Woman deported in vegetative state

lookout123 · 03-17-2008, 11:06 AM

OK, that is inflammatory and untrue, but it was also untrue when it was used as a headline in a Mexican newspaper.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that we can keep this thread from turning into yet another mudslinging fest. Can we start from the position that anti-illegal immigration folks don't hate brown people and the open border people aren't just pandering for more democrat votes, please?

Long story short is that a 22 year old female, illegally in the US since she was 11 got in a motorcycle accident, broke her back and was taken to a Phoenix hospital. While there she received nearly $500,000 in medical care that the hospital will be forced to write off. Then she needed a long term care facility but because she is illegal and has no insurance no facility would take her, so the Phoenix hospital chartered a flight to Mexico for her so she could recover in their "free medical care" system. She was not deported by the US government, she was returned to Mexico by the hospital. That is where the complaints begin.

Article here.

The open border crowd (the Arizona Republic is openly pro-illegal alien) presents this as a poor girl abused by a heartless US system. The anti illegal crowd is of course saying that she shouldn't have been here to begin with.

My question is: What do you think when you read an article like this? Dig a little deeper than legal/illegal and think about what parts of the article grabbed you.

-Her legal status?
-How she got here?
-Medical costs?
-The US medical system?
-Her work history?
-Her education?
-Her children?
-Her return to Mexico?

Most people reading the article instinctively will fall on one side or the other of the legal/illegal question - but why? What is it that grabs you and pulls you that way?

Clodfobble · 03-17-2008, 12:36 PM

To me it's less about the technicalities of her legal status and more about her personal attitude.

Being 22, I would have to hope she probably has some sort of income. So my first question would be, given whatever her income level is, what sort of long-term care would she have qualified for if she happened to be legal? Obviously her income level doesn't exist in a vacuum: she may or may not have learned fluent English by now, and she may or may not have had a harder time getting a job than she would have been able to get otherwise (i.e., someone who speaks very little English is significantly less employable than someone who has learned it, regardless of legality, and even if she were legal it's by no means a guarantee that she would have had any sort of higher education, which would also have a direct effect on her employment value.)

What I'm saying is, if she's taken the last 11 years to assimilate as much as possible--she speaks English, has a reasonable job, she has a kid or two enrolled in school--then she very well may not have qualified for government assistance with her care anyway, and in that case she is simply an uninsured person, and is lucky that Mexico's healthcare system will take her. If since coming here she has learned no English and made no efforts to be employed or secure legal status... then she should be happy she got half a million in free emergency care that saved her life. If she has a reasonable job given her circumstances, but the income is low enough that she would have qualified for Medicaid if she were legal, that's where I'm more torn. That's the kind of situation where I would say she should ideally be considered a contributing citizen and given benefits as such... but the reality is you can't just ignore the law in some cases and not others, it is the underlying immigration law that needs changing.

Incidentally, having been here 11 years, and assuming she spoke a reasonable amount of English and had some sort of job, she would have qualified for citizenship under basically every amnesty or other immigration-improvement-proposal that is out there today.

Trilby · 03-17-2008, 02:40 PM

Lookout--I can't get the link to work.

lumberjim · 03-17-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'll keep my fingers crossed that we can keep this thread from turning into yet another mudslinging fest.

OH....well....I'll be over here if you need me

Sheldonrs · 03-17-2008, 02:53 PM

My opinion is she's a human being and she was here when she needed the treatment. How about we stop making stuff like this political and make it about someone who needed help.
And before anyone asks, no I don't care where she came from, how she got here or if she paid taxes. Humans are supposed to help humans.

lookout123 · 03-17-2008, 03:01 PM

How about this one?

This should work brianna, sorry.

lookout123 · 03-17-2008, 03:02 PM

OK, good point Sheldon, that is the type of response I was looking for. If I understand correctly, your gut reaction is that money, borders, and status are unimportant - the focus should be that we should help her because she is a person.

Clodfobble · 03-17-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

My opinion is she's a human being and she was here when she needed the treatment. How about we stop making stuff like this political and make it about someone who needed help.

But what about now? She got the treatment. Now she needs long-term care, which may or may not strictly need to be provided by a professional, we don't know. Long-term care is freely available to her--in a facility that happens to be in Mexico. Is it wrong to allow them to give it to her?

Flint · 03-17-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Humans are supposed to help humans.

They did help her. There's no story here.

Trilby · 03-17-2008, 03:12 PM

yeah, thanks--it did work.

