Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Costs? What costs?

State of Oregon Emergency Board
(large document so I link to google cache with search term highlighted)

The second major cost increase is in the Citizen/Alien Waived Emergency Medical (CAWEM)
program. The CAWEM program covers individuals who would be Medicaid eligible except for
their immigration status and covers only emergency and child delivery services. There is an
increased need of just over $5 million General Fund in this program due to an increase in the
number of covered births coupled with an increased cost per birth. Child birth costs represent
approximately 90 percent of costs in the CAWEM program.

When the emergency board met earlier this year DHS asked for an additional $5 million to cover the increased costs of paying for illegal aliens to have babies. That's not total cost, that's just the increase.

Gosh, what would cause such an increase? It's not like our government is making promises of amnesty to illegal aliens who can manage to sneak into our country before a bill gets passed... oh wait.

19 comments:

Rick Hickey said...

Dr. Madeline Cosman, PHD, ESQ. published last year in Physicians & Surgeons mag that over 300,000 Illegal Aliens are having Babies at our expense per year. With these #'s expected to double in the next 10 years at the current rate of Illegal Immigration.

The result? We have a Woman, deported twice, held up in a Church in Chicago making big news.
ICE is leaving her alone because she has an Son (anchor) born here 8 years ago, so he is an American.

So therefore we have millions of anchor babies whose Parents are going to fight deportation because they know that giant loophole and win the sympathy of many because their child was born here.

My Black Brother-in-law is highly offened that Illegal Aliens are taking adavantage of a law passed in the 1800's for HIS PEOPLE.
14th adm. is not supposed to be a reward for sneaking into America pregnant.

Cost per Medicaid/CAWEM customer in Oregon, last year= $7,000 each.

Scottiebill said...

The liberal lefties, as well as many rinos, are endlessly whining about the President's abuse of the First Amendment with the wiretapping of likely terrorists. Perhaps they should direct their efforts at the abject abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment by the illegals and their "anchor babies". That is something that has really gotten out of hand. But the liberal lefties and their buddies, the rinos, don't really see anything wrong with that. They are again showing off their selective criticism of the President and his administration.

axe01 said...

Sure would have been nice to have those funds to hire/maintain the Oregon State Police. Funding to support illegals has gone up steadily, while the OSP staffing has been cut in half. Teddy the Kook was 'in charge' then. Now, in an election year...he wants to increase OSP staffing? Sure would be fine to have an adequate number of OSP Troopers out on I-5, the illegal immigrant drug smuggling runway North from Tijuana. He should have recognized it before he put state tax funds into coddling illegals.

Calhoun said...

I'd like to make a point about the "anchor baby" thing.

The pro-amnesty crowd is saying "we can't break up families, how cruel that would be, to deport illegal alien parents, who have citizen children."

But what happens if an American parent breaks the law, and is sent to prison? Does anyone say "oh no, we can't break up a family by sending this parent to prison!" (Actually I guess the defense attorney might be saying that.)

But what does happen? The child is raised by relatives, or is sent to foster care, while the parent is brought to justice. And if that's what happens when Americans break the law, that's what can happen when foreigners come here and break our laws.

el razonador said...

Well, Calhoun -- we're naturally miles apart on our views of how to alleviate the dilemma you propose, so I won't comment on that.

But in related fashion, I'll ask you to consider the scenario of hundreds of thousands of undocumented children, brought here by their parents when they were between the ages of 1 and 5, post-IRCA, and are thus now between the ages of 18 and 23. These young people are fully acculturated into American life, not fully proficient in Spanish, and literally in limbo, in that they have no access to federal loan money for post-secondary education, cannot legally obtain employment (at least in an upwardly mobile occupation at least in the formal sector where unauthorized employment is less likely), have never lived in Mexico, and have only distant or no ties to social networks there.

What do you propose the federal government does with this segment of the population?

Calhoun said...

Okay, you're asking about "undocumented children," meaning they're not US citizens, right? And they're not here legally.

They should be treated just exactly the same as any American citizen.

If an American breaks the law, he/she should be brought to justice.

If an illegal alien breaks the law, he/she should be brought to justice.

That would be fair, right? Or don't they want to be treated the same?

Sally said...

Buy Phentermine and Valium online. Lowest Price. Phentermine - Valium

Sally said...

