Go Ahead, Buy An Illegal Immigrant A New Liver
It's your choice. Instead of leaving your money to your children, leave your money to somebody else's child who's in the country illegally, and is in need of an organ transplant. Feel free to pay what the LA Times' Anna Gorman reports is the price:
The average cost of a liver transplant and first-year follow-up is nearly $490,000, and anti-rejection medications can run more than $30,000 annually, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees transplantation nationwide.
People argue that we should give free replacement organs to illegals on humanitarian grounds. That sounds really wonderful. But, the thing is, the treatment isn't free -- well, except to the illegal immigrant, because we American taxpayers are picking up the tab. And we American taxpayers are also going to the back of the line to get transplants if we need them.
Here, from Gorman's story, is how it worked for an illegal Mexican immigrant:
Ana Puente was an infant with a liver disorder when her aunt brought her illegally to the U.S. to seek medical care. She underwent two liver transplants at UCLA Medical Center as a child in 1989 and a third in 1998, each paid for by the state.But when Puente turned 21 last June, she aged out of her state-funded health insurance and was unable to continue treatment at UCLA.
This year, her liver began failing again and she was hospitalized at County-USC Medical Center. In her Medi-Cal application, a USC doctor wrote, "Her current clinical course is irreversible, progressive and will lead to death without another liver transplant." The application was denied.
The county gave her medication but does not have the resources to perform transplants.
Late last month Puente learned of another, little-known option for patients with certain healthcare needs. If she notified U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that she was in the country illegally, state health officials might grant her full Medi-Cal coverage. Puente did so, her benefits were restored and she is now awaiting a fourth transplant at UCLA.
Puente's case highlights two controversial issues: Should illegal immigrants receive liver transplants in the U.S. and should taxpayers pick up the cost?
Again, beyond the cost factor, the problem is, there aren't a whole lot of spare livers and kidneys and things flying around. Here's how it works out for us legal, taxpaying types:
Immigration status does not play a role in allocating organs.But some say that it should and that illegal immigrants should return to their home countries for care rather than receive organs and costly transplants ahead of legal residents and U.S. citizens.
"All transplants are about rationing," said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which favors stricter controls on immigration. "I just don't think the public ought to be funding any kind of benefits for people who are breaking the law."
Larry Gonzalez, a U.S. citizen who has hepatitis C, has known for a decade that he needs a new liver but was just placed on the transplant waiting list last week.
"Why do we have to get in line behind immigrants, foreigners, when we have enough people here to fill the hospitals?" asked Gonzalez, 54, who lives in Ventura. "It just seems obvious to me that we shouldn't be taking a back seat."
I'm not saying we should deny these children organs. I'm just saying we shouldn't be forced to pay for them. Those who squeal that all health care should be "free" (hey, slow learners...where do you think the funding comes from?) are quite "free" to show their humanitarianism the free-market way. Ideally, across the border. (I don't know why we bother keeping immigration laws on the books, wasting all that ink and paper, if we're not going to enforce them.)
And hey, quick question: How many of you U.S. residents commenting here get free medical care? How about a free liver? Two free livers? Three free livers? Or how about FOUR free livers -- the number being given to the illegal immigrant girl leading Gorman's piece. And, oh yeah -- how many of you are illegal immigrants?
And, another question: How many people who read this LAT piece are nixing their decision to donate their organs, like these two commenters on the LAT site:
21. I am cancelling my donor permission on my drivers license. The ultimate insult to me as an American would be to have my organs used to prolong the life of someone who is in the United States illegally and has never contributed to the American economy, but has sucked the system dry. Submitted by: American 2:31 PM PDT, April 14, 200822. I don't care who you are...no one is deserving of 4 livers. After the first two, the doctors and hospitals should have come to the realization that the body is going to reject whatever they put inside it. There is no way an American citizen would be given the same level of treatment in Mexico, China or the Phillippines. I will no longer be an organ donor.
Submitted by: Sandra V.
2:29 PM PDT, April 14, 2008
A few more comments I found compelling:
31. Because she's here illegally from birth, we owe her her fourth liver? So far, we've 'contributed' at least $2 million for this illegal alien. And, the young man is 'mad' because we owe him for a liver just because he's here illegally? And, the idiots in our governments can't figure out why American taxpayers don't want to be dying because the health care they support is going to felons. Submitted by: ethel640 12:44 PM PDT, April 14, 200832. Stephanie wrote:"I'm sorry but we are not god we do not hsave the right to way who should ive or die." Stephanie, that's what the whole transplant decision process that these doctors go through is about--deciding who gets organs and who doesn't. If you're too old, in too bad a shape, a drug addict or alcoholic, whether you or someone can pay, it matters. Why shouldn't it matter whether or not you're in this country illegally?
Submitted by: Ali
12:27 PM PDT, April 14, 200851. I've been in the U.S. since I was a baby, too (I'm a U.S. citizen). No one takes care of me unless I pay the bills! The sense of entitlement expressed by this young woman is mind-boggling!!!!! I'm not sure if this article was meant to gather sympathy for illegals, but, if it was, it failed miserably. All I feel is anger...not just anger at this young woman and others like her, but anger at every politician in the entire country who refuses to obey U.S. laws and send these illegals back to their countries of origin.
Submitted by: davenjan
9:12 AM PDT, April 14, 2008
thanks, Jessica
Perhaps instead of just shipping them back to the US/Mexico boarder we should drop them off at the Mexico/Guatamalin boarder.
Of course the reason immigration laws are not enfored is because the government is working an a North American contintent state with a fudal economy full of cheap, poor, uneducated workers so hard up for money they will work for next to nothing.
Thats why I look forward to the next good plauge. Nothing like killing off over half the work force to jump start the economy and innovation. If the labor pool gets smaller employers are forced to rely on well trained and well paid workers rather than an endless supply of willing slaves.
And as for the article, 2 livers seems like one to many for most people let alone someone who shouldnt even be here
lujlp at April 23, 2008 1:57 AM
"All transplants are about rationing," said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which favors stricter controls on immigration. "I just don't think the public ought to be funding any kind of benefits for people who are breaking the law."
Abso-fuckin'lutely!! I'm an organ donor, or, was, until I read this. I will be cancelling my donor's permission forthwith.
Flynne at April 23, 2008 5:40 AM
I can't recall who said it, but someone said "People get the government they deserve."
Frankly, despicable as the whole thing is, we can't blame the illegal for taking advantage of it, any more than we can be angry at a guest in our home for taking the extra glass of wine we offer to them. The illegal in question took advantage of a system that was designed to provide exactly that, free medical care.
What we SHOULD be mad at, is OUR elected officials, who chose to use taxpayer money in this way.
I empathize with any parent or grandparent's agony, none of either should have to watch their little ones perish before themselves. It is the ultimate nightmare.
However, it is NOT the responsibility nor is it within the ABILITY of our government to provide life and health for foriegn peoples. We have no business seeing to others before we see to ourselves. Outside of the military, there is no free health care, the solution to the health care problem has yet to be found, and they spend money...our money, on foriegners? If people want to help those in disadvantaged nations, fine, let them use their money to do so. If they want to donate their liver to poor immigrants & illegals, again fine. However did we really vote people into office who decided our money is best spent on people from beyond our own borders? If so, we have no one but ourselves...and our elected officials, to blame if we keep them, and their senseless laws, in place. The illegals themselves? Deport them...but its just foolish to blame them for simply taking advantage of what our elected officials provide.
Moreover:
In their dire efforts to save this one foriegn person, they may very well have killed 3 citizens, 3 of our own children perhaps, because they chose to give those livers away repeatedly to a person whose body rejected them. Now they do it a fourth time.
Do they kill a fourth person? I don't know.
Will they kill a fifth if this one fails too? I'd wager the answer is a damn sight more certain that "probably".
Robert H. Butler at April 23, 2008 5:45 AM
This is the crux of the issue for me:
"How many of you U.S. residents commenting here get free medical care? How about a free liver? Two free livers? Three free livers? Or how about FOUR free livers"
I don't know how it works but if anyone does could they explain this? Here's a scenario: I need a liver transplant but don't have health insurance and can't afford to pay for it myself. What happens to me?
Would I be told "sorry your SOL" or will Massachusetts pick up the tab? Again, I'm unsure how it works. If I, an American paying taxes, would be left to die I don't understand how the government could allow such an inequity to occur (but it wouldn't surprise me, it's just criminal).
Anyone see John Q.? Such a situation reminds me of that movie (except he did have insurance, just "not enough").
Gretchen at April 23, 2008 6:33 AM
I suspect those saying they will stop being organ donors are releasing steam, but what a tragedy that anyone should die from lack of an organ because of petulance.
The funding of the system is a whole seperate issue.
Lord my body,
has been a good friend,
but I won't need it,
when I reach the end.
~Cat Stevens~
Makes sense to me.
eric at April 23, 2008 8:21 AM
Just amazed. So let me get this straight. There are people out there that are changing their organ donor status because it might go to a "foreigner". I guess I understand, better to let the damn thing rot inside me than to save someone's life I don't approve of. I continue to be awed by our ability to show our lack of compassion to people that are different than ourselves. Look don't get me wrong I know they are saying it is about the money, and I am sure that is at least part of it. And I do believe that if we were able to get rid of every illegal alein our taxes may drop a few percentage points. But the reality of the situation is this. Your taxes are never going to go down. You are never going to fix the imigration problem shortn of annexing Mexico. Even if you could the goverment would find something a lot less worthy than saving a life to spend your hard eaned money on.
PVM at April 23, 2008 8:22 AM
What about the case a few years ago where the illegal alien child was given a new heart with the wrong blood type at Duke Univ Med Ctr? They of course had to come up with another heart with the correct blood type. This was profiled on 60 minutes, I think. With an emphasis on the mistake made by the med staff. The illegal alien status was just a footnote. Oh, and the Mexican family sued Duke for the error.
