for that? No. However, they know the risks going in and know the possible consequences.

If we need illegals for low paying workers then maybe a guest worker program is good (but I debate how needed outside workers are and I'm not to keen on the use of illegals for low paying jobs for fear of exploitation). I'm not in favor for "kicking" out millions but the problem cannot be allowed to continue.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

rayb wrote:

I am not in favor of this sort of thing, but I would note that legal mexican immigrants often are...

I approach immigration and concerns centered on the topic from a religious perspective of live and let live, and give and let give... and I know... it annoys the hardliners who think illegal immigration is ruining our country.

I think we should be doing more to reach out to these people. I think if we did our darndest we would find that we would have the means as a country to feed every person that crossed the border and give them a better life. What would inspire patriotism and the next generation more, than if we welcomed them with open arms, and love in our hearts?

That would be amazing.

--Ray

I agree wholeheartedly. We don't do enough for these people who are only trying to escape a racist, oppressive, corupt mexico. I for one say we should have open borders and increase social programs and spending to make sure these folks have a better life and I volunteer to support the raising of your taxes to pay for it!

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Gerardo illegally brings his family here from X country in Central America to escape poverty and violence. He finds a construction job making $8/hour, and it is barely enough to buy food for his family (won't get food stamps because he's scared of the government) and pay the rent on their tiny apartment (will never be late with the rent money, always in cash, because he needs to keep a low profile).

Now, the wonderful little city of Farmer's Branch threatens his employer with fines, so Gererdo is fired. The city also threatens to fine his landlord, so Gererdo, his wife, and two children are evicted.

Where will they go? What will they do?

Those policies are directly harmful to children, who are here because their parents are trying to give them a better life, not because the children intentionally broke the law.

And for the argument that goes something like this: Well, we shouldn't have to address the issue because it's the parents' bad choices that got them into the situation in the first place, my only reply is an encouragement to study King Benjamin's address again, particularly Mosiah chapter 4, which contains these verses:

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

- roper

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Roper wrote:

Gerardo illegally brings his family here from X country in Central America to escape poverty and violence. He finds a construction job making $8/hour, and it is barely enough to buy food for his family (won't get food stamps because he's scared of the government) and pay the rent on their tiny apartment (will never be late with the rent money, always in cash, because he needs to keep a low profile).

Now, the wonderful little city of Farmer's Branch threatens his employer with fines, so Gererdo is fired. The city also threatens to fine his landlord, so Gererdo, his wife, and two children are evicted.

Where will they go? What will they do?

Those policies are directly harmful to children, who are here because their parents are trying to give them a better life, not because the children intentionally broke the law.

And for the argument that goes something like this: Well, we shouldn't have to address the issue because it's the parents' bad choices that got them into the situation in the first place, my only reply is an encouragement to study King Benjamin's address again, particularly Mosiah chapter 4, which contains these verses:

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

- roper

Render unto Caesar Roper. They broke the law. I sympathise with their predicament and will be happy to contribute funds to purchase a rifle and ammunition so that they may join the revolutionary forces in their country working to overthrow the corupt government. I personally have no problem voluntarilly offering of my means to help the poor. I object to the government forcing me to give more and more because of their failure to enforce the laws of the land. I don't care what color they are or where they come from. Life is not fair and no country should be the dumping ground for any other countries least wanted in this day in age. Sure it worked prior to the 20th century. Why don't we just bring back indentured servitude too since we are heck bent on prolonging this practice of dumping the poor, least educated, and least desired of one country into another. Oh right, we basically have indentured servitude when employers, renters, etc aren't punished hiring and housing people in the shadows of society.

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 14:57, 2006-11-16

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

my only reply is an encouragement to study King Benjamin's address again, particularly Mosiah chapter 4

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

Okay, since you brought scripture into this, let's look closer...

What petition has Geraldo brought up? Did he petition to enter the country? No. He entered under the table and keeps all his transactions likewise... under the table to avoid scrutiny so he stays below the radar of the law enforcement?

If enforcement of law on illegal immigration is tantamount to denying beggars or those seeking help, then we as members of the church, as a people and as a nation should apply that same standard to any nation and it's people that is not on the same economic scale as us. And we are guilty beyond measure in that case...

How about a couple other verses from that same chapter?

  14 And ye will not suffer your achildren that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye bsuffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and cquarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the devil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness.

  15 But ye will ateach them to bwalk in the ways of truth and csoberness; ye will teach them to dlove one another, and to serve one another.

