Immigration and Genetic Diseases Posted by: Jon Henke
on Wednesday, February 16, 2005
We've written about the propensity of partisans to skip over comprehension and debate in order to get right straight to the invective; to assume the worst of their opponents, in order to attack them. Michelle Malkin and the Washington Times are in the middle of such a case right now.
First, the backstory: a few days ago, the Washington Times wrote a story on the increasing -- with immigration -- importation of diseases into the United States. The relevant graf is this...
Contagious diseases are entering the United States because of immigrants, illegal aliens, refugees and travelers, and World Health Organization officials say the worst could be yet to come.
In addition to a list of imported diseases that includes tuberculosis, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis B, measles...
Michelle Malkin linked the story, including the 'graf that cited Sickle Cell Anemia among other diseases, though she didn't mention the Sickle Cell aspect in her comments.
Now, if it strikes you that, "hey, Sickle Cell is a hereditary disease...it's not contagious!", you'd be right. That struck the 'sphere:Left, too. If you go on to wonder why a non-contagious disease would be included in a news story about contagious diseases, you would--apparently--be a fool. The 'sphere:Left has alreadydiagnosed the problem: Racism.
Orcinus [David Neiwert]: "why include sickle-cell anemia in this laundry list of otherwise contagious diseases, other than that we already know that it is associated with nonwhites?"
Liberal Avenger: "Much of the rhetoric surrounding institutionalized racism in the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries hinged upon the filth and pestilence meme."
Neiwert asks "why include sickle-cell anemia in this laundry list of otherwise contagious diseases". Well, if Neiwert had read further, he may have found the answer. Sickle Cell Anemia was not cited as a contagion problem, but a result of "population shifts that are contributing to a rise in sickle cell anemia".
At this point, it would be easy to point to this explanation and call it "white separatism" to maintain the "purity" of the White race. At first glance, it seems a troubling possibility.
And that's where the 'sphere:Left left it. There's your answer -- right wing racism -- so, let's look no further.
However, their allegation (right wing racism) depends entirely upon the notion that the "sickle cell/immigration" issue originated with a right wing organization. That is simply not the case, as a brief survey of the literature would have indicated.
Hitherto, genetic diseases have not been considered to be an important global health problem ... However, there is clear evidence that, as the demographic pattern of disease changes, genetic conditions assume an increasingly important part of the provision of care, particularly for children. In developed countries it has been estimated that genetic disease constitutes up to 40% of the requirements for chronic care in paediatric practice (31). Because of the unusually high frequency of the haemoglobin disorders in many tropical countries, the same kind of pattern will be seen as disease due to malnutrition and infection is controlled. So far, there is little evidence that many international health care agencies or governments have appreciated this fact. Although much good work has been done by WHO working groups in this area, and by a variety of voluntary agencies, there is, to date, little sign that much notice has been taken of their efforts.
Migrants also bring their genetic material and their socioeconomic, environmental and epidemiological backgrounds that shape their health; ... which can impact on host public health systems and communities. ... These determinants to migration health present a challenge to decision-makers and service providers to plan and provide effective and accessible health services for communities with diverse languages, cultural backgrounds, migration circumstances and socioeconomic status.
Additionally, note that the Washington Times piece ends with a -- unreported by the above-mentioned blogs -- sympathetic few 'grafs on the theme that "[w]e should give people medical care, regardless of their citizenship status".
For additional credit, note the conflation of "immigration" with "illegal immigration", and speculate on the connection between that common conflation and the fact that it is politically impossible to have a serious debate about illegal immigration in this country. For fun, see if you can use the phrases "reality-based community", "ignoring the science", and "using a crisis to divide the nation" in a sentence.
Writing and linking this story does not indicate that the Washington Times and Michelle Malkin are racist. The response from the Left, however, indicates a great deal about those who jump so easily, and ignorantly, to such a slanderous conclusion. Intellectual honesty demands that the critics, at the very least, acknowledge the fact that the inclusion of genetic diseases in immigration discussions originates from the World Health Organization, and not Malkin or the Washington Times.
If indeed the journalist used this as a starting point, he still managed to include an explicitly genetic disorder in a list of contageous diseases, when both the articles you mention specifically state it as such. Perhaps it's simply lazy journalism and lazy editing.
And yet, even if we DO argue "Genetic diseases" as a problem with immigration, would it be fair to ignore the existing genetic conditions, like Cystic Fibrosis, which are dominant in our own "white" populations? Are the rate of genetic conditions in third world nations greater than in the United States? The WHO paragraph only argues that the change in the type of care will pose a challenge, not the amount of care.