Great country we live in.
Sean at April 23, 2008 8:28 AM
Until the once great, now late, USA declares that medical services (among one of the many things) will absolutely not be provided to illegal aliens...I won't even consider being an organ donor. Period. End of story.
zeezil at April 23, 2008 8:45 AM
There are people out there that are changing their organ donor status because it might go to a "foreigner".
You forgot the word "illegal" - that's my beef. If I could get a guarantee that my liver or whatever else that was needed would not be put in an illegal foreigner's body, I wouldn't have a problem. But I can't. So I just won't. Maybe I'll change my living will to specify that I want my organs used to enhance the life of someone who lives in this country legally, but even that's not a guarantee, is it? My Irish/Welsh/English/German ancestors came here with nothing, but did it legally. And there weren't any signs posted in Gaelic or German to help them along, either.
Flynne at April 23, 2008 8:55 AM
If your beautiful piano playing daughter was on the table, needing a new kidney, would you refuse an illegal alien's donation?
If someone needed my lungs, kidneys, or whatever, I wouldn't care if it was Jenna Bush or Pedro the gardener.
Again, the funding is a whole seperate issue.
eric at April 23, 2008 9:32 AM
My Mexican/Irish ancestors also came here legally. But my grandfather was never a citizen of this great country of ours because the system was set up so that it was nearly impossible to do so. Thirty five straight one year work visas. Always gainfully employed, self taught to read and write in two languages. Three sons three daughters who are citizens who all graduated high school when he never had the chance for any schooling past the most elementary. First grade if I remember the stories right. His grandchildren have in their number Two PHD's a number of engineers and countless other proffesionals. This is the "American Dream". This is the same dream that is no more than a dream where these people are coming from. I will never fault a person for wanting to improve the qality of life for their family. The people catch the bame but the system is at fault. It is nearly impossible and priced way out of reach for the "worker" in Mexico to come into the USA and become a citizen. I will garentee you one thing if my grandfather had not come into this country in the twenties and I was over there watching my child grow up in a poverty that not many people here can even begin to imagine, No damn fence would stop me from trying to make a better life for me and mine. To withhold what is a lifesaving jesture from someone because they were here to improve the quality of their life is incredibly petty. Petty is not nearly strong enough a word to describe it but best I could do.
PVM at April 23, 2008 9:38 AM
Eric, that's not the point. Because if my beautiful piano playing daughter was on the table, needing a new kidney, I don't really think that one would be available from an illegal alien. They're not exactly known for stepping up.
If someone needed my lungs, kidneys, or whatever, I wouldn't care if it was Jenna Bush or Pedro the gardener.
Again, not the point, as long as Pedro the gardener was here legally and as such, was entitled to medical care under the law. If Paris-Airhead-Hilton needed one of my kidneys, fine! This isn't about whether or not I like someone (believe me when I tell you that Paris isn't in my Top 100) or not, it's about are you here legally and entitled to medical care. And I don't care who you are, you are not entitled for 4 goddamn livers if you are here illegally. You're not even entitled to ONE as far as I'm concerned. Now, if some kind, private citizen wanted to pay for you, fine. But I don't think any illegal alien in this country is entitled to any medical aid at the expense of the tax payer. I'm happy for you that you are more magnanimous than I, but it's exactly that that encourages more illegal aliens to come here. Everthing for them is free, while I have to pay not only for me and my children, but for them as well! I don't like it, no sir, not one little bit.
Flynne at April 23, 2008 9:45 AM
Legal/illegal status aside (I'm pretty much in agreement with you on this one Amy), the utter insanity of this is that you would give this person 4 new livers. We seem to have this notion that everyone has the right and ability to live long lives. Everyone dies, some at a young age and some when they are old and gray. At some point we have to say, "I'm sorry, but these organs are going to those who have a higher probablility of survival." I had the same issues when Micky Mantle was given a new liver when his doctors knew full well that his prognosis was dim at best, even with a new liver.
Doctors never want to say that there's nothing more to be done except to get your affairs in order, who can blame them. Just one of the reasons I'm not a doctor.
Aardvark at April 23, 2008 9:45 AM
21. I am cancelling my donor permission on my drivers license. The ultimate insult to me as an American would be to have my organs used to prolong the life of someone who is in the United States illegally and has never contributed to the American economy, but has sucked the system dry. Submitted by: American 2:31 PM PDT, April 14, 2008
22. I don't care who you are...no one is deserving of 4 livers. After the first two, the doctors and hospitals should have come to the realization that the body is going to reject whatever they put inside it. There is no way an American citizen would be given the same level of treatment in Mexico, China or the Phillippines. I will no longer be an organ donor.
Submitted by: Sandra V.
2:29 PM PDT, April 14, 2008
31. Because she's here illegally from birth, we owe her her fourth liver? So far, we've 'contributed' at least $2 million for this illegal alien. And, the young man is 'mad' because we owe him for a liver just because he's here illegally? And, the idiots in our governments can't figure out why American taxpayers don't want to be dying because the health care they support is going to felons. Submitted by: ethel640 12:44 PM PDT, April 14, 2008
What is it exactly, that you don't get about this issue?
End of story. You wanna play here, you pay here. Just. Like. The. REST. Of. Us. Or take your goddamn ball and GO HOME.
Flynne at April 23, 2008 9:55 AM
Flynne, I believe you just proved my last two statements for me.
PVM at April 23, 2008 10:05 AM
Flynne- I was going to use Paris Hilton in my example, but went with Jenna!
The majority of organ transplants probably go to citizens and legal aliens in this country, and there is a shortage, so why possibly deprive someone you would consider eligble of a free life saving gift?
(Funny- I couldn't remember if separate was seperate or separate, so I looked it up. And then typed it wrong anyway, twice.)
eric at April 23, 2008 10:05 AM
I will garentee you one thing if my grandfather had not come into this country in the twenties and I was over there watching my child grow up in a poverty that not many people here can even begin to imagine, No damn fence would stop me from trying to make a better life for me and mine.
But you'd still be here ILLEGALLY. That's very commendable that you would want a better life for you and yours, but getting it ILLEGALLY is still ILLEGAL. Why are you deliberately not getting this?
Flynne at April 23, 2008 10:07 AM
PMV said “I continue to be awed by our ability to show our lack of compassion to people that are different than ourselves” I don’t think this is an issue of compassion. Yes, I feel for this little girl and her failing liver. Yes, I think she should get a liver if one is available and she is able to PAY for it. Heck I’d even be willing to subsidies the first liver but issue isn’t about subsidizing health care it’s about FREE health care for SOME. Those SOME are here illegally therefore, they aren’t paying in to the system that they are reaping the benefits of. For me it’s less about me wanting my taxes decreased its more about the reallocation of the current taxes if they weren’t being used to provide FREE health care. I’m in debt up to my eyeballs because of an essential surgery and I don’t expect anyone else to pay for it. Why then, am I expected to take care of those who aren’t contributing? Further, this has nothing to do with the issue of immigration, these people aren’t immigrating they are here illegally and expecting the tax payer to support them.
Lindsey at April 23, 2008 10:12 AM
I am guessing you have no idea what it takes for a citizen of Mexico to become a citizen of the USA. It is impossible or nearly enough so to make it unobtainable for the average Mexican citizen. The people who can afford it are afluent enough in Mexico to not need to come here for a bearable life. So would I brake the law, do something "illegal" to save my family, in a heartbeat. Don't read more into that then is there we are talking about crossing the border here. As I said in the first post. The people are not to blame, the system makes it impossible for them to improve their life legally. So, no I do not blame them. Also, I don't care who gets my organs once I am done with them. I checked the donor box to possibly save a life. Not to withhold life because I don't agree with the way you lived yours.
PVM at April 23, 2008 10:19 AM
> So would I brake the law,
> do something "illegal" to
> save my family, in a
> heartbeat.
What people *won't* do, apparently, is fix their own nation (or "system"). It's easier just to break into the the US and complain that things cost too much.
Crid at April 23, 2008 10:48 AM
Crid, you beat me to it. But, I'll second that with what I was about to post when I read yours:
Your country's system's broken? Fix it -- don't break into ours.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2008 10:52 AM
Hell, we're Americans! We'll even break into other people's countries to fix their system, no matter what it costs!
eric at April 23, 2008 10:55 AM
I know this is a wasted effort, but here I go anyway,
"What people *won't* do, apparently, is fix their own nation (or "system"). It's easier just to break into the the US and complain that things cost too much."
Lets see mile after mile of desert, no real stable economy for 50% of the population, a corrupt goverment, a class system, and to top all that off, they had possibly the best plot of land in the world stolen from them by their over agressive neighbors to the north. If your curious I am talking about California. You know, where we are now so dead set on not letting them into.
Love to see it fixed, but the people it hurts the most don't stand a chance of doing it.
pvm at April 23, 2008 11:02 AM
"and to top all that off, they had possibly the best plot of land in the world stolen from them by their over agressive neighbors to the north"
yeah, afterall it's not like the Spanish didn't originally steal it from all these groups of Native Americans and whoever else has come and gone in the last 10,000 years.
give me a fweakin' break. The Spanish originally stole Mexico from the Aztecs as well, who conquered the previous owners of the valley of the sun... how far do we have to go back for some justice?
THIS, is what happens when your boarder is so permeable, that you can't control the movement across it. That the kid figured out how to game the system? Well, shame on us for making it so easy for her, and so hard for our own. I don't begrudge her, her life. She is only trying everything she can to stay alive.
SwissArmyD at April 23, 2008 11:57 AM
There is one point (among others) that the calls for "compassion" are missing.
What makes an illegal immigrant more entitled to free medical care paid for by US citizens more than a law-abiding citizen of Mexico? Why is an illegal more entitled because they broke the law? Because it's no less "compassionate" for the US to provide free medical care for those in Mexico who have need of it, right?