  27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and aorder; for it is not requisite that a man should run bfaster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

What is one of the laws of God? To obey the laws of the land. (okay, so if the law of the land where they are coming from is to cross the border into the US illegally, then I guess that would negate that point...

) Also, The Lord expects things to be done in an orderly fashion, spiritually and temporally. Those who are coming across the border illegally are perhaps guilty of running faster than they have strength, for they are not doing things in wisdom and order... hmmm?

Methinks trying to bring the scripture into a discussion on illegal immigration and law enforcement thereof is a cheap attempt at creating the guilt trip there, roper old pal!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I could interpret those scriptures in exeactly your opposite take, Cat.

I have to wonder if the Good Samaritan was an illegal immigrant.

You can hide behind "enforce the law" but we are creatures of mercy. We desire mercy from our God, when he has every right to cast us out of his presence.

God wants us to pay a simple price for our disobedience, so why can't se do the same for illegals. Instead of treating most illegals like they are cancer or need to be sent home, why not welcome them, and encourage them to become legal, by making it possible for them to do so... (like paying a fine... and then giving them a shot at citizenship, and a legitimate right to work here?)?

--Ray

Randy · Senior Member

Boundaries are important. Important to people. Important to nations. Without boundaries, there is no limit to the impositions that people can place upon you. Which in turn makes it difficult to fulfill your mission. Being a rug is not what we are about.

No thanks.

Ya almost make it sound like illegal immigrants are here because they want to become Americans. That may be true of some, but most of them keep their loyalties back to home. When their grandchildren become adults, that sort of thing can cause extreme social problems, like the riots that occured in France recently.

No thanks.

They give other nations a safety valve, a way to blow off excess unproductive population instead of nurturing a society where they could prosper. That is bad for their home countries. The money they make in America does little to support our economy, going back to the old country for their relatives.

No thanks.

The Perpetual Education fund is a good start at raising the standard of living in the third world. If others could follow the example of the church and implement this on a massive scale, it would help those people a lot more than letting them sneak into our country or have us support them while they fill up our emergency rooms..

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Randy wrote:

The Perpetual Education fund is a good start at raising the standard of living in the third world. If others could follow the example of the church and implement this on a massive scale, it would help those people a lot more than letting them sneak into our country or have us support them while they fill up our emergency rooms..

Yes, this program is genious. Unlike government programs the chances of graft, coruption, misuse, and theft are almost zero. It encourages growth in the country. If this program gets even bigger I believe we will see major changes by the next generation in many of the countries where this program is being utilized. It's almost like a GI bill for returned missionaries in those countries although they do have to pay it back. The GI bill was a true stroke of genious and led to the boom in America following WWII. I think we will look back on the PEF program and see similar results 50 years down the road.

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

I could interpret those scriptures in exeactly your opposite take, Cat.

I have to wonder if the Good Samaritan was an illegal immigrant.

You can hide behind "enforce the law" but we are creatures of mercy. We desire mercy from our God, when he has every right to cast us out of his presence.

God wants us to pay a simple price for our disobedience, so why can't se do the same for illegals. Instead of treating most illegals like they are cancer or need to be sent home, why not welcome them, and encourage them to become legal, by making it possible for them to do so... (like paying a fine... and then giving them a shot at citizenship, and a legitimate right to work here?)?

--Ray

Ray, is it really so kind to doom them to a life of poverty? Go back and read Jason's descriptions in another thread of how the majority of illegals live. Maybe it's better poverty than what they had in Mexico, but it's still a worse life than it is legal to let even a dog live in the US. The police would take your dog away if you treated it the same way many illegals live in this country.
Why not induce them to go home, then have the various impacted businesses (such as hospitals) pay a small portion of the money they're losing on illegals now, pay off politicians in Mexico, and start some businesses to give them real jobs in their homeland? The church already does something like that. It has programs to teach farmers there better techniques so that they can feed their family and have a little surplus, even off a small plot of land. You don't see Pres. Hinckley playing coyote and bringing illegals across the border in a van. But the church does run programs to help things be better for them in their homeland.
I think that's a little food for thought. Besides, Mexico isn't the only country with poor people. The US can't support the poor of the world. Nor should it have to. It is better for everyone involved to improve their lot in their home country.
People accuse us of wanting the whole world to be like the US. Wouldn't it be a good idea to help them build a good life in their home culture?
We can be kind without subjecting our own people to exploding crime rates, bankrupt hospitals, and the creation of a peasant class here in the US.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:

Methinks trying to bring the scripture into a discussion on illegal immigration and law enforcement thereof is a cheap attempt at creating the guilt trip there, roper old pal!