And yet, none of this is discussion of genetic disease in the article, which means we're both making assumptions as to the thoughts of the journallist, who dosen't discuss ganetic disorders at all in the rest of the article.
And finally, that is certainly not the "only" evidence of racism at the Moonie owned Washington Times. I would strongly suggest the following link at Atrios, and the previous sub-links, pointing out the recurring statements and editorial preferences at the times towards racist tones.
This is not a matter of determining from one little detail whether an organization is racist. It's trying to determine if the detail (and indeed, the direction of the article) exists because the company has an overall trend of racism.
If indeed the journalist used this as a starting point, he still managed to include an explicitly genetic disorder in a list of contageous diseases, when both the articles you mention specifically state it as such. Perhaps it's simply lazy journalism and lazy editing.
Or, perhaps it is due to the fact that the story cited "World Health Organization officials", and was simply passing along their warning. Are you suggesting that the WHO officials were merely referring to the problems presented by contagious diseases, and the WaTimes writer -- for reasons stemming from racism -- tossed in Sickle Cell Anemia for the hell of it?
If you've a problem with its inclusion, take it up with the WHO. Don't put this at the feet of the Washington Times.
And yet, even if we DO argue "Genetic diseases" as a problem with immigration, would it be fair to ignore the existing genetic conditions, like Cystic Fibrosis, which are dominant in our own "white" populations?
Well, since they are, as you note, already dominant in our own populations, they would not represent a new burden, would they? The article doesn't deal with "disease". It deals with the introduction of difficult medical problems, especially due to *illegal* immigration. (i.e., unmonitored immigration)
And yet, none of this is discussion of genetic disease in the article, which means we're both making assumptions as to the thoughts of the journallist, who dosen't discuss ganetic disorders at all in the rest of the article.
He wrote "Other researchers say immigration is resulting in population shifts that are contributing to a rise in sickle cell anemia", noting that the "number of Hispanic sickle cell cases in the United States has risen rapidly".
And finally, that is certainly not the "only" evidence of racism at the Moonie owned Washington Times.
Moon is certainly a King among Kooks, and I make no defense of him, nor do I wish to be drawn into a larger dispute about the proper distance one must maintain from unsavory persons. I merely defend this particular instance, which is, I think, a case of jumping to conclusions without enough information.
This is not a matter of determining from one little detail whether an organization is racist. It's trying to determine if the detail (and indeed, the direction of the article) exists because the company has an overall trend of racism.
And this post is about pointing out that the data point being touted in this instance is not the confirmation that many seem to think it is.
Neiwert's argument about this article is not strengthened by the existence of other instances of racism.
Michelle Malkin is a master of rhetoric. Nothing she writes is incomplete due to sloppiness - it is incomplete because she wishes to create an impression without necessarily providing the facts needed to support it. Michelle has written pages and pages over the past two weeks about Eason Jordan but only a taste of "Another Cost of Uncontrolled Immigration." Why do you think that is?
Michelle's raison d'etre is, of course, to fan the fames of fear and hate about foreigners and immigrants, legal and illegal, especially the non-white ones. She joins the Washington Times in that endeavor. If your readers haven't done so through the Atrios link, they should click through to the Southern Poverty Law Center story on the Washington Times.
Look objectively at Michelle's post and tell me what impression it leaves you (and likely the major ity of her readers) with. I'll answer:
"Another cost of uncontrolled immigration is [among other horrible contagious diseases] sickle cell anemia.
No effort is made to make readers aware of the fact that sickle cell anemia is a major problem already within the African American community - that hundreds of thousands of our neighbors already suffer from it.
No mention is made of the Avian Flu outbreak in the United States 2002 that devastated Virginia's poultry industry.
As the previous comment points out, no mention is made of any genetic diseases associated primarily with people with European ancestry.
Experts cited in the Washington Times article go to great lengths to explain that immigrants and refugees are not the source of disease within the United States, but rather Americans traveling abroad, contracting diseases and returning with them is an important factor. If this is the case, one might wonder perhaps, then, if "another cost" of rotating several hundred thousand American servicemen and women through Iraq might be disease?
The two conservative websites that posted trackback to this post on Malkin's site didn't see any nuance:
Even some of the "hard" data reported by the Washington Times is suspect. The Washington Times quotes Gil Pena of the American Sickle Cell Anemia Association as saying 1 out of 900 Hispanic children born in the US are born with Sickle Cell Anemia. The National Institutes for Health says that the number is 1 in 36000.
Michelle Malkin is citing Sickle Cell Anemia as "another cost of uncontrolled immigration." Would you be willing to stand up at a church supper and present this as an argument?
