Can we all agree that this is reason enough to have the border locked down and secure?

[Czarcasm]

The medical journal published by magellan01’s trusted source is truly a wonder to behold.

Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims, including:
that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;
that HIV does not cause AIDS;
that the “gay male lifestyle” shortens life expectancy by 20 years.

A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer. Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization, among other major medical bodies.

A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

[Der_Trihs]

“We need to keep out the filthy plague ridden foreigners!” Now there’s a classic.

[Richard_Parker]

@magellan01

Can you share with me which of the claims made be either of the two doctors cited you disagree with.

Since I also discredited your source, I’ll take you up on this invitation. Your citations implies or states all of the following merely on the authority of the speaker rather than any presented facts or arguments:

[ul]
[li]That illegal immigrant children who sneak into the country are likely to carry serious contagious diseases because their home countries have less wealthy medical systems;[/li]
[li]That illegal immigrants substantially contribute to bringing multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) (or any other serious disease) across the border;[/li]
[li]That treatment for MDR-TB is “toxic” in any meaningful sense;[/li]
[li]That health screenings effectively prevent legal immigrants from entering the country with these diseases;[/li]
[li]That illegal immigrant children have no medical screenings or vaccines; and that[/li]
[li]A public health crisis bigger than AIDS or obesity will result from illegal immigrant children.[/li][/ul]

You may trust these folks to have actual support for those claims. I don’t.

[magellan01]

@Bridget_Burke

Yes, the Conservabots are certainly concerned about infectious diseases! The Texas Observer has a mostly lighthearted article on Republican silliness. (We’re at Ground Zero here.) The dangers of germ-ridden immigrants is one argument that contrasts with this gem from the Texas GOP platform:

Does not compute.

Definitely, immigrants (legal or not) ought to have checkups & immunization (where needed). So does everybody else…even citizens.

This thinking doesn’t track. While I grant that there is some inconsistent thinking by some on the right, I think you’re guilty of the same here. If vaccinations are a good (which I believe) then why isn’t having a secure where we can be assured that someone coming into our country is not bringing in an infectious disease?

While consistently is good here, it seems that you are being as inconsistent as those who you are criticizing. No?

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

Do you support what they stand for or not?

I support what I posted about. That is all. Given the actual article I cited and the actual words of the actual doctors cited, do you agree that there is a legitimate concern or not?

[Czarcasm]

Addressing the issue of illegal immigrants and diseases

In a 2005 article published in the Journal, Madeleine Cosman argued that illegal immigrants were carriers of disease, and that immigrants and “anchor babies” were launching a “stealthy assault on [American] medicine.” In the article, Cosman claimed that “Suddenly, in the past 3 years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy” because of illegal aliens. The journal’s leprosy claim was cited and repeated by Lou Dobbs as evidence of the dangers of illegal immigration.

However, publicly available statistics show that the 7,000 cases of leprosy occurred during the past 30 years, not the past three as Cosman claimed. James L. Krahenbuhl, director of the U.S. government’s leprosy program, stated that there had been no significant increase in leprosy cases, and that "It [leprosy] is not a public health problem—that’s the bottom line."National Public Radio reported that the Journal article "had footnotes that did not readily support allegations linking a recent rise in leprosy rates to illegal immigrants."The article’s erroneous leprosy claim was pointed out by 60 Minutes, National Public Radio, and the New York Times but has not been corrected by the Journal.

[magellan01]

@Bridget_Burke

When my folks came over, health exams were just about the only criteria for admission. (I think the obviously “feeble minded” were sent back, too.) I approve.

The group being discussed in the OP is definitely the children recently coming over from Central America. Who are in US custody–where they really ought to be be getting health care. I also approve.

Good. Do you agree that knowing that many illegal immigrants will be coming in from places with poor healthcare, and knowing that some of these places have problems with infectious diseases, that we should have a border secure enough that we know everyone who enters and can check them?

@Bridget_Burke

Sourcewatch quotes Mother Jones on the source of the OP:

I do not approve of these guys…

Okay. But what about the specific claims delivered by the doctors in the OP? Also, while you might not like these guys, do you think every claim they may utter is a wrong-headed? If it turns out that the doctor is Pro-Choice, should that position be categorized as wrong-headed, too?

Finally, do you really think the Mother Jones has no poetical bent?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@XT

Seems to me this is why we should open up immigration more, not lock down the borders. If we allowed people to come into the US legally then we could health check and process them much better…and help treat their issues before they integrate into our society. Since they are going to come here anyway, that seems a more optimal path.

That strikes me as a far more obvious and likely effective response than what the OP and his source propose, but that’s in part because I have my doubts either has considered the expense involved in actually securing the border.

[robert_columbia]

What criteria are typically used when immigrants are screened for medical issues? Is it typically a cursory check to make sure people aren’t covered in sores and could function in society or are there complex criteria to meet? E.g. do people get denied due to having diabetes or high blood pressure or is the screening only to make sure people aren’t going to cause massive problems?