Should US citizen organ donors send their organs to Indonesia next? There's probably people that need them, and it's unfortunate that they can't sneak into the United States so easily.
The point is that there's limited resources, and those should go FIRST to those who are here legally and are actually CONTRIBUTING to the system. It's perfectly reasonable to be upset by finding out otherwise. And unlike taxes, each person gets to choose whether or not they donate organs. It's not mandated, yet.
Jamie at April 23, 2008 12:07 PM
Wouldn't it be cheaper to close the border, export the illegals, and equip them with lawyers, guns, and money to overthrow their corrupt Mexico?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 23, 2008 12:52 PM
"Wouldn't it be cheaper to close the border, export the illegals, and equip them with lawyers, guns, and money to overthrow their corrupt Mexico?"
Hasn't this been tried many times by various governments with many other countries? Doesn't always end well.
And in this specific case, what's to stop them from turning right around and using those arms, money, and lawyers to get through the now "closed" border?
Maybe you were being facetious, maybe not, but I felt I'd take the poke regardless.
Jamie at April 23, 2008 1:00 PM
I just cannot believe that attitude. I agree with the majority here that illegals should be dead last in the queue or out of it entirely, but withholding your organ donation is throwing the baby out with the bathwater for Christ's sake.
There is an organ shortage with or without the illegals in the system. Some Americans may die because an organ that could have saved them went to an illegal. What kind of twisted goddamn logic makes people think the appropriate response is to withhold their organs and make it certain that some Americans will die because the organ they need is never available to anyone?
SeanH at April 23, 2008 1:00 PM
PVM - Mexico gave the land to us because THEY COULDN'T CONTROL IT.
Second, what does it say about Mexico that 10% of their population (according to CIA Fact Book, Mexico has about 107 million, and we keep hearing that 10-12 million Mexican illegals are in the US) is willing to cross a desert to sneak into our country?
Don't bitch to me about how Mexico is so much desert. The Israelis managed to turn a desert into a fertile nation.
Mexico is fucked up because the majority of Mexicans would rather come to the US, flip the Gringos the bird, and engage in cultural colonization than fix their own country.
Mexico could be fixed, and it would be if other alternatives were made significantly more difficult/expensive.
brian at April 23, 2008 1:18 PM
"My Irish/Welsh/English/German ancestors came here with nothing, but did it legally. And there weren't any signs posted in Gaelic or German to help them along, either"
That is debatable. It depends who you ask the question. I think American Indians will say they came here illegally.
The reason why some South Americans risk their lives to get here illegally is the same as your ancestors. It is money.
IRS has data bases who are legals or illegals in this country as a good number of illegals file income tax returns as it is required step before they can apply for legal status. The illegals are paying in social security taxes and income taxes hoping that that will work favorably when they apply for legal status. However, the IRS will not share their data with the INS to crack down the illegals as the IRS likes the free money so much, which the illegals may never able to claim it someday. And they are betting on that.
I am not certain if the illegals are getting a free ride or not as they are paying the taxes. But I am convinced that the system is broken.
Chang at April 23, 2008 1:23 PM
PVM - Yes immigration laws are stringent and it is difficult to become a citizen, I'm not sure how any of this entitles them to FREE health care.
Lindsey at April 23, 2008 1:35 PM
Lets see mile after mile of desert,
Much like the landscape in Israel. They managed to farm, build cities, and a society, and even a booming tech industry.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2008 1:43 PM
Whoops, sorry - Brian made that point.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2008 1:45 PM
"I'm not saying we should deny these children organs. I'm just saying we shouldn't be forced to pay for them."
Get real. Refusing to pay is the same as denying the organ when the recipient has no money or insurance.
Look, I'm with you right down the line on illegal immigration but I part company when it comes to people brought here as young children. I oppose any form of liability without fault. A person brought here illegally as a child had no say in the matter and cannot be held responsible for the situation.
One might reply that such person is responsible for staying once they became an adult and should leave. Don't be ridiculous. Having been brought here as young children they are culturally American and have no established lives in the former country. This is the only home they have known.
I'm for taking as a hard a line as you please with adults who come here illegally of their own volition. But I am just as strongly against penalizing people brought here as children and who have been raised here having known no other home. Throwing these people out - or denying them services - is an abomonation.
No liability without fault. This is a cornerstone concept in the Western legal tradition. Let's not part company with it.
Dennis at April 23, 2008 1:55 PM
Oh, by the way. I must fully disclose my personal interest in this matter: Just last week, my stepfather received a kidney transplant. He is an immigrant, having come to the United States (legally) from Japan 25 years ago.
And for you Philistines who think that refusing to donate an organ is an appropriate response to the possibility that an illegal alien might get one: That is a stupid, farcically vindicative response. I mean good God - you're going to forego the 99.99999% chance that an American will get the liver because their is a 0.00001% that some illegal will get it? That's nothing more than a moral kamikazi attack on the organ donation process.
A lot of electrons get zapped on this site to explain that if Muslims don't want to be stereotyped as terrorists, then they need to marginalize their terrorist co-religionists. Well, the same can be said about the closed-borders crowd. If you don't want to be painted as a racist because you oppose illegal immigration, then get your rhetoric under control and start being reasonable. Hammering illegal immigration is one thing. Getting up in arms because someone brought here illegally as a child got, and might get again, livesaving medical treatment, is quite another.
Dennis at April 23, 2008 2:09 PM
"That is debatable. It depends who you ask the question. I think American Indians will say they came here illegally."
Actually Chang, it is not debatable and it only matters who you ask if the person you ask is going to play fast and loose with history.
European immigration to the New World was not, in fact, illegal. Nor was the conquest of the New World. These acts occurred during a different phase in human history when sovereign rights over territory were seen to pass legitimately and legally by right of conquest.
And, as another poster pointed out, the concept of sovereignty by right of conquest is NOT just a European export to the New World, because this is exactly the same basis upon which all the indigenous peoples in this hemisphere held claim to their lands. They counquered each other, and were conquered in their turn. It is tragic and unfortunate, but it was the norm at the time.
Very happily for the world today, conquest is no longer a legal or morally acceptably means of territorial expansion. Like slaverly and other monstrous evils, it is in the dustbin of history where it belongs. But this is a modern development. While it held sway, the indiginous peoples of this hemisphere were just as beholden to the concept of conquest - particularly when they benefited - as were the Europeans. Unfortunately for the locals however, the Europeans were far better equipped socially, technologically, and politically to capitalize on the then prevalent system. That makes the natives unfortunate, but not anymore morally pure than anyone else.
Dennis at April 23, 2008 2:27 PM
"Very happily for the world today, conquest is no longer a legal or morally acceptably means of territorial expansion."
I disagree. It is happening now and it will happen again as long as we have nations.
When Sadam invaded Iran, we cheered him on and helped him with weapons and information. Where were the other legally and morally acceptable nations when the Vietnam alone invaded the Cambodia to stop the genocide when the killing field thing is going on?
American Indians were outgunned and almost extinguished by Europeans. Yes, it was the unfortunate event for the natives, but calling the genocide "legal" seems too much to accept for the defeated. Do you think the Sioux got the same treatment from the Apaches when they lost the border war?
Chang at April 23, 2008 3:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/23/go_ahead_buy_an.html#comment-1542144">comment from DennisThose who feel organs should go to illegal aliens same as citizens, and that they should be funded by taxpayers are free to donate their kidneys, for example, to illegal aliens, and pay for their medical care. I'm not saying deny them medical care; I'm saying that organs are scarce, and transplants are very costly, and while I feel for people who are not as fortunate as I am (to be born a U.S. citizen), I do not wish to pay for them. Those who feel differently, well, step up and open your wallets.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2008 3:37 PM
Funny how everyone is silent when it comes to their money, isnt it?
lujlp at April 23, 2008 3:42 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/23/go_ahead_buy_an.html#comment-1542149">comment from lujlpAll talk, no American Express Platinum.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2008 4:29 PM
"And in this specific case, what's to stop them from turning right around and using those arms, money, and lawyers to get through the now "closed" border?"
When I suggested closing the border, I meant actually closing the border.
But I see your point. We should just send the guns and money. No lawyers.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 23, 2008 5:41 PM
Dear Chang:
First, as to this comment: "Do you think the Sioux got the same treatment from the Apaches when they lost the border war?" Yes, of course I think they got the same treatment, that is the whole point of my post: Native populations in the Western Hemisphere were just as aggressive, imperialistic, and grasping toward one another as were the European powers. In point of fact, it is a matter of historical record that indigenous populations in the Western Hemisphere behaved with monstrous brutality to one another and that they were fully capable of inflicting, and did inflict, extreme brutality upon their conquered rivals, either as individuals or populations, and while I have not verified it, I am quite sure that genocide did in fact occur in the Western Hemisphere prior to the arrival of Europeans. The defeated indigenous peoples were outgunned, as you say, techologically, economically, and in terms of social and political organization, but not morally. They amonst themselves, they accepted and played by the same rules of might makes right and power politics as everyone else in their time - and by those rules, they lost.
Second, as to your comment "I disagree. It is happening now and it will happen again as long as we have nations." Sorry Chang, but this comment is just stupid. The fact that a thing continues to occur does not mean that it is acceptable by the norms of law or society. Rape, murder, theft, child abuse, and every other manner of crime continue to occur but they are hardly morally or legally acceptable. They occur in contravention of legal and social norms, not because of them. Same for the concept of right of rule by conquest. Just because state or other might try to get away with it does not mean that it is still recognized as legal or moral. Again, such efforts would occur despite, not because of, accepted norms.