If you are going to argue that someone is getting their facts wrong, you should be very sure to get yours right. For example, you wrote:
Even some of the "hard" data reported by the Washington Times is suspect. The Washington Times quotes Gil Pena of the American Sickle Cell Anemia Association as saying 1 out of 900 Hispanic children born in the US are born with Sickle Cell Anemia. The National Institutes for Health says that the number is 1 in 36000.
FACT 1 -- What the WasTimes actually wrote was this:
The number of Hispanic sickle cell cases in the United States has been rising rapidly, and one in every 900 Hispanic infants in this country is born with the disease, said Gil Pena, outreach director for the American Sickle Cell Anemia Association (ASCAA). Yet the ASCAA's Web site cites far lower rates as low as 1 in 1,400 births of sickle cell disease among Hispanics. "That's old information," said Mr. Pena, adding, "Hispanics are most at risk because we are multiracial."
Context for the quote refutes your statements regarding the WashTimes' "hard facts."
FACT 2 -- the NIH offered no such statistic, it was the "Genetic Disease Branch, California Department of Health Services, Berkeley 94701, USA" which cited generally
The overall prevalence of sickle cell disease ... is lower than expected (from east coast/ Caribbean published data) for Hispanics at 1 m 36,000 births
Not only did you cite the wrong agency, you didn't bother to verify that the groups identified (Hispanics born in the US vs. [presumably] all Hispanics) were the same. Furthermore, exactly what source is the CDHC citing? what does "1 m 36,000" mean (typo? 1000?)? It's impossible to tell from the link you provided.
Michelle Malkin is a master of rhetoric. Nothing she writes is incomplete due to sloppiness - it is incomplete because she wishes to create an impression without necessarily providing the facts needed to support it.
Ah, the "evil genius" attack. I'm not particularly interested in armchair psychoanalyses of Malkin. I defended the data presented. Spare me the ad hominem.
"Another cost of uncontrolled immigration is [among other horrible contagious diseases] sickle cell anemia.
Do you really want to argue that the diseases mentioned do not amount to a "cost" of uncontrolled immigration? (note that Malkin, like us, is not opposed to immigration...just uncontrolled *illegal* immigration)
If you do want to argue that point, please...take it up with the World Health Organization, because they point out that population shifts are creating new costs.
Further, if you read the WaTimes article, you may have noted that they ended with quite a few paragraphs of people arguing that "[w]e should give people medical care, regardless of their citizenship status".
In any event, I don't think that "I didn't really understand her point, and I am not familiar with the WHO research on the matter" is really a good defense.
No effort is made to make readers aware [of several things]
No effort is made to make readers aware of a great many tangential things. The presence of Sickle Cell anemia in our current population doesn't represent a *new* cost. Meanwhile, immigration from Europe is already pretty well controlled. I'm not aware of a great deal of illegal European immigration, but perhaps you could fill me in on the Norwegian Boat People.
If this is the case, one might wonder perhaps, then, if "another cost" of rotating several hundred thousand American servicemen and women through Iraq might be disease?
Might be. Meanwhile, why don't you want to deal with illegal immigration?
The two conservative websites that posted trackback to this post on Malkin's site didn't see any nuance:
Perhaps they realized that an article predominantly about contagious diseases was, you know, predominantly about contagious diseases. And they didn't feel a need to pick the particular nit you did. Or perhaps they just didn't notice it.
Even some of the "hard" data reported by the Washington Times is suspect. The Washington Times quotes Gil Pena of the American Sickle Cell Anemia Association as saying 1 out of 900 Hispanic children born in the US are born with Sickle Cell Anemia. The National Institutes for Health says that the number is 1 in 36000.
Maybe it's suspect and maybe it isn't, but your data doesn't really indicate one way or another. They quoted Pena saying that the "number of Hispanic sickle cell cases in the United States has risen rapidly". I think it's safe to assume that this is a relatively recent quote.
The data you cite is 9 years old.
Meanwhile, the Mayo Institute, in July of 2003, wrote "one out of every 1,000 to 1,400 Hispanic babies are diagnosed with sickle cell anemia each year in the United States". That's very consistent with Pena's numbers.
Michelle Malkin is citing Sickle Cell Anemia as "another cost of uncontrolled immigration." Would you be willing to stand up at a church supper and present this as an argument?
Only if the audience was willing to listen to a complicated argument, without making premature judgements.
And, for the record, I'm in favor of fairly easy immigration. But I'm in favor of fairly easy legal immigration. Illegal immigration -- which is what is being dealt with here -- is another matter entirely.
note the conflation of "immigration" with "illegal immigration"
That's just it. Where in Malkin's posting does she finger illegal immigration? If the import of genetic disease is a concern because of health care costs, then it's a huge problem with the legal immigrants, too. Or do citizens and green card holders automatically get health insurance?
