« Napolitano Expected to Reassert Federal Authority Over Immigration | Main | CIS Report on Marriage Fraud »
December 3, 2008
Immigrants and Health Care
Effective Messaging on Immigrants and Health Care
SPONSORED BY: NILC
SAVE THE DATE: Thursday, December 11, 2008
Summary:
Immigrants and Health Care
Progressive health policies for children's health coverage expansions and for health care reform at the state or federal levels, must address coverage for immigrants in order to succeed. The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) has recently completed research on voter values around immigrants and health care. The results of this research illuminate both opportunities and challenges inherent in including immigrants in new coverage expansions.
Please join the National Immigration Law Center to hear findings from focus groups conducted with liberal to conservative voters. The webinar will also include suggested messages and communication tips that advocates and policymakers can successfully use to ensure health care for all is truly inclusive.
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008
Time: 2pm-4pm EST; 11am-1pm PST
Please RSVP to Mai Huynh at huynh@nilc.org. Call in info will be sent to those who RSVP.
bh
December 3, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef010536356de1970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Immigrants and Health Care:
Comments
There is one sure thing you can say about immigrants and health care: They want it and We are going to pay for it!
Posted by: Thomas Lillich | Dec 3, 2008 2:51:52 PM
I'm assuming by 'immigrants' they mean both legal and illegal aliens. The case for universal health care (when thought of as just for Americans) also applies to anyone residing in the country. It is a public good to have everyone healthy or at least not unhealthy or spreading diseases. There is a libertarian argument against welfare state benefits for immigrants (some are actually for immigration ONLY if it's illegal and blocked from such benefits). The problem, they say, is that there is an infinite demand for x but a limited supply. If you flood the pyramid at the bottom, it cannot be sustained via the same funding structure. You will upset the balance between net payers and net receivers. If the new net receivers aren't considered fellows of the payers, the payers (who are relatively powerful politically) may lose interest in paying for benefit x at all. This factor is evident today. If you were to include illegal aliens in a proposed healthcare coverage, it will erode a degree of political support. If you block benefits, the libertarians say the immigrants will only be attracted to jobs [they ignore existing benefits that children of illegal aliens are eligible for which financially benefit the entire family].
It is not ideal to have 'universal' coverage but with tens of millions of people left out of it. It is also not ideal to have a free world class healthcare magnet that anyone in the world can gain access to simply by crossing a border. It would jeopardize the system itself. The libertarians are right in that you will attract people for the benefits. A conundrum which open borders exacerbates: if you are too open you can destroy the benefits for everybody but if you are too strict about access for those in your midst you create pockets or even large segments of your society lacking in health, education, etc. which a Good Society would wish to minimize. If you go ahead and give the benefit to those already here ('they're already here anyway') it doesn't just affect those people. You have just given an incentive for the next person to come and get it. A true welfare state liberal cannot logically be for unlimited immigration. Those who claim to be liberals and also favor unlimited immigration should make a choice because maximizing both is an impossibility.
Posted by: Jack | Dec 3, 2008 7:22:08 PM
Jack makes a convincing argument. Logically it follows that we must:
1) Comprehensively end the chain of illegal migration through securing the borders and enacting thorough workplace enforcement.
2) Legalize the status of those undocumented immigrants already here, that can pass criminal background checks, are willing to pay a fine, back taxes, etc., etc., and give them biometric ID's that will allow them to work and live within the law.
3) Insure that the message goes out around the world that any and all additional potential migrants needn't bother to come illegally, because if they haven't been here since before a certain cut off date, they will not be able to receive the mandatory biometric ID, and will therefore be forced to leave.
4) Then, when we eventually do pass Health Care Reform, as legal residents or citizens, everyone, including the newly legalized immigrants, will be eligible for health care.
It might be interesting to note that Sen. Reid has already said publicly that CIR will most likely occur before the Senate tackles the more difficult challenge of Health Care legislation, so the above mentioned "list" is not only possible, but probable.
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Dec 3, 2008 7:58:17 PM
We need health insurance. That's apparently a fact.
Posted by: Linda Roberts | Dec 4, 2008 12:48:44 AM
Robert, you're so silly. All we really need from your list is bullet #1. Enforce the laws, turn off benefits to illegal aliens, and people will go home. As it is, with the MINIMAL enforcement we have now, about 500,000 illegal aliens return home every year.
The problem is that the new annual illegal immigration -- as a result of open borders -- swamps that.