Third, where exactly is it still happening? I can think of only one clear cut example and that is Tibet - and as everyone knows, China's effort to conquer and colonize Tibet are vigorously opposed by the world, as was the last similar attempt, which was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Your other examples (Iran/Iraq, Vietnam/Cambodia) are specious and irrelevant to this discussion because niether Iraq nor Vietnam sougth to colonize or annex Iran or Cambodia, and had they attempted to do so they would have met fierce opposition from the world community - as Saddam did when he actually did try to annex Kuwait and as the Chinese have since they annexed and began to colonize Tibet. Your examples are unsound because the circumstances are factually inconsistent with the circumstances surrounding the European colonization of North America. In both cases, Iraq and Vietnam attacked because their sovereignty was being undermined by the other country. In the case of Iraq, the new Islamic Republic was engaged in a furious clandestine effort to undermine Saddam's regime, so one could plausibly argue that Saddam's attack was defensive. The situation with Vietnam and Cambodia was similar - the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia had started making claims against parts of southern Vietnam, and the Vietnamese attacked in order to check what they viewed as a threat to their territorial integrity. Ending the genocide was a bonus, not the original impetus for the attack. As to the positions of the rest of the world vis-a-vis these wars, again, they do not support your argument and in fact are not even relevant to it. We supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war to check the spread of Islamic radicalism, because as soon as the Iraqi assault stalled the Iranians changed their war aims from purely defensive to the offensive aim of pushing the Islamic Revolution deep into the Middle East, even to the Mediterranean. And I think that we can all agree that checking the spread of Islamic radicalism is a prudent defensive policy - so cooperating with Saddam to thwart the Iranians was anologous to cooperating with Stalin to stop Hitler. As to Vietnam invading Cambodia, had stopping the genocide been Vietnam's primary goal, that may well have constituted sufficient justification legally and morally, even if Vietnam's other aims did not (I draw no conclusion one way or another on that).
Fourth, as to your comment about genocide. I did not introduce that topic, you did. The reason I did not introduce it is that it is irrelevent, like your other examples. Your post implicitely attacked the legitimacy of American concern for their borders and security, using historical the territorial claims and historical grievances of previous inhabitants of the land. I have demonstrated how such arguments have neither legal nor moral force or relevance. Also, European settlers did not commit genocide in the same sense that we understand the word today. They did not set out to deliberately kill all natives, which is what genocide implies. They sought to conquer and occupy their lands - the devastation of native populations was a result, but not the principle aim. Did the former occupants suffer devastation and tragedy? Of course - but that has nothing to do with the immigration debate today.
So, I restate my previous point. European colonization of the New World was legal by the standards of the day, both by European and Native American standards of conduct. Such standards of conduct are no longer acceptable today, quite happily, and thanks to Woodrow Wilson and other like-minded, forward-thinking reformers.
Dennis at April 23, 2008 5:47 PM
"Funny how everyone is silent when it comes to their money, isnt it?"
"Those who feel organs should go to illegal aliens same as citizens, and that they should be funded by taxpayers are free to donate their kidneys, for example, to illegal aliens, and pay for their medical care."
With the two comments above, the two of you have effectively demonstrated that you cannot carry the day by the merits of your arguments. If you could, you would not resort to emotional blackmail.
Having said that, I'll tackle your emotional blackmail head on. You say that if people like me want the young lady to get treatment than I ought to be willing to open up my wallet and be willing to pay. Of course If I was a man of means I would. But I don't have to buy my right to speak out on this topic by doing so.
We live in a representative democracy where elected representatives decide how to dispense the people's money. Decisions made are done so on the basis of debate. This blog post is part of that debate. I have every right to argue that the girl ought to get the surgery, to urge that public funds be used to pay for it, and to argue such whether I choose to donate privately or not. The burden falls upon you convince our elected representatives of the country view. So go ahead, marshal your facts, employ the best reasoning you can to make your case. I'll do the same from the other side. But I won't be stepping aside just because you imply that I am a hypocrite for not picking up the tab myself. Such self-indulgence on your part is lazy and reveals a lack of confidence in your own position.
Now, let me clarify my own position once again, for the record. I support vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws. I call for effective physical barriers, punitive action against employers who knowlingly hire illegals, and vigorous action against State and local authorities who refuse to cooperate with ICE or who declare themselves sanctuary jurisdictions. I also support deportation of illegals and denial of many public services.
Having said all that, I believe that our immigration policy must be tempered with compassion and pragmatism in the following ways:
First, I absolutely oppose the deportation of adults or adolescents brought here as young children and who have grown up here effectively having known no other home but the United States. Deporting such people is not justice, it is arbitrary and capricious because it imposes a penalty upon one who has committed no wrong. Congress should immediately pass some form of the the DREAM Act to allow these people to become citizens and to normalize there status. Additionally, I do NOT support denying these people access to public services.
Second, though I support deportation and denial of services to adults who come here illegally of their own volition, I believe that both compasion and pragmatism dictate certain exceptions - these being medical care, education for children, and access to law enforcement for victims of and witnesses to crime. Humanity dictates these exceptions but also pragmatic self-interest: we all suffer if the minor children of illegal immigrants fail to receive an education as these children will impose greater social costs of society if not educated later, and if crime against and among illegal immigrants runs amok, as it will inevitably spill over into the wider community. But let me emphasize this: I believe that these exceptions are justified on the basis of humanity alone, regardless of pragmatic concerns.
Dennis at April 23, 2008 6:16 PM
Your post implicitely attacked the legitimacy of American concern for their borders and security, using historical the territorial claims and historical grievances of previous inhabitants of the land."
You are correct. That was my opening line and I was being sarcastic. If you continue to read my original post, you will realize that the illegals are here as they are welcomed by the American employers for their cheap labors and the IRS for their tax money. The IRS even has the Form for the illegals to obtain the tax identification number, so they can pay taxes while they are working here illegally. Those are the mixed signals we are sending to the illegals.
"So, I restate my previous point. European colonization of the New World was legal by the standards of the day, both by European and Native American standards of conduct."
I disagree. Do you think the legal standard was written in English or Commanchi? I am not still convinced by your argument that what the Europeans did to the American Indians were the same thing as what the American Indians did to themselves. Although they were busy fighting each other, there were a lot of American Indians to go around before the Europeans showed up. Then, what happend? They got literally wiped out to the point of extinction. That cannot be legal in any given time period of our human history. I think you owe an apology to the Native Americans.
Chang at April 23, 2008 7:51 PM
My question is, if there was a person who needed a new liver every day, how many days would we take to finally figure out that one person dies every day to keep this one alive. Out of scale, true. Irrelevant, NO.
>>>Anyone see John Q.? Such a situation reminds me of that movie (except he did have insurance, just "not enough"). Gretchen, the fact is that everyone who pays for insurance never has enough insurance if a catastrophic event occurs, they will lose everything they have spent their whole life to earn to pay for their healthcare. However, if you pay no taxes or insurance premiums as illegals do, you will get everything for nothing. The fact is that there are over six BILLION people in the world. We have about 320 million in the US. The vast majority of those six BILLION have little or no healthcare. Is it really possible or acceptable for the US to foot the bill for everyone else on the planet? No, It’s not possible. But trust me here folks, people like PVM would have absolutely no problem seeing this country destroy itself financially doing just that.
PVM, you are wrong when you say it is just about the money. It is about the idea of people coming into our country without our permission and taking and taking and taking and never giving a goddamn thing back. Then when they don’t get something else they wanted to take, they pretend as if they are the ones being wronged whilst they spit on our flag and talk about Reconquista! How perverse is the Mexican book of values that makes you think this way.
PVM says, “I am guessing you have no idea what it takes for a citizen of Mexico to become a citizen of the USA.” First of all buddy, I have probably spent more time in Mexico than you have and I think that this one thing needs to be screamed across the whole fucking country of Mexico, are you ready, are you listening, here goes, “YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT WHATSOVER TO BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN UNLESS WE SAY SO!”
Dennis, the Menace says, “And for you Philistines who think that refusing to donate an organ is an appropriate response to the possibility that an illegal alien might get one: That is a stupid, farcically vindicative response.” Dennis, you magnificent bastard! Do you know who the Philistines were? Goliath was a Philistine. He was the greatest warrior of the Philistines. And he was felled by David, an opponent of little or no stature worthy of challenging him. How apropos thou words are, America is a country being undermined and diminished by a landfill of a country that would need forty days of Viagra rain to raise it to the status of a continental Napoleanic complex. “Picked your analogy well you did”, Yoda would say.
Then Dennis takes another dip in the pool of deep dark ignorance, “Very happily for the world today, conquest is no longer a legal or morally acceptably means of territorial expansion. Like slaverly and other monstrous evils, it is in the dustbin of history where it belongs.” Thank god, Dennis has declared that slavery is OVER. JESSUS FUCKING KEERIST, what the hell does Abraham Lincoln have on this guy???? Dennis evidently doesn’t remember the expression, “The Great War” and what that meant, and why it is not used anymore. Sidenote Dennis, I have spent most of my adult life travelling throughout the world, Asia, Africa, Middle East, Austrailia, and they would all love to hear the news that slavery doesn’t exist anymore,(especially the slaves), that conquest no longer happens,(especially the mass murdered), most importantly in places like Darfur, and I have to say, it most certainly does seem to fit within THEIR “societal acceptable norms.”
Oh and this little pearl in the asster, “The situation with Vietnam and Cambodia was similar - the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia had started making claims against parts of southern Vietnam, and the Vietnamese attacked in order to check what they viewed as a threat to their territorial integrity.”
I have to tell you Dennis, this comment just really pissed me off. In the late seventies, I was on a frigate steaming the South China sea, Yellow Sea and the Gulf of Tonkin on a regular basis. When the Cambodians (see Killing Fields), and Vietcong(Google Vietnamese boat people), decided to conduct a purge of all those who had any connection to democracy at all, those people had no choice but to take everything thing carryable of value and their immediate family and trek through hazardous mountaions or take to the sea in boats hoping that whatever befell them was better that certain death. The Vietcong and the Cambodians executed MILLIONS, in the name of conquest ironically.
