Borderline Immigrants and Healthcare: Linda Poon vs. Phil Gingrey

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Opposing Positions
Summary
References

Introduction

The paper contemplates the topic of borderline immigrants and their relation to the healthcare system. The introductive section introduces the guidelines of the issue by elaborating on the problems of immigrants and the opinions of Linda Poon and Phil Gingrey. Then, the research explores two positions voiced by against or for access limitations, respectively, divided into two subsections. In the process, it was revealed that the anti-limitation position shows more premise and less political bias. So, one presents the resulting compromise opinion from a nursing point of view in the following sections. The summary and Call to Action are to conclude the mentioned points and to form an elaborate set of actions for the nursing profession.

The immigration issue and its consequences have remained a heavily disputed matter throughout US political history. According to Totten (2015), the limitations of the immigrant influx on the USA territory trace back to the colonial era. However, nowadays, the discussion revolves around the harsh policy of Donald Trump and the Republican administration. After all, they particularly oppose immigration on national borders as a security problem. Nonetheless, the policy does not entirely consist of political aspects. It is essential to note that healthcare is also affected by the immigrant movements.

Similarly, the view on the immigrants’ influence differs throughout the sources. By far, it is possible to represent the opposing sides with the positions of Congressman Phil Gingrey and journalist Linda Poon. According to the former, the restrictions for immigration should be strengthened since immigrants can potentially carry epidemic diseases (Gingrey, 2014). However, Poon argues that refugees are unlikely to spread the illnesses. According to her, immigrants themselves suffer from other problems such as physical trauma and mental conditions (Poon, 2014). So, the two opinions reflect the two tendencies of healthcare policy regarding immigrants. The first one suggests that strict rules mean avoiding possible epidemics. The second one, in turn, rejects the risks and offers to focus on the healthcare of immigrants themselves.

Naturally, both positions contain valuable notions about the border refugees in America’s healthcare field. However, the stance of Poon appears to be more reasonable and has developed more measures for reforming the situation. Nonetheless, the study should analyze the background and politics of both sides to understand their reasoning. That way, the conclusion of their points will become more evident. The resulting stance will be based on the anti-limitation means, though it will use the elements for limitation. What is more important, one would be able to create a reliable call for action, addressed directly to the nursing professionals.

The Opposing Positions

Anti-Limitation Position

In the wake of the debate, a part of society presents the opinion against strict regulations of immigrants’ rights, including health service. The stance of the anti-limitation supporters relies on the research of refugees’ conditions after arriving in the country. Their studies try to prove that immigrants do not carry a direct risk for the USA healthcare system and even suffer from the exclusion. The problems include the availability of the services, the attitude of the immigrants, and the discrimination in society. In the end, their issues, compared to the probable internal casualties, appear more critical for the country.

According to the position, the medical services remain hard to access for immigrants, especially those with illegal status. According to Martinez et al., a few legislative documents prohibit illegal refugees to use public institutions. In turn, as Sabo et al. mention in their study, in the borderlands, the law tends to be especially harsh for Latino refugees. As such, White, Yeager, Menachemi, and Scarinci specify that the states of “Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah” are persistent in restricting care accessibility for illegal immigrants.

It is not only the law though that adds to the complicated picture of accessibility. Immigrants themselves avoid the use of official institutions because of their attitudes. The study of Lee states that among immigrants’ priorities, any health concerns fall at the end of the list. In other words, because of the way of their arrival, refugees could ignore checking their state of health.

Thirdly, internal factors do not help with the refugees’ willingness to take part in the examination either. Immigrants often perceive discrimination by the government, healthcare included. According to Martinez et al., continuous checking procedures and security raids stimulate their alienation from health services. Thus, the attitude towards healthcare appeal plays a significant role too. Moreover, the inability to blend into society influences their decisions of avoiding formal institutions. As Lee states, Latino immigrants tell about their feelings of being undesired guests in the country. Eventually, the turn of events leads to the extensive rejection of health care accessibility.

All the stated causes lead to disastrous results for the health status of the immigrants. For instance, the research of Vargas and Ybarra shows a dependence on the Latino parents’ social status and the well-being of their children. The refugees, as the weakest group, receive the lowest spot. Importantly, fear affects the mental health of immigrants, leading to several issues. According to Carvajal et al., the stressors of government and society pressure create stress-induced problems for the immigrants of Latino origin. Furthermore, as mentioned by Martinez et al., the issues of depression, anxiety, and PTSD may appear both among the refugees themselves and their children.

Physical diseases tend to be ignored as well, and healthcare is used only as a last resort. For example, as Lee states, Latino immigrants have a higher risk of late HIV diagnostics due to their ignorance of medical institutions. Of course, the statement is valid for the rest of the chronic problems. Thus, the discovered dangers for immigrants’ health affect their well-being in general and in specific areas.

