Culture

Immigration reform: An issue which will widen the divide

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | September 13, 2009 at 07:31 am

225 views | 6 Recommendations | 5 comments

Throughout the summer it became increasingly clear that a bipartisan approcah was not going to fly: American politics are more divisive than ever. And the pending issue of immigration reform will certainly widen the great divide. The liberal argument that many illegal immigrants are not criminal but valiantly working and holding on, while being exploited by employers, holds no truck with those who harbor a deep mistrust of foreigners; indeed, the xenophobic are mistrustful of Obama himself. The exploitation of illegal aliens is incongruent with a vast pluralist democracy and leading nation such as America is. Obama's healthcare reform has no provision for their gaining insurance coverage, yet this falsehood will surely prevail and increase.

If President Obama genuinely believed that he could tamp down the hyper-partisanship that has come to dominate American politics, he had quite the education over the summer. He now knows better. Talk show hosts, well-paid lobbyists and political hacks managed to ignite a vicious culture war over health care, of all things. If they could do that, then the more familiar fights can only get bloodier.
So Obama probably isn’t looking forward to a return to immigration reform, which, when last discussed, revealed an ugly resentment of “the other” that our melting-pot nation hasn’t outgrown. But return he must. Like health care and climate change, immigration reform is an area where solutions have been put off for too long.

Last month, Obama pledged to push for the introduction of a bill implementing comprehensive immigration reform before the year is out, while cautioning that the overhaul won’t be easy. Speaking at a presidential summit in Mexico, he said, “Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No . . .There are going to be demagogues out there who try to suggest that any form of pathway for legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable,” according to The New York Times.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

a211423

at 09:57 on September 13th, 2009

When President Obama read parts of the letter sent to him from Ted Kennedy at the close of his speech to the joint members of congress, I felt like the questions of whether to insure everyone based on the tenents of social justice and what is right were answered. But the realty of the American conscience at this time is quite different. Many people are in survival mode, and their soul searching is close to home rather than idealistic conceptions, and it is understandable.

In California in 1994, the citizens voted to deny health care to illegal immigrants. It was found to be unconstitutional. This is health care, not the right to buy insurance. Therefore, illegals will be in the health care system, but they will be there as a recepient of services, not as a contributor.

Without the inclusion of a public option, why should anyone be denied the right to buy health insurance? Wouldn't it be better to know that immigrant children attending schools with American children are healthy and not presenting with all the physical and psychological ills related to lack of primary care? Wouldn't it be better to know that the emergency rooms are not the de facto primary care for illegal immigrants who wait until they are seriously ill to seek care and become responsible for driving up the costs of hospitals? Wouldn't it be fiscally responsbile to allow them to buy insurance and be contributing members in a health care system that seeks to prevent illness and reduce costs, rather than a mechanism that compromises wellness and prevention and shifts the cost of their emergency care onto those who have insurance?

Rory Cripps

at 11:57 on September 13th, 2009

It's tough to sell most American voters on amnesty for "illegal immigrants". Especially those whose ancestors had to jump through a myriad of legal hoops in order to become U.S. citizens. Amnesty is something that progressives have been pushing for years. And they succeeded to a great degree because what we have in America today, given the millions of illegal immigrants that are here, is virtual amnesty. This is one of the rare cases where progressives and the "conservative" business community agree. The push for all-inclusiveness on the part of progressives and the desire for cheap labor, that can easily be exploited, on the part of the conservative business community makes for a powerful combination.

a211423

at 12:26 on September 13th, 2009

If we agree that the conservative business community needs illegals, at least in agricultural states like yours and mine, are we left with only the conservative fundatmentalists who would deny illegals the flexibility to purchase health insurance. The curious part for me is that we are not talking about free services, but the right to buy health insurance. Could anything be more barbaric? And doesnt this amount to the conservative fundamentalists shooting themselves in the foot by crippling illegals from entering the market fairly at no cost to them. In fact they can benefit, if the exchange works likes its suppose to, the more people in the exchange the greater the opportunities for competition that can lower premiums for all of us.

We have been passing laws and debating Amnesty and Naturalization since 1790, and here we are in 2009 still wrestling with it. *sigh* That is a topic of its own apart from health care reform.

a211423

at 14:18 on September 13th, 2009

Anyone, a tourist for example, can buy health insurance on the open market. In fact, it should be a requirement for coming in here legally.

Roy, any tourist that comes here without health insurance is taking their life in their hands. I would imagine that most tourists do get some kind of coverage.

In the countries that have universal health care, which is most of the world, we can travel there and become ill, we would be treated for free with no questions asked. I just saw a piece on Argentina where no one, not even travelers, are denied health care. And I believe it is that way in most countries with single payer systems.

Whether illegals received "subsidized" care is a matter of definition. If having the emergencey room be your primary care provider, then I would have to say this is subsidized care because someone is paying for it. I do support allowing illegals to buy health insurance, which I already stated.

a211423

at 15:51 on September 13th, 2009

Yes, illegals can buy insurance now, but they prefer to send the money back to Mexico because it is a bill of several hundred dollars a month.

There is a way to deal with this. The same way uninsured, indigent people are screened now for state medical coverage. When an uninsured person goes to the emergency room, they can be screened for insurance. If they are working, they are assigned an insurance provider. There can be a provider (s) by default for those who are not insured or have chosen to not get insurance up to that time. This is possible because pre-existing conditions will not be a disqualifier.

Everyone has to be in the system. Once this kind of system is in place for a while, people will get the idea that opting out of insurance is not an option. This is the reason requiring everyone to have some form of insurance is a good idea. I know there is some push/pull against a mandate, but in the absence of single payer--my personal favorite--a requirement for insurance needs to be in place.