I ended up seeing face to face many who took to the boats to survive. There were boats by the tens of thousands drifting in the seas that were just packed with people. Many were hit by Vietnamese and Thai or Chinese pirates. Sometimes in the dead of night, we would come up on a boat and the decks were still running with blood from a raid that probably happened less than two hours ago. All the young women were taken for the white slave trade and the boat would be stripped of anything of value. Gold ripped from teeth, jewels hidden you know where, everything was found no matter what they had to cut through to get to it. Then when the pirates had everything they could find of value, they slautered everyone else on the boat and left it to drift because they didn’t want to waste gas burning it. When we asked the people why did they just not stay home, they told us that their chances were much worse if they didn’t leave. Evidently, the counqerors did not get your email that slavery and conquering were over. They must have read slobery and cankering and thought you were talking about VD!
Dennis, where in the fucking hell do you get off telling anyone that “conquest is no longer a legal or morally acceptably means of territorial expansion. Like slaverly and other monstrous evils, it is in the dustbin of history where it belongs.” What in the hell are you talking about? What stupid fucking Berkeley Class of World history planted these MORONIC ILLUSIONS into your head?
Reality lesson buddy: The human being is an aggressive creature. Wherever we are, we fight. As populations grow and one power group vies with another, they try to expand, thus war. The world will never ever be a peaceful happy place if we all just learn to get along. It will be more peaceful and more happy if we all learn to defend ourselves at which point, war becomes a less promising venture. Things never really change, they always do stay the same in this area and always will, because we are people. And to tie it back into this topic, Mexico is one of the weakest, despotic, sewage ditches of a country on planet earth, and yet, who is the richest person in the world? For all of the wealth of natural resources and coasts on two oceans, that country can’t and doesn’t even care to feed it’s own fucking people. Yet they openly talk of Re-conquista and Aztlan. Google it. Mexico is like a greasy haired lawn mower hitting on your wife while smiling at you and acting like he’s your best amigo! Quit pissing on our leg and telling us it’s raining.
Bikerken at April 23, 2008 9:50 PM
> We'll even break into other
> people's countries
If Americans were as horny to work in Iraq as Mexicans are to work in the States, this would have been over after six weeks.
Crid at April 23, 2008 10:01 PM
"I disagree. Do you think the legal standard was written in English or Commanchi?"
It wasn't written in any language. It was the legal standard of customary usage, as most international law was until the 20th century, with attachment to the standard by all parties demonstrated by their conduct consistent with it.
"the illegals are here as they are welcomed by the American employers for their cheap labors"
So what? I've already stated my belief that employers who violate immigration law should do be hammered.
"... and the IRS for their tax money..." Says who, you? Prove it. One reason that illegal immigrant labor is cheap is that it is frequently paid for under the table without payroll or income tax witholding.
"The IRS even has the Form for the illegals to obtain the tax identification number, so they can pay taxes while they are working here illegally." Wrong. They have a form that immigrants can use to get a tax ID number. It was not intended for illegal immigrants. Further, who says most use it? After all, another problem associated with identity theft - using stolen SSNs to acquire employment - which would obviously obviate the use of special immigrant tax ID forms.
"That cannot be legal in any given time period of our human history". Legal restraints on state action - especially in international conduct - are a rather new innovation (one that the United States contributed much to bringing about). Legal and moral restraints during the conduct of war are older, but still a more recent development than many other hallmarks of civilization. So in fact you are wrong. During most of human history all was fair in war, so to speak. Which of course is one of the points of my previous posts. The tragedies of the past occurred under an archaic moral and legal pardigm no longer in force - making both the tragedies themselves, and any arguments that would have been made in support of them, irrelevant today. Moot. Inapposite. You get the picture.
"I think you owe an apology to the Native Americans." I really don't care who you think I owe an apology to. Nobody alive today owes anybody an apology for any injustice inflicted in past generations on people long dead. I'm not going to apologize for it and I'm not going to allow myself to be paralyzed with unearned guilt over it. And I am certainly not going to stand by and allow the interests of my country to be undermined because you feel guilty (or more likely, because you choose to indulge in a sense of smug superiority) over the actions of others long dead, actions generally consistent with human conduct across the globe at the time.
Grievance mongering only leads to more grievances. It keeps alive the cycle of strike and counterstrike that has been the author of so much human misery. I reject that tribal spirit. I say, let the dead bury the dead, while the living embrace the new paradigm (relatively such, when viewed against the broad sweep of history) of Constitutional government based upon equal standing before the law of each individual citizen regardless of group identity.
The United States of America embraces all born or naturalized citizens, including the decendents of the indiginous tribes. We have a creed based upon ideas, not clan or tribe. It is by embracing this order that one prevents future tragedies, not by fretting over the unchangeable tragedies of the past. We have long since acknowledged the tragedy that befell the original inhabitants of the hemisphere after the arrival of Europeans. Of course we should remember and celebrate who came before and commemorate the suffering they endured when the Europeans arrived. But by no means should we make a sacrifice of our own pride, confidence and national interests in some misguided attempted to atone for the past. We've acknowledged the tragedy and also erected the legal, moral and political framework that has put that kind of tragedy in the past. Now we need to concern ourselves with the present and future.
Immigrants are welcome to partake of this new order. But the first requirement of doing so is that they give their allegiance to it - which means, in part, obeying the law. Including by coming here legally.
Dennis at April 23, 2008 10:03 PM
> I think American Indians will
> say they came here illegally.
Chang, it's been almost two years... Haven't you grown out of that whole "petulence" thing?
What happened to the natives on this continent was indisputably tragic. But these were stone-age cultures, and of course they were defeated. What were talking about now is the boundaries of inclusion for a culture that wouldn't have happened for several thousand years if the Europeans hadn't dropped an anchor. Nobody, of any color, wants to live like a north American native did in the 15th century.
Crid at April 23, 2008 10:06 PM
To Bikirken:
"What stupid fucking Berkeley Class of World history planted these MORONIC ILLUSIONS into your head?"
Bikirken, this is a milestone for me. I really never thought I'd see the day when I'd be compared to a Berkeley liberal. I have a sense of humor about it but I bet the history profs at Berkeley wouldn't!
I'm taking fire from both the pro- and anti- immigration sides here. This is quite a lively debate!
Without belaboring the point too much, you and Chang both seem to misunderstand where I am coming from. I'll assume that I am not being clear enough.
I am quite aware of all the evils you cite in your post. I don't believe I denied their existence anywhere in any of my posts. What I said was that in the past these evils were accepted as permanent parts of the natural order of things - something to be liked or not but to be lived with in any case. Today, these things are viewed as evils to be eliminated as soon as possible, and if borne, to be borne temporarily.
Frances Fukayama wrote an interesting book that bears on the distinction I am making here. It is entitled "The End of History and the Last Man" (Free Press, 1992).
From the references at the end of your post to Re-conquista, Aztlan and the rest it appears that you're concerned about illegal immigration, which further leads me to conclude that I have failed to make my point in my debate with Chang clear. Everything I wrote was intended to bolster the proposition that the United States has every right to secure our borders and control immigration - and to resist the agenda of groups like Aztlan and Re-Conquista. Chang brought up our mistreatment of Native Americans in previous centuries in order to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of our efforts to control our borders, basically by calling us hypocrites - his construct being something along the lines of we cruel Americans illegally immigrated here, so who are we to complain about others illegally coming here now. My subsequent posts, that have so upset you, sought to neutralize the accusation of hypocrisy and to uphold our right to control immigration by enumerating reasons why Chang's analogy is invalid because the two situations are completely incomparable.
The contrast between you and Chang is interesting. Chang seems to take the position that America is irredeemably guilty and therefore has no moral right to control immigration. You seem to take the position that mankind is an irredeemably aggressive creature and that therefore America must do everything possible to control immigration.
I guess I come down in a third place. I completely reject Chang's premise of original sin and inherited guilt - which is what I was trying to explain in my previous posts that so offended you. I believe that we have every right to control our borders and to control immigration as we see fit. On the other hand, I do not see the world as pessimistically as you. While I accept that mankind is not perfectable, I certainly believe that mankind, if not perfectable, is clearly improvable. Frankly a simple comparison of our own culture now versus at various points in the past gives compelling evidence of that. My belief in human improvability is not based upon naivete and certainly not on leftist politics. I may not be as well travelled as you, but my own journeys include extended visits to such garden spots as Somalia and Baghdad - and I also have some weird family baggage. So I've seen the downside of life plenty. But I also know how good we have it in our own culture and that it was not always even close to this - so I am more optimistic about humanity than you seem in your post.
Lastly, while I've never been compared to a Berkely liberal before, I've certainly been called a few names by one or two Berkeley-type liberals. So your comment is a refreshing tonic!
And with that, it is late - time to wrap it up for the night!
Dennis at April 23, 2008 10:49 PM
"A lot of electrons get zapped on this site to explain that if Muslims don't want to be stereotyped as terrorists, then they need to marginalize their terrorist co-religionists. Well, the same can be said about the closed-borders crowd. If you don't want to be painted as a racist because you oppose illegal immigration, then get your rhetoric under control and start being reasonable."
"Very happily for the world today, conquest is no longer a legal or morally acceptably means of territorial expansion. Like slaverly and other monstrous evils, it is in the dustbin of history where it belongs."
"Rape, murder, theft, child abuse, and every other manner of crime continue to occur but they are hardly morally or legally acceptable. They occur in contravention of legal and social norms, not because of them."
THEN YOU SAY.......
"I am quite aware of all the evils you cite in your post. I don't believe I denied their existence anywhere in any of my posts."