I thought understanding political issues from an LDS perspective, which I take to mean the unapologetic and liberal use of the scriptures and other resources, was the whole point of Bountiful.

I can see now that in the way I presented it, it could be implied that I was using scripture to judge others and attempting to give them a guilt trip. I apologize. That certainly wasn't my intent. My intent was to encourage another perspective.

Yet another perspective on the issue: The resources and wealth we enjoy in this country do not belong to us--they belong to our Father. He has temporarily given them into our stewardship. The only thing that matters is that we use what He has given us to do His will. To me, every argument against undocumented workers that is based on economic considerations is, in my view, unconscionable.

- roper

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

"Is it really so kind to doom them to a life of poverty?"

Sigh.

I'm with Roper on this one. I feel it everytime the discussion occurs. A purely economic argument never really works for me...

Besides, They already have a life of poverty. They come here to make things better--and the miracle of America is that things DO get better. Their children learn and are given more opportunities and little by little they are able to improve their lives. Just like any of us...

It's not just about the finances, it's about the freedom.

What you're really saying (or so it comes off to me) is don't let them come here to make a life of poverty, cuz I might end up poor too.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

You both missed my point, which is that it would be better for them and their country in the long run, financially, for them to stay in place and improve their situation. How is that unconscionable, to want for them what I see as the best long term path to prosperity? They are a permanent underclass here. Even the children of illegal immigrants tend to continue in the same sorts of jobs that their illegal immigrant parents did. I've seen this in many cases where I live.
So, please address the point, not an emotional reaction. Why is it not better for them to improve the economy in their own country? They can create a middle class, be better off in the long run, and improve the situation for their countrymen as well. My idea provides the greatest prosperity for the largest number of people.
And there are very real problems with an open border. I pointed out some of them, such as an exploding crime rate, which you did not address. And yes, a very high proportion of those crimes are committed by illegal immigrants. The situations are connected.
Plus, there are documented cases of weapons being brought over the border. There are documented cases of mexican regulars and irregulars firing on border guards. Drug traffic over the border.
I'm all for making it easier for mexicans to apply for a visa, while they're still in Mexico. Heck, make it possible for people residing in the US to apply for a visa for a person in Mexico to circumvent the corruption inherent in the system there. The more productive workers we have, the better off we are. I am not one of those that believes that the pool of available work is limited. We already accept more immigrants than most other countries. I'm not against that. We're a nation of immigrants, and I think that's a good thing.
But there needs to be control. And there needs to be order.
Don't assume that if I disagree with you I am devoid of compassion. I believe myself to be just as compassionate, but I see the situation differently.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Arbi, I'm with you in principle. I believe we should encourage everyone to stay where they are and improve their situation. How?

So far, what we're doing in Mexico and the rest of Central America isn't working. Despite the billions we spend in direct aid to the region, it has had no observable impact on immigration. What I find interesting is that the amount of money sent by undocumented workers back to their families in Mexico exceeds the amount of direct aid our government provides to Mexico. To me that clearly states that people believe the best option for their families is to have a few of them come to the US, despite the risks. How do we change that perspective? Build a fence?

I agree there needs to be a degree of control for security reasons. And I believe there needs to be an orderly and just process for immigration. Those discussions to not address the issues of the people who are already here. And so impatient cities like Farmer's Branch take immigration reform, which is a decidedly federal issue, into their own hands. In so doing, they implement discriminatory and harmful policies.

- roper

-- Edited by Roper at 07:51, 2006-11-17

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Roper wrote:

In so doing, they implement discriminatory and harmful policies.

- roper

-- Edited by Roper at 07:51, 2006-11-17

The language of the laws look pretty race neutral so why is it discriminatory? I assume that an illegal immigrant from the Ukraine is just as subject to the law as one from Honduras, correct? Texas is already a pretty diverse state compared to many others I have been to. The police, businesses, politicians, etc come from all sorts of different ethnic backgrounds. We are not talking 1953 Mississippi here.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yep. The language is very carefully neutral. However, with 37% of the city's population being Hispanic, I wonder at whom the policies are targeted? And, specifically, the policy states that official publications may not be pulbished in Spanish. That doesn't exactly sound neutral to me.

