Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Philadelphia leads the way on ending medical deportations

Patient in a hospital bed

"Hospitals around the country should not be in the business of sending their patients somewhere else to die because they don’t want to pay for care," writes Martinez.

skaman306/Getty Images

Martínez is a leader in Philadelphia’s End Medical Deportation campaign.

On Dec. 14, 2023, members of the End Medical Deportation Coalition celebrated a dream three years in the making: outlawing private medical deportations in my city of Philadelphia.

I am proud of the Philadelphia leaders creating history once again as the first city in the country to ban medical deportations. Due to the support of Councilmember Jim Harrity and the entire council body, we now have a law that prevents hospitals from repatriating immigrant patients without consent, requires all materials regarding medical reparations to be translated and gives victims of medical deportations the right to sue hospitals for harm.


We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of this landmark law. Hospitals around the country should not be in the business of sending their patients somewhere else to die because they don’t want to pay for care. It’s that simple. I hope our leadership persuades other cities to follow our example across the country.

Of course I am aware of the fact that hospitals face serious financial strain due to the upsurge in the need to care for undocumented workers who most often do not have medical insurance. Hospitals can serve an important purpose in advocating for comprehensive immigration reform to address health care access and the exploding costs. This is the role they should be playing as opposed to any involvement in deporting their patients.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Medical deportations happen when hospitals send seriously ill, undocumented patients out of the country to a deeply uncertain future. I know firsthand how devastating this practice is because it almost happened to my family. In June 2020, at the height of the pandemic, a Philadelphia hospital attempted to deport my uncle after he was hit by a motorcycle while walking as a pedestrian. At the time they wanted to deport him he was bedridden and unconscious, had fractures in his ribs and legs, was on a feeding tube, and was still recovering from traumatic head injuries. My uncle would have died if he had been deported to Guatemala. I repeatedly told the hospital that. My family and I were against it and did not consent to his transport. My uncle had lived in Philadelphia for 20 years. His support network was here.

The hospital continued to ignore us until the community rallied around my uncle. Thanks to that support, my uncle is alive today. He was able to receive the medical treatment he needed in Philadelphia thanks to advocates who pushed the hospital to help him apply for Emergency Medical Assistance.

This situation profoundly affected my family, and that is why I asked the Philadelphia City Council to support ]Harrity’s legislation. Since sharing my story I’ve learned of other cases of medical deportation in Allentown, where a hospital tried to send a comatose mother to the Dominican Republic, and elsewhere around the nation. It must stop.

Philadelphia’s new law sets a model for the nation by providing much needed oversight of the practice of medical repatriation. It ensures patients and families get the in-language information they need to make the best decision for care; to fully consent to any medical repatriation. When the hospital wanted to deport my uncle, they did not give me all the information in my language, which is necessary to make such important decisions.

Most importantly, this law makes sure there are ways to hold bad actors accountable. It creates the pathway for the city to enforce this legislation, levy fines on those who violate patient's rights, and require reporting from hospitals to monitor how widespread the practice of medical deportation is.

No one should be thrown away for needing health care. We all deserve access to it. No hospital in Philadelphia or anywhere in America should separate a sick or injured person from their support network. The values of this city that my uncle and I call home are rooted in welcoming everyone and centering brotherhood. Medical deportation is not consistent with those values, which is why it’s time to end it not just in Philadelphia, but across the United States. I am so proud of our leadership here and look forward to seeing it spread across the country.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less