Archives

Uncategorized

Here are two morning editorials that ought to be a “must reads” for North Carolina’s conservative political leaders:

The first comes from the Fayetteville Observer and it’s entitled “Yes, Republicans can expand Medicaid too.” As it notes:

Last month, hundreds of representatives from North Carolina hospitals and other health-care institutions brought a united message to Raleigh: Cuts in the Medicaid program are causing them serious economic harm. Further cuts could be disastrous.

That doesn’t begin to consider the financial drain that comes from treating the thousands of North Carolinians who have no health insurance at all – those who are ineligible for Medicaid but too poor to afford conventional health insurance. By law, hospitals must treat them if they show up in the emergency room, even though there is no chance that they can pay their bill….

That’s one reason why officials in Republican-led Indiana changed their minds about Medicaid participation in May, developing a hybrid state-federal system that will bring coverage to more low-income residents there.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, is using the supplementary Medicaid money to fund a state health-insurance plan for low-income residents. But it will have the same net effect in bringing coverage to those who don’t have it.

That’s a lesson in that for our GOP leaders, who have resisted participation in Obamacare. Don’t resist. Take the money and build a program that works.

The second comes from the Wilmington Star News. It’s entitled: “Instead of bullying children fleeing violence, put blame where it belongs.”

Read More

Uncategorized

As we reported last week, many of the children crossing the border into the United States wind up in court defending themselves — a situation that presumably does not end well for them.

The American Civil Liberties Union describes the plight of such children in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Seattle against Attorney General Eric Holder, seeking an order requiring that counsel be appointed for children in immigration court:

 Plaintiffs are eight immigrant children, ranging in age from ten to seventeen. The Government has begun proceedings to deport each of them; they will soon be called to appear before an Immigration Judge. In court, the Department of Homeland Security will be represented by a trained lawyer who will argue for the child’s deportation. But no lawyer will stand with the child. Each will be required to respond to the charges against him or her, and, in theory, will be afforded an opportunity to make legal arguments and present evidence on his or her own behalf. But in reality those rights will be meaningless because children are not competent to exercise them. Each child has attempted to find representation through pro bono legal service providers, but none of them have found anyone with the resources to take on their cases. Absent this Court’s intervention, these children will be forced to defend themselves pro se under the immigration laws – a legal regime that, as the courts have recognized, rivals the Internal Revenue Code in its complexity.

Numbers released yesterday by  the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University show as expected that represented children fare much better.

Among the conclusions in that report:

Children were not represented about half of the time (48%) they appeared in Immigration Court, although there is wide variation by state and hearing location.

Outcome if attorney present. In almost half (47%) of the cases in which the child was represented, the court allowed the child to remain in the United States. The child was ordered removed in slightly more than one in four (28%) of these cases. And in the remaining quarter (26%) the judge entered a “voluntary departure” (VD) order. (While with a VD order the child is required to leave the country, the child avoids many of the more severe legal consequences of a removal order.)

Outcome if no attorney. Where the child appeared alone without representation, nine out of ten children were ordered deported — 77 percent through the entry of a removal order, and 13 percent with a VD order. One in ten (10%) were allowed to remain in the country.