Since this is occuring in my back yard, so to speak, I've been following the story with interest. Legal challenges are already in the works. If it plays out like similar cases in Escondido, CA and Hazleton, PA, it will be tied up in court for quite a while.

- roper

-- Edited by Roper at 08:34, 2006-11-17

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Roper wrote:

Yep. The language is very carefully neutral. However, with 37% of the city's population being Hispanic, I wonder at whom the policies are targeted? And, specifically, the policy states that official publications may not be pulbished in Spanish. That doesn't exactly sound neutral to me.

When California passed Proposition 187 to deny all but emergency state services to illegal immigrants the opposition termed it as racist but funny how the majority of legal hispanics voted for the bill. The courts later gutted it but the bill passed overwhelmingly. Was it racism then. I guess if you want to see racism in something you will find it. This is why no one will fix the chaotic border situation. The open border folks immediately scream racism. Better to be accused of having innapropriate relations with underage interns or dump your car off a bridge resulting in the death of another person and not report it until the next day than to be called a racist. Just look at what happened to Trent Lott, Ted Kennedy, etc.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

I can see now that in the way I presented it, it could be implied that I was using scripture to judge others and attempting to give them a guilt trip. I apologize. That certainly wasn't my intent. My intent was to encourage another perspective.

Yet another perspective on the issue: The resources and wealth we enjoy in this country do not belong to us--they belong to our Father. He has temporarily given them into our stewardship. The only thing that matters is that we use what He has given us to do His will. To me, every argument against undocumented workers that is based on economic considerations is, in my view, unconscionable.

I think that illustrates a couple of the quandries we face as those who are trying to be disciples of Christ according to the light we have been given. Sometimes, we forget to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's as we strive to do our duty to render unto God that which is God's, or we fail to see the line and relation between the two. I'm glad you saw the point I was trying to make that perhaps quotation of scripture when it comes to a political issue can sometimes be pretty subjective. We would probably do well to remember the principles of how the church welfare system works when trying to apply gospel principles to this issue.

Roper wrote:

So far, what we're doing in Mexico and the rest of Central America isn't working. Despite the billions we spend in direct aid to the region, it has had no observable impact on immigration. What I find interesting is that the amount of money sent by undocumented workers back to their families in Mexico exceeds the amount of direct aid our government provides to Mexico. To me that clearly states that people believe the best option for their families is to have a few of them come to the US, despite the risks. How do we change that perspective? Build a fence?

Precisely. What we're doing with Mexico and the rest of Central America by essentially turning a blind eye to the wide open nozzle of illegal immigration is incenting the governments to stick with the status quo. Why should they work on improving economic conditions there when they are killing three birds with one stone... They are getting billions in direct aid from us, they are able to shift the burden of social care expense for a certain percentage of their population to us, and they are going to the bank (literally) with all the remittances that get sent back home by the illegal immigrants working here. My first thought was how the issue of unfettered illegal immigration is kind of like how the second hand garment industry (courtesy of U.S. and other rich industrialized nations charities) has for all intensive purposes destroyed the local textile industries of so many third world African nations.

How do we change that? Stop the incentive for the foreign governments to do nothing to improve the lot of their own people and economy. Help them help themselves. As crass as it sounds, it does in fact mean having tighter border control and removing the incentive for people to come here illegally. If they really are here to escape the terrible situation at home, let them apply for political asylum. If it is simply a matter of Geralod lives in X but if he goes to Y he can get paid better, then that is solely economic, and must be handled according to law. It is not the same thing as you or I moving to another state or city within the U.S. simply because our job takes us there or we get hired by another firm that pays better. We as U.S. citizens do not get the "privilege" of going to work on ex-patriot assignments or jobs unless we follow the laws of the foreign country concerning foreign workers to the T.

The concept of the PEF is more what needs to be done. As you stated, we are blessed with the abundance we have and are expected to be wise stewards over it, helping to lift those who need lifting. Didn't the "inventor" of the micro-loan program in Bangladesh or India end up winning a Noble Prize recently?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Cat Herder wrote:

The concept of the PEF is more what needs to be done. As you stated, we are blessed with the abundance we have and are expected to be wise stewards over it, helping to lift those who need lifting. Didn't the "inventor" of the micro-loan program in Bangladesh or India end up winning a Noble Prize recently?

