Trump’s New Wall to Keep Out the Disabled

  • Thread starter Thread starter John24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John24

Guest
At the signing ceremony for the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, President George Bush observed that the legislation had much in common with the fall of the Berlin Wall the year prior. The new law “takes a sledgehammer to another wall,” Bush remarked, “one which has for too many generations separated Americans with disabilities from the freedom they could glimpse, but not grasp.” Our current president, infamous for mocking Americans with disabilities and unraveling the social safety net, plans to rebuild that wall, putting America’s promise of freedom again further out of reach for people with disabilities.

The Trump administration’s proposed regulation, released in early October, would unfairly harm people with disabilities and their families in their efforts to live permanently in the United States. The “public charge” regulation would apply to immigrants already on the lawful road to citizenship, including applicants for permanent residence (a “green card”) living in the United States, and individuals outside of the United States, such as family members of American citizens seeking admission to the United States. While the concept is older than today’s modern immigration law, President Trump’s regulation would radically expand it in dangerous ways. (Public charge is a term used to describe a person deemed to be primarily dependent on government assistance.)

Harkening back to the dark history of anti-immigration policies, the public charge proposal spells out five “heavily weighed negative factors” that would make having a disability a strong basis for denial. In typical Trump fashion, the proposal privileges wealth, fast-tracking individual applicants who can provide evidence of annual incomes 250 percent above the federal poverty line, which for a family of four is about $63,000 annually. Thus, the proposal’s fundamental injustice of deliberately excluding people with disabilities, who are disproportionately likely to live in poverty, is compounded by the abuse of equating wealth with worth.
Click to expand...
 
As I read the articles, admission is already denied to people who are likely to become dependent on government benefits. That has apparently been the rule for a long time. What seems to be new is that one couldn’t admit a family member who will become dependent on the government just because that person is a family member. It would also bar those who are dependent on government benefits but have a green card.

So what “Trump’s wall” really is, is closing a loophole by which people who are dependent on government benefits get into the country. It’s more like plugging a small hole in an existing wall.
 
Ridgerunner said:
So what “Trump’s wall” really is, is closing a loophole by which people who are dependent on government benefits get into the country. It’s more like plugging a small hole in an existing wall.
Click to expand...
When I ask myself what Jesus would do I come to a different conclusion than the Trump administration.
 
So if I ever become disabled, you’ll support my right to be supported by the German welfare system, which is more generous than that of the U.S.?

It isn’t as if no other country has a welfare system. Most do. Some are more generous than others, largely determined by the circumstances of the populace. As far as I know, Jesus never took a position on that, especially if the politics of it also included killing unborn children. But possibly someone will give us the biblical citation where he did.

It’s entirely possible, by the way, to support others abroad at far less than it costs here to do it. Some of us do that. Some don’t. There may be a compelling reason why I should support poor people in what is the third or fourth most expensive place on earth to do that. But I have not seen anyone come up with it yet.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
So if I ever become disabled, you’ll support my right to be supported by the German welfare system, which is more generous than that of the U.S.?
Click to expand...
Yes, especially if your family is there.
Ridgerunner said:
As far as I know, Jesus never took a position on that
Click to expand...
He took a pretty clear position on this.
Ridgerunner said:
There may be a compelling reason why I should support poor people in what is the third or fourth most expensive place on earth to do that. But I have not seen anyone come up with it yet.
Click to expand...
I provided the Catholic perspective in the second post.
 
My in laws are in Mexico. We have been able to support them through illnesses (including cancer and parkinsons) and disabilities (including being bed ridden) with cash and not going into debt. We have paid for surgeries, hospitalizations, home health, and any test you can think of and they have had extraordinary care. It isn’t exactly cheap but we have been able to provide. My husband is the only person working and sending money home. His only sibling is the main caretaker of their parents (now just father).

My parents have had to receive government help here in the US for much less severe problems because we cannot afford even an ultrasound or MRI if we had to pay upfront. And that is with them living with family so no home aids or housing costs are necessary. And there are 8 of us chipping in for their care.

Ridgerunner makes a very good point about providing help in their home country.
 
It has been awhile, but there was a time when I arranged medical care in Mexico for injured Hispanic workers in the U.S. Medical costs there are about 1/3 what they are here, and some of the care is first rate. Some of the care isn’t, but by and large it’s capable care.