This is my very emotional gut feeling: Mexico is having a hissy fit because they don't want to deal with her & her bills at all.

I've no problem with legal or illegal Mexicans--they come here to work; at least those in my community are really interested in work and assimilation. And, opening excellent Mexican restaurants. BUT--here goes: I agree with Sheldon that she is a person who needed treatment and humans should take care of humans. However, the US can't even take care of their OWN let alone illegals no matter if they "contribute" or not. I think the US did the brunt of the work and bore the biggest part of the cost...I think Mexico should take responsibility for their citizen.

I like Mexican people just fine---my brother in law is Mexican, a PhD and a good guy. I don't like the Mexican gov't. How do you like them apples?

lookout123 · 03-17-2008, 03:15 PM

That is my conclusion as well, Flint, but I found myself curious about what route different dwellars would take to their conclusions.

For me I look at it and see a woman who is 22 and has been here illegally for 11 years. During that time she has received a free education. She has worked sporadically in a low end job that most likely offered no medical insurance even when she was working. She popped out 2 babies (aren't they precious?) which was probably also paid for in the AHCCS system. Now she gets in an accident, which is tragic. Fortunately for her, she was here in the valley where we have some fantastic medical care available. She received nearly a half million dollars worth of that care, none of which will she have to pay for. (and none of which is now available in the system for legal US residents)

After the emergency portion of her care ended it was decided that she needed further care so the hospital paid for her charter flight to mexico. She is now in Mexico, where she is a legal resident and has received well over a half million dollars in various benefits paid for by US taxpayers.

I don't see a problem here, other than the fact that she was able to live here illegally for 11 years without being caught. Oh yeah, I guess I have a beef with the idea that the US in general, or the Hospital specifically should do more.

Clodfobble · 03-17-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout's link

Velázquez learned English, attended Summit High School and had two children with her high-school sweetheart. She worked off and on at a furniture store, processing credit applications.

Well there's an answer to my first question. Something else the article reinforces is she was not deported; immigration officials were not involved. Her children are citizens since they were born here, and having an "anchor baby" means she basically can't be deported. The hospital only sent her to Mexico because of her need for long-term care.

lookout123 · 03-17-2008, 03:20 PM

True, it is basically just another opportunity to misconstrue and bash the anti-illegal immigration position, IMO.

I really am just interested in the journey each dwellar takes to reach their conclusion on an issue like this.

Trilby · 03-17-2008, 03:21 PM

If I grunted out a baby in, say, Amsterdam, would they let me stay?

What about Mexico? Same deal?

What about MONACO? if I squeeze one out there---can I be Princess?

lookout123 · 03-17-2008, 03:24 PM

No but the bambino would be in line for the throne.

spot 68,264 may not be glamorous but it is in line too, you know.

03-17-2008, 11:06 AM	#1
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	Woman deported in vegetative state OK, that is inflammatory and untrue, but it was also untrue when it was used as a headline in a Mexican newspaper. I'll keep my fingers crossed that we can keep this thread from turning into yet another mudslinging fest. Can we start from the position that anti-illegal immigration folks don't hate brown people and the open border people aren't just pandering for more democrat votes, please? Long story short is that a 22 year old female, illegally in the US since she was 11 got in a motorcycle accident, broke her back and was taken to a Phoenix hospital. While there she received nearly $500,000 in medical care that the hospital will be forced to write off. Then she needed a long term care facility but because she is illegal and has no insurance no facility would take her, so the Phoenix hospital chartered a flight to Mexico for her so she could recover in their "free medical care" system. She was not deported by the US government, she was returned to Mexico by the hospital. That is where the complaints begin. Article here. The open border crowd (the Arizona Republic is openly pro-illegal alien) presents this as a poor girl abused by a heartless US system. The anti illegal crowd is of course saying that she shouldn't have been here to begin with. My question is: What do you think when you read an article like this? Dig a little deeper than legal/illegal and think about what parts of the article grabbed you. -Her legal status? -How she got here? -Medical costs? -The US medical system? -Her work history? -Her education? -Her children? -Her return to Mexico? Most people reading the article instinctively will fall on one side or the other of the legal/illegal question - but why? What is it that grabs you and pulls you that way? __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

03-17-2008, 02:40 PM	#3
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	Lookout--I can't get the link to work. __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

03-17-2008, 02:53 PM	#5
Sheldonrs Master Dwellar Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 4,412	My opinion is she's a human being and she was here when she needed the treatment. How about we stop making stuff like this political and make it about someone who needed help. And before anyone asks, no I don't care where she came from, how she got here or if she paid taxes. Humans are supposed to help humans. __________________ Laugh and the world laughs with you; cry and the world laughs AT you.