The supporters of the anti-limitation opinion defend the rights of the immigrants in healthcare. So, they suggest the improvement of their conditions by looking at their needs and responding to them. Martinez et al. present a set of measures to improve the situation, which promotes equality in access to the services. These principles serve as the guidelines for everyone who expresses against limitations for the refugees.

Pro-Limitation Position

The position of anti-immigrant parties like Congressman Gingrey depends not only on the healthcare needs but on the politics as well. It is presented by the political activists, as well as the general public. A few credible studies demonstrate that their point about the diseases has noticeable proof, to begin with. However, these fears do not always rely on the medical data itself. Often, they are fueled by the political and social satiation regarding the immigrants.

On the one hand, the conditions that the refugees endure become the direct causes of internal danger. For instance, Latino immigrants can carry several contagious infections from their native region. According to Montgomery et al., there is an example of Chagas disease, which may pose a threat to the USA public health. Such a risk can be used in favor of keeping illegal immigrants away from public institutions, although it is not widespread.

Furthermore, the situation of the common diseases in the USA can be affected by borderline immigrants. As mentioned, the Latino refugees remain subject to HIV, which they fail to diagnose. More importantly, their actions might become problematic for US residents and their health. For example, the research of Sastre, Sanchez, and De La Rosa shows a higher risk of HIV transmission among immigrant Latino women upon their arrival in the country. The situation with tuberculosis may be likewise affected by immigrants. According to Taylor et al., the medics need to diagnose this disease carried by the children of immigrants and refugees.

On the other hand, the concerns on the USA health care do not just come from the amount of the dangers. Instead, not the actual issues but political or social movements are often the reasons. These movements are connected to the parties of the right and their nationalist views. They skillfully use the disapproval of American citizens who do not support the extension of immigrants’ rights.

After getting a closer look at politics, several crucial points are discovered. Foremost, radical attitudes towards the issue in the USA become a factor that escalates the tension, and the healthcare field is affected then. The researchers note that in the states like Arizona public supported the measures against illegal immigrants due to their abundance (Craig & Richeson, 2014). What is more, politicians are prone to take advantage of the citizens’ complaints. According to the study of Grose, Malhotra, and Parks Van Houweling, senators may exploit their position on the issue in question to gain support from the electors.

Furthermore, negative social opinion of immigrants becomes a cause for pro-limitation actions. As such, the researchers mention that the citizens may be displeased that their taxes are used for the social support of illegal refugees, including health services (Chiricos, Stupi, Stults, & Gertz, 2014). The opinion on the immigrants’ place in society does not always grant them a favor withal. For instance, according to Berg, cultural and social stereotypes may still hinder the attitude towards their inclusion. Hence, the willingness of the citizens to accept the rights of the refugees for healthcare might be doubtful.

Eventually, one can notice that the political and social factors overwhelm the actual health problems among the American population. It would be irrational to reject the risk of the diseases, but that does not seem like a prime reason. After all, the healthcare sector is caught in the debate due to political and social discussions about immigrants. So, it is the reason why certain restrictions are put in place despite having more ethical options.

The Chosen Position of Compromise

In the end, it would be wise to consider approaches of each position to find the advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, it would open a way to show the parts which reasonably present the immigrants’ relationship with healthcare policy. Primarily, both anti-limitation and pro-limitation positions highlight the state of the USA policy and society nowadays. Although the supporters of canceling the limits appear as more humane and reasonable, the compromise position should include some details from the latter stance as well. According to McGuire, the nurse is obligated to treat every person independently of their background, which coincides with the anti-limitation opinion. Nurses should not be swayed by political changes, so they can provide valuable insight into the situation without too much bias. Then, they can bring potential changes and reformations on the spot. Nevertheless, the nurse still cannot miss the issues which are potentially contagious for native people. So, the compromise position fits the duties of nursing professionals the most. Nurses are the ones able to care about immigrants as equal patients while protecting the other patients from any resulting risks.

In the first place, the anti-limitation supporters point on the flaws of the healthcare system. These flaws, developed under the sheer pressure of the problem, hinder the order and defy the moral values. Next, the pro-limitations position shows that the immigrants do indeed carry infection risks. However, these may be exaggerated by the political and social concern on the refugees overall. It is possible to reduce the dangers by reforming the services and not by restricting them. As a result, the balanced view would state that it is necessary to increase the availability of healthcare for the immigrants, independently from their status. Also, it is required to concentrate on the specific health problems of the refugees. Finally, one should spread information about equality among the immigrants and the rest of society.

