Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
Interestingly, a recent article from Reuters ("Mumps, other outbreaks force U.S. detention centers to quarantine over 2,000 migrants") failed to make the connection, although it spoke in explicit detail about detained aliens who were quarantined because of exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases. The key paragraph in that article (from my perspective) states:
ICE health officials have been notified of 236 confirmed or probable cases of mumps among detainees in 51 facilities in the past 12 months, compared to no cases detected between January 2016 and February 2018. Last year, 423 detainees were determined to have influenza and 461 to have chicken pox. All three diseases are largely preventable by vaccine.
Interestingly, that column does not focus on whether most or any of those detainees had mumps, influenza, or chicken pox at the time that they were taken into custody, although that would appear to be a very salient point. Instead, it focuses on the response of U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE) to those potentially exposed to those diseases and the effect of quarantines on the ability of those detainees to appear in court.
These are important points and, as an immigration judge, I regularly had to continue cases involving respondents who were in so-called "negative airflow" detention (that is, quarantine) because they had one communicable ailment or another or had been potentially exposed to someone who did. As the name "negative airflow" suggests, disease is not contracted in a vacuum. It has to come from someplace.
I briefly alluded to the dangers of foreign nationals crossing the border with one of these illnesses in a February 2019 post about the increasing costs to the Border Patrol of providing humanitarian aid:
In FY 2018, the [Yuma] sector [of the Border Patrol] incurred more than $700,000 in medical care costs to cover 1,700 aliens who were apprehended and who had to be transported to the hospital. ... Other aliens show up sick, particularly children, some of whom are suffering from illnesses not generally seen in modern American society, including mumps, measles, and tuberculosis, as well as others with influenza, scabies, and other skin diseases. Plainly, the Border Patrol is not able to turn these individuals away without treatment.
It is important to note that the possibility of aliens crossing the border with communicable diseases is not a recent subject. In fact, concern about diseases crossing borders is not unique to the United States or even modern times. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that:
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean[s] 40 days.
CDC then goes on to discuss government efforts to prevent diseases from crossing the border into the United States from the foundation of this country to the present.
Reflecting those concerns, the first ground of inadmissibility in section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) relates to "health-related grounds", including a requirement that immigrants prove that they have been vaccinated for mumps before they can be admitted. A part of any adjustment hearing is when the immigration judge opens the sealed envelope from the examining physician relating to the applicant's health to ensure that said applicant is not inadmissible under this ground.
The changing demographic of aliens who are entering the United States illegally (unaccompanied alien children (UAC) and family units from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, as I described in great detail in recent testimony before the House Appropriations Committee's Labor-HHS subcommittee) heightens the danger that such diseases will make their way to this country.
With respect to youths, for example, the World Health Organization (WHO) states: "Mumps is an acute disease of children and young adults." And notably, in September 2018, GardaWorld reported:
The Honduran Ministry of Health announced a medical state of emergency on Wednesday, September 19, for northern Cortés department amid an ongoing mumps epidemic that has infected at least 5500 people since January. Cortés department is among the areas most affected by the outbreak with 3788 cases reported — 855 of which have been reported in the region's capital, San Pedro Sula. Health authorities estimate that 3.2 million adults are susceptible to the disease due to low vaccination rates and have expanded a nationwide measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination program to stop the spread of the disease. [Emphasis added.]
As the Center has previously noted, a migrant caravan left the city identified, San Pedro Sula, the next month.
None of this should be understood as a stigmatization of children or of migrants from Central America. Regular immigration, in which a foreign national obtains a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad and travels to this country through a port of entry, however, provides for the screening of foreign nationals before they arrive in this country and interact with the public, including other foreign nationals lawfully present.
Irregular migration, on the other hand, by which a foreign national enters the United States illegally between the ports of entry, does not provide any of those safeguards. Once they are here, they are here, regardless of whether they are apprehended and detained, or make their way to their final destinations without apprehension.
Irregular migration, on the other hand, by which a foreign national enters the United States illegally between the ports of entry, does not provide any of those safeguards. Once they are here, they are here, regardless of whether they are apprehended and detained, or make their way to their final destinations without apprehension.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
You're just begging for a Septic War, aren't you Creepy?
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
I trust @creepycoug mor on matters of pretend jurisprudence than I do some of you guys. Just saying...