If we increase enforcement efforts, make sure no one comes across the border illegally (or overstays a visa), the problem of illegal immigration will be reduced to almost nothing in about a decade. It's called the attrition plan; look it up.
Of course, this assumes one actually wants to end illegal immigration.
As for your little bullet #2, amnesty will only increase illegal immigration and make matters worse. No one is calling for amnesty other than those wishing to exploit cheap labor. Oh, except for terrorists who also want it -- just like those who received amnesty in 1986 and blew up the WTC in 1993. Had we deported them, instead of granting them amnesty, they would not have had the ability to travel to and from the middle east to receive terrorist training.
Posted by: J.D. | Dec 4, 2008 10:17:41 AM
In response to Mr. or Ms. J.D., (whoever he or she is), I don't know how old you are, (although I do have my suspicions), but I am reminded here of the '70's era Saturday Night Live skits called Point - Counterpoint. In those skits, Dan Ackroid and Jane Curtain would debate each other on a political topic. Jane would start by presenting her side of the argument. Dan would then begin his counterpoint argument by turning to Jane and saying, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" J.D., in this debate, you are Jane.
First of all, you bring up your plan for eliminating the problem of illegal immigration. You say to me, "It's called the attrition plan; look it up."
J.D., I don't have to look it up. Actually it's called the "Attrition Through Enforcement" plan, originated by Mark Krikorian of the Center For Immigration Studies, and the reason that I know that, is because I've written several published articles specifically related to that short sighted and cruel idea, a couple of which have been the subject of postings on this very blog. For you own edification, you might wish to read a couple of them, such as "The Cruel and Intolerant Myth of Attrition," or "The Enforcement Only Approach: Be Careful What You Ask For, You Just Might Get It." Should you avail yourself of the opportunity to do so, you just might learn something.
You further reference in your post, "Of course, this assumes one actually wants to end illegal immigration." It might surprise you to learn that I, and countless other serious minded advocates of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, actually very much do want to end illegal immigration. However, there are very few right ways to do it, and all sorts of wrong ways to do it. I suppose that both you and I think that our ways are the right ways, which is why debate is so very important, and why I am bothering to counter your assertions here.
Actually, the main reason why I am taking the time to write this response, is because your concluding paragraph is so outrageously incorrect, that in all good conscious I just cannot let it stand. You write the following:
"As for your little bullet #2, amnesty will only increase illegal immigration and make matters worse." If you read point number 2 in it's entirety, as well as point numbers 1 and 3, you would see that I've covered that ground. The only workable solution is CIR, but the government has to enforce the entire CIR package to make CIR work. Either we are serious about ending illegal immigration or we aren't. CIR advocates are. Neither "enforcement only" - nor "amnesty only" proponents are serious, and should not be taken seriously.
"No one is calling for amnesty other than those wishing to exploit cheap labor." Are you suggesting that the 60% or more or citizens that according to most polling data are proponents of CIR are all trying to exploit cheap labor? Contrary to that simplistic notion, once CIR is passed, it will have the effect of reducing the exploitation of undocumented workers, in that it will bring them out of the shadows and end unscrupulous labor practices that subject these economic refugees to exploitation today.
"Oh, except for terrorists who also want it -- just like those who received amnesty in 1986 and blew up the WTC in 1993." Here's where your arguments go completely off the rails. CIR will allow us to control exactly who is here. A requirement of CIR is that each applicant will have to pass background checks, and will be subject to tracking as to when they leave the country and come back. This will enable Homeland Security to verify when someone travels to and from countries that sponsor terrorist training, and these people can be monitored by the FBI, etc.. I am one who believes that if we are to be serious about homeland security, we need to know who's here. That's not rocket science.
Finally, I note that in the recent past, you and others have written derogatory statements about my ideas based on your assumptions about my long work experience in the manufacturing sector, and/or my wife's experience in immigration law. People are free to draw their own conclusions. I feel no need to defend myself against your allegations. I would however, point out that I have always signed my name to my writings, and been entirely upfront about my work experience in this field. I don't hide in the tall grass of anonymity. In my opinion, it is an act or cowardice to hide behind ones initials, J.D., or whoever you are.
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Dec 4, 2008 12:36:25 PM
Gittelson has a financial interest in illegal immigration. His wife is a lower-tier immigration attorney in Los Angeles. His comments should be considered with this bias in mind.
Posted by: Thomas Lillich | Dec 4, 2008 1:49:41 PM
