Don’t mention it. Just out of curiosity though, did you find any fault with the article itself? And why is it so hard to fathom that illegals might be bringing diseases into the U.S.? Do you deny that that is the case? You do understand that even during the great immigration wave a hundred years ago that we understood this to be the case and screened people at Ellis Island, sending back thousands, if not tens of thousands. Are you advocating eliminating medical screening for all immigrants? Please, share your oh-so-enlightened views with little old me.
Now, please answer what has been asked of you so I can assess your contribution to the discourse on this Board. Or shall I just write you off as another kneejerker? I await your enilghtenment.
Assuming we’re ALL vaccinated for ALL diseases (even those that are virtually unknown here), sure, that would help.
Let’s just make sure we do anything and everything to lower the incidence of disease EXCEPT keeping people who have said diseases from breaking our laws and sneaking into our country. :rolleyes:
Dude, last time I went to Mexico (or anywhere else for that matter) they didn’t give me the Ellis Island delousing treatment. I could have had anything. They let me walk through Buckingham Palace and for all they knew I could have had typhocholerdysenmump worms.
You’re getting into a completely different topic here. Illegal immigration is a completely different kettle of fish than disease prevention. And as I said earlier, I’m not aware of any medical exam for tourists. I was already legally in the country before having a medical exam for USCIS–had I had anything to worry about, it would’ve been too late by then anyhow.
It sounds nice on paper, but ‘keep the sickies out’ just isn’t feasible.
Well, I’m sure that an American with a travel visa (or pretty much anyone with a travel visa) offers a host country the exact same risk as someone from a third world country sans visa sneaking in. Sorry to offend your world village PC sensibilities, pal, but as the article states, there are diseases entering the U.S. that we should be keeping out. Or, at the least, reducing the incidence of those infected coming here.
I can’t believe that people would argue against that. Oops, forgot, I’m on Liberalism Run Amuck, aka, The Dope.
Even assuming I agreed with this idiotic racist article, what the hell does immigration policy have to do with vaccinating versus not vaccinating? I don’t quite grasp how this affects a parent’s decision one way or another.
Illegal immigration /// No illegal immigration
Anti-vax parent:
Doesn’t vaccinate (afraid of autism); kid dies of measles /// Doesn’t vaccinate (afraid of autism); kid dies of measles
Smart parent:
Does vaccinate; kid is fine when measles comes around /// Does vaccinate; kid is fine when measles come around
Unlucky parent:
Does vaccinate; kid gets Black Plague (10+ US cases/year, last major outbreak 1925) /// Does vaccinate; kid gets Black Plague (because we don’t vaccinate for the freakin’ Plague)
Question; if people from countries where non-vaccinated diseases are more common should be stopped because of that, surely by the same logic legal immigrants should be stopped as well? Any visitors to such countries from the U.S. would need to likewise prove their vaccinated status against a set list of diseases before they were allowed back in the country?
Do you care to point out the idiocy in the idiotic article? Or does you merely characterizing it as such make it so?
And if anything, it would argue FOR parents vaccinating their kids. If a parent truly cares about their child’s help, as the OP has indicated, she should be both FOR vaccinations and AGAINST illegal immigration. Or even legal immigration that doesn’t require medical exams. That’s the consistent position. If not, they’d be putting immigration policy above the health of their child.
Except there’s no mechanism in place to keep them out, really. The article you linked to talks about immigrants who were found after they were already here. And legal channels don’t screen either, except in the case of people coming in with immigrant intent. Person goes to other country, comes back–who knows what they picked up? Tourist comes in, overstays visa–again, nothing in place to prevent this. Sure, you can get rid of them after they’re found, but by that point there’s already damage done.
Again, the immigration argument is an entirely different issue, with large problems already. It’s much more involved than trying to educate parents on why they should have their kids vaccinated.
I just covered part of this in my last response. So, I agree with the first part. As far as the second, I think it depends. If one travels to Iceland (just an example), they’d probably be deemed okay to re-enter. But if someone travels to a country known to have a infectious diseases the person was not vaccinated for, sure. Also, isn’t this part of the reason people traveling to certain parts of the glove are required to have certain shots?
I know, that’s why I didn’t say the kid died. But it sounded unusual and dire enough, but well known, and I figured that most people probably don’t know that it’s been here all along.
I’ll have to disagree. I think that parents would be much more likely to vaccinate if they realized who is in the classrooms with them. It’s just not little Billy and Sally who just moved there from Maine. It’s people who have snuck in to the U.S. from countries where the likelihood of certain diseases is higher. And when you combine an increase in infectious disease with many people in close quarters, the risk goes up.
And just because we may not be able to stop every person infected from entering the U.S. doesn’t men that it isn’t wise to reduce that number as much as we can.
As far as i’m aware, there isn’t a requisition for shots, only governmental (and health board) advisories. But it’s certainly a reason why it’s advised.
I think you may have overlooked a couple of problems, however; i’m assuming that you would prefer that people would be paying for these shots themselves, and it’s possible that they could be prohibitively or at least somewhat expensive, thereby increasing the chance that people will immigrate illegally to save the money. There’s the question of what paperwork would be required to prove immunised status, which could provide a new market to counterfeiters. And there’s the problem that there is another group who would be deterred; those who work for customs and immigration, who would need to have significantly more vaccinations than any immigrant and on their own dime.
That wasn’t my point. We should educate parents, but that’s beside the point about immigration. My point was that there isn’t much we can do except screen every person who comes into the country for any reason at all.
Anyways, I think you’re conflating the two issues. I’m not saying that there isn’t merit to your ideas, but when it comes to keeping people from sneaking in, you’re getting into a much larger issue. You’re focusing on the ‘illegal’ part, which is an issue all on its own, while I’m talking about anyone who comes into the country, legally or not.
Since it boggles my mind too much to construct a scenario where we would pay for shots of illegals—ideally, before they get here—I can’t even entertain that bizzaro-worldness. But you identify problems, I agree. But to me those problems simply point to why we should attempt to reduce the incidence where we can. And the first thing I would do is simply keep the illegals out. The fact that this has to even be said is amazing in itself. When you look at it through the lens of infectious disease, ten times more so.
The one thing I’d add is that if a government worker need extra shots to do their job, I see no reason why the government shouldn’t pay for that. I mean, they pay for uniforms and hard hats. But maybe I’ve misunderstood that point>
Then maybe we agree. Scrutinize those coming in legally, as we know who they are. Keep illegals out, as e don’t. Both those things would reduce the incidence of someone coming here with an infectious disease. And if we succeed in doing that we will have made headway in the fight against infectious disease. At the same time, we can tell people to vaccinate their children to further protect them.
