![]() |
Woman deported in vegetative state
OK, that is inflammatory and untrue, but it was also untrue when it was used as a headline in a Mexican newspaper.
I'll keep my fingers crossed that we can keep this thread from turning into yet another mudslinging fest. Can we start from the position that anti-illegal immigration folks don't hate brown people and the open border people aren't just pandering for more democrat votes, please? Long story short is that a 22 year old female, illegally in the US since she was 11 got in a motorcycle accident, broke her back and was taken to a Phoenix hospital. While there she received nearly $500,000 in medical care that the hospital will be forced to write off. Then she needed a long term care facility but because she is illegal and has no insurance no facility would take her, so the Phoenix hospital chartered a flight to Mexico for her so she could recover in their "free medical care" system. She was not deported by the US government, she was returned to Mexico by the hospital. That is where the complaints begin. Article here. The open border crowd (the Arizona Republic is openly pro-illegal alien) presents this as a poor girl abused by a heartless US system. The anti illegal crowd is of course saying that she shouldn't have been here to begin with. My question is: What do you think when you read an article like this? Dig a little deeper than legal/illegal and think about what parts of the article grabbed you. -Her legal status? -How she got here? -Medical costs? -The US medical system? -Her work history? -Her education? -Her children? -Her return to Mexico? Most people reading the article instinctively will fall on one side or the other of the legal/illegal question - but why? What is it that grabs you and pulls you that way? |
To me it's less about the technicalities of her legal status and more about her personal attitude.
Being 22, I would have to hope she probably has some sort of income. So my first question would be, given whatever her income level is, what sort of long-term care would she have qualified for if she happened to be legal? Obviously her income level doesn't exist in a vacuum: she may or may not have learned fluent English by now, and she may or may not have had a harder time getting a job than she would have been able to get otherwise (i.e., someone who speaks very little English is significantly less employable than someone who has learned it, regardless of legality, and even if she were legal it's by no means a guarantee that she would have had any sort of higher education, which would also have a direct effect on her employment value.) What I'm saying is, if she's taken the last 11 years to assimilate as much as possible--she speaks English, has a reasonable job, she has a kid or two enrolled in school--then she very well may not have qualified for government assistance with her care anyway, and in that case she is simply an uninsured person, and is lucky that Mexico's healthcare system will take her. If since coming here she has learned no English and made no efforts to be employed or secure legal status... then she should be happy she got half a million in free emergency care that saved her life. If she has a reasonable job given her circumstances, but the income is low enough that she would have qualified for Medicaid if she were legal, that's where I'm more torn. That's the kind of situation where I would say she should ideally be considered a contributing citizen and given benefits as such... but the reality is you can't just ignore the law in some cases and not others, it is the underlying immigration law that needs changing. Incidentally, having been here 11 years, and assuming she spoke a reasonable amount of English and had some sort of job, she would have qualified for citizenship under basically every amnesty or other immigration-improvement-proposal that is out there today. |
Lookout--I can't get the link to work.
|
Quote:
OH....well....I'll be over here if you need me http://www.daniyel.com/pepper/pepper...udslinging.gif |
My opinion is she's a human being and she was here when she needed the treatment. How about we stop making stuff like this political and make it about someone who needed help.
And before anyone asks, no I don't care where she came from, how she got here or if she paid taxes. Humans are supposed to help humans. |
|
OK, good point Sheldon, that is the type of response I was looking for. If I understand correctly, your gut reaction is that money, borders, and status are unimportant - the focus should be that we should help her because she is a person.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
yeah, thanks--it did work.
This is my very emotional gut feeling: Mexico is having a hissy fit because they don't want to deal with her & her bills at all. I've no problem with legal or illegal Mexicans--they come here to work; at least those in my community are really interested in work and assimilation. And, opening excellent Mexican restaurants. BUT--here goes: I agree with Sheldon that she is a person who needed treatment and humans should take care of humans. However, the US can't even take care of their OWN let alone illegals no matter if they "contribute" or not. I think the US did the brunt of the work and bore the biggest part of the cost...I think Mexico should take responsibility for their citizen. I like Mexican people just fine---my brother in law is Mexican, a PhD and a good guy. I don't like the Mexican gov't. How do you like them apples? |
That is my conclusion as well, Flint, but I found myself curious about what route different dwellars would take to their conclusions.
For me I look at it and see a woman who is 22 and has been here illegally for 11 years. During that time she has received a free education. She has worked sporadically in a low end job that most likely offered no medical insurance even when she was working. She popped out 2 babies (aren't they precious?) which was probably also paid for in the AHCCS system. Now she gets in an accident, which is tragic. Fortunately for her, she was here in the valley where we have some fantastic medical care available. She received nearly a half million dollars worth of that care, none of which will she have to pay for. (and none of which is now available in the system for legal US residents) After the emergency portion of her care ended it was decided that she needed further care so the hospital paid for her charter flight to mexico. She is now in Mexico, where she is a legal resident and has received well over a half million dollars in various benefits paid for by US taxpayers. I don't see a problem here, other than the fact that she was able to live here illegally for 11 years without being caught. Oh yeah, I guess I have a beef with the idea that the US in general, or the Hospital specifically should do more. |
Quote:
|
True, it is basically just another opportunity to misconstrue and bash the anti-illegal immigration position, IMO.
I really am just interested in the journey each dwellar takes to reach their conclusion on an issue like this. |
If I grunted out a baby in, say, Amsterdam, would they let me stay?
What about Mexico? Same deal? What about MONACO? if I squeeze one out there---can I be Princess? |
No but the bambino would be in line for the throne.
spot 68,264 may not be glamorous but it is in line too, you know. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.