Posted on 09/24/2006 6:36:02 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
RIO GRANDE CITY — First it was a trickle, now it's a flood.
Rising numbers of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America are streaming into Texas to give birth, straining hospitals and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, health officials say.
Doctors and health officials say they are overwhelmed by both the new arrivals and those immigrant mothers who already are in the state. Even Houston's feeling the pinch. An estimated 70 percent to 80 percent of the 10,587 births at Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital last year were to undocumented immigrants, administrators say.
Also feeling the strain is Starr County, an already poor South Texas county that has the region's only taxpayer-supported hospital district.
Immigrants "want a U.S.-born baby" and know that emergency room staffers don't collect any money up front, said Dr. Mario Rodriguez, an obstetrician in Starr County.
"The word is out: Come to Starr County and get delivered for free. Why pay $1,000 in Mexico when you can get it for free?" Rodriguez said.
''When we are separated only by the distance of the river, it's easy to do," Starr County hospital administrator Thalia Muñoz said. "It's gotten worse, and it's because the economy in Mexico is not good and because we provide all these benefits."
Unfortunately, doctors say, Starr County isn't alone.
''Our little snapshot is duplicated in all the municipalities between here and California," said Tony Falcon, a Rio Grande City physician who was appointed to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission in April. ''What you see here is what is happening in Brownsville, McAllen, El Paso and San Diego."
He operates a private family clinic and delivers babies at the Starr County hospital. About a third of his deliveries are what he calls "walk-ins" — mothers in labor showing up at the ER.
''Obviously, it has a huge impact on patient health and the kind of health care that's provided," Falcon said. "You don't get the kind of prenatal care you should get."
'Anchor babies' Immigration-control advocates regard the U.S.-born infants as "anchor babies" because they give their undocumented parents and relatives a way to petition for citizenship. They estimate that 360,000 of these babies are born in the U.S. every year and warn that the numbers are rising.
Once parents have an "anchor baby," they become more difficult to deport, said Jack Martin, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a lobby organization in Washington, D.C.
''It's a fairly big factor in complicating the removal of illegal aliens," Martin said. "Illegal aliens know that and, to some extent, we think they're being influenced into having children as soon as they get into the U.S. to complicate their removal."
Some lawmakers want to begin denying citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.
Birthright citizenship, as it is known, has been in force since the approval of the Constitution's 14th Amendment in 1868. But several bills under consideration in Congress would abolish the longstanding federal policy. Sponsors include U.S. Reps. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, and Nathan Deal, R-Ga.
In a largely symbolic move, the Michigan House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Sept. 8 to end birthright citizenship.
Undocumented immigrants say they are being attacked unfairly and think that all children born in the U.S. should have equal rights.
Socorro Gonzalez, an undocumented immigrant who in August gave birth to her fourth child on U.S. soil, said she and her husband aren't trying to take advantage of immigration laws or abuse the health care system.
''We're not here to have a child. We are here to work," she said as she cradled her infant son, Orlando Soto.
Gonzalez, 42, said she moved to South Texas four years ago to join her husband, a cabinet maker. Two of their older children were born at a private midwife's clinic, she said, and two were delivered at taxpayer expense at hospitals in McAllen.
Gonzalez said the benefits of undocumented immigrants' labor in the U.S. more than compensate for the costs of their medical bills.
''I don't see why they should deny a medical service if we're here struggling for this country," she said. ''Because of the help of Mexican workers, whether they want us or not, this country is progressing."
Still, someone has to pay the bills, and not everyone is happy about that.
Uncollected medical bills Starr County Memorial Hospital had $3.6 million in uncollected medical bills in 2005, up from $1.5 million in 2002. The total when fiscal 2006 ends on Sept. 30 is expected to hit $3.9 million, chief financial officer Rafael Olivarez said. Unpaid bills for the past five years will reach nearly $13 million, he said.
To make up for the shortfall, Starr County's hospital district is proposing a 25 percent tax hike.
Already, the U.S. government is pitching in, setting aside $1 billion in Medicaid funds to pay for emergency care received by undocumented migrants over the next four years.
But Olivarez said getting the reimbursements isn't easy. Federal officials ''told us at a meeting they would pay us about 20 cents on the dollar," he said. "But it's better than nothing."
No one knows for sure how many undocumented immigrants there are or what they cost the health care system. Most hospitals don't ask whether patients have papers.
Total cost unknown
''It puts them in the position of being border police," said Amanda Engler, a spokeswoman for the Texas Hospital Association in Austin.
Harris County Hospital District officials say their policy is not to question patients directly about their citizenship.
''We do not explicitly ask if our patients are illegal, but we do ask them for proof of Harris County residency," district spokeswoman Shannon Rasp said. "Often citizenship status becomes clearer when billing issues come up."
Eighty-three percent of the undocumented immigrants receiving in-patient care at the district's hospitals and clinics last year were from Mexico, officials said. Six percent were from El Salvador or Guatemala. And the remaining 11 percent were from such countries as Britain, Canada, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria and Vietnam.
''Using anecdotal information provided us by our staff, statistics from other public hospital systems and our patient demographics, we believe that approximately 70 to 80 percent of our obstetrics patients are undocumented," Rasp said.
In all, 57,072 patients visited the district's hospitals, clinics and health centers last year, and nearly a fifth were undocumented, Rasp said. The cost of their treatment was $97.3 million, up from $55 million in 2002.
