What Motivates Immigration To America
Going Too Far 1 If you are at all familiar with the United States Constitution then you are also aware of the First Amendment. Many children learn in elementary school that as citizens of the United States we have the right to express ourselves freely, through the freedom of speech, press, and in many other ways, including the freedom of religion. These “freedoms” are what America is built on, and why many immigrants left their countries in which they were born and raised. They left in order to express themselves freely and to shield their children from the experience of oppression. Today many Americans take advantage of their freedom and forget how sweet it is. However, we are reminded by part of President Obama’s new health care reform bill, which demands religious groups
…show more content…
provide insurance coverage of contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations against their religious beliefs. (Reilly) In short, the new health care bill is breaking the constitution by suppressing peoples’ freedom of religion. I believe this bill should exempt all religious groups, organizations, and employers from being forced to violate their beliefs in requiring them to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations.
2 People immigrate for a variety of reasons: economic opportunity, the escape of persecution, to reunite with family and to express religion freely. (Hatch) America prides itself in being a place where people can practice their faith without fear of getting killed or being forced to convert their religion by others or the government. What would happen if that right was taken away from us? What would the many immigrants travelling here, and the sons and daughters of immigrants already here for generations, say when they learn that they no longer possess that right? We find out today, when new health care bill has recently mandated religious groups to provide health insurance covering contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations. (Reilly) For Christians and associated religious groups, the use of these is against their faith and forcing them to provide it crushes apart why many immigrants immigrated to America. This may sound dramatic and you may ask, “Why is this important to me?” Look at it this way; if restrictions to express the way they believe are enacted, what does that say to the immigrants who came here four or five generations ago and to those who are still coming and plan on coming for those very reason? Maybe America is not as free as it once was. Maybe more restrictions will be made in the future. Maybe the United States of America, in which so many people look to for safety, is not or will not be the dream of security for which they were looking and hoping. How can someone take away the protection that so many take a risk in leaving their homeland to reach?
3 In Hatch’s words, “Little is more extraordinary than the decision to migrate … the accumulation of emotions and thoughts which finally leads a family to say farewell to a community where it has lived for centuries, to abandon old ties and familiar landmarks, and to sail across dark seas to a strange land.” When someone leaves their country of origin they leave everything they once had, which includes their home, memories, and culture they grew up, made friends, family, and faith in. They believed in the promise made by the United States. Whose right is it to break that promise? Yours, the Supreme Court, the President? If we do not fight this mandate then “Americans may lose one of the cherished freedoms upon which this nation was founded.” (Reilly)
4 People have been migrating to America for centuries. The Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers, Roman Catholics, Jews from the Holocaust, (Hatch) and even today many Christians are looking to migrate from Egypt, Nigeria, Iraq, and other nations to escape death and religious persecution. (Weissberg) Although people migrating for the reason of expressing their religious beliefs freely and escaping religious persecution does not exceed those migrating for financial and family needs nowadays, does that give one the reason or right to begin the process of slowly taking it away? (Hatch)
5 Not only is this morally, but also legally wrong against the United States Constitution. On January 20, 2012, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set a rule that will force coverage of sterilization, abortion, and contraception (Reilly) for all private health care plans, with an exemption for religious employers. However, this “exemption” fails to include many faith-based organizations like Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities. As of February 10, 2012, enforcement of this policy has been delayed for those still not exempted in order to develop a better exemption plan, but even this new plan does not provide the appropriate accommodations. The proposed accommodations state that if an employee of one of these religious institutions wants coverage, the employer is still required to provide it. The money to pay for the coverage will come from the premium (money paid to have insurance coverage) of the employer and employees, even if they, as individuals, object to this law. It obviously affects religious organizations but also “all employers, insurers, and individuals” (United States Conference), making it so anybody could be forced to provide coverage despite their religious convictions. Does this sound like a better “accommodation?” Is it even legal?
6 The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (U.S. Const.) This means that the government cannot declare or favor one religion over another, aid any religion or religious institution, and it protects religious followers from any laws that will single anyone out. This is also known as the separation of church and state, which protects religion from unlawful government involvement and vice versa. ("Church and State") These laws were made to protect the beliefs of any religion so that anybody with religious convictions may express themselves freely without restrictions. Clearly, the mandate that religious employers must provide health care coverage against their religious principles is unlawful and should be abolished.
