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.

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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less