Boy, that'd be nice. They aren't even eligible for Medicaid for the first five years. And considering the rate of lacking health insurance among native citizens, I'm guessing it's as high or higher among newly arrived immigrants.
Well, the sickle-cell anemia problem is only one aspect of the problems that I pointed out with both the Times' piece and Malkin's.
The problem is that both blithely included a genetic disease in a laundry list of contagious diseases. Neither explored the reasons for including it there, other than noting that it represented a population shift that included more people with that disease.
Contrary to your assertions, the allegation that this points to right-wing racism "depends entirely upon the notion that the 'sickle cell/immigration' issue originated with a right wing organization" is simply false. I don't make that assertion at all.
Rather, I think it's clear that the inclusion of sickle-cell anemia in a list of contagious diseases is part of a trend that runs throughout the story: Associate immigrants with infectious diseases and suggest that they're bringing all these diseases to our shores. This, as I explain in detail, is something right-wing racists have done throughout history.
The Times subsequently associates immigrants with the potential outbreak of a pandemic of avian flu. On what basis? As I point out, none: This is a global phenomenon that has nothing to do with immigration, legal or otherwise.
And then there's Malkin's piece. In addition to citing the passage from the Times that includes sickle-cell anemia, she links to an quasi-explicit racist site. Or were you aware that the folks who put out Canada First are the same folks who put up sites defending Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel?
Strange that you don't bother to address the rest of the content of my post, Jon. Picking out a single data point from among many, removing it from its larger context, and then proclaiming victory on that basis is a tactic we've come to expect from Malkin and her ilk. I'm sorry you're following that path too.
I think we're getting a bit far afield here. Malkin's focus is on "uncontrolled" immigration, which is usually taken to mean "illegal immigration" -- or, if the LP had their way, a lack of meaningful borders altogether. That is the component of the Times piece she addressed.
Ultimately, "travel" is not something that can be --or should be-- controlled. *Illegal* immigration -- immigration with no standards and no basic checks -- can be controlled to some degree, or at least moderated.
If the import of genetic disease is a concern because of health care costs, then it's a huge problem with the legal immigrants, too.
It is. I don't think you'll find anybody to argue that higher "sickle cell anemia" trends among hispanics is a good thing, legal or illegal. But, with illegal immigration, it's a burden that goes above and beyond what accepted by law.
The problem with illegal immigration is not the immigration, but the illegal (and, thus, uncontrollable) aspect.
In any event, I'd be curious how you would mount the case that more genetic disease does not create more cost?
Or do citizens and green card holders automatically get health insurance?
They have access to immunizations and other health care benefits. The CDC and PHS are able to check legal immigrants during, for example, the visa medical exam.
The problem is that both blithely included a genetic disease in a laundry list of contagious diseases. Neither explored the reasons for including it there, other than noting that it represented a population shift that included more people with that disease.
Well, David, as I pointed out above, it's probably because the WHO included it. They were, after all, citing WHO officials.
I think the "risen rapidly" component of Sickle Cell anemia in Hispanics might explain why it was included. I note, again, that the doctors cited were not arguing for restricting medical attention.
Rather, I think it's clear that the inclusion of sickle-cell anemia in a list of contagious diseases is part of a trend that runs throughout the story: Associate immigrants with infectious diseases and suggest that they're bringing all these diseases to our shores. This, as I explain in detail, is something right-wing racists have done throughout history.
Again, I think you need to take up that objection with the WHO. They are, after all, the originators of said statements. Frankly, I didn't bother to address the "they used to do something like that!" aspect of your post, because I really don't think it's germane to this article. It's an ad hominem argument - "right wing racists have used infectious diseases in formulating racist arguments before, therefore a discussion of infectious diseases in a right wing publication is racist". It's just not a data point with any relevant to the facts of this argument.
The Times subsequently associates immigrants with the potential outbreak of a pandemic of avian flu. On what basis? As I point out, none: This is a global phenomenon that has nothing to do with immigration, legal or otherwise.
On the basis of the fact that "officials fear what could happen if the avian flu...mutates so that it is capable of human-to-human transmission through casual contact."
Amd before you suggest that this is some racist right wing invention, I'd point you to "WHO authorities predict at least 7 million and as many as 100 million would die in a worldwide pandemic" if such a mutation occurred.
Did you even read the story? Because it really appears that you've cherry-picked data points, and left out all context, in order to create the appearance of racism.