7 Of course, some will argue that the benefits of having this covered by health insurance are worth it. The most obvious of those benefits is fewer unintended pregnancies (“HHS adds contraceptive”), especially from teenagers and young adults. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that 54 million unintended pregnancies would be prevented with the number of 18-24 year old women’s pregnancy rate dropping by 4%. If these pregnancies can be postponed until a woman’s twenties then her and her baby’s/babies risk of dying due to pregnancy-related issues is lowered. (United States) In addition to this issue, 31% of all 18-44 year old women find the high costs of some birth controls preventing them from switching to different one. Health insurance coverage would eliminate these costs and allow women to afford better birth control. Others would argue that this would prove more cost efficient. “For every $1 invested in public dollars for contraception, $3.74 in Medicaid expenditures are saved that otherwise would have been needed to provide pregnancy-related care, such as prenatal, labor, delivery, and postpartum care, for women’s unintended births, as well as one year of medical care for their infants.” (“HHS adds contraception”) Four times as much money would be saved by enacting this. Insurers would rather pay for the contraceptive then, right? (“HHS adds contraception”)
8 Maybe they would, but this is not a matter of what is more cost efficient when the ability for so many people to express their faith without restrictions is on the line. It does not matter what is more cost efficient when the freedom our nation was founded on is at risk-the freedom so many immigrants that built this nation came here to live in and for protection. Does it matter, if this mandate is breaking the United States Constitution?
9 The goals of this bill to make contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations affordable for all women and to reduce cost of post pregnancy care are easy for someone to find smart, efficient, and agreeable. They forget some very important aspects of their proposal: it is immoral and unconstitutional to force someone to partake in that which goes against their religious convictions and unfair to those individuals, families, and people who came here long ago, today, and will come in the future to America for that reason of expressing their beliefs freely. In knowing these facts, it is clear to see, despite your religious or political position, that this mandate must be changed and the exemption expanded to include all employers who are negatively affected.
Bibliography
"Church and State." Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library.
Gale Opposing View Points in Context, 2010. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
Hatch, Patricia. "What Motivates Immigration to America?." League of Women Voters. n.d. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
"HHS adds contraceptive coverage--What is the next step?." Contraceptive Technology Update: Interpreting News and Research on Contraceptives and STIs 32.10 (2011): 109-11. CINHAL Plus with Full Text. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
Reilly, Patrick. "Religious intolerance, California-style; Obama administration shreds right to live your faith." Washington Times. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
United States. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. United States Government Global Health Initiative Strategy. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Sweeping HHS Mandate Stands, Violating Conscience Rights and Religious Liberty Congress Must Act to Fix the Problem. Washington: 2012. Print.
Weissberg, Robert. “The Silence Regarding the Persecution of Christians.” American Thinker. N.p. 26 Feb. 2012. Web. 2 March. 2012.
U.S. Const. amend.
I.
provide insurance coverage of contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations against their religious beliefs. (Reilly) In short, the new health care bill is breaking the constitution by suppressing peoples’ freedom of religion. I believe this bill should exempt all religious groups, organizations, and employers from being forced to violate their beliefs in requiring them to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations.
2 People immigrate for a variety of reasons: economic opportunity, the escape of persecution, to reunite with family and to express religion freely. (Hatch) America prides itself in being a place where people can practice their faith without fear of getting killed or being forced to convert their religion by others or the government. What would happen if that right was taken away from us? What would the many immigrants travelling here, and the sons and daughters of immigrants already here for generations, say when they learn that they no longer possess that right? We find out today, when new health care bill has recently mandated religious groups to provide health insurance covering contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations. (Reilly) For Christians and associated religious groups, the use of these is against their faith and forcing them to provide it crushes apart why many immigrants immigrated to America. This may sound dramatic and you may ask, “Why is this important to me?” Look at it this way; if restrictions to express the way they believe are enacted, what does that say to the immigrants who came here four or five generations ago and to those who are still coming and plan on coming for those very reason? Maybe America is not as free as it once was. Maybe more restrictions will be made in the future. Maybe the United States of America, in which so many people look to for safety, is not or will not be the dream of security for which they were looking and hoping. How can someone take away the protection that so many take a risk in leaving their homeland to reach?
