Skip to comments.Medical help for illegal immigrants could haunt Mitt Romney
Posted on 10/23/2011 8:25:37 PM PDT by South40
On the Republican campaign trail, he derides any such public aid. But the healthcare law he signed as Massachusetts governor allows it.
Reporting from Washington The Massachusetts healthcare law that then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed in 2006 includes a program known as the Health Safety Net, which allows undocumented immigrants to get needed medical care along with others who lack insurance.
Uninsured, poor immigrants can walk into a health clinic or hospital in the state and get publicly subsidized care at virtually no cost to them, regardless of their immigration status.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If I were king, I wouldn’t allow this, except to save a life, unless there was a quid pro quo with Mexico (or wherever they came from).
Wow! This guy’s got a lot of gall to go after anyone on illegal immigration.
Revenge is a dish best served cold!
Mexico extorts and exploits all they can get from their northern neighbor. And we're just foolish enough to let it happen.
In GA the illegals just use the ER like a doctor’s office.
Same in CA. That’s why the closest ER to my house had to close years back and why the only one left is so crowded an average visit turns into a 12 hour event.
The Supreme Court says you have to provide education and medical expense regardless of status. Here in AZ we've been complaining about this for years. It's almost destroyed most hospitals, they just go to the ER for whatever ails them. They've even taken to calling an ambulance to make sure they get accepted quicker then the people sitting around with broken arms etc.
The Screams did it with Congress’ legislation. Can the legislation be changed to push back on these abuses?
Why should they? Perry's ready to give them bi-national healthcare and a college education, given the chance. Rick simply has no maneuver room when it comes to beating Romney over the head for coddling illegals. A pox on both their houses.
The good news here is that since we passed that tough anti immigration bill the illegals are leaving in droves. Its like a miracle.
Both Perry and Romney have been shown to support illegal immigration in the past. The media is forcing us to choose one of these RINOs as the nominee.
How so? I'm supporting a candidate who has a real chance of winning the nomination and unlike Perry & Romney he doesn't support ILLEGAL aliens. I'm supporting Herman Cain and the media can't stop me.
Sure, all congress has to do is pass a law, but you know how that goes.
Fiscal irresponsibility is the order of the day in this cesspool of liberalism.
Basically they had no business ruling on that at all. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anyone has to pay for education or healthcare. Now, you can’t let someone lay dying in the street, but there is a difference between that and treating everyone and their 10 kids for the sniffles in an emergency room.
Something, doubtless, about whether a Federally funded benefits program can choose between legals and illegales.
Doesn't this happen everywhere, including Texas?
If I were king, I wouldnt allow this, except to save a life, unless there was a quid pro quo with Mexico (or wherever they came from).
What the Texas legislature studied was the idea of private health insurance that cross borders. One reason to do this, Mexico has a social safety net and, perhaps, Mexicans in the U.S. could tap into that safety net for most health care instead of using American tax dollars.
Rather than look at the facts, opportunistic opponents like Rick Santorum and roving bashers here and elsewhere pounced on the phrase itself. Me? I went to the source, the 138 page Texas legislature's study report on the idea: Report of The Interim Committee On Binational Health Benefit Plan Coverage (Acrobat PDF). (Most of those pages are a copy Mexico's health code.)
The study found the concept to an unworkable regulatory nightmare and the legislature took no further action.
That should be akin to calling 911, for non emergencies.
The Supreme Court says you have to provide education and medical expense regardless of status
Yeah, but Rick Perry sure did like the idea and given the chance would implement it.
The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. Therefore, U.S. residents legal and illegal have constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and the right to due process.
Other rights undocumented residents are entitled to include Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches of homes. The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling 25 years ago, also ruled that all children, regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to free public education, as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Federal law also requires publicly funded hospitals to provide emergency care to all patients, illegal or not.
Good grief where on earth have you been this law has been around forever and is the reason Arizona finally did something about the federal government failing to do it's job. This almost bankrupted our state.
You still have not given me the specific reference to the Supreme Court ruling or law promulgated from it.
I am perfectly aware of laws being passed on the federal level dealing with the medical establishment but do not have the rulings that created them.