That micro loan guy is also a genious. His system bypasses the coruption and layers of government that would essentially take 98 cents of every dollar of the help. The coruption and government take on aid we send oversees is terrible. Just look at how Arafat set himself up. It is also the reason I have a problem with Bono's bid for countries to forgive third world debt. It won't help the people suffering in those countries in most cases because the government and corruption will suck it all up.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I find it interesting that in the countries, even in South America where we do a lot of big business, these countries turn to socialist dictators. Honestly I think our country screws other nations by giving large chunks of money to individuals. By allowing immigrants to enter our country enmasse, and allowing them to send money back, I have to wonder if we've kept Mexico from doing the same thing... as corrupt as it is, due to the localized infusions of cash from their own citizens.

Oh and Arb, I don't assume you don't have compassion, I was stating what it "appears to me" to be...

Jase, I don't care about the race card, either. By suggesting that my dismissal of your arguments is because I think you're racist is just as dismissive of my arguments as supposedly mine are of yours...

--Ray

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

rayb wrote:

Jase, I don't care about the race card, either. By suggesting that my dismissal of your arguments is because I think you're racist is just as dismissive of my arguments as supposedly mine are of yours...

--Ray

I know you don't think I'm a racist because racism is incompatible with the gospel. My race comments were not directed toward you anyways. I was merely commenting on the label that some have placed on these laws. I just get miffed everytime a law, rule, suggestion, or person is looked at through the racist prism. If the law is passed in Texas it must be because of racism because it will effect mostly illegal immigrants of hispanic decent. What if we passed this same law in a town in Vermont?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

salesortonscom wrote:

I just get miffed everytime a law, rule, suggestion, or person is looked at through the racist prism.

If you're repeatedly on the receiving end, maybe it's the only prism you have through which to view the world.

I doubt I'll ever understand it, but I care about many who do.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

salesortonscom wrote:

I just get miffed everytime a law, rule, suggestion, or person is looked at through the racist prism.

If you're repeatedly on the receiving end, maybe it's the only prism you have through which to view the world.

I doubt I'll ever understand it, but I care about many who do.

That is a valid observation, but it doesn't always mean it is justified.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:

That is a valid observation, but it doesn't always mean it is justified.

It's justifed to them. And since they're the ones experiencing it and living with the effects of it, I believe they're in a better position to raise the flag than those of us who really have no idea what it's like.

arbilad · Head Chef

Roper wrote:

Cat Herder wrote:

That is a valid observation, but it doesn't always mean it is justified.

It's justifed to them. And since they're the ones experiencing it and living with the effects of it, I believe they're in a better position to raise the flag than those of us who really have no idea what it's like.

But it also limits many of them. For instance, many blacks want reparations for slavery because they feel that they are poor and unhappy because their ancestors were enslaved. But in all actuality most modern blacks are disadvantaged because of their political leaders and because of certain aspects of their culture, such as scorning education.
I feel that the racism card is used in the same way. I'm not saying that no one experiences racism. That is obviously untrue. But I also think that there are many instances when people blame the results of their own choices on racism.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

That's one of the reasons I wish we could cool the hotter rhetoric in the debate, and provide reasonable compromises where possible, because a large percentage of hispanics are likely to blame (thanks to a very irresponsible media that puts on moronic pundits pretty much 24/7) their perdicament on the phantasm of racism.

I think our cultures trend to general lawlessness, disrespect of the law, and the entrenched dishonesty in our culture from the President who lies under oath, to every kid who gets on the internet and downloads illegal music that doesn't belong to them... it is easy to get the impression that either the people saying "Obey the law! Obey the law!" are racists or they're hypocrites. And since being a hypocrite is condemned in christian tradition very severely perhaps the default racism charge is the lesser of two evils?

It would be nice if a faction of us could "break loose" and communicate that we actually DO believe in both obeying the law, and in equal opportunities to all men regardless of race, gender, or religion.

Then again, it would also be nice if I had super powers that enabled me to walk through walls and fly...

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Arbi - I agree that the race card is played too often. In the Air Force, I served with a Chief Master Sergeant who had made chief in part because he threatened to launch an IG complaint based on racial discrimination. No commander wants to deal with that, so they gave him the promotion. That's wrong, plain and simple. With the case in Farmer's Branch, I believe the Hispanic community is justified in discussing racial discrimination as part of the issue.

