26 Comments

• GeorgeDillon | Aug 09, 2010, 04:21 PM EDT

  DennisQ: Judging by the mess they've made of their own country, I don't think we need to worry about what the "native Irish" (the few that are left in Ireland) think about us.

• hancock | Aug 08, 2010, 09:53 PM EDT

  Native born Irish? Maybe they straighten out their own counrty before scratching their head in somebody elses.

• DennisQ | Aug 07, 2010, 08:58 PM EDT

  Attitude studies are the building blocks of politics, as Bill O'Reilly well knows. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was a fairly direct appeal to Southern racism. Ronald Reagan followed suit by announcing his candidacy with a states' rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi - a place notorious for murdering civil rights workers. Success with racial pandering has led to "dog whistle politics" - messages that the rest of us can't hear, but that racists clearly understand. The Irish, who've just recently become white, now include people whose attitudes would make them welcome in the Ku Klux Klan. A number of them post here, a reality that must make the native-born Irish scratch their heads at these ones' thick-headedness.

• BrendanPKeane | Aug 06, 2010, 04:27 PM EDT

  I notice there's a lot more psychoanalysis of the other side in American politics, than actual debate. Demographic statistics seem more pertinent to this debate than attitude studies.

• DennisQ | Aug 06, 2010, 12:55 PM EDT

  You're in luck! Prof. Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" is on line at his University of Manitoba website. He defines and explains Right Wing Authoritarianism in a very readable, almost folksy style. Dr. Altemeyer even offers a quiz for you to check your own authoritarian attitudes. Sample question: "___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society." Agree/Disagree? Right wing authoritarianism has been studied a lot. Adorno studied it in 1950 to explain its role in World War II. Curiously, one of its characteristics is superstition which, we've seen here, is the belief that the numbers bear you out even when they don't.

• AmAncINED | Aug 06, 2010, 08:49 AM EDT

  Where is the link showing the statistics that people who oppose illegal immigration are also in favor of foreign military interventions?

• BrendanPKeane | Aug 06, 2010, 08:04 AM EDT

  That's great DennisQ: "It is generally true that people who oppose what they call "illegal" immigration also support foreign military interventions that are clearly illegal." I prefer legal immigration with a LOT more Irish visas because Irish have been much too restricted.

• DennisQ | Aug 06, 2010, 02:17 AM EDT

  It is generally true that people who oppose what they call "illegal" immigration also support foreign military interventions that are clearly illegal. It makes it difficult for them to argue that their real concern is for upholding the law. True enough, there are numbers of people who are at least intellectually consistent in their opposition to illegality - but there aren't enough of them to invalidate a general assertion about the hypocrisy of the right wing. What's consistent among right wingers is that they support whites over non-whites. Nobody's really fooled when they protest that their intentions are pure. We all know that non-whites include Mexicans as well as Arabs. Here's the consistent logic of the right wing: When Mexicans are the transgressors, uphold the law! When Arabs are victims of American transgression, well then, some "higher" principle takes precedence over the law.

• DennisQ | Aug 06, 2010, 01:49 AM EDT

  Hospital administrators certainly know the difference between marginal costs and allocated costs, even if PEC2000 seems to believe these are one and the same. An allocated cost per unit (in this case, births) includes every cost factor whether or not it increases with each unit. That would mean heating and maintenance and licensing; and other components of fixed overhead costs. That is the only way to arrive at a figure of $12,000 per unit, because it surely doesn't cost $12,000 each time a baby is delivered. The marginal cost is the additional cost incurred every time a pregnant woman enters the hospital for care - a figure that's bound to be significantly lower than $12,000. The appropriate cost basis depends on the purpose of the accounting. However, under no circumstance is it correct to take the allocated cost per unit and multiply that figure by the number of units - that results in a huge overcount. It is significant that PEC2000 continues to use figures in a misleading way - it suggests she's not really looking to contribute to an honest understanding of the issue, but to justify what sounds like an absence of humanity. The figures for Parkland Hospital aren't differentiated between allocated vs. marginal costs either. We are left with the entirely false impression that the taxpayer foots the bill for foreign freeloaders. That is simply not the case. The taxpayer pays the fixed cost of having an obstetrics facility at Parkland, plus the marginal costs of each additional delivery - a much lower figure. I don't know what that figure would be, but it's not the allocated cost per unit multiplied by the number of units, as she incorrectly stated was the case in El Paso. Perhaps she was not being dishonest; but she's certainly misinformed.

• PEC2000 | Aug 05, 2010, 05:47 PM EDT

  I tried to post a link but I couldn't. You can google Dallas Morning News article entitled: Parkland will treat all moms-to-be. The article puts my initial stats to shame. Have a nice day.

• BrendanPKeane | Aug 05, 2010, 05:34 PM EDT

  If people going to site costs we need detailed statistics and analysis. Pass along links if you have them, as I will be researching stats too. I'm curious as to how much it does cost to provide services, and how much this offset by economic stimulus immigrants bring.