Dennis, please don't jerk me off. You made some real bizarre statements here and I responded to the content and spirit of exactly what you said.
Bikerken at April 23, 2008 11:17 PM
Happy weekend all, headed to Laughlin for Bike Week. I'm hoping for no shooting at Harrahs again as I will be staying there. C'ya Sunday night.
Bikerken at April 23, 2008 11:45 PM
Bikerken:
Sorry, but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
There is no contradiction between the first three quotes you excerpted from my previous posts and the fourth one after "THEN YOU SAY."
In quotes two and three, I addressed modern sensibilities as to what is ACCEPTABLE behavior. In quote four (after "THEN...") I acknowledge that although certain behaviors are longer acceptable behavior according to modern sensibilities, they still occur. There is no contradiction here. In fact, I am only stating the obvious. The gap between the real and the ideal is a permanent fixture in the human condition, is it not? These comments are not inconsistent with each other and they are in no way bizarre. They're pretty mainstream actually.
As to quote number one, it has no relation to the other three, but I stand by it as well. Rhetoric that is excessively shrill or hostile is simply counterproductive. Such rhetoric antagonizes moderates, fence sitters, and reasonable people on the other side who might be willing to do something about illegal immigration, scaring them with the prospect that they might be rightly or wrongly be associated with extremist or intolerant elements. Again, nothing bizarre here - in fact, all this is pretty prosaic and obvious.
What I find most surprising is that you think I am "jerk[ing] you [off]." In fact, I wrote a reply to you that I intended to be conciliatory toward you without seeming obsequious.
Frankly, I don't know what kind of reply you expected after the F-bombs you dropped in your post on me and others (not to mention the fact that you dredged up that hackneyed old "Dennis the Menace" joke - like I never heard that one before). Don't get me wrong - I didn't take any offense. Given the strident tone I often take (and sometimes regret) in this venue and given the fact that I never conciliate (though admittedly I ought to sometimes), I hardly have a right to be offended. Nonetheless, you can hardly expect a positive reaction from your correspondent after a vulgar post.
So, I guess that's that. My post was intended to be friendly and conciliatory. I don't apologize for it but I am truly sorry if it seemed condescending.
Dennis at April 24, 2008 12:14 AM
The concept of "Re-Conquista" does not exist among Mexican illegal immigrants. Take my word for it. Why? Because I was involved in the "Re-Conquista" movement and I never met one illegal. (It did not really register what events I was attending until a couple of meetings).
I attended the "Re-Conquista" meetings and it was one of the events that thoroughly annoyed me with Americans. The fact that it was left Americans holding the meetings and it was right Americans believing these meetings had any power annoyed me to an extent that I had to travel the world, starting in my beautiful land of Brazil.
You see in Brazil there is no concept of me being any race. I dated a blonde and the idea that I was somehow "ethnic" or that he was "white" does not exist in Brazil. Society would never put us as an inter-racial couple. And that is so nice...until you get a taste of the heat, the crime, the opportunities, the poverty.
Americans are dim at international history...but Brazil has a bigger population of Japanese and Italians than the U.S. These two groups that are so successful in the U.S. dont have the same degree of achievement in Brazil. In fact the Japanese goverment imported a bunch of Japanese-Brazilians not too long ago, and they have a terrible success rate in Japan. I think where you can go in life has alot to do with where you are born and people try to escape if they can. I dont think you can expect Mexicans to stay in Mexico when even their goverment encourages them to leave.
And a little tidbit, as soon as too many Brazilians where coming illegaly to the U.S. the Mexican goverment put a stop to that.
Everyone makes the point why cant Mexicans stay in Mexico and change the land? Well why cant Americans force their goverment to enforce the law?
PurplePen at April 24, 2008 12:52 AM
> they have a terrible success
> rate in Japan.
Almost everyone who isn't fully Japanese does (born & bred). Japan's a wretched culture that way. They can't handle human difference.
> Well why cant Americans force
> their goverment to enforce the
> law?
That's a teenage kinda smartass that drowns in irony as it tries to mock.
Many Americans don't want the law enforced because lawless Mexican labor is fun to exploit. Are you happy about that? Meanwhile, Mexico remains essentially corrupt. The great, great majority of the United States is not. Excellence isn't like virginity; it doesn't vanish with the first violation.
The incoming Mexicans know where the more righteous nation is.
Crid at April 24, 2008 1:29 AM
"Many Americans don't want the law enforced because lawless Mexican labor is fun to exploit. Are you happy about that?"
No. It's why I'm against illegal immigration. But the majority of people who are against illegal immigration arent against it for that reason. I think they use faulty logic (i.e. "Re-Conquista.")which annoys me.
"The incoming Mexicans know where the more righteous nation is."
Yes and I've never heard them say otherwise.
What I love about this nation is that people just want to come here to work too hard.
Purplepen at April 24, 2008 3:25 AM
As I have said so many times -
I am not against immigration. I harbor no ill will towards Mexicans. But I am irked by line-jumpers. And that is what illegal immigration represents. And amnesty represents rewarding line-jumpers and tossing a big "Fuck You!" to everyone still waiting in line.
If we have a labor shortage in this country (and if we do, the amnesty crowd certainly isn't saying so - they claim that unemployment is at record levels), but IF we have such a shortage, and the only cure is immigration, then don't we have a duty to change our laws to make sure that as many as possible come here, get screened, get assimilated, and are protected by the labor laws that naturalized and natural-born Americans enjoy?
I'd argue that any other answer is tantamount to promoting a kind of slavery. I can't think of any other way to describe a system where one group of people are exempted from labor and safety laws for the benefit of another.
All the amnesty proposals would have done is either legalize paying certain people below minimum wage, or would have created a very large pool of unemployed non-citizens who stood by and watched more illegals come in to take the jobs that they lost. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
brian at April 24, 2008 5:12 AM
Amy,
I know this is a little late in the game, but it didn't hurt that the USA and other nations propped up Israel. Mexico is never going to get that kind of help.
PVM at April 24, 2008 5:26 AM
I know this is a little late in the game, but it didn't hurt that the USA and other nations propped up Israel. Mexico is never going to get that kind of help.
Who is Mexico at war with again? Which country is practicing genocide in Mexico? Which country is it that's trying to reclaim Mexican land for itself and its peoples? Please, refresh my memory. Because if that were the case in Mexico, like it is in Israel, I'm pretty sure the USA and other countries would "prop up" Mexico, too.
Flynne at April 24, 2008 6:39 AM
Crid Says:
"Excellence isn't like virginity; it doesn't vanish with the first violation."
I say - Amen!
Dennis at April 24, 2008 6:54 AM
Continueing to be amazed. It is a good thing that Israel is the only country such things are happening. Otherwise we would have to prop up other countries as we have them for near half a cetury. Oh wait, it's not. We as a whole have a nasty habbit of focusing on what's happening half a world away and turning a blind eye on what's going on here. Not talking about imigration. There are so many other things happening in our own back yard to worry about. Rampant drug use leading to more crimes, robbery, murder. The failures in our goverment to concern itself with the failing school system, children dropping out in droves (there you folks go the illegals will have competition soon for the unskilled labor jobs). But the only reason I joined this spirited debate in the first place was to state that it shocked me that anyone would pull there donor status because of whom might get there organs. Not alot has been said here to change my opinion. On the imigration issue illegal or legal, I would say that my opinions are not popular in todays world where by and large everyone wants to shut the door after their own get in. Nation of imigrants, some such saying about poor, weak and hudddled masses. Happy for you folks who's ancestors got in when all you had to do was fill out a form after they got off of the boat if they had to do that much. But Mexico is not going away or changing in our lifetime. We will continue to pay taxes, the goverment will continue to send our money over seas. I can't think of a better way to use it than to save a life no matter their imigration status. But that is just me. I am a product of my enviorment. Brought up in lovely Hawaiian Gardens CA. Living now in the beautiful South East, pretty sure they rioted here when they heard they had to share their drinking fountains with people of color. Life is good.
PVM at April 24, 2008 7:56 AM
On the imigration issue illegal or legal, I would say that my opinions are not popular in todays world where by and large everyone wants to shut the door after their own get in.
Where did anyone say that "everyone wants to shut the door after their own get in"? WE WERE ALREADY HERE. Have been, long time. You're just too dim to get it.
Flynne at April 24, 2008 8:03 AM
Flynne,
I realy do apreciate you continueing to make my points for me. Your people weren't native to here I'm guessing. Even the Indians imigrated across from Asia. As did my own ancestors before they settled in Mexico. So yours have been here a long time but imigrated from somewhere else. My guess is that they had an easier time becoming citizens than Mexican nationals do. But you would like to put a stop to people coming over from Mexico illegaly. Thus the shutting the door comment. IE: My people are here but lets stop others from doing the same. Let us make it nearly impossible to do it leagaly, then blame them, when to escape poverty they come anyway. Let's forget they work harder than half the lazy bastards that were born here and are happy for the oppurtunity. My suggestion, tounge in cheek as it is, lets do an exchange program. Our lazy bastards for there hard workers. "Too dim" good form Flynne, I am proud of you. You folks all have a good day. Enjoyed the hell out of this.
Erik, by the way you may have become my hero.
pvm at April 24, 2008 8:22 AM
OK, PVM - let's talk about doing it your way. Let's have unrestricted immigration from Mexico.
What do you think is going to happen to Mexico when everyone there lives here?
Do we want a "failed state" right on our southern border?
What, if anything are we doing to make Mexico become less corrupt? Nothing, that's what. By not sealing the border, we perpetuate the class system that is making Mexico inherently inhospitable to great swathes of its own population.
