DEAR EDITOR:

History has shown that the deliberate demonization of a class of humanity bears a heavy cost. As an example, in 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment of approximately 110,000 Japanese in internment camps during World War II. The legislation stated that the government's actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." The cost in reparations was about 1.6 billion. And just last month, the California legislature adopted a resolution expressing deep regret for treatment of the Chinese as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the Senate made formal an apology for slavery.

Today, our nation is faced with challenges dealing with immigration at our border with Mexico. While there has been significant abatement of the flow as a result of the economic downturn, there are many undocumented that remain here. Some groups, such as the Dustin Inman Society and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, were successful in scuttling President Bush's 2004 plans for reform of our immigration laws, and continue today to demonize the undocumented.

Most recently, D.A. King of the Dustin Inman Society wrote for the MDJ on Aug. 7 that, "It has become crystal clear that the decision has been made to cover a huge potential voter base for the Democrats ... illegal aliens." This is, at best, a disingenuous statement, in that it is existing law which allows the undocumented to access healthcare through use of hospital emergency facilities, not legislation found in one of the dominant healthcare bills, namely H.R. 3200. It is also a stretch to characterize this as a partisan conspiracy, given Bush's support for immigration reform.

The complexities of health care reform should demand that it remain focused on that topic alone. And given the ongoing, passionate debate, it would be unwise (if not insane) to tackle both in the same package.

Further, it is interesting that King fails to mention that Section 246 of H.R. 3200 states "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." This would further indicate it is not the intent of the Congress to provide health coverage for the undocumented.

The health care debate under way and its attendant rhetoric of "nationalized," "socialist" and "government takeover" are certainly nothing new. These same terms were echoed during the 1960s, when Medicare became law. George H.W. Bush, Reagan, and many other conservatives warned, with McCarthyist zeal, of the dangers of socialism as a result of government-run health care. Today, most seniors, as evidenced by some of the recent Town Hall meetings, have expressed their horror that benefits under the program might be reduced or eliminated (which they are not). It would seem that the perceived dangers of socialism due to the Medicare program have yet to materialize, almost half a century later.

It is clear that while our federal government should take action to ensure effective programs are put in place to deal with immigration and border security, their place should not be in the center of the health care debate.

Let us encourage Congress to consider this important issue with an eye toward humane, fact-based solutions rather than shady conspiracy theories, once the challenges of health care reform are behind us.

Mark Webb
Canton