Buy Phentermine and Valium online. Lowest Price. Phentermine - Valium

el razonador said...

Yes, they're undocumented, but here illegally based on a decision made by their parents. Given that they're fully raised, socialized and educated in the United States, having never little or no memory of Mexico and having never lived there past the age of 5, it seems unfair to deport these individuals. In my opinion.

Anonymous said...

It is right to deport their parents for the crime of illegal entry and children should be with their parents.

Anonymous said...

Nothing is unfair about deporting illegal aliens. They broke the law and should be punished... PERIOD. Why are liberals so obtuse about this issue, and anchor babies unlawful claim to citizenship?

Another perspective said...

Right-wing politicians and media pundits in the United States are seeking to use immigrant workers as a scapegoat for the increasingly difficult social and economic conditions facing the working class and considerable sections of the middle class. They claim that immigrant workers are “stealing” the jobs of native-born Americans, and that the low-wage exploitation of immigrants is responsible for declining living standards in the US.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/immi-j16.shtml

Kaelri said...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Daniel said...

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

There is a case to be made that this section excludes illegal aliens.

Regardless, if the parents are illegal they need to be deported and minor children need to follow them. Just like if I moved to Montana my kids would have to follow me.

el razonador said...

The notion that low-skilled Mexican immigrants take jobs from native-born Americans is not something anyone believes outside of right-wing restrictionist circles. There's absolutely no hard data to prove it. The anecdotal story of someone's cousin (who happens to be a high school dropout) who lost a roofing job to a Mexican crew is not hard data. Like any advanced post-industrial economy, the most desirable jobs require high educational attainment, and the educational profile of the nation's native-born population does not fit the job structure. There is a huge sector of low-wage work for which most Americans are over-skilled, and thus, do not want. This is, as I see it, the weakest part of the restrictionist argument, as I see it: an inability to come to terms with this basic demographic/economic structural fact. Countering with, "we should all just pay more for our goods and be willing to pick our own lettuce" is really just unrealistic pie-in-the-sky.

Also, you're missing the whole point about the specific case of undocumented children I raised. They are now adults 18-23 years of age. I think it's extremely unfair for our federal government to deport these individuals, having been raised, educated, and culturally assimilated (but for the first few years of their life) in the U.S. They have no roots in Mexico, but for the distant memory, if that, of an early childhood.

Scottiebill said...

ElRazonador: You keep using the term "undocumented" in your postings about the illegal aliens and how wonderful they are.

1. You apparently have no concept of the word "illegal" nor do you have any knowledge of its definition or its meaning.

2. I have posed this question before: If a person robs a bank, is that an "undocumented" withdrawal?

3. This is the same illogical logic you are using in referring to illegal aliens as being "undocumented".

4. Just because the Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically include illegal aliens in its wording, that does not mean that the illegals are automatically legal citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to decide this question as close to immediately as possible.

Maybe you might understand that, but I really doubt it.

el razonador said...

Scottie - I'm not sure why I give your insults the justification of a well-reasoned response, but here goes...

I use the term undocumented because I prefer it to the pejorative term "illegal" that is largely used by people like you to demean a certain group of people as somehow inferior, which I don't believe. Daniel's blog is largely about demeaning Mexicans (especially the undocumented ones) and as an American citizen, born and raised here, I find it repulsive that this debate can't be carried on in a more civil and sophisticated manner.

Equating undocumented immigration with illegality is a gross oversimplification of the complex processes driving the phenomenon. I guess it's convenient for the right to simply adopt the stance that because unauthorized presence in the country is against federal law, persons here without documents should be treated as criminals. That's an easy position that requires little thought or discussion, once adopted, but it does nothing productive to solve the problem.

First, you (and your posse here) often mischaracterize the opinions of those who disagree with how "illegal" immigration should be dealt with by insinuating that liberals are inherently open border proponents who somehow believe that the country should do nothing about monitoring its borders and controlling who is able to enter and for what reasons. This is simply wrong. I've never heard this articulated by left-leaning observers.

Second, to treat this problem simply as an issue of legality is quite ignorant. Laws are social constructions, not mandates from God. Could you point out to me please where God (whichever one you prefer) mandated that blacks are 3/5 of a person or that women should not be allowed to vote? Laws change as societies change.