Ray - I think you've introduced something that doesn't get addressed enough: Once the race card is played, the issue usually elevates to a point beyong rationality, and that's unfortunate. Racial discrimination is rarely the whole issue, but sometimes it is a valid and important part. I hate that so many issues like this are so polarizing. Suddenly you either have to become a champion for a cause or bow out--compromise, which is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of democracy, is no longer an option.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I read an interesting article over the weekend in my local paper titled Hospitals feel drag of illegal immigrants. This site does require registration to view this article so I'll try to quote portions that I am commenting on:

"In Tarrant County, which consists mainly of Fort Worth [Texas], hospitals require foreign-born indigent patients to furnish proof of legal residence. However, at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas County, management has a de-facto don't-ask, don't-tell policy. Last year the facility spent $76 million caring for non-county residents or people believed to be illegal immigrants, hospital officials say."

"From Brownsville to El Paso, the rapidly growing number of "anchor babies" is costing hospitals millions of dollars, health officials say. "Anchor babies" are the newborns of undocumented immigrants, who use such children to become legal since anyone born in this country is automatically a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality."

"In Dallas County 70 percent of women who gave birth in the first three months of 2006 were here illegally. In Oklahoma 83 percent of the money spent on illegal immigrants is in maternity wards. In Georgia $100-$300 million is spent each year in non-emergency care for illegal immigrants."

Healthcare and health insurance costs are a growing concern in the US. One of the causes of that is "cost shifting". Hospitals and other care providers shift costs not paid by illegals, uninsured and amounts over Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates to those who do pay and/or have insurance. The concern of growing illegal immigrant healthcare costs should be a concern of all of us not to mention the problem of "anchor babies" causing greater illegal immigrant problems.

Many hospitals are starting to require proof of citizenship for service but many do not and will probably continue to provide care for illegals until the money they are losing from such care becomes impossible to ignore. Of course, there will be some upset that we turn away illegal immigrants for healthcare but there comes a point where we cannot continue to absorb those costs as citizens.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

btw, (quick aside) from what I understand, in Mexico racism is a HUGE problem, as is corruption in the government. So is it any wonder that some in this debate immediately assume it's just business as usual. I wish there were some way we could communicate that things CAN be different in the United States...

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Of course, there will be some upset that we turn away illegal immigrants for healthcare

Should we abandon the ethics of medicine which state that everyone will receive medical treatment regardless of ability to pay?

there comes a point where we cannot continue to absorb those costs as citizens.

My question is, "why not?"

My response to the costs issue is this: The exorbitant cost of healthcare is a complex issue that contains many other complex issues such as the high cost of medicine and medical supplies, the high cost of malpractice insurance, the dishonest practices of insurance companies, our desire for hospitals to become expensive healthcare resorts, etc. Healthcare for undocumented immigrants is a small part of the issue. Let's not blame them for the problems with healthcare that should have been resolved decades ago.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Should we abandon the ethics of medicine which state that everyone will receive medical treatment regardless of ability to pay?

No, nor did I state we should. Many hospitals will continue to provide such care for that reason.

My response to the costs issue is this: The exorbitant cost of healthcare is a complex issue that contains many other complex issues such as the high cost of medicine and medical supplies, the high cost of malpractice insurance, the dishonest practices of insurance companies, our desire for hospitals to become expensive healthcare resorts, etc. Healthcare for undocumented immigrants is a small part of the issue. Let's not blame them for the problems with healthcare that should have been resolved decades ago.

I never stated illegal immigrants are the problem with healthcare costs nor a large contributor of the problem. I blogged about it a couple years ago and didn't even mention illegal immigrants being a part of the problem because at the time I hadn't read anything on it. It truly is a complex problem that will only be resolved when we approach it from all directions.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

as someone who has to pay COBRA $1100 buckers a month for my family, when I have no job, I find myself more and more sympathetic to the original idea of medicine available to all.

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

OUCH! That's more than my house payment! Ray, while you're unemployed, can your children qualify for Medicaid? Also, your county hospital may have a reduced-cost health plan for you and your wife as well if you qualify.

Keeping that $1100/month in your budget could certainly extend your emergency funds while you're looking for employment.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Yeah, it's near my mortgage payment too... It's so insane. The benefit is that I get the same level of coverage as I had when I was employed, and when I am employed next, any pre-existing conditions are automatically covered because it counts as having "continuous coverage".

It's such a racket, though. The healthcare system in our country is so skeeeeerewed...

arbilad · Head Chef

Ray, don't complain; you're helping pay for the illegal immigrants using the emergency room and not paying.
Does your coverage end the last day of your work, or the last day of the month? If you get a job quickly enough you may not need to worry about COBRA.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

My last day of work is Nov. 30th... so... um... to answer your question... Yes. :)

It would be cool to get a job right away... of course that implies a resume'...