How difficult would it be to resend the "Born Here & you're an American Rule?
This is one issue that gets me seething at BOTH Parties!
Yes.
You either have to repeal the 14th amendment or Congress would have to propose a new amendment which requires a 2/3rds majority vote in both houses and 3/4's of the states approving.
The truth is that America "progressed" far better a generation ago when it was not burdened by the overwhelming crime and tax burden that the illegal aliens are imposing on the nation.
It progressed with legal aliens. Quite a difference that funding illegal activities does not cure.
Says who, you? Maybe with a liberal, activist Supreme Court that could be how it's interpreted but the authors of the amendment made it clear illegal aliens would not qualify for automatic citizenship. So Congress is in their right to legislate through statute an end to the practice, then we can let this Supreme Court hear it.
I condemn the welfare mentality. Without exception. Now, will you condemn illegal mexicans that have the welfare mentality?
What is this "smear the whole ethnic group" pc claptrap? It has nothing to do with ethnic groups. If the humanoids that live in the area to the south of the United States were green martians (or white, if that's what your fishing for) the point is the same. No one comes in without permission.
Above is the first sentence of the 14 th amendment. That'a pretty clear language.
The best way to deal with the anchor baby problem is a new amendment.
Undocumented immigrants...in a sane world they'd be called what they are, illegal aliens. But that's not PC. Next we'll call them what the CFR suggests, 'trusted travelers'. We're paying for the southern half of this hemisphere's ethnic cleansing..i.e. riding themselves of unwanted, unskilled poor. This is not a healthy or moral concept and not good for any of the nations involved. Mexico in particular is becoming depopulated. This will lead to instability and civil war, and what will the US do then?
Apparently you haven't noticed the price of baby formula.
I read an article recently and, please don't ask me to produce
the proof of the article, that stores selling baby formula had to pull it from their shelves due to steeling of the product.
Squirting out the "instant citizens".
In 1866, the author of the amendment Senator Jacob Howard wrote:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
"Senator Howard wrote the addition phrase specifically because he wanted to make it clear that the simple accident of birth in the US is not sufficient to justify citizenship."
Sorry to disappoint Dane but you're wrong again as usual. Now, if you had a liberal Supreme Court no doubt they'd agree with you but this current one I suspect may not be so inclined.
A near by county here in Tn. I am told doesn't have a single, short fat woman left in the county.
Migrant workers marry them to have a child which, in titles them to all the social programs in the state.
I'm not necessarily against a new amendment, but I have heard a Constitutional scholar on talk radio make the point that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause can be legitimately interpreted to exclude illegals, since they have not made themselves subject to US juridiction through the normally recognized channels of coming legally, announcing their presence to the authorities, abiding by US law, etc. IMO, a few more conservatives on the court could be all it takes to change the interpretation of the 14th.
One facet of the problem is that Americans generally have kids when they feel they can afford them. Keep Americans poor enough by forcing them to pay for other people's kids, and they (the Americans) won't have any.
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Then why didn't Senator Howard Jacob include that language in the 14th amendment.
It's the first sentence of the 14th amendment that matters, not Howard Jacob's personal comments.
In 1866 the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was a given that they knew what it meant. It involved allegiance to the country, not simply an individual's presence. If the USSC interprets the amendment as it was intended they will uphold any statute Congress passes denying automatic citizenship to illegal aliens.
Well Howard Jacob left the phrase vague, giving an opening to the modern day liberals.
The second amendment has clear language saying that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
In 1866 the wording of the amendment was not considered vague, it had a clear meaning. It still does except for the fact that some have been allowed to twist it into something else and continue to get away with it.
Uh Senator Jacob's comments on the 14th amendment had clear meaning, which he should have included in the 14th amendment but did not.
See the CFR. The stampede north is the result of the failure of NAFTA and CAFTA. After the cold war ended, movers and shakers (including big business), got together and decided the US should export capitalism to the rest of the hemisphere as a deterrent to another rise of communism and violence. A rising tide lifts all boats deal. The thinking couldn't be clearer. If we can't get them to change one way, we'll do it another. Allowing millions into the US, to become Americanized -- infected if you will with American values and work ethic, capitalism spreads and the tide rises.
That's if some return home to change Costa Rica or Mexico, et al. into productive countries. (A Pollyanna notion at best. Who in his right mind would go back to Venezuela and life under Chavez? Or Nicaragua and Noriega, the odds on favorite to win the next election and goodbye democracy hello communism.)
This has been foisted upon US citizens without their knowledge, without open discussion, without a vote and in a time of war. It's unconstitutional and nobody in the corridors of power seems to have considered the effect of millions of Spanish speaking, Latino cultured people, most of whom are unskilled and/illiterate, with no notion of hygiene, without innoculations, without a clue, some criminals, drug dealers and who knows what flooding over the border all at once would have on this country. Too many all at once to assimilate. We've been invaded, and we see the return of TB, and now drug resistant TB, all kinds of Hepatitis, measles, mumps, and other diseases we'd wiped out in the US. The end effect will be Balkanization and the loss of US culture, common language, and sovereignty. Where does it say the US has to be the nanny for the hemisphere? If the other countries want to live in poverty and squalor, so what. Let them do as they please. Put up the wall and do it yesterday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.