Thus, I view the illegal immigration issue as a problem of federal law being badly out of sync with the social and economic world we live in, thus creating a large population of highly employed poor people defined as "illegal". The fact of the matter is that we are the richest nation in the world sharing a 2000 mile land border with a country that is by comparison quite poor. As the pro-capitalism free-marketeers that you are, why would you expect people not to act in their own economic self-interest. That is pretty much economic principle #1, isn't it?

Also, since the 1970's, the U.S. economy has been taking an increasingly "hour-glass" shape, due largely to global capitalism. The jobs, such as those in manufacturing, that used to provide people with a high school or lower education with a secure, middle-class lifestyle, have been disappearing at a rapid pace from our occupation structure, mostly going overseas. Job growth has been in high-end, knowledge-based occupations and low-skilled service work, hence the hour-glass shape of the economy. These are widely documented and indisputable facts.

Moreover, the educational profile of the native-born population does not line up with this occupational structure. Native born persons do not want these jobs at the low end, and for good reason, as they are not upwardly mobile occupations. Thus, there is huge demand for low-skilled work in the country, and this is where udocumented Mexicans enter the picture.

Increased border enforcement over the past 20 years has had the unintended consequence of causing undocumented migrants who would normally return to Mexico after earning a targeted amount of income in low-wage work in the U.S to stay permanently. As Douglas Massey has demonstrated in his 2002 book (listed as a must read on the OFIR website) the increasingly permanent settlement of undocumented Mexicans is due to the increased cost, difficulty and risk of crossing the border clandestinely. Immigration reform should provide more avenues for low-skilled Mexicans willing to fill jobs shunned by Americans to enter legally and work. Given this opportunity, migration flows would return to their previously circulatory pattern.

I find HR4437 intellecutally and ethically offensive. Intellectually, because its supporters seem completely ignorant to the social and economic processes driving undocumented migration, making their solution completely unrealistic, and ethically, because it seeks to criminalize a population defined as illegal particularly because our federal laws are out of sorts with the realities of the global capitalist economy in which we live.

Every Sunday I volunteer at a privately funded non-profit that provides food, clothing and information to poor spanish-speaking immigrants (probably most of whom are undocumented). I was raised in a Catholic family and taught the virtues of serving the poorest of the poor. I will do it until the day I die, and I hope it will set a good example for my children. Daniel insists that it is God's mandate to follow the law. If HR4437 becomes law, my sunday volunteering would be considered criminal. I will gladly go to jail before following this apparent mandate from God.

Kaelri said...

El Razonador: I think the issue of illegality has to be confronted, maturely, by both sides. The pejorative connotation of the word is something we need to change for any progress to be made; if it is not acknowledged, then we'll never get through to those who dismiss "criminals" by default, before any peripheral argument is heard.

Undocumented immigrants are, in fact, breaking the law by coming here. To do so is a conscious choice. We need to make it clear that for many, perhaps most (I can't provide statistical evidence), this is not an act of selfish amorality, but the lesser of two evils - a conscientious choice to provide a better life for themselves and their families, the responsibility of which outweighs compliance with existing laws. I think it would be appropriate to draw a parallel to slaves who fled the southern states in pursuit of freedom: note that they were "illegal" "criminals" in exactly the same sense. A sense of both global and historical perspective is what's needed.

el razonador said...

Kaelri - Indeed I agree with you. Immigrating without authorization is an illegal act. But it's a gross oversimplification and ignorance of our economic reality to equate it to theft, or some other illegal act.

I don't hold out much hope that these realities can actually be discussed between both sides. At least among commentators here, there seems to be a complete unwillingness to allow such factors into the discussion, as evidence by not one person choosing to comment on the substantive points I have made in opposition to their point of view.

Sadly, in my opinion, there is a knee-jerk reaction in contemporary civil discourse to equate any attempts to gain or articulate a "global and historical perspective", as you say, with liberalism and anti-americanism. (In international surveys of citizens' knowledge of history and world affairs, Americans are repeatedly at the bottom.) Efforts to place phenomena in a global historical context, therefore, are met with personal attacks rather than with substantive counterpoints. I've seen this repeatedly in response to your posts on this blog (Bear's response to your points about land-ownership is a perfect example), and I think it parallels a general trend in American political discourse. I think of it as the talk-radio model of debate, in which very little discussion actually takes place.