Mexico-US illegal migration has been at zero for 8 years, and other eye-opening facts

Originally published at:


True, but:

any patient arriv­ing at an Emer­gency Depart­ment (ED) in a hos­pi­tal that par­tic­i­pates in the Medicare pro­gram must be given an ini­tial screen­ing, and if found to be in need of emer­gency treat­ment (or in active labor), must be treated until sta­ble.” —42 U.S.C. § 1395dd

This was added to U.S. federal code under the 1986 Emer­gency Med­ical Treat­ment and Active Labor Act.


Illegal migration ended eight years ago and has been zero or negative since 2008, because migration is a young person’s game.

Hilarious. Barely meets the kindergarten level of burden-of-proof.

1 0. Fun Fact: Immigration from Mexico to the US has been flat for years.

Hilarious. Contradictory to point #1, assuming “flat” means “steady” as opposed to “growing”.

Mexico is spelled wrong in the lede.


Which point #1 are you talking about? “Flat” is definitely not contradictory to “zero or negative”. Also, note that “immigration” and “illegal immigration” are two different things that overlap.


That fiends! How dare they treat human beings like human beings! Oh, wait… this was under Saint Reagan, you say? Carry on! /s


I am guessing the economy crash lead to the flatter numbers starting in 2008 more than the average age of Mexicans. But that is just a guess.

Most of these facts I already knew.


Personally, I see it as a logical extension of the Good Samaritan law, which holds providers (including RNs) legally bound to give medical assistance to anyone they find injured. I like to believe that these laws introduce the rare element of compassion into U.S. law, even though I’m sure that most of those bound to it would help an injured bystander anyway.


New rule: if somebody shows up at the ER, the EMT’s need to investigate their immigration status. If it’s good, they may then stop the bleeding.

Note this is not necessary for white people, who are obviously citizens.


Agreed. It was a good, humane law. We should have good care for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. People shouldn’t get calls for debt collectors over medical debt at their loved one’s death bed, either.

Trumps America!


Yeah, this is always the crazy argument I hear about how illegals tax healthcare. It’s OK, the same people also blame “urban” families “on welfare” too.

[quote=“Mindysan33, post:10, topic:82679”]
Trumps America!
[/quote]That’s been a battle cry for the GOP for years now.


Given that this passed under the Reagan administration, I think even most Republicans would shoot down that proposal. They don’t make headlines often, but there are proposals that pass—or are shot down—with near unanimity in Congress.

And always from conservative pundits and politicians. I’ve yet to read any such opinion from a clinical provider.

Well… duh


I love this part:

The Department of Health has a $1.2 billion deficit.

Yeah, because Republicans prioritize the wellbeing of their citizens (let alone human beings in general) so low that they’re willing to give that twenty times that amount to the Department of Defense to build stealth bombers instead.


I know. Trust me. It was my hamfisted attempt to be funny! :wink:


Mexcio-US Illegal migration has been at zero for 8 years, and other eye-opening facts*

There’s a lot of great information here to refute the mouth breathing “build a wall” idiots, but sheesh, that headline and first bullet point is the kind of eye-rolling stuff that discredits the useful info that comes after it.

I don’t know about this “Mexcio” place, but there has surely been at least one illegal immigrant from Mexico, hasn’t there? In the last 8 years??? One???

I think the word “Net” should have been added somewhere, maybe? And illegal removed (as it’s highly doubtful net illegal migration between the two countries is at 0. (At least not unless Trump wins, at which point, visa be damned, I’m heading south.))


Treated until stable is a pretty low bar. It basically means, “You’re not going to die right now.”

EMTALA only covers “emergency medical conditions.” Basically, it only applies if you’re going to lose a life, limb, or organ. You are not covered if you can do the following:

breath, eat, move, get dressed, take care of personal hygiene, go to the bathroom, take your medicine, and communicate.

So it does not cover chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, if they’re not immediately life-threatening.

More importantly, it doesn’t give “free” medical services. It just says they can’t deny you emergency medical care based on ability to pay or insurance coverage. They WILL charge you though. And if you can’t pay, you can be sued, have it negatively affect your credit, etc. It’s not, “Don’t worry about paying us,” it’s “We’ll worry about the bill after we’ve prevented you from dying.”

Furthermore, it came about after a big expose on “patient dumping.” People would go to the ER of some hospital, maybe with something like a gunshot wound, and the hospital would go, “You look poor and probably can’t pay us,” and, if the patient was lucky, would put them in a cab and send them to a county hospital or a charitable hospital where either local laws or basic human decency would compel those hospitals to treat the person. The result was that county and charity run hospitals were forced to absorb the financial losses associated with the poor, threatening to bankrupt those hospitals while the private hospitals limited themselves to profitable patients. The law said, “If you’re going to take public money, then you have to give emergency medical treatment to the public, regardless of whether or not you think they’re poor.” A hospital is actually not obligated to do this. They can still deny the poor, as long as they’re also willing to give up access to Medicare and Medicaid funds.

But, to re-emphasize the main point, it’s a pretty low bar. You have to be at immediate risk of losing your life, a limb, or have organ failure for it to apply. And you’re still going to get a bill afterward (although you can petition to avoid payment based on destitution).


Even if that’s true, we still need to build the wall to keep the illegals out because they’ll all try to come here after Trump Makes America Great Again.*

  • Trump 2016!

Good clarifications, thank you. I went back to the text and saw this provision, which follows the one I cite above (emphasis added):

(e) The term “emergency medical condition” means—

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—
(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—
(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

I don’t know if it’s valid to infer from this that prenatal care is covered.

ETA: The abstract from this literature review on health care for undocumented immigrants is worth reading. I’ve included some highlights below:

The alternative care available (safety net) was generally limited and overwhelmed. Finally, there was evidence of widespread discriminatory practices within the health care system itself. The individual level focused on the immigrant’s fear of deportation, stigma, and lack of capital (both social and financial) to obtain services.[…] Despite concerns that access to health care attracts immigrants, data demonstrates that people generally do not migrate to obtain health care. [

1 Like

The article itself dances horribly around the issue multiple times.[quote=article]Overburdened by the uninsured and overwhelmed by illegal immigration… public health care in Los Angeles is on life support.

The hospitals are closing because of the totality of the uninsured," said Dr. Thomas Garthwaite, director of the Los Angeles County Health Department. “If you’re legally a resident in California and you’re poor, you have a right to basic services.”

But some critics say the taxpayers can’t be the HMO to the world. Last year, Los Angeles County spent $340 million to treat the uninsured; that’s roughly $1,000 for every taxpayer.

Though the [white family] are uninsured, and considered poor by county standards, his father had to find a way to pay for [his mentally disabled son]'s care while thousands of others, in the country illegally, get it for free.[/quote]I mean, I barely pared this section down at all and they gloss over the uninsured Americans part that refutes their premise and then compare apples (emergency care) to oranges (long term condition) in order to repeat the premise again.