If you really think racism is a component of such research, fine. But you need to explain to me why the WHO is so concerned about it.
she links to an quasi-explicit racist site. Or were you aware that the folks who put out Canada First are the same folks who put up sites defending Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel?
Never heard of them. Her link represented a citation of Canadian data, though. I don't believe she intimated any larger endorsement.
But that is, again, an ad hominem argument.
In any event, I fail to see how I picked "out a single data point from among many", when the whole point of the criticisms has been based on a) the inclusion of Sickle Cell, and b) the discussion of the health cost component of uncontrolled immigration.
I addressed those by pointing out the actual research on the matter from the WHO. If I didn't address your "racists through history" discussion, it is because it doesn't deal with this article.
You're missing the point. The WHO information takes great care to distinguish hereditary diseases from contagious ones and to explain that the concern over those diseases is of a largely different nature than that regarding contagious disease.
The Times report does not do that. It discusses sickle-cell anemia throughout in the context of contagious diseases, and they're all lumped together as "imported diseases." Likewise, Malkin uses generic language like "contagious and other diseases" that fails to make the distinction clear.
That lumping together without a clear distinction is what makes this piece similar to historic nativist attacks on immigrants depicting them as disease carriers.
While I disagree with the premise of her "Internment" book, I don't have a reason to believe she is a racist. "Racism" is such a loaded issue that I am very loathe to toss around such accusations without quite a lot of evidence. "I disagree with their policies", or "they said something that, viewed in a certain light, could be construed as racism" does not constitute evidence.
You're missing the point. The WHO information takes great care to distinguish hereditary diseases from contagious ones and to explain that the concern over those diseases is of a largely different nature than that regarding contagious disease.
The Times report does not do that. It discusses sickle-cell anemia throughout in the context of contagious diseases...
Again, I think the problem is that you've read the story far too selectively. To quote: "While many incorrectly believe the disease is a condition that afflicts only blacks or it has been eradicated, one in every 16 Hispanics ... also carry the genetic trait that can cause the painful and incurable blood disorder."
You will note that it specifically referred to SCA as a genetic disease, and did not discuss sickle-cell anemia "throughout in the context of contagious diseases".
Now, if your argument is that this newspaper report is not as detailed as the World Health Organization research paper....well, you've got a good point. But they very specifically did not imply any such thing as you've alleged. You may believe you can find it between the lines, but that's an inference and not an implication. That is, the problem is on your end.
That lumping together without a clear distinction is what makes this piece similar to historic nativist attacks on immigrants depicting them as disease carriers.
You are taking one item out of a grouping, and inferring--based on the messenger (i.e., ad hominem)--that it represents a racist position.
In fact, the problem lies in your selective reading, and willingness to assume the worst. There *is* a problem with uncontrolled immigration and diseases -- hell, there's a problem with *controlled* immigration and diseases. That's why we have a medical exam that coincides with application for a visa.
Unfortunately, with "uncontrolled immigration", we have no such exams. None of that is to suggest that we call the whole thing off, and put 50 foot high walls around our borders. It simply means that there is a cost associated with our immigration policies, and that cost should be taken into account.
"Racism" is such a loaded issue that I am very loathe to toss around such accusations without quite a lot of evidence.
So, wanting to lock people up solely based on their ethnic background doesn't do the trick for you? I wonder what would do the trick, short of crossburning and KKK outfits.
As far as I can tell from what I've read about the book, she laid out the rationale behind internment, pointing out that it wasn't just about "hating Japanese" people -- Japanese, I would remind you, is not a "race", and the topic under discussion is "racism" -- as there were other factors.
In any event, I don't believe Malkin advocated locking up people. She merely defended a one-time defensive measure against an ongoing internal attack. Note, please, that I disagree with her, and I find such a measure objectionably broad, "bureaucratic justifications" notwithstanding.
From what I've read about her book, and I certainly haven't read the book myself, it is based on the premise that it would be okay to look up Arab people, because it was okay to lock up the Japanese during WWII. Now, I choose the word 'ethnic' carefully, to reflect that it might something different than race, but the whole concept of locking Arabs up just because they are Arab, strikes me as racist - if you believe in collective guild of a whole ethnic group, it's racist in my oppinion.
I haven't read the book myself -- and, with my long backlog of books I need to read, I'm not likely to get around to it, either -- but Dale Franks did read her book, and did a review at QandO. I find his conclusions compelling.
In any event, I also recall reading that her book does not recommend locking up Arab people en masse. It merely points out that there is some rationale -- other than simple racism -- for taking such steps.
I would agree that racism does not have to be the only rationale for such a step, even while I disagree with actually taking that step.