--Ray

TitusTodd · Senior Member

If you think it is bad now, just try universal healthcare (I'll refer you back to the link above for my blog for the reasons). Put the government in charge, that has always worked quite well...

Ray, don't complain; you're helping pay for the illegal immigrants using the emergency room and not paying.

Actually, many "great" citizens of our country abuse emergency rooms in that manner. I am quite confident illegal immigrants compose only a fraction of the overall abuse (so far).

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Ray - I don't know your situation (both your family's health and your job prospects) but you may look into temporary insurance (Short Term Medical) which can be good usually for 6-12 months at a time (no copays). Of course, you may even look into an individual health plan to save some money - just compare and choose carefully if you do.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 14:49, 2006-11-22

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 14:56, 2006-11-22

arbilad · Head Chef

Actually, many "great" citizens of our country abuse emergency rooms in that manner. I am quite confident illegal immigrants compose only a fraction of the overall abuse (so far).

It is true that it is not only illegals who use emergency rooms for general health care. But they are responsible for a disproportionate share. Why do you think that hospitals are mainly going under in areas with high illegal immigrant populations?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I don't think that just because the two events are happening next to each other implies the greatest bulk of a causal relationship. If you're going to assert that undocumented immigrants are the primary reason for hospitals' financial woes, I'm going to ask for evidence to support that assertion.

I acknowledge that hospitals serving low socio-economic status populations are struggling. Undocumented immigrants may exacerbate that problem because they tend to live within those populations, for obvious reasons. But I'm still unconvinced it's mostly their fault.

arbilad · Head Chef

Roper wrote:

I don't think that just because the two events are happening next to each other implies the greatest bulk of a causal relationship. If you're going to assert that undocumented immigrants are the primary reason for hospitals' financial woes, I'm going to ask for evidence to support that assertion.

I acknowledge that hospitals serving low socio-economic status populations are struggling. Undocumented immigrants may exacerbate that problem because they tend to live within those populations, for obvious reasons. But I'm still unconvinced it's mostly their fault.

Here's one article about it. Granted, it's on a blog, but it's a copy of a New York Times article, not exactly a right wing extremist paper.
The main problem, as I understand it, is that hospitals are not reimbursed by the state or federal government for care of illegals, whereas they are for legal immigrants, or other poor people. Thus, even though other poor people may use emergency rooms for routine care, they are not the financial hit that illegals are.
There are many other articles concerning this.

arbilad · Head Chef

Here's another report, this one testimony given before the house judiciary committee. It's more about the subject of amnesty, but it does touch on the huge financial burden that illegals pose to hospitals, forcing some of them to face bankruptcy.

BTW, for me the money and the humanitarian aspect go hand in hand. You can ruin someone's soul by teaching them to live off of welfare. I've known people of all sorts, citizens, immigrants (including from Russia, not just Mexico), etc., who live off the dole in some way. It wreaks havoc on their sense of self worth, on their spirituality, etc.
I know a Russian immigrant who joined the church just because of our welfare program. When the ward brought by a bunch of expensive presents one christmas (including a video game machine with an armload of video games) she later complained to my wife that they had gotten so little for Christmas. This was a rich ward, and she and her kids got better presents by far than my family did that year.

Let's do our best to make the lives of our brothers and sisters in other countries better. I'm all for that. I'm for the maximum good for the maximum number of people. I just don't see that illegal immigration is the best thing for individuals, groups, or nations. Heck, maybe Jason is right; start a fund to let people living in Mexico buy the materiel necessary to install a new government. Heck, have the US sell it to them on credit. Sure, that's an act of war. But what do you call letting terrorists through, letting drug runners have the freedom to cross the border, firing on border guards, etc.? Mexico has basically already begun a war with us. Are we going to fight it, or give in?

arbilad · Head Chef

According to this article, illegal immigrants aren't accounting for the bulk of free care in that city yet, but they're far and away the greatest growth group. The following quote from the article is illustrative:

Longmont United Hospital is on track this year to provide about $25 million worth of health care to people who can’t or won’t pay, up from about $21.3 million in 2005.

Of that care, $7.7 million worth — about 30 percent — will go to people who lack a valid Social Security number, the hospital reported. In 2005, $3.6 million in care was given to people without valid documentation.

And the amount of free care given to those without proper documentation has leapt 1,620 percent from 2002 to today, In 2002, LUH provided just $448,000 in care to people without documentation, the hospital reported.