The answer to the problem is not to let all the Mexicans come here. The answer is FIX MOTHER FUCKING MEXICO.
brian at April 24, 2008 8:52 AM
Damn, I thought I was done. Never suggested "unrestricted Immigration" Just make it possible for those who are seeking a better life to have away to become citizen. I don't even suggest it should be easy. Make the process hard, so that you really have to want to and are willing to do the work it would require. But don't make it so hard that taking a chance on dieing in the desert is easier. Require a test, require proof of gainful employment for a term of five years paying taxes as a visa'ed worker, require they learn the language, require proof of a clean criminal record in Mexico and in the US during their time here. Make them prove they can be a productive, beneficial part of our society. But don't make it impossible or near enough as it is now to become a citizen. We put trillians of dollars into Iraq. We prop up leaders like Noriega, Arafat, Bagan, until some of them turn on us. For that matter Osama was on the payroll at one time. But our neighbors to the South we give them NAFTA which is no more beneficial to them than it is us. "Fix Mexico" Love to here your plan on how. I'm sorry it doesn't start with secure our border. I have no idea where it starts. I would like to hear how "sealing the border perpetuates the class system" That has to be a pretty interesting leap of logic.
PVM at April 24, 2008 9:22 AM
Sorry misspoke there. Want to know "how not sealing the border perpetuates the class system."
PVM at April 24, 2008 9:25 AM
I find it funny that PVM (nor any other person self-righteously calling for compassion) never bothered to respond to my point above.
Can't someone explain why someone who is here illegally is more entitled to something from the US than a legal citizen of another country? (see the actual comment above for more detail on this one)
When someone is starving, and breaks into my home and steals my food - I of course, feel bad for their situation - but I'd still have them arrested...not rewarded with a steak dinner and given a rent-free room in my house. If you're born in a bad situation, that doesn't make unethical or illegal behavior okay...or does it?
Jamie at April 24, 2008 9:27 AM
I realy do apreciate you continueing to make my points for me.
PVM, I'm doing nothing of the kind. You are deliberately deciding that breaking the law is just okay if you want it be. Here, this little story is for you, and will, I hope, better illustrate how I feel about illegal immigrants:
I was once in love with a man. This man was from Great Britain, and he had lived in the United States for almost 13 years before we met. He was kind, gentle, caring, and very protective of my young daughters and me. When we met, we dated for 6 months before we agreed that he should move in with me. He was working for a contractor that had gone to high school with one of my brothers; before that, he held positions with a couple of restaurants as a cook.
After a while, I noticed that he was very evasive when it came to talking about his family, or about anything “back home.” I also thought it odd that he rode a bike everywhere, rather than having a driver’s license and driving a truck or car (or even a motorcycle). At the time, this was not a red flag. Should’ve been, though.
He had long blonde hair, played soccer, and looked totally awesome in a kilt. He was generous to a fault, but not too generous; when my daughters would badger him for more than he had already gotten them, he would say sternly, but with a twinkle in his eye, “The Bank of England is now closed. My girls loved him, my parents loved him, hell, even my brothers (all 3 of them) loved him. Life was good for the first 15 months we were together.
Little by little, he opened up to me about his past, but there was never full disclosure. Until. He got laid off from his job. Couldn’t collect unemployment, because he had been working under the table. Depression had set in; he started drinking more, getting sullen for long periods of time. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when I asked him when he was going to get another job, and he left the house. And called at 3 in the morning, drunk off his ass. He told me there was a letter in my back door, with some money in it. And I don’t know what made me say it, but I told him to hold on while I got it. In the letter, he told me his whole story, which I won’t go into here, but it wrenched my heart. Bottom line is, he was a deserter from the British Army, and had entered the USA via Mexico, from Belize. Seems he had gotten into a fight with a local, in a restricted area, and thought he killed the guy. He got scared and ran. Last time he had had any contact with his family was in 1989. Last line of his letter said “Know that I will always be watching over you and the girls.” I asked him where he was, and he told me in the same little park near the baseball field where an acquaintance of ours had committed suicide just 2 weeks prior. I told him, “Come home now!”
Thank the gods, he did. I took his handgun, hid it, and we talked some more. I finally convinced him he had to go back to the UK and take care of things. He called his sister, turns out him mom had passed away in 1995. His dad was in jail. I told him I loved him but even if we had gotten married (and we had talked about) that it wasn’t guaranteed that he still wouldn’t be deported and there was a real possibility I could have gotten arrested and thrown in jail for harboring a fugitive. And then where would my girls be?
He agreed and went home. And got it all straightened out. But if I hadn’t lit that fire under his ass, he would still be here. As it is, he can apply for another visa after he re-establishes residency. But he was here illegally. He wasn’t a drain by any means, but the law is the law. You can't break it just because you don't like it. You have to work with it, you have to abide by it, and if you don't, oh gee, sorry, but you get arrested.
Flynne at April 24, 2008 9:28 AM
When someone is starving, and breaks into my home and steals my food - I of course, feel bad for their situation - but I'd still have them arrested...not rewarded with a steak dinner and given a rent-free room in my house.
Exactly, Jamie.
If you're born in a bad situation, that doesn't make unethical or illegal behavior okay...or does it?
Not in my book, nor in anyone else's with a brain and a sense of personal responsibility.
Flynne at April 24, 2008 9:35 AM
Flynne,
Very touching story. I hope, that in the end it all works out for you and your freind.
But you misunderstand or I did not state it clearly, I do not believe that braking the law is right. I do know, under the circumstances these people live in I would do the same. I would take the chance on going to jail for me and mine if I felt that was our only chance. I would also serve the time required of me without apeal if I was justifieably convicted. This is the chance these people take when they come over illegaly. It is a concern I am sure, as is being taken into the desert by the people they pay to get them here and being robbed and left to die. Unless you have seen the poverty they are escaping you may not understand why it is worth it. But it is to them. I understand what makes them do it. I understand that Mexico is screwed up. I hope that some day this is not the case. I even believe that during their last presidental election they actually stood a chance to begin the process of healing but the wrong man got narrowly elected. Life is far from simple for these people, their choices are few. I understand why they make the ones they do.
Brian,
To adress your issue: I don't think any person is more entitled to my organs than anyone else. Just hope they do whomever gets them some good.
PVM at April 24, 2008 9:48 AM
Sorry, screwed up again. That last part was to Jamie not Bryan
pvm at April 24, 2008 9:58 AM
While I believe that existing laws should either be enforced or changed (whatever is the will of the people), I have to agree that until each of us has faced real starvation, we can't say for sure how our ethics will hold out. Some will stay put and watch their family die, but others will do whatever they can to keep them alive.
Whether that is the case with the immigrants illegally entering the US, I don't know. This site http://www.newsbatch.com/immigration.htm seems fairly non-biased in reporting facts and it suggests that half of the illegal immigrants pose as tourists. Another percentage pays someone up to $1000 to assist them across. This doesn't sound like families with bellies swollen from hunger showing up on the door step, begging for a chance.
The tools & resources exist within Mexico to build a better life for Mexicans. But people, like rivers, tend to take the path of least resistance.
moreta at April 24, 2008 10:07 AM
PVM - that was Jamie's concern, not mine.
But perpetuating the class system? Are you deliberately not paying attention?
The majority of illegals are being paid under the table, so they are NOT paying into social security. And in an interesting aside, the ones that are, having stolen the credentials of a citizen, are legally entitled to collect, even if they are deported, but that's not what I'm on about.
No, the class system of which I speak is simply this: By allowing illegal immigration with a wink and a nod, we are allowing employers to exploit a class of people by exempting them from the safety and labor laws that cover all citizens. An illegal gets hurt? Who's he going to go to? OSHA? Hell no. He's going home, and another illegal will replace him. You're paying him below minimum wage? Who's he gonna turn to? The Department of Labor? As if.
So by allowing illegal immigration to continue unchecked, you perpetuate this. The amnesty bill that was put forth would not have helped one lick. There would either have been concessions made to continue paying "guest workers" below market (sometimes below minimum) wages, or there would be 11 million unemployed Mexicans on the streets as the mules bring new illegals in to take their place.
Illegal immigration is about exploitation. Nothing less. Corporations exploiting people who don't have a choice in the matter. Stay in a cradle of filth, or come be exploited by some asshole and hope you can get out of it.
Meanwhile, we're told that the United States is simultaneously suffering from record unemployment, requiring us to scale back H1B visas for high-paying high-skill jobs, and suffering from a labor shortage, requiring us to come up with a guest worker program to import unskilled labor from hell-holes like Mexico.
brian at April 24, 2008 10:07 AM
Brian,
Thanks for the enlightenment. I must admit I assumed you were speaking of the class system in Mexico. Their's is a long established system of Nobles (more spanish blood) and peasants (more indian blood). I personally am proudly of the peasant stock.
But your point is well taken. I do agree these people are here being exploited by an amazingly screwed system that the big benefit will always be scued toward the corporation. Again I agree that by allowing the worker to be exploited at a lesser wage is apalling. I hope someone with a bigger brain than my own comes up with a fare equitable fix. I am just not holding my breath.
PVM at April 24, 2008 10:22 AM
PVM:
"To adress your issue: I don't think any person is more entitled to my organs than anyone else. Just hope they do whomever gets them some good."
Then that's your choice to make. You have even less ground to criticize someone's highly personal choice of whether or not they decide to donate their organs than whether or not a woman has an abortion. I say "less" because there's not even a discussion as to whom those organs belong.
That's where this whole "argument" started, wasn't it? People were disgusted that people who are here illegally could get "to the front of the line" for organs, and made a choice - in protest - to change their decision of what they wanted to do with THEIR organs.
My father grew up in poverty...in the US. My grandfather lived in the US and was a child laborer in farms and factories.
Did that situation entitle either of them to break into a wealthy person's home and live there just because the wealthy people were better off?
Jamie at April 24, 2008 10:22 AM
Very touching story. I hope, that in the end it all works out for you and your freind.