• PEC2000 | Aug 05, 2010, 05:03 PM EDT

  Oh and Dennis, even if it is just one case a day of an undocumented immigrant having a vaginal birth without any complications, the cost will be $12,000 on average (for just one birth procedure alone). Now, once a day... multiply 12 grand by 365 days and it comes out to be about $4,000,000/year that the hospital needs to somehow cover. But if you can sponsor at least one birth, all the power to you.

• WoundedKnee | Aug 05, 2010, 05:02 PM EDT

  It's really stupid for DennisQ to try to conflate opposition to illegal immigration and support of foreign wars. Pat Buchanan wrote an entire book attacking federal ineptitude in stopping illegal immigration, and Pat Buchanan opposed the Iraq War. I oppose illegal immigration (and indeed most legal immmigration in the case of Ireland) but I opposed BOTH Iraq Wars, and demonstrated against them. I bet you were warmongering with the rest of the pseudo-liberals back in 1991 and 2003 DennisQ, when I was on the streets singing Give Peace A Chance. You're a total sham.

• AmAncINED | Aug 05, 2010, 04:41 PM EDT

  We're not talking about Iraq. We're talking about illegals taking advantage of the healthcare system. They get benefits that we, as legal citizens, have to pay for. If I go to the hospital, I have to pay a big deductible - no freebies for me. I pay for my insurance every month from my paycheck. So, I pay for me and I pay for the people who enter this country ILLEGALLY so they can get FREE healthcare. Why don't all of you who feel so generous offer to financially support these Illegal immigrant families? Put your money where your mouth is. They could sign up with you when they cross the border. You could financially support these people and pay for all of their healthcare and other needs. Oh, and just because someone opposes ILLEGAL immigration doesn't necessarily mean they're in favor of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're making a broad generalization. These are 2 different issues, just like LEGAL immigration and ILLEGAL immigration are.

• PEC2000 | Aug 05, 2010, 04:38 PM EDT

  That sounds about right Dennis. Do you think that doing epidural takes 5 minutes, like an assembly line? It probably takes at least an hour with prep time, the procedure itself and follow up, plus there is paperwork, and god forbid if there is a complication or a ceserean. If there is a specific women's maternity hospital, the average number of deliveries in that hospital increases. And if women come in to deliver without much prenatal care than more than likely there are complications. So, probably about 3 to 5 patients a day will need anesthesiologist's services. Plus, I said most of the day, please do not switch my language around to fit your opinion. As for knowing who is undocumented, it is very easy. First question when you enter a hospital, can I see your ID? Do you have an insurance provider? But, if you think all of this is reasonable, than why don't you volunteer to foot the bill.

• DennisQ | Aug 05, 2010, 04:28 PM EDT

  The reason I mentioned Iraq is that it's an example of an illegal foreign policy that is widely supported by the very people who get indignant about so-called "illegal" immigrants. These people act as though legality were the only consideration worthy of their attention, but at the same time, they don't even think of it in connection with other policy issues. It would be consistent if some of the Tea Party rallies that hold forth against illegal immigration also held forth against say, bombing populated areas in countries that we're not at war with. The fact that the Tea Party people get into a snit about legality only when it concerns Mexicans suggests that they're bothered more about the Mexican aspect than the legal aspect. In fact their behavior shows that they are racist hypocrites, but that only gets them stirred up to say, "What part of illegal do you not understand?"

• DennisQ | Aug 05, 2010, 04:10 PM EDT

  These stories told third hand by somebody who knows somebody who swears they are true, are often less-than-factual. We're told, for example, of an anaesthesiologist who spends her entire day giving epidurals to undocumented immigrants who come to Texas to have an anchor baby. Is there any reason to believe this story? The figures for El Paso County show that there are 2,800 births for the entire county, or fewer than 8 births per day in an area roughly the size of a thousand square miles. In order for this claim to hold up, it would mean that every woman with a difficult labor within 1,000 miles would have to be directed through this anaesthesiologist's hospital, and her immigration status determined after the fact by the doctor. The City of El Paso is of course smaller than El Paso County, but I wasn't able to find birth statistics just for the city. Even so, 240 square miles is a large area to draw a statistical population from. It's unlikely that any anaesthesiologist spends all day doing saddle blocks for undocumented Mexicans.

• hancock | Aug 05, 2010, 03:56 PM EDT

  What does Iraq have to do with this?

• GanAinm | Aug 05, 2010, 03:38 PM EDT

  Thank you, Brendan; refreshing thoughts in a week which saw Republicans suggest both repeal of the 14th Amendment and the denial of health care benefits to immigrant workers sickened by their heroic service at Ground Zero.