Summary

The positions about healthcare for illegal immigrants can be shaped into the anti-limitation and pro-limitation stances, represented by Linda Poon and Phil Gingrey. The former and her supporters note that the immigrants heavily suffer from the limitations in healthcare, approved by the federal and state governments. Unfortunately, they tend to avoid institutions too, fearing intolerance from officials and the community alike. As a result, they develop disorders, which raises the question if it is morally acceptable. So, the supporters of the position suggest the measures based on the equality principle.

Gingrey and like-minded people disagree and offer to strengthen limitations. The prime argument is the immigrants’ potential of carrying contagious illnesses, such as diseases from South America, HIV, or tuberculosis. However, the fears might be overestimated and caused by other factors. These include the political struggle on the issue of immigrants. The stereotypes of society further solidify the disapproval of accepting refugees into the state.

The first opinion may provide a more positive and ethical outlook on the immigrants’ access to the services. Nonetheless, it would not be correct to ignore the risks mentioned by the pro-limitation side. Thus, it is wiser to synergize both — the first one would become a base, and the second one would provide support. The proposed viewpoint would include open access to health services while focusing on risky disorders common among immigrants.

Call to Action

Firstly, as Martines et al. suggest, health care workers should oppose discrimination and perform their duties for each patient, independently of their status. Hence, the nurses should take special attention to immigrant patients to treat them properly and encourage their colleagues to do so with the example. Secondly, according to McGuire, nurses’ everyday work with illegal immigrants can help with attracting more attention to their sufferings and enhancing treatment quality. For this task, the nurse can collect medical data used for research, popularizing the problem updating medical institutions about their needs. Thirdly, the nurses can focus on discovering and eliminating the specific issues of the immigrants’ health. Thus, they should develop diagnostics and promote attention to contagious illnesses through public means like those for equality.

References

Berg, J. A. (2015). Explaining attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy: A review of the theoretical literature. Sociology Compass, 9(1), 23-34.

Carvajal, S. C., Kibor, C., McClelland, D. J., Ingram, M., de Zapien, J. G., Torres, E., … Rosales, C. (2014). Stress and sociocultural factors related to health status among US-Mexico border farmworkers. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 16(6), 1176-1182.

Chiricos, T., Stupi, E. K., Stults, B. J., & Gertz, M. (2014). Undocumented immigrant threat and support for social controls. Social Problems, 61(4), 673-692.

Gingrey, P. (2014). Letter to Thomas R. Frieden. Web.

Grose, C. R., Malhotra, N., & Parks Van Houweling, R. (2014). Explaining explanations: How legislators explain their policy positions and how citizens react. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 724-743.

Lee, J. J. (2019). Cumulative stress and trauma from the migration process as barriers to HIV Testing: A qualitative study of Latino immigrants. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 21(4), pp. 844-852.

Martinez, O., Wu, E., Sandfort, T., Dodge, B., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Pinto, R., … Chavez-Baray, S. (2015). Evaluating the impact of immigration policies on health status among undocumented immigrants: A systematic review. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 17(3), 947-970.

McGuire, S. (2015). Ethical considerations for undocumented immigrants and health. Nursing Outlook, 63(1), 1-5.

Montgomery, S. P., Starr, M. C., Edwards, M. S., Cantey, P. T., & Meymandi, S. K. (2014). Neglected parasitic infections in the United States: Chagas disease. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 90(5), 814-818.

Poon, L. (2014). The unaccompanied immigrant minors have health issues — But not the ones you’d think.89.3KPCC. Web.

Sabo, S., Shaw, S., Ingram, M., Teufel-Shone, N., Carvajal, S., de Zapien, J. G., … Rubio-Goldsmith, R. (2014). Everyday violence, structural racism and mistreatment at the US-Mexico border. Social Science & Medicine, 109, 66-74.

Sastre, F., Sanchez, M., & De La Rosa, M. (2015). Changes in pre- to post-immigration HIV risk behaviors among recent Latino immigrants. AIDS Education and Prevention, 27(1), 44-57.

Taylor, E. M., Painter, J., Posey, D. L., Zhou, W., & Shetty, S. (2016). Latent tuberculosis infection among immigrant and refugee children arriving in the United States: 2010. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 18(5), 966-970.

Totten, R. J. (2015). Epidemics, national security, and US immigration policy. Defense & Security Analysis, 31(3), 199-212.

Vargas, E. D., & Ybarra, V. D. (2017). U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents: The link between state immigration policy and the health of Latino children. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 19(4), 913-920.

White, K., Yeager, V. A., Menachemi, N., & Scarinci, I.C. (2014). Impact of Alabama’s immigration law on access to health care among Latina immigrants and children: Implications for national reform. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), pp. 397-405.

Click Here To Order Now!