Ariz. may require hospitals to check citizenship

Some are saying this is emotional. Partly my argument is emotional, partly it is moral. Just like abortion, I argue from the foundation of the baby being human. Partly, I argue from the love of that little life.

Here are my arguments:

1. The law will require doctors inquire on the immigration status before treatment. I never said treatment would be withheld, but it is a basis for entering into treatment. This is wrong. We should care first for the person no matter their place of origin.

2. The law is immoral because mandates speech. It tells a doctor what he must say and inquire about that is outside his realm of care.

3. The law is immoral because it makes doctors into officers of the state. Doctors are care providers not officers of the state. They have no obligation to the state to be officers. There are few other laws where we require the doctor to go outside of his realm of expertise to act as an official of the state.

4. The law is immoral because it makes the state into a greater nanny state.

5. The law is irrational for we do not handle other non-profits like this. We do not require rescue missions to report illegals. We do not require after school programs to report illegals. We do not require food pantry's to do this. We are, though, going to require others.

6. This law is illegal in that a patient, by law, has the right to privacy. The privacy act of the 1970's guaranteed privacy of all individuals. Thus, I can go to my Doctor and tell him most things and guaranteed privacy. The exceptions is abuse or potential harm to others like murder, rape, etc. I think this is a moral standing in which a patient must be able to have the right to private treatment, no matter the person.

While I do argue emotionally, I also believe it is rational. The other side just wants to get rid of illegals. I want to protect the rights we currently have and allow people to enjoy them with his/her doctor.

 

They never required acceptance of the Gospel, they required you to listen. I do not know how other rescue missions now serve, but most who accept USDA food are not allowed to first share the Gospel then give food.

Sad, very sad. As a minister of the Gospel, I am not a servant of the saint. This is a dangerous precedence in which you want ministers to be tools of the state for state purposes. Such philosophy is not Baptist nor conservative, but dangerous in our current makeup.

I do believe in separation of powers and I will never let my ordination make me subject to the state.

 

There is a difference in the consequences but both are illegal. My statement was made out of the fact that you want to pick and choose what laws you want to uphold.

They come here and create families. Very little if any coming to feed existing families going on.

 

Well unless they committed a crime you deem worthy of reporting.

 

I'll come to your house this evening, break in, and steal everything you have. Have compassion and don't call the police on me, OK?

 

Doctors will not be effected at all.

It will be clerks and administrative staff that asks the questions that deserve to be answered.

Your main concern doesn't exist at all.

 

For those who think this is a great law. How will you prove you are legal? Do you want a national ID card?

An immoral law is an immoral law. Abiding by it was declared an invalid defense at the Nuremberg Trails.

Have you considered how long it might take the INS to respond to hundreds of requests? Perhaps the state of Arizona should be charged for each request so the federal budget deficit will not become larger.

What makes anyone think the Feds. will feel they are required to respond to a state law.

Can any state tell the INS they must respond?

How long must a person suffer with a non-life threatening disease or injury waiting for a response before treatment can be given?

 

Ruiz, you are all over the place with your argument.

It is quite simple. If a doctor or hospital does not wish to inquire about a patient's immigration status then the medical facility should not take tax dollars which are conditional upon asking.

Just as a Rescue Mission should not accept food for distribution that comes with the condition of not sharing the Gospel.

If you don't agree with the conditions set by your benefactor - then find a different benefactor.

Don't act with dishonor by accepting what you want and then ignoring the conditions that you agreed to.

 

Beyond that - doctors are already extensions of law enforcement.

Doctors and schools are required to contact law enforcement agencies if they suspect child abuse.

Doesn't that discourage abusive parents from taking their kids to the doctor or to school?

 

They could go home. They placed themselves in a difficult position of not being able to receive the care they need without detection of having broken the law. They did it to themselves.

 

Not much different than a criminal that gets shot in the commission of a crime.

A doctor would be required to report the treatment of a gunshot wound to the police.

How unfair is that?

 

And if you caught a disease from an illegal alien because he/she was afraid to go to the hospital .... you have done it to yourself by supporting such an immoral law that refuses to treat people.


"And he passed by on the other side of the road."

 

So show me where the law refuses to treat anyone?

 

You miss the point. How many people who are illegal aliens would not go to the hospital for treatment for fear they would be deported. Thus, if they have a contagious disease they would not be treated and would spread it to other people. Now it could be something not too serous, say the flu ... or it could be very serious such as TB. There are always unintended consequences to any law ... and this one would promote the spread of contagious diseases.

It will cost the state much more than if they are treated and released.

 

It would say that illegals spreading disease is the consequence of not enforcing immigration laws - that are already on the books.

 

I did not miss the point you said "you have done it to yourself by supporting such an immoral law that refuses to treat people."

Your statement was clear and to the point. So show where the law refuses to treat anyone.

I suspect that you are not as concerned with any possible spread of disease as you are just wanting unfettered illegal immigration since you also are being so inconsistent.

 

When your family is murdered by an illegal immigrant, you have done it to yourself by supporting illegals in this country.

Typical liberal crap....blame the victim instead of the criminal.

 

Watch it there, mandym.

You are only one post away from getting a homework assignment from Crabby.:laugh:

 

OK, I stand corrected on that the hospital does not have to refuse treatment. However, many illegal aliens would not go to the hospital for fear of being deported. So, the idea that contagious diseases would be spread by people who are afraid to go for treatment holds. And, because you support such a law you would have brought it upon yourself by being hard hearted toward a fellow human who was in need.

"And he passed by on the other side."

 

No I would not have brought it on myself. The illegal alien brought it on themselves. Had they obeyed the law they would not be in their predicament. Supporting the obedience to the law does not create the predicament, disobeying the law creates it. Pretty simple logic and fact.

And thank you for recognizing the true nature of the law.