Comments
Look up the rise of disease in border areas
Like I said Democrats welcome them in
My grandfather was quarantined at Ellis Island. HTH
Nor are the caravans from Mexico
Other than that
I live here. Go ahead and look it up. Facts not feelings
Interestingly, a recent article from Reuters ("Mumps, other outbreaks force U.S. detention centers to quarantine over 2,000 migrants") failed to make the connection, although it spoke in explicit detail about detained aliens who were quarantined because of exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases. The key paragraph in that article (from my perspective) states:
ICE health officials have been notified of 236 confirmed or probable cases of mumps among detainees in 51 facilities in the past 12 months, compared to no cases detected between January 2016 and February 2018. Last year, 423 detainees were determined to have influenza and 461 to have chicken pox. All three diseases are largely preventable by vaccine.
Interestingly, that column does not focus on whether most or any of those detainees had mumps, influenza, or chicken pox at the time that they were taken into custody, although that would appear to be a very salient point. Instead, it focuses on the response of U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE) to those potentially exposed to those diseases and the effect of quarantines on the ability of those detainees to appear in court.
These are important points and, as an immigration judge, I regularly had to continue cases involving respondents who were in so-called "negative airflow" detention (that is, quarantine) because they had one communicable ailment or another or had been potentially exposed to someone who did. As the name "negative airflow" suggests, disease is not contracted in a vacuum. It has to come from someplace.
I briefly alluded to the dangers of foreign nationals crossing the border with one of these illnesses in a February 2019 post about the increasing costs to the Border Patrol of providing humanitarian aid:
In FY 2018, the [Yuma] sector [of the Border Patrol] incurred more than $700,000 in medical care costs to cover 1,700 aliens who were apprehended and who had to be transported to the hospital. ... Other aliens show up sick, particularly children, some of whom are suffering from illnesses not generally seen in modern American society, including mumps, measles, and tuberculosis, as well as others with influenza, scabies, and other skin diseases. Plainly, the Border Patrol is not able to turn these individuals away without treatment.
It is important to note that the possibility of aliens crossing the border with communicable diseases is not a recent subject. In fact, concern about diseases crossing borders is not unique to the United States or even modern times. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that:
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean[s] 40 days.
CDC then goes on to discuss government efforts to prevent diseases from crossing the border into the United States from the foundation of this country to the present.
Reflecting those concerns, the first ground of inadmissibility in section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) relates to "health-related grounds", including a requirement that immigrants prove that they have been vaccinated for mumps before they can be admitted. A part of any adjustment hearing is when the immigration judge opens the sealed envelope from the examining physician relating to the applicant's health to ensure that said applicant is not inadmissible under this ground.
The changing demographic of aliens who are entering the United States illegally (unaccompanied alien children (UAC) and family units from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, as I described in great detail in recent testimony before the House Appropriations Committee's Labor-HHS subcommittee) heightens the danger that such diseases will make their way to this country.
With respect to youths, for example, the World Health Organization (WHO) states: "Mumps is an acute disease of children and young adults." And notably, in September 2018, GardaWorld reported:
The Honduran Ministry of Health announced a medical state of emergency on Wednesday, September 19, for northern Cortés department amid an ongoing mumps epidemic that has infected at least 5500 people since January. Cortés department is among the areas most affected by the outbreak with 3788 cases reported — 855 of which have been reported in the region's capital, San Pedro Sula. Health authorities estimate that 3.2 million adults are susceptible to the disease due to low vaccination rates and have expanded a nationwide measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination program to stop the spread of the disease. [Emphasis added.]
As the Center has previously noted, a migrant caravan left the city identified, San Pedro Sula, the next month.
None of this should be understood as a stigmatization of children or of migrants from Central America. Regular immigration, in which a foreign national obtains a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad and travels to this country through a port of entry, however, provides for the screening of foreign nationals before they arrive in this country and interact with the public, including other foreign nationals lawfully present.
Irregular migration, on the other hand, by which a foreign national enters the United States illegally between the ports of entry, does not provide any of those safeguards. Once they are here, they are here, regardless of whether they are apprehended and detained, or make their way to their final destinations without apprehension.
What does you living 300 miles from the border have to do with anything? Are you checking Mexican's immunization records or something?
I posted facts
And I'm not 300 miles from the border
You seem to be struggling here
Irregular migration, on the other hand, by which a foreign national enters the United States illegally between the ports of entry, does not provide any of those safeguards. Once they are here, they are here, regardless of whether they are apprehended and detained, or make their way to their final destinations without apprehension.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.