Obesity outlawed for immigrants – The Paisano

Analysis of Proposed Immigration Policy in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Policy Contradiction with Global Development Principles

A proposed United States administration policy to deny visas to immigrants based on health conditions such as obesity and diabetes presents a significant conflict with the core tenets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the policy’s direct opposition to goals concerning health, equality, and just institutions.

Violation of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The proposal fundamentally undermines SDG 3, which aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”

• Exclusion Over Inclusion: The policy uses non-communicable diseases as a basis for exclusion rather than promoting universal health coverage and support systems. This approach punishes individuals for their health status instead of addressing public health challenges constructively.
• Discriminatory Health Standards: It establishes a discriminatory standard by penalizing potential immigrants for conditions that are highly prevalent within the U.S. population, where over 40% of adults are reported to be obese. A genuine commitment to SDG 3 would involve strengthening national health systems for all residents, not barring entry to those with manageable health conditions.
• Weaponizing Public Health: The policy weaponizes public health concerns to achieve restrictive immigration objectives, a practice contrary to the spirit of global health cooperation and well-being.

Conflict with SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The policy is a direct contravention of SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries and empowering the social inclusion of all, irrespective of health status.

1. The proposal institutionalizes discrimination based on health, creating a legal framework that judges human worth on physiological metrics rather than character or potential contributions.
2. It establishes a profound double standard, targeting migrants for health issues that are a national crisis within the United States itself, thereby deepening social and legal inequalities.
3. By linking immigration eligibility to specific medical diagnoses, the policy disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and undermines the principle of fair and equitable treatment enshrined in SDG 10.

Undermining SDG 8 (Economic Growth) and SDG 16 (Just Institutions)

The policy’s rationale ignores key economic data and weakens the principles of just and inclusive governance.

• Economic Contribution (SDG 8): The premise that immigrants with these conditions are a financial burden is not supported by evidence. Reports indicate that immigrants contribute significantly more in taxes ($96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes) than they utilize in public benefits, including healthcare. Excluding them based on health status ignores their potential as positive contributors to inclusive and sustainable economic growth.
• Institutional Integrity (SDG 16): The policy reflects a move toward discriminatory and unjust institutional practices. It aligns with previous measures like the “Public Charge” rule, which used access to essential services to restrict immigration. Such policies erode the development of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels, as called for by SDG 16.

Conclusion: A Call for Policy Alignment with Sustainable Development

The proposed visa restrictions are fundamentally misaligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. An approach consistent with the SDGs would focus on building inclusive, fair, and humane immigration systems. Policy should reflect principles of human dignity and equity, promoting public health solutions that support all individuals rather than creating discriminatory barriers that violate international goals for health, equality, and justice.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues that are directly connected to three Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The core of the article revolves around health conditions like obesity and diabetes, access to healthcare, and public health policies.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article’s central argument is that the proposed policy is discriminatory, creating a double standard and targeting a vulnerable group (immigrants) based on their health and origin.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article critiques government policies, such as the proposed visa denial and the “Public Charge rule,” as being unjust, discriminatory, and not based on evidence, which relates to the fairness and integrity of public institutions and their laws.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Target 3.4: “By 2030, reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.” The article discusses obesity and diabetes, which are major non-communicable diseases. It argues that the solution should be “improving access to care” and “long-term treatment and support,” not “banning people who live with the conditions.” The proposed policy directly contradicts the goal of treating these conditions.
• Target 3.8: “Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services…” The article mentions that policies like the “Public Charge rule” had a “chilling effect on immigrant families seeking healthcare, even when legally eligible.” This points to a failure to ensure universal access to healthcare services for all, including immigrants.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The proposed policy is described as “discriminatory and outright wrong” because it seeks to exclude people based on their health status and origin. It weaponizes public health to “exclude the vulnerable,” which is the opposite of promoting inclusion.
• Target 10.7: “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.” The article critiques the proposed visa denial and the “Public Charge rule” as examples of poorly managed and unfair migration policies. It argues that “Immigration policy should reflect dignity, fairness and humanity, not discrimination.”

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The article’s main thesis is that the proposed visa policy is discriminatory. It explicitly states that the policy is “discrimination disguised as beneficial public policy,” directly challenging the fairness and non-discriminatory nature of laws being created by a public institution.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Implied Indicator for Target 3.4: The article cites CDC reports on the prevalence of obesity (“over 40% of American adults are obese”). Therefore, the prevalence of non-communicable diseases like obesity and diabetes within different population groups (immigrant vs. native-born) serves as a key indicator.
• Implied Indicator for Target 3.8: The article notes that immigrants “use far fewer healthcare resources than U.S.-born citizens” and that certain rules have a “chilling effect on immigrant families seeking healthcare.” This implies that the rate of healthcare utilization by immigrant populations and the proportion of the population facing barriers to accessing essential health services are relevant indicators.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Implied Indicator for Target 10.2 & 10.7: The existence of the policies themselves—the “Public Charge rule” and the “proposal to deny visas to obese and diabetic immigrants”—serve as direct indicators. Progress would be measured by the existence and enforcement of laws and policies that discriminate based on origin or health status. Repealing such policies would indicate progress toward the target.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Implied Indicator for Target 16.b: The article’s entire focus on the proposed “discriminatory” policy makes the existence of the proposed law itself an indicator. The analysis of whether a country’s immigration laws are based on principles of “dignity, fairness and humanity” versus “discrimination” is a qualitative measure of this target.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: paisano-online.com