In November of 1994, Californians passed the most controversial piece of state legislation
this decade. Proposition 187 was designed to stem the flow of illegal aliens into
California by withholding all non-emergency medical benefits from non-naturalized
citizens. Latinos turned out in record numbers to voice their disapproval, and for good
reason too. The health care resolutions of Proposition 187 were products of poor reason
and unsound economic judgment. The resolutions did not get the state any closer to a
balanced budget, and only served to worsen the health care outlook for the future of
California. It is clear that Proposition 187 was a mistake, and should not be encouraged
to be repeated in Texas.
The most popular reason for passage, that supporters of Proposition 187 used, was the
theory that a cut in illegal health services would save state taxpayers several million
dollars a year. This argument only applies to states that have a personal income tax,
often used to help fund health care for the state, and when the illegal immigrants avoid
paying this tax. Texas does not have such a tax, so health care is funded by the taxes
that everyone in the state pays. That means that illegal aliens are paying just as much
as "real Americans" are in sales taxes, gas taxes, liquor taxes, and cigarette taxes. For
example, illegal aliens in San Diego, California accounted for 26.6 million dollars in
health care costs in 1994 (Serb 63). Not a single person would deny that this is a lot of
money, and therefore would seem to be an excellent reason to cut funding right this
minute. However, the logical person has to realize how important those same aliens are
to filling the state's excise tax coffers each year. Excise taxes paid by 'illegals' were
accounting for up 60.5 million in state tax alone (63). In retrospect, it hardly seems
right to say that illegal immigrants are not paying their fair tax share for their health
needs. It also isn't fair that "U.S. businesses need Mexican workers for low-paying jobs,
but don't want them to have access to heath care while they are here" (Hudson 37).
Another economically based reason, that proponents of 187-like legislation have made, is
that Texans will save money by denying non-emergency care to illegal aliens. Without
close scrutiny, this seems to be a claim to make the pocket book happy. After all, we
would still allow the 'aliens' the right to life saving treatments, but we would also
save a bundle by cutting the little visits to the doctor for fevers, colds, and sprained
ankles. What Texans have to ask, though, is how do we save money when we deny a
forty-five dollar visit to the doctor for strep throat, but allow a twenty thousand
dollar visit to intensive care when that 'alien' develops scarlet fever from the strep
infection (Cowley 53). It would have been much more cost-effective to have provided
direct care services up front, and California quickly found this to be true. Premature
babies cost San Diego more than $500, 000 dollars. Complications from pregnancies added
an additional $112,000 to the bill (Serb 63). According to the claims made, these types
of costs should have disappeared after #187 was passed. The illegal immigrants were
supposed to return to Mexico for their pre-natal care, but the evidence proves they
didn't. Instead, the illegal mothers received no pre-natal care, and had emergencies that
cost the state even more money.
There are more problems with Proposition 187-like proposals than just economic problems.
Texans must be aware of the moral and ethical problems we would create if we supported a
similar plan for Texas. For instance, Catholic Bishop John Ricard points out that if
Texans explicitly set out to identify all illegal aliens, and stop them from receiving
care, we are likely to have a discriminatory situation. Every American with tan skin and
a name ending in "z" is likely to be perceived as potential illegal immigrants ("Health"
248). The National Christian Coalition also points out that "to measure national health
care decisions more by economic than moral or compassionate standards is appalling"
(248). But even more appalling is what we are asking our nation's doctors to do. By
requiring that physicians report every immigrant without documentation, and to refuse
them treatment when ill, we are boldly demanding that they violate their sacred
Hippocratic oath. Care providers have based their professions on helping any person in
need since the time of the ancient Greeks. In true spirit doctors should know no
boundaries between two lands. In fact, why should they refuse to give treatment because a
person happens to be on this side of the Rio Grande when they fall ill? After all,
"bacteria and viruses distribute themselves without regard for national borders" (Gaffney
228), and "diseases like tuberculosis do not check for immigration status" (Health 248).
Some citizens might believe that diseases like tuberculosis were a thing of the past, but
a Californian study found that seventy percent of all immigrants arrive carrying the
germs that cause tuberculosis (Cowley 53). Remember that these are immigrants that were
able to save up enough money at home to make the voyage to America, and not be 'broke'
when they got here. The percentage of illegal aliens carrying diseases is probably a lot
higher than 70%. They don't get sick because they have built-in immunities for the
diseases found in their homelands, but we do not have many of the same immunities that
'illegals' have. The result is that the diseases go undetected until an emergency arises
and the 'alien' can be seen by a doctor. By not allowing illegal aliens to receive
non-emergency care, we are putting our little Texans at risk.
As we prepare for the possibility that similar proposals might be advocated in Texas,
let us all remember the ideals of humanity that we like to say that we all share. Every
American likes to think that they have a kind and caring attitude toward the less
fortunate, but a short case study published in Newsweek shows exactly how kind and caring
legislation like Prop. 187 would be. In the case study, the family of Julio Cano, a
twelve-year-old, anguish over whether or not to take their son to a doctor in California.
Julio had developed a deep cough accompanied by severe shooting pains down his back. The
family decided not to risk a doctor visit because Proposition 187 had just ordered that
any 'illegal' seeking care be reported. Instead the family waited until the condition
worsened enough to be able to call the paramedics, but by then it was too late. Little
Julio died from leukemia on the way to the hospital.
We must keep our pocket books out of the decision to reform health care, and instead
keep the true story of Julio Cano in our hearts. Why should we turn our backs on aliens
residing in this country just because a few citizens, most with little real knowledge of
the true situation, think that this is the way to end illegal immigration. Illegal aliens
are hired by many, many people to mow the lawn, watch the kids, clean the house, or to
cook for the family. A lot of times, you neighbors do not claim these workers as
employees in order to skip out on taxes themselves, and thus avoid paying their fair
share. With the benefit of hindsight, Californians are now able to see just how poor
their reasoning was when they passed Proposition 187. There is no doubt that Texans will
meet that call to find other ways besides cutting health care to stem the tide of illegal
immigrants. Maybe health care costs of aliens can become a part of the federal budget.
Also, the federal government could try and improve relations with Mexico and persistently
show the economic burden that their lack of border control is having on states such as
Texas. Whatever is done though, Texans will not jump hastily into action. Any resolution
will be the product of careful reasoning and informed economic judgements.
|