Thursday, June 15, 2006

Being illegal isn't a barrier in Oregon

Latino PLWH: Service Needs and Barriers to Care
In March 2000, the Portland Area HIV Services Planning Council and the Oregon HIV Care Coalition contracted with Program Design and Evaluation Services (PDES) to conduct a follow-up study with Latino PLWH. (People living with HIV)

PDES completed interviews with 32 Latino PLWH between August 2000 and March 2001.

Almost three-fourths of respondents were born outside the U.S., and almost half were born in Mexico.

Twelve respondents (38%) were undocumented, 11 (31%) had legal documentation, and nine (28%) were U.S. citizens.

Twenty-seven respondents (84%) had health insurance, and most were covered through some form of government program.

You don't say... And here I thought that illegal aliens couldn't get taxpayer funded health care. But hey, it's not like treating HIV is expensive or anything. That valuable service they provide by selling drugs and raping young girls is definitely worth it.

Oh yeah, question that last statement... DOC ICE detainer list at a previous post.


BEAR said...

Hey, Mr. Daniel, the state has a vested interest in keeping these freeloaders alive......more votes for liberals.

Daniel said...

Absolutely. And don't forget my position on HIV: it's a disease of choice. (99% of the time)

BEAR said...

bad choices...bad the boohoo card....and shezaam, force the taxpayers to pick up the tab. Thanx, libs.

Bryan Saxton said...

I'm curious, Daniel, do you beleive we, as the richest country in the world, should not be assisting others, whether or not they are citizens of our country?

Daniel said...

As citizens we should be helping people. I try to help people. However, government should not use tax dollars to help criminals.

Bryan Saxton said...

And that, Daniel, is an understandable position. I just beleive that Christ would disregard whether or not those in need are criminals or not, just as he did in the bible.

The Gentle Cricket said...

Don't worry, soon as California adopts universal health care, all of Oregon's immigration problem will seem to disappear.

BEAR said...

bryan saxton, Jesus is famous for, among many things, saying, "go and sin no more." This is a reasonable piece of advice to border crashers as they are found and deported. "Compassion" and "enabling" are often confused by lefties as synonymous. Feeling compassion for an alcoholic, and buying him his next drink are at cross-purposes.

Bryan Saxton said...

Bear, you can't compare buying an alcoholic another drink and Christ helping a dying person to each other. Also, I would harldly consider saving someone's life, legal or illegal, "enabling."

But just so I'm clear, you're saying, bear, that Christ wouldn't help an illegal with AIDs and wouldn't command us to do the same? I hope that's not the case, because there are countless times where Christ helped those who we would have considered "not deserving." Christ is indiscriminate when it comes to nationality or the legality of human institutions. He does ask of us to be mindful of the law, but also he commands us to go above the law when teh law contradicts his example.

Just to be clear, I'm not entirely opposed to Daniel's stance on illegals, and if the man is deported after he is helped, I don't have much of a problem with it. I just have a problem with the inhumane and unchristlike attitude we as rich Americans and followers of Christ have towards outsiders.

BEAR said...

bryan, our definitions of what constitutes "help" are different. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want everyone to have whatever they think they "need," not matter how much it costs someone else. Remember the tale of the golden goose? Conservatives don't mind providing a fishing pole and some bait, with instructions on their use. This nation allows more legal immigrants than ALL the rest of the world combined. That's not good enough for the open borders crowd. Too bad. Since aids is a disease of choice, which means it is PREVENTABLE by using good judgment, my "obligation" to have my hard earned income squandered to "help" profoundly irresponsible people is limited. Larry the Cable Guy talks about liberals when he opines......"You can't fix stupid."

Bryan Saxton said...


First of all, I beleive you completely disregarded the above post. Rather, you answered what you wanted to and left out what you didn't.

First, let us find some common ground. I have no problem with illegals being deported. I am not in favor of open borders, as you claim that all liberals are (I'm not even a liberal).

Now, let us "debunk" some myths about AIDs. First of all, you are arguing that AIDs is avoidable. No reasonable scientist would agree with you; however, I would be more open to the debate that HIV, which is the virus that attacks the immune system, is preventable. However, it is not always a disease of choice.

There are three ways to contract HIV. The first is by engaging in sexual intercourse with someone. The second is through blood to blood contact. This includes becoming blood brothers with someone (a practice stopped because of aids) and sharing needles (I know, drugs and whatnot, but do any of you have tatoos?). The above two are preventable.

However, the third cause, which is also the second most leading cause of death through HIV complications, is being born to someone who has HIV. Also, children who breastfeed from a mother with HIV will likely contrac it themselves. I would hardly call the above cause of contraction a choice. We also cannot forget those mothers who were raped, which I think we would agree is not a choice. We must also remember that rape unfortunately is common in countries significantly less fortunate financially than ours (like Mexico).

To make clear our discussion, we are talking about helping someone in need, not keeping them here.

I would like to address a claim you made above. In the above post, you made the general claim that your aquisition of capital is more important than helping someone in need. First, my definition of help comes from the example Christ set in the Bible. Christ was indiscriminate of who he helped. Second, he would strongly disagree with the above claim you made. In fact, he commands us to give to those who are in need. Those he considered in need were those who were sick and dying, such as a man with HIV. Christ didn't make the distinction whether we give to the legal alien or the illegal one (but there is plenty in the bible about the treatment of aliens, regardless of whether they are "legal" or not).

In short, if we are followers of Christ, we are commanded to give to those in need, regardless of whether they are legal or not, and regardless of whether they are sinners. In fact, we are commanded by Christ to disregard our material wealth in favor of his service. As he says, "You cannot serve both God and money."

Also, I think Larry the Cable guy would agree with me that he is less than credible for quoting, however strong his opinion may align with yours.