Faith versus the law: traditional healers and immigration.

Abstract

In the United States, as well as other industrialized nations, nontraditional medical treatments are viewed at best with skepticism, and at worst as a fraud. The common observer would think that there is little connection between fights over what constitutes medical treatment and immigration laws. However, the connection exists, and has for some time. Lines blur in the law, perhaps no more obviously than in the immigration context. Consequences flow from unwitting acts, traditional healing methods, and violations of the United States' laws relating to medical treatment and medication. American observers may recognize the conservative hand of the established medical association in some of the laws, but those unfamiliar with immigration will find many of the consequences difficult to believe. The United States constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court have granted almost unlimited authority to the Congress to develop and maintain controls over those who come to this country. Congress has used the immigration laws they have developed as a double-edged sword: one side designed to keep out "undesirables," such as those of the wrong race or political beliefs, those with criminal backgrounds, or those viewed as a drain on society. On the other edge of the sword, Congress has always encouraged certain individuals to come to this country. Examples include those from the correct parts of Europe, those with business ties to the United States, and those with special skills that the Congress deems to be in short supply. Physicians and nurses have been on both sides of the Congressional sword. At various times, there have been laws to encourage physicians, nurses, and other health professionals to come to the United