I do not cite laws or regulations without being able to absolutely support them by quoting page and paragraph.
If it can’t be supported in that manner, as far as I am concerned it’s hearsay and not necessarily fact.
BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 457 U.S. 202
Plyler v. Doe APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. 80-1538 Argued: December 1, 1981 --- Decided: June 15, 1982 [*]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.
I Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within various States, including the State of Texas.
In May, 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States. The 1975 revision also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not "legally admitted" to the country. Tex. Educ.Code Ann. § 21.031 (Vernon Supp.1981). [n1] These cases involve constitutional challenges to those provisions. [p206]
No. 8158Plyler v. Doe This is a class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in September, 1977, on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County, Tex., who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. The action complained of the exclusion of plaintiff children from the public schools of the Tyler Independent School District. [n2] The Superintendent and members of the Board of Trustees of the School District were named as defendants; the State of Texas intervened as a party-defendant. After certifying a class consisting of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin residing within the School District, the District Court preliminarily enjoined defendants from denying a free education to members of the plaintiff class. In December, 1977, the court conducted an extensive hearing on plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunctive relief. [p207]
In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact. The court found that neither § 21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." 458 F.Supp. 569, 575 (1978). Respecting defendants' further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State's fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Id. at 575-576. It also found that, while the "exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level," id. at 576, funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect, then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would "not necessarily" improve "the quality of education." Id. at 577. The court further observed that the impact of § 21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, "entire families who have migrated illegally and -- for all practical purposes -- permanently to the United States." Id. at 578. [n3] Finally, the court noted that, under current laws and practices, "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," [n4] and that, without an education, these undocumented [p208] children,
[a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.
Id. at 577.
The District Court held that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that § 21.031 violated that Clause. Suggesting that the state's exclusion of undocumented children from its public schools . . . may well be the type of invidiously motivated state action for which the suspect classification doctrine was designed, the court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the statute would survive a "strict scrutiny" analysis because, in any event, the discrimination embodied in the statute was not supported by a rational basis. Id. at 585. The District Court also concluded that the Texas statute violated the Supremacy Clause. [n5] Id. at 590-592.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court's injunction. 628 F.2d 448 (1980). The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred in finding the Texas statute preempted by federal law. [n6] With respect to [p209] equal protection, however, the Court of Appeals affirmed in all essential respects the analysis of the District Court, id. at 454-458, concluding that § 21.031 was "constitutionally infirm regardless of whether it was tested using the mere rational basis standard or some more stringent test," id. at 458. We noted probable jurisdiction. 451 U.S. 968 (1981).
No. 8194In re Alien Children Education Litigation During 1978 and 1979, suits challenging the constitutionality of 21.031 and various local practices undertaken on the authority of that provision were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern, Western, and Northern Districts of Texas. Each suit named the State of Texas and the Texas Education Agency as defendants, along with local officials. In November, 1979, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, on motion of the State, consolidated the claims against the state officials into a single action to be heard in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. A hearing was conducted in February and March, 1980. In July, 1980, the court entered an opinion and order holding that § 21.031 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In re Alien Children Education Litigation, 501 F.Supp. 544. [n7] The court held that the absolute deprivation of education should trigger strict judicial scrutiny, particularly when the absolute deprivation is the result of complete inability to pay for the desired benefit.
Id. at 582. The court determined that the State's concern for fiscal integrity was not a compelling state interest, id. at 582-583; that exclusion of these children had not been shown to be necessary to improve education within the State, id. at 583; and that the educational needs of the children statutorily excluded were not different from the needs of children not excluded, ibid. The court therefore concluded that [p210] § 21.031 was not carefully tailored to advance the asserted state interest in an acceptable manner. Id. at 583-584. While appeal of the District Court's decision was pending, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in No. 80-1538. Apparently on the strength of that opinion, the Court of Appeals, on February 23, 1981, summarily affirmed the decision of the Southern District. We noted probable jurisdiction, 452 U.S. 937 (1981), and consolidated this case with No. 80-1538 for briefing and argument. [n8]
II The Fourteenth Amendment provides that [n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]
You can read the entire ruling Cornell Law
Thanks...my hat’s off to you.
I appreciate the direct reference cited.