03-17-2008, 03:01 PM	#6
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	How about this one? This should work brianna, sorry. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

03-17-2008, 03:02 PM	#7
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	OK, good point Sheldon, that is the type of response I was looking for. If I understand correctly, your gut reaction is that money, borders, and status are unimportant - the focus should be that we should help her because she is a person. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

03-17-2008, 12:36 PM	#2
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	To me it's less about the technicalities of her legal status and more about her personal attitude. Being 22, I would have to hope she probably has some sort of income. So my first question would be, given whatever her income level is, what sort of long-term care would she have qualified for if she happened to be legal? Obviously her income level doesn't exist in a vacuum: she may or may not have learned fluent English by now, and she may or may not have had a harder time getting a job than she would have been able to get otherwise (i.e., someone who speaks very little English is significantly less employable than someone who has learned it, regardless of legality, and even if she were legal it's by no means a guarantee that she would have had any sort of higher education, which would also have a direct effect on her employment value.) What I'm saying is, if she's taken the last 11 years to assimilate as much as possible--she speaks English, has a reasonable job, she has a kid or two enrolled in school--then she very well may not have qualified for government assistance with her care anyway, and in that case she is simply an uninsured person, and is lucky that Mexico's healthcare system will take her. If since coming here she has learned no English and made no efforts to be employed or secure legal status... then she should be happy she got half a million in free emergency care that saved her life. If she has a reasonable job given her circumstances, but the income is low enough that she would have qualified for Medicaid if she were legal, that's where I'm more torn. That's the kind of situation where I would say she should ideally be considered a contributing citizen and given benefits as such... but the reality is you can't just ignore the law in some cases and not others, it is the underlying immigration law that needs changing. Incidentally, having been here 11 years, and assuming she spoke a reasonable amount of English and had some sort of job, she would have qualified for citizenship under basically every amnesty or other immigration-improvement-proposal that is out there today.

03-17-2008, 03:12 PM	#10
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	yeah, thanks--it did work. This is my very emotional gut feeling: Mexico is having a hissy fit because they don't want to deal with her & her bills at all. I've no problem with legal or illegal Mexicans--they come here to work; at least those in my community are really interested in work and assimilation. And, opening excellent Mexican restaurants. BUT--here goes: I agree with Sheldon that she is a person who needed treatment and humans should take care of humans. However, the US can't even take care of their OWN let alone illegals no matter if they "contribute" or not. I think the US did the brunt of the work and bore the biggest part of the cost...I think Mexico should take responsibility for their citizen. I like Mexican people just fine---my brother in law is Mexican, a PhD and a good guy. I don't like the Mexican gov't. How do you like them apples? __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

03-17-2008, 03:15 PM	#11
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	That is my conclusion as well, Flint, but I found myself curious about what route different dwellars would take to their conclusions. For me I look at it and see a woman who is 22 and has been here illegally for 11 years. During that time she has received a free education. She has worked sporadically in a low end job that most likely offered no medical insurance even when she was working. She popped out 2 babies (aren't they precious?) which was probably also paid for in the AHCCS system. Now she gets in an accident, which is tragic. Fortunately for her, she was here in the valley where we have some fantastic medical care available. She received nearly a half million dollars worth of that care, none of which will she have to pay for. (and none of which is now available in the system for legal US residents) After the emergency portion of her care ended it was decided that she needed further care so the hospital paid for her charter flight to mexico. She is now in Mexico, where she is a legal resident and has received well over a half million dollars in various benefits paid for by US taxpayers. I don't see a problem here, other than the fact that she was able to live here illegally for 11 years without being caught. Oh yeah, I guess I have a beef with the idea that the US in general, or the Hospital specifically should do more. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

03-17-2008, 03:20 PM	#13
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	True, it is basically just another opportunity to misconstrue and bash the anti-illegal immigration position, IMO. I really am just interested in the journey each dwellar takes to reach their conclusion on an issue like this. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

03-17-2008, 03:21 PM	#14
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	If I grunted out a baby in, say, Amsterdam, would they let me stay? What about Mexico? Same deal? What about MONACO? if I squeeze one out there---can I be Princess? __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

03-17-2008, 03:24 PM	#15
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	No but the bambino would be in line for the throne. spot 68,264 may not be glamorous but it is in line too, you know. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)