[magellan01]

[quote=“Richard_Parker, post:23, topic:691466”]

Since I also discredited your source, I’ll take you up on this invitation. Your citations implies or states all of the following merely on the authority of the speaker rather than any presented facts or arguments:
[LIST]

[li]That illegal immigrant children who sneak into the country are likely to carry serious contagious diseases because their home countries have less wealthy medical systems;[/li][/QUOTE]

The “likely” refers to the group of immigrant children coming in, not any individual child. The original claim sound reasonable. They way you rephrased it doesn’t, and is an unfair mischaracterization.

I was about to address the others on your list, but it would be more helpful if you could post them with the relevant cite for the line in the article that you think makes the claim that you paraphrase.

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

The medical journal published by magellan01’s trusted source is truly a wonder to behold.

You know what’s truly a wonder? Your unwillingness/inability to address what I actually posted.

[Marley23]

No-cost health care provided by the government for those who need it? I like it. I like it a lot. It sounds like the kind of thing any compassionate, sensible society would do. After all, more and more of us are coming around to the idea that quality health care is a right.

@magellan01

By “this” I mean the public health concern. In an interview, Dr. Jane Orient, an internal medicine specialist and the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons had this to say about the threat:

…Granted, the OP wants to do this because he’s fallen for some discredited BS about dirty, disease-ridden illegals who are going to infect the rest of us, and it’s wrong and has an uncomfortably xenophobic undertone. But maybe we can just pretend to give him what he wants?

@magellan01

Even very liberal senator, Chuck Schumer acknowledges the dangers of mosquito borne illnesses making their way from South America via legal travelers enjoying the World Cup.

That’s a problem created by travel, not by immigration specifically. It’s why you’re supposed to get inoculated before you travel to some countries. And it’s a global health concern: it’s why we get periodic Asian flu outbreaks in the U.S., why flu shots are formulated the way they are, and why things like bird flu and swine flu worry people so much.

[Richard_Parker]

@magellan01

The “likely” refers to the group of immigrant children coming in, not any individual child. The original claim sound reasonable. They way you rephrased it doesn’t, and is an unfair mischaracterization.

I was about to address the others on your list, but it would be more helpful if you could post them with the relevant cite for the line in the article that you think makes the claim that you paraphrase.

Oy. I’ll pass. I think your interpretation of what I wrote is in bad faith, so this looks to just be a boring slog rather than an actual exchange of views.

[magellan01]

@XT

Seems to me this is why we should open up immigration more, not lock down the borders. If we allowed people to come into the US legally then we could health check and process them much better…and help treat their issues before they integrate into our society. Since they are going to come here anyway, that seems a more optimal path. From your cite:

I say open the borders, allow freer immigration (and bring in lots of new tax payers) to those who actually want to come here to live, and make it more enticing to those who want to come here to do so through the process legally, so that coming here illegally is a sub-optimal choice for people.

Problem solved…multiple problems actually. At least that’s how it seems to me, though I might be a bit biased, since my own family came to the US illegally.

Wait—if the borders are open, anyone can just walk across and we wouldn’t know anything about them. Now, I take it, through your uses of “freer” you’re not actually recommending a scenario like that. So that brings us back to having borders that are 100% secure. Whether we let in 0 people or an unlimited number of people is a different question. The question in the OP goes not to how many people should we allow to immigrate each year, but to shouldn’t we take the steps necessary to ensure that we can check anyone who does come over?

[magellan01]

@Richard_Parker

Oy. I’ll pass. I think your interpretation of what I wrote is in bad faith, so this looks to just be a boring slog rather than an actual exchange of views.

I didn’t mean it to be. Do you not see a difference in what you wrote compared to what was in the article and I explained. I guess not. ::shrug::

[magellan01]

@Marley23

No-cost health care provided by the government for those who need it? I like it. I like it a lot. It sounds like the kind of thing any compassionate, sensible society would do. After all, more and more of us are coming around to the idea that quality health care is a right.

Do you not realize that this has nothing to do with the OP? See my response to XT.

[Richard_Parker]

@magellan01

I didn’t mean it to be. Do you not see a difference in what you wrote compared to what was in the article and I explained. I guess not. ::shrug::

I don’t know why you interpreted my phrase to refer to an individual child. It no more does so than the original language in the article. It seemed like an excuse for not addressing the content of my post. Sorry if I misjudged. I think all of my paraphrases are in good faith–though I concede I attempted to capture some of what the article implied in addition to what was expressly stated. If you’d prefer to debate the actual quoted matter I have no objection. I don’t think it’s too hard to match them up.

[Finagle]

Locking down the borders to avoid the plague? Sure…if you’re Madagascar.

[Czarcasm]

What kind of physical screenings do Canadians get when they cross the border?

[magellan01]

@Richard_Parker

I don’t know why you interpreted my phrase to refer to an individual child. It no more does so than the original language in the article. It seemed like an excuse for not addressing the content of my post. Sorry if I misjudged. I think all of my paraphrases are in good faith–though I concede I attempted to capture some of what the article implied in addition to what was expressly stated. If you’d prefer to debate the actual quoted matter I have no objection. I don’t think it’s too hard to match them up.

That seems like the sensible thing to do. If you’d like to repost your list with the corresponding quotes from the article, I’d be interested in addressing them.

Don’t hurry, though, as I have to run now. Will be back later.