3 In Hatch’s words, “Little is more extraordinary than the decision to migrate … the accumulation of emotions and thoughts which finally leads a family to say farewell to a community where it has lived for centuries, to abandon old ties and familiar landmarks, and to sail across dark seas to a strange land.” When someone leaves their country of origin they leave everything they once had, which includes their home, memories, and culture they grew up, made friends, family, and faith in. They believed in the promise made by the United States. Whose right is it to break that promise? Yours, the Supreme Court, the President? If we do not fight this mandate then “Americans may lose one of the cherished freedoms upon which this nation was founded.” (Reilly)
4 People have been migrating to America for centuries. The Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers, Roman Catholics, Jews from the Holocaust, (Hatch) and even today many Christians are looking to migrate from Egypt, Nigeria, Iraq, and other nations to escape death and religious persecution. (Weissberg) Although people migrating for the reason of expressing their religious beliefs freely and escaping religious persecution does not exceed those migrating for financial and family needs nowadays, does that give one the reason or right to begin the process of slowly taking it away? (Hatch)
5 Not only is this morally, but also legally wrong against the United States Constitution. On January 20, 2012, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set a rule that will force coverage of sterilization, abortion, and contraception (Reilly) for all private health care plans, with an exemption for religious employers. However, this “exemption” fails to include many faith-based organizations like Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities. As of February 10, 2012, enforcement of this policy has been delayed for those still not exempted in order to develop a better exemption plan, but even this new plan does not provide the appropriate accommodations. The proposed accommodations state that if an employee of one of these religious institutions wants coverage, the employer is still required to provide it. The money to pay for the coverage will come from the premium (money paid to have insurance coverage) of the employer and employees, even if they, as individuals, object to this law. It obviously affects religious organizations but also “all employers, insurers, and individuals” (United States Conference), making it so anybody could be forced to provide coverage despite their religious convictions. Does this sound like a better “accommodation?” Is it even legal?
6 The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (U.S. Const.) This means that the government cannot declare or favor one religion over another, aid any religion or religious institution, and it protects religious followers from any laws that will single anyone out. This is also known as the separation of church and state, which protects religion from unlawful government involvement and vice versa. ("Church and State") These laws were made to protect the beliefs of any religion so that anybody with religious convictions may express themselves freely without restrictions. Clearly, the mandate that religious employers must provide health care coverage against their religious principles is unlawful and should be abolished.
7 Of course, some will argue that the benefits of having this covered by health insurance are worth it. The most obvious of those benefits is fewer unintended pregnancies (“HHS adds contraceptive”), especially from teenagers and young adults. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that 54 million unintended pregnancies would be prevented with the number of 18-24 year old women’s pregnancy rate dropping by 4%. If these pregnancies can be postponed until a woman’s twenties then her and her baby’s/babies risk of dying due to pregnancy-related issues is lowered. (United States) In addition to this issue, 31% of all 18-44 year old women find the high costs of some birth controls preventing them from switching to different one. Health insurance coverage would eliminate these costs and allow women to afford better birth control. Others would argue that this would prove more cost efficient. “For every $1 invested in public dollars for contraception, $3.74 in Medicaid expenditures are saved that otherwise would have been needed to provide pregnancy-related care, such as prenatal, labor, delivery, and postpartum care, for women’s unintended births, as well as one year of medical care for their infants.” (“HHS adds contraception”) Four times as much money would be saved by enacting this. Insurers would rather pay for the contraceptive then, right? (“HHS adds contraception”)
8 Maybe they would, but this is not a matter of what is more cost efficient when the ability for so many people to express their faith without restrictions is on the line. It does not matter what is more cost efficient when the freedom our nation was founded on is at risk-the freedom so many immigrants that built this nation came here to live in and for protection. Does it matter, if this mandate is breaking the United States Constitution?
9 The goals of this bill to make contraceptives, abortions, and sterilizations affordable for all women and to reduce cost of post pregnancy care are easy for someone to find smart, efficient, and agreeable. They forget some very important aspects of their proposal: it is immoral and unconstitutional to force someone to partake in that which goes against their religious convictions and unfair to those individuals, families, and people who came here long ago, today, and will come in the future to America for that reason of expressing their beliefs freely. In knowing these facts, it is clear to see, despite your religious or political position, that this mandate must be changed and the exemption expanded to include all employers who are negatively affected.
Bibliography
"Church and State." Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library.
Gale Opposing View Points in Context, 2010. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
Hatch, Patricia. "What Motivates Immigration to America?." League of Women Voters. n.d. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
"HHS adds contraceptive coverage--What is the next step?." Contraceptive Technology Update: Interpreting News and Research on Contraceptives and STIs 32.10 (2011): 109-11. CINHAL Plus with Full Text. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
Reilly, Patrick. "Religious intolerance, California-style; Obama administration shreds right to live your faith." Washington Times. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
United States. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. United States Government Global Health Initiative Strategy. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Sweeping HHS Mandate Stands, Violating Conscience Rights and Religious Liberty Congress Must Act to Fix the Problem. Washington: 2012. Print.
Weissberg, Robert. “The Silence Regarding the Persecution of Christians.” American Thinker. N.p. 26 Feb. 2012. Web. 2 March. 2012.
U.S. Const. amend.
I.