So, for the growth in free care from 2005 to 2006, all of it was illegal immigrants. And, at 1,620 over four years, or 405% a year, they're on track to become the largest group of free care receivers very soon, even if that rate slacks off.

And this is all in Longmont, CO, which isn't a border town by any stretch of the imagination.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

What I found most interesting in the article was the following:

Free or unreimbursed care is a problem for hospitals all over Colorado, Colorado Hospital Association spokeswoman Marty Arizumi said.
She said there’s been industry discussion that new state laws requiring anyone receiving state services to provide proof of legal residency may end up driving illegal immigrants away from getting routine health care such as flu shots. That means people may get sicker and seek emergency care at hospitals that are legally obligated to care for them.
Because there is no such thing as “free” health care, hospitals and insurers charge paying customers more to make up some of the shortfall.

We can vouch for that. A hospital doesn't have to be losing money, it just has to show it is not for profit, or in other words show it isn't making a profit. That can be done in a variety of ways to show their "expenses" and "unreimbursed care" figures are actually higher or overinflated in value. Hospitals that are not for profit have a lot to lose financially if they lose their not for profit status. So, one way to show this is to make the charges for services ridiculously high. That way, they still get reimbursed by insurance for what ever they contract with the insurance company for, and they can "write off" what the insurance disallows (which is not really a loss anyway except on paper) while still getting reimbursed a fair amount from the insurance and whatever portion the patient with the insurance must pay in deductable or co-insurance or co-pays. But, you have the folks that come in that do not have insurance or have no way to pay and have no intention of paying a portion, and the hospital can't turn them away due to the laws and they get the benefit of being able to write off the full "retail" charges for the services. That all gets tallied as negative revenue on the balance sheet, despite any actual incremental expense for the services probably being nominal.

From a business / accounting standpoint, it is all a cost accounting exercise. All hospitals, be they for profit or not for profit, are going to make the money they need to in order to stay in business. They are all business entities. And, my family having been patrons to no less than 6 hospitals in the Detroit Metro area over the past 6 years can attest to the fact that even the not for profit hospitals don't care what your ability to pay is if you have insurance. We had to take a home equity loan out to pay one hospital because they saw where we lived, that we had insurance, and because of the number of poor people they treat where they don't get reimbursed... all because their billing department refused to allow a payment plan with us after insurance paid it's part.

But, from an operations standpoint, where the real problem lies is the fact the hospitals have a finite number of resources, be they doctors, nurses, beds, etc. that can be allocated to patient care during a given time period. And, when it comes to operations in the business of health care, it doesn't matter if you're poor or rich, illegal immigrant or descendant of Mayflower Pilgrims...

Health care as an industry is full of various forms of reverse discrimination, most noteably in the form of economic, directly correlated to the number of illegal immigrants who require and can not be denied basic treatments at so many hospitals and clinics.

How about this idea. Since we probably all have a problem morally with not taking care of even illegal immigrants who need health care, how about all the health care expense they rack up that goes unreimbursed gets tallied and the US Government sends a bill to Mexico and other latin american countries (proportionate to the % of the illegal immigrant population in the USA made up by their citizens) each year. They could either pay or have the amount deducted from the various aid packages they receive from us... This would incent the native countries of these individuals to keep people home, as it would then be costing them the real money it is costing our economy and citizenry to subsidize them.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

"as someone who has to pay COBRA $1100 buckers a month for my family"

I'd hold off on paying the COBRA right away, if I were you. Read the fine print. First of all, your HR department or Group Plan provider (or the company to whom they outsource the COBRA function) has something like 30 days to even send you a notice about COBRA. Then, you have something like 30 days to respond. Which buys you 60 days in which to find another job.

At your new job, if you can't get on the insurance plan right away, you can negotiate to have them cover the COBRA to keep you covered until your new coverage takes effect.

But, if you don't have any healthcare costs for the initial 30-60 days, you may want to forego COBRA. The HIPA law allows a break of a maximum of 63 days in your prior 18 months of creditiable coverage.

So, basically, if you can get on another plan within 60 days, then skip COBRA. If not, try to get the new employer to either let you on immediately, or pay a portion of your COBRA.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Don't, however, put off your decision too long, Ray. Be sure you don't have a gap in coverage at least, beyond 63 days - as long as you remain below that amount of time you will get pre-existing condition credit from being covered under your prior group plan - this is mostly applicable if you go to an individual plan from the group plan.