I remember one guy from El Salvador who turned up with TB. It wasn’t work-related, but the company did pay for his travel to El Salvador where TB treatment is free.

Perhaps I should not add this, but you couldn’t persuade Anglos to do it because of the language, and besides, treatment was all employer-paid regardless.
 
Last edited:
Many people have a bad way of thinking about the care there, but in some ways it is actually better. Problem is, you have to pay up front. Having their son send money from here makes that possible for my in laws, but many in Mexico don’t have the income to pay and have to save up. That’s ok for routine, but emergencies or specific chronic problems that doesn’t work.

Some specialties I don’t recommend are OB/GYN and oncology. Neurology is actually top notch there. And there are many US doctors that set up free clinics to see patients in remote areas a few times each year. So yes, I agree sometimes it is better in other countries.
 
Mainly I dealt with orthopaedic conditions; neck, back, hands, elbows, knees. Those orthopaedic surgeons were excellent. Couldn’t use them for emergency conditions, of course, because of distance.
 
The care isn’t bad at all. I do know some Americans that have traveled for healthcare. The cost of traveling, room and food, and the medical treatment is still cheaper than what they would pay just for the care in the US.
 
13pollitos said:
The care isn’t bad at all. I do know some Americans that have traveled for healthcare. The cost of traveling, room and food, and the medical treatment is still cheaper than what they would pay just for the care in the US.
Click to expand...
That’s true. But it’s still at a considerable distance from most of the U.S. If I lived along he border and was bilingual, I would absolutely get my care in Mexico. One additional problem is whether the insurer would pay. They all have networks now.
 
Sometimes it is cheaper than copay and deductibles even!

In the cities you can often find drs that will bill insurance or provide paper work so you can file yourself. In small rural places like my in-laws live they don’t have that. It’s cash only. But they do have several free clinics for routine care and vaccines. Bigger things you have to have cash. Many things you have to travel to the cities for, but that is common in the US too.

We have looked into places that Tricare and the VA will cover since my husband is retired. In the major cities that have large American populations we could even use our benefits there!

There are a few places that are English fluent in Mexico. They even have nursing homes and retirement homes that are English only. Those places tend to be kind of isolated from the violence too.

Not saying you should pack up an go for care, but often people don’t realize how common it actually is to do that.
 
There is one town in particular that is FULL of old hippies. Most of them sell candles. It’s not too far from Cuernavaca.

The first time we went to Cuernavaca together, some of my husbands friends took us there. I had lived in the south east US since I was 5 and had never seen so many hippies at once before. It made me laugh because the friends all thought that was how ALL Americans are!
 
A six inch curb would be high enough to keep out the disabled … but would not keep out the able-bodied, the sex-traffickers, and the drug cartels.
 
John24 . . .
When I ask myself what Jesus would do I come to a different conclusion than the Trump administration.
Click to expand...
Well John, when I ask myself what Jesus wouldn’t do the conclusion I see is . . .

Jesus would NOT incentivize 80% of girls coming from Central America being raped.

Jesus would not be aiding to hurting American workers wages by driving down labor values artificially, thereby hurting American families.

Jesus would not be helping defraud the illegal immigrant wage earner either. Yet our system incentivizes it.

When I ask myself what Jesus would do, I come to a very harmonious conclusion with the Trump administration.

Helping LEGAL immigration.

De-incentivizing ILLEGAL border crossings.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
When I ask myself what Jesus would do, I come to a very harmonious conclusion with the Trump administration.
Click to expand...
Ya, and I supposed the gospel has it and quotes Jesus saying “Bring the children unto me so we can take them away from their parents and put them into cages”.

The USCCB has made it quite clear that we must do our best to try and help these refugees, and I would suggest that Jesus would much prefer their approach over the basic lack of human compassion even towards children that the Trump supporters regularly exhibit.
 
BTW, just to be clear before we see a response to my post that states I’m for open borders, which I’m not, but how this administration is handling all of this, especially with the refugees, is morally bankrupt under Jesus’ teachings and what the Church has long taught as well.

Instead of expanding this wall at many billions of dollars, why not deal with the main cause, namely poverty and corruption in the three Latin American countries, whereas we could help out the people by trying to help them build enterprise zones even if it goes against what the leadership wants. It’s a carrot & stick response since we also have a vested interest in what’s happening there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top