• DennisQ | Aug 05, 2010, 03:03 PM EDT

  You continue to use the word generosity to describe behavior that is not generous at all. In fact it's completely mean-spirited to look for ways to make immigrants' lives even tougher than they already are. I think Brendan's article represents the real dilemma Americans face between widespread legalization and widespread criminalization of undocumented immigration. As he says, deporting the "illegals" en masse would be a humanitarian outrage that would shame the U.S. forever. But right wingers seem to resist shame, if they can feel it at all. They supported Bush's grossly illegal invasion of Iraq and the misery it inflicted on that country, only to natter about the putative illegality of certain groups of immigrant workers. They even say it themselves: What part of illegal don't you understand? But they never think of foreign policy in terms of legality. Clearly, something deeper is at work than respect for the law. I think it's carefully cultivated fear of strangers - something cosmopolitan Americans have never really felt. Bush and the Republican Party brought a fearful, small-town mentality to our country. And they're still at it, portraying Obama as a foreigner.

• PEC2000 | Aug 05, 2010, 03:00 PM EDT

  There is a big difference between the situation that you described in your article and what is going on here, especially in border states. If someone has honest intentions, I'm sure a glitch like that can be overlooked. Let me share with you some examples of what I know for a fact. 1. My friend did her residency as an anesthesiologist in El Paso, TX. All she did most of the day was give epidurals to undocumented women who crossed the border at the last minute to have their kids here. 2. My sister in law is an ER nurse in a California hospital. The amount of undocumented workers that come in for treatments, not life-threatening illnesses but common headaches and flus may I add, is staggering. But they can't turn them away. You can only imagine where the costs end up. 3. I work part-time in a restaurant as I am finishing up my teaching credential. As you probably know many undocumented workers work in restaurant. I don't have a problem with that. It is what it is. But here is the problem. When they have children, they don't pay the costs of bearing that child. The state pays for it. In my case, as a privately insured citizen, I have to pay a $5000 to $10000 deductible depending if my pregnancy would spread out through 2 calendar years. How is that fair? 4. And last but not least the benefit of an anchor baby. Just the other day I was asked to type a letter for my computer illiterate restaurant boss verifying that a dishwasher, who I know for a fact is undocumented but has a baby that was born here, makes a specific income that qualifies him for Medicare, which is health care provided by the state. Are more examples necessary?

• WoundedKnee | Aug 05, 2010, 02:12 PM EDT

  DennisQ: You ask where's the generosity. I think it's pretty generous of a country, be it the US or Ireland, to give free medical care to people who have no right to be in the country. In the American case, happily no longer so in Ireland, we even give citizenship to the offspring of a woman who came into the country with that sole goal in mind--citizenship for her anchor baby. It's time we followed the Irish example and got rid of that archaic provision of the constitution that says just because you're born here you're automatically a US citizen. It's wide open to abuse, as we've seen. In theory it's all very fine and noble, but there are many parasites out there who will take advantage of our generosity.

• DennisQ | Aug 05, 2010, 12:49 PM EDT

  This week's award for Comment of the Week goes to Celtica43 for her observation, "It's time we stopped being so generous to illegals . . ." Wow! We're knocking ourselves out being too good to people who come here looking for work. It's not enough that we fear them, stereotype them, and exploit the bejeezus out of them, we ought to actively punish them! What complete nonsense this all is. The latest wave of immigrants is no different from groups of immigrants who came before them. American social policy isn't generous at all to these people. Every piece of recent legislation advancing human rights has had to make specific exceptions for foreigners. That's not generosity, and certainly not an excess of generosity.

• AmAncINED | Aug 05, 2010, 10:44 AM EDT

  As an RN, I can verify that Celtica43 is right on target. Check out the situation in Arizona and Texas. The illegals know how to work the system that causes American taxpayers to pick up the tab for their expensive healthcare and allows them to stay in the country.

• WoundedKnee | Aug 05, 2010, 02:49 AM EDT

  NICU nurse, the same thing was happening in Ireland up to a few years ago. Women were arrivng at Dublin Airport, usually from Africa, in advanced stages of pregnancy. They would tell the taxi driver- "Rotunda" (the only word of English they might know--it's one of the main maternity hospitals in Dublin) and go there and present themselves. They often had complicated prgnancies and deliveries because of non-existent pre-natal supervision. Of course all their treatment was paid for by the hapless Irish taxpayer. Worse, their children were recognized by the Irish Constitution as Irish, and no one in Ireland had the guts to deport the mother in that case. The final straw came when a Chinese woman, who wanted to emigrate to Britain (no interest whatsoever in Ireland) took herself off to Belfast to have her child. The Belfast-born child was ipso facto an Irish citizen, and thus gave the Chinese woman leverage to be permitted to live in the UK. Thus are noble and generous traditions like the current American and former Irish constitutional provision for birthright citizenship abused by cynics and parasites.

• Celtica43 | Aug 04, 2010, 10:19 PM EDT

  As a NICU nurse, I have seen more and more "anchor babies" born prematurely without prenatal care. Their parents come illegally at the last minute before birth so that the baby will be born here and be immediately entitled to all of our wonderful entitlement programs. Parents of American citizens who are minors are NOT deported. Anchor babies often cost the taxpayor half a million dollars in NICU and neonatal care. Time we stopped being so very generous to illegals. Check out the situation in California.