It wasn't meant to be "touching". It was meant to illustrate that even though I loved this man dearly, he was here illegally and should not have been. I think things have worked out for him just fine. He's running a restaurant in Cardiff, has a new girlfriend, and sees his brother, sister and other family regularly. I have a BF now whom I love dearly that I knew in high school. We are much better suited to each other than the Brit and I were, but the Brit and I remain good friends.
But you misunderstand or I did not state it clearly, I do not believe that braking the law is right. I do know, under the circumstances these people live in I would do the same. I would take the chance on going to jail for me and mine if I felt that was our only chance. I would also serve the time required of me without apeal if I was justifieably convicted.
Hmmm. Sorry, but you're a bit dimmer than I previously thought. Are you not aware of the 3rd world barrios that these people are already creating on this side of the border in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico? They leave a poverty-stricken barrio in Mexico, only to create a new one in the United States. They sure do want to make a better life for themselves, don't they?
Flynne at April 24, 2008 10:24 AM
And, for the record, I am still an organ donor.
But that choice does not make me ANY better than someone who isn't - for whatever their reason for doing so. It's their meat, they can do with it what they like when they're done using it.
Jamie at April 24, 2008 10:25 AM
And, for the record, I am still an organ donor.
So am I still, Jamie. I'll admit that I said my earlier comment because I was just outraged at the inanity of this illegal immigrant getting not 1 but 4 freakin' livers. But if I'm not killed in a car accident, based on the longevity of my family, my organs will be old and useless by the time I die, anyway. o_O
Flynne at April 24, 2008 10:31 AM
Swear, after this one I am out.
"Are you not aware of the 3rd world barrios that these people are already creating on this side of the border in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico? They leave a poverty-stricken barrio in Mexico, only to create a new one in the United States. They sure do want to make a better life for themselves, don't they?"
Was raised in one of those "Barrios" in CA. Been to the ones in Mexico. No comparison. Make the trip. It might give you a better reference point. But then you wouldn't want to be "dim" like me who has actually seen both sides.
Mam, let me just add that I am opinionated, arrogant to a point, and as has been continuosly pointed out here possibly self righteous. But not dim because I disagree with your point of veiw. I tried to state earlier I am a product of my enviorment. How I have lived and what I have seen has definitely had an influence on what I believe. My opinions are different than yours wich doesn't make them wrong just different. That I don't see things exactly as you do does not make me dim just of a different social, political bent. Mam I don't see where your point a view is one that will ever be right for me and mine, but that doesn't make it wrong just different than my veiw. I don't see you as dim, but someone who grew up with a different belief system and experiences than my own. I wish you well, and hope nothing but the best for you and yours.
Now I am out.
PVM at April 24, 2008 10:44 AM
Forgot to comment on the donor part of this.
It is a personal decision whether or not to donate organs and I see no reason why you shouldn't be able dictate where they might go (if you don't want your liver in a black, a woman, a homosexual, or a Jew, then so be it). However, to withdraw your decision to donate just because there is a chance it may end up in a criminal is a detriment to everyone who is in need of an organ, the majority of whom don't likely fall into that category. If you are witholding organs because you don't like the system that won't let you dictate a recipient's characteristics, I see the relationship. But the system hasn't changed so its not a reaction to the system.
moreta at April 24, 2008 10:59 AM
PVM. I have said you seem to be dim because even though you repeatedly say you would break the law willingly to give your family a better life, you are not considering where your family would end up if you had to serve jail time, which you also said you would willingly do. You aren't thinking things through clearly enough to make that kind of decision, it seems to me. You're understandably passionate about this, but you're not applying a lot of common sense. If you got arrested, what would happen to your family? The "better life" you would be trying to make for them certainly would not happen if you were in jail.
Also, I wasn't talking about barrios in CA. Those at least have electricity and running water. The ones along the border in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico do not, and the sewage problems they are creating will be ripe for breeding mosquitoes that will spread disease, if they're not already. I understand the difference. However, Dengue and other types of flu are becoming prevelant in these areas, and they are starting to spread to the rest of the population. (It's a very unhealthy situation.) I'm not trying to disparage you, I'm trying to get you to think a little more clearly than you seem to be about this whole immigration thing. I wish you and yours well, too.
Flynne at April 24, 2008 11:01 AM
> the majority of people who
> are against illegal immigration
> arent against it for that reason.
They're against it because they think it steals value from their lives, public and private. And they're right, to some degree. That some of these thoughts drift into fantasies of old-time cultural collision shouldn't surprise us. As noted in a nearby comment, identity politics is a hideous way to live... You're right to be annoyed.
> I'm pretty sure the USA and
> other countries would "prop
> up" Mexico, too.
Fascinating point.
> I say - Amen!
I stole that line from Trudeau.
> focusing on what's happening
> half a world away and turning
> a blind eye on what's
> going on here.
We're not blind, we're stumped. We look forward to hearing your ideas on fixing these problems, but saying "Life is good" may not be as helpful as you think.
> Now I am out.
No! Wait! Come back and talk some more!
Crid at April 24, 2008 11:20 AM
Yes, absolutely! Gods forbid we show anything resembling compassion for someone who isn't One Of Us. People who are Mexican, homosexual or just plain liberal don't deserve it! Stop coddling the less fortunate and force them out of their sickbeds to earn their transplanted organs!
SpaceGhoti at April 27, 2008 6:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/23/go_ahead_buy_an.html#comment-1542817">comment from SpaceGhotiSpaceGhoti, I started a program in inner city schools to demystify making it. I speak once a month, and I'm going to start bringing in other speakers in May, and I'm planning on taking a few girls from the school who e-mailed me out for coffee and cookies to talk further. I also have a homeless artist I've been helping get on his feet. I give money to other causes I believe in. And in the year when a friend of mine, Cathy Seipp, was dying of cancer, I was part of "Team Cathy," about 15 of her friends who took care of her round the clock (I was there all day Wednesday and all day Thursday doing things for her and mostly just keeping her company because she was afraid to be alone.) I'm not saying we shouldn't show compassion, I'm saying I choose the causes I support, and I choose other causes. You, however, are free to donate a kidney now to an illegal alien, and to donate all your organs after your death, and also, to put a your hard-earned income into their medical care. I choose not to.
PS Please do this on the other side of the border, as I'd like to see our immigration laws enforced.
PPS What's with adding in the "homosexual" or "liberal" for hysterical emphasis? I regularly rail against discrimination against gays and lesbians. And whatever your sexual orientation or political belief, if you're a citizen, you're entitled to the rights (and subject to the responsibilities) of the rest of us citizens. By the way, as a gay or gay and liberal citizen, or just as a liberal citizens, I don't believe you'll be getting free health care from the rest of us. But, again, if you want to offer gays and liberals health care dollars out of your hard-earned income, have at it.
Amy Alkon at April 27, 2008 8:27 AM
Bully for you! Your public service earns you genuine kudos.
My comment is meant to emphasize the attitude that so many conservatives and libertarians have regarding what ought to be social issues, but are instead framed as economic ones. Human suffering doesn't care if I'm a native citizen, a legal resident or an illegal alien. If I'm dying from kidney failure, it doesn't matter if I'm dying in the US, Mexico, Sweden or Thailand: I'm suffering and how I got there is the least important issue. What price do you put on human suffering? How do you morally justify segregating those who get help and those who don't? Illegal aliens didn't get here legally, but how does that justify denying them simple human compassion?
That's really what health care is about, or used to be: compassion for people and their lives. It's easy to dismiss human suffering when you don't know them; we can't save every starving baby on the planet after all! But what does it say about us that we start counting pennies to decide which babies get fed and which don't? Who benefits when health becomes a commodity?
SpaceGhoti at April 27, 2008 1:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/23/go_ahead_buy_an.html#comment-1542854">comment from SpaceGhotiBut what does it say about us that we start counting pennies to decide which babies get fed and which don't?
That we're realistic about economics. There are people right now, all around the world, whose lives I could be saving. I'm not doing that. My time and my income are finite.
If you favor a world without borders, then use your money to bring down the walls by bringing people in Mexico and other countries health care. I do not wish to pay for illegal aliens to get four heart transplants, or even one. While I'm for preventive care for the desperately poor citizens of this country, I'm not for socialized medicine in general. I pay for my own health care and expect you and others to do the same -- even if it means foregoing a vacation or two, or that brand new wide-screen TV. There are health care reforms that should be made, sure, but I take the personal responsibility approach, and expect everyone but the seriously mentally ill or those physically incapable to work to pick up after themselves.
But, again, if you want to pay for other people's health care, I am not stopping you. I would just like to stop you from forcing me to do it.
Amy Alkon at April 27, 2008 2:08 PM
Big sigh.........no one should get 4 livers. Period. Organs are in high demand with low supply, and thousands die every year waiting for one. You get your shot, and that's it. If it didn't work, sorry, you were given a chance, and now someone else should be given a chance.
Illegal aliens should get no medical care but immediate lifesaving, and they should be immediately deported from there. They should get no education, they should get no welfare, they should not get jobs, they should not get citizenship for their kids born here. Enforce that and THEN see how many cross the border!
I find the issue of 4 livers to be more irritating than her illegal status, but barely. I live in texas, and it might as well be mexico in most areas. I do NOT think I should HAVE to learn spanish to live in America.
farrar at April 28, 2008 10:47 AM
Illegals don't get free health care in Ontario (Canada). I just checked the OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) website, and it clearly states that you have to be a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant (have your proper papers, in other words) or you pay for health care yourself.
Socialism should only benefit those who contribute financially, otherwise the system will fall apart.
I'm not aware of any special fund that pays for the health care of those in Canada unlawfully, maybe someone else does?
Chrissy at April 28, 2008 10:55 AM
Eric, quoting Yusef Islam is poor salesmanship.
John at July 22, 2009 1:56 AM
Leave a comment