Illegal Salvadoran woman with brain tumor to be deported
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
I don't see him calling her / them violent criminals, but calling them what they actually are - criminals.
I'm also not going to sit here and act like I know what the right thing to do is, as I can clearly see both sides of the arguments having merit. They're criminals and should be sent home, I get it. But I also find it kinda odd that being born a few feet north or south means a person's rights should be so different.
It takes me back to the struggle I've had for year, understanding what I call 'the randomness of God's blessing'...
And I appreciate that.
There is no "glee" on my part at this woman's plight. It is a tragedy.
The world abounds in tragedies. Having seen a lot of the underbelly of the world, I have seen more than my share of tragedies.
It just seems to me that your compassion consists of being generous with other people's money.
You have said that Obamacare has been a good deal for you and your family. If you were to adopt this woman and cover her medical expenses, you'd be in a better position to preach. Or, set up a Go Fund Me page to buy this woman a ticket to Canada. I hear they have a really good health care system.
But as a policy, curing every sick person that makes her way to the US (which seems to be what you are advocating), and not closing the border to illegal immigration (and I believe you are in favor of keeping the border open), in the long run will be an enormous disaster. It is telling every sick person around the world to high-tail it to the US to get some of that free health care. This will result in tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of Americans not getting anything at all from their government. I have drawn the analogy of 25 people in a 25-person lifeboat and 100 people in the water around the lifeboat. Try to get 125 people into the lifeboat and what you end up with is simply 125 people in the water and no lifeboat at all. Given the choice between caring for citizens of the US or trying to care for sick people around the world, I'll opt for caring for US citizens and doing what we can for the others.
And I do not believe this woman is a danger to the US, except insofar as they absorbs serious amounts of taxpayer dollars for her healthcare. That expense of scarce resources is not negligible. No single raindrop feels responsible for the flood, yet floods happen. We have accrued $19 trillion in debt (so far) and when the US government defaults on that debt, the disaster will be enormous, global, and catastrophic. I'd rather avoid that.
The church itself is no longer in to helping the less fortunate. It's all about building bigger and better. Every church needs a gym, a "rock" band, a staff of 50 and huge amphitheater. How can they minister to the less fortunate when they are trying to figure out how to spend the money to attract more members?
Does it matter? If she crossed our border and entered our country illegally, she should be repatriated to her home country. Regardless if she's a violent criminal or not, by law, she's a criminal for entering our country illegally.
Cross the border "illegally" into Mexico and see what happens.
We know EXACTLY where and when she entered the country illegally??????? Down to the very date (she probably figured a lot of folks were watching the LSU-Alabama game
that night)?????
Is this common?
Doesn't Mexico have universal health care? What makes the woman's situation seem cruel is that she was in the hospital awaiting surgery when she was taken away. Would they have taken her from the operating table?
Let the record show that I am against immigration. Period!
Let the record show that I am against immigration. Period!
According to Snopes, the docs had cleared her to leave the hospital and come back Monday.
Remove the three middle words of the thread title and the discussion becomes simple. (Illegal Salvadoran Woman to be Deported).
The rest is irrelevant, and I have no problem with what is.
The rest is irrelevant, and I have no problem with what is.
In an ideal libertarian world she would be free to enter the country and no one else would be forced to pay for her care so the cost of it would not be an issue to taxpayers. It's not an ideal world from any standpoint. My position is that our overall immigration policy needs an overhaul as do others parts of our system. The more we move away from classical liberalism the more oppressive the government becomes. People will support more oppression on some to avoid more directly on themselves. That is human nature and understandable to a point. I'm probably looking at this from a different perspective than most and even I have a multitude of caveats and contradictions in my views. Perhaps the rest of you wrestle with similar conflicts between your ideals and the world as it is.
While I regret the tragedy that this woman finds herself in, I look at her case from the perspective of the broader policy. The United States simply cannot afford to provide health care at no cost to the patient for foreigners, because saying yes to this case will incentivize others to come here for the same thing. There are millions of sick people in Guatemala, Moldova, Botswana and Thailand, etc. By saying yes to two world wars and lunar landings, etc., we have already said no to cases like this.
Last FY, the US ran a $550 billion deficit. We need to turn that into a $200 billion surplus (in other words, were need a combination of tax increases and spending reductions to the tune of $750 billion), and maintain that for 95 years to just to pay off the debt already incurred.
When the Federal government defaults on its debt, the global instability that event precipitates will be catastrophic.
But if no one was forced to pay for her healthcare it seems you would not care at all and might even find compassion for her a compelling enough reason to allow her to stay if someone volunteered their own time/money to care for her. You thoughts regarding immigration might shift away from (understandably) protecting your pocketbook and the country's fiscal health and toward allowing her and the others involved to do whatever they wish that didn't harm you or others. Your view reinforces mine that each move away from classical liberalism leads to more people being willing to move further away from classical liberalism. The converse seems likely to be true as well. I am speaking less of policy and more of philosophy here specifically, though they are intertwined.
Someone paying for her in this case would help, but it would not deal with the larger issue of incentivizing others abroad that are similarly situated. And it is not so much about my pocketbook. I pay a good bit in Federal income taxes, but I don't mind that too much, if the "appropriation [is] proper and the expenditure constitutional." I do worry deeply about the long-term effect of the Federal government spending $500 billion each year than it takes in, however.
If I were to distinguish my views (and this is a fine point), I would self-describe as a constitutionalist and a republican (but not a Republican) with libertarian (or classical liberal) tendencies. My first considerations in a policy debate are "Is this constitutional?" and "What is good for the republic?"
Agreed, but I am thinking more of policy. I generally like to assume that there will be a tomorrow.
Last edited:
If entering the U.S. gave her a brain tumor, it seems more humane to send her home. Maybe her homeland will be more conducive to her health.
Many churches are more concerned with building mega complexes with coffee bars, gyms, workout facilities, swimming pools, police forces, etc.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
