Abortion and the Roots of Illegal Immigration
Killing Peter To Hire Paul
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Immigration — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"We hear a lot of arguments today that the reason that we can't get serious about our borders is that we are desperate for all these workers," [the panel's chairman] said. "You don't have to think too long. If you kill 44 million of your potential workers, it's not too surprising we would be desperate for workers."
National Right to Life estimates that there have been more than 47 million abortions since the Supreme Court established a woman's right to an abortion in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. The immigration report estimates that there are 80,000 fewer Missourians because of abortion, many of whom now would have been in a "highly productive age group for workers."
What's interesting is that the Washington Post article presents this argument as something of a curiosity, but is unable to identify any possible counterargument, relying on Missouri Democrats who called the report "ridiculous and embarrassing" and "a little delusional".
Now, you could argue - not persuasively, I would add - that illegal immigration is not caused primarily by the available supply of cheap labor and demand in a labor market that wants more of it. Or you could argue, somewhat more persuasively, that the real driver is the demand for illegal labor, i.e., a labor black market in workers who will underbid the minimum wage and other expensive labor laws, in which case more American workers would not matter that much. Or you could affirmatively argue, albeit rather cold-bloodedly, that keeping the population of workers down through abortions is good because it drives up wages. But it seems hard to argue with the more general observation that the nation has fewer workers available as a result of 47 million abortions.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | Immigration and the election. — Comments (46) »
Abortion and the Roots of Illegal Immigration 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The main reason why illegal immigration is such a problem is because Mexico is so corrupt. This is the elephant in the room that keeps getting ignored. If Mexico would take care of it's own economy (and hence it's people), they wouldn't have to leech off ours by exporting their poor in exchange for remittances.
It takes two to have supply and demand. Mexico is as Mexico always has been (in fact, Mexico is probably in better shape now than it has been at most times in the past). If there were no jobs here the problems in Mexico would not matter (Mexicans are not pouring across the border with Guatemala, after all).
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
labor would exist. That is to say, even with a labor surplus, if criminal employers could avoid minimum wage and other costs, they would do so. Criminal behavior, on the part of our government, the Mexican government, employers, and aliens, would continue whether we had zero abortions or more abortions. Perhaps there would be less demand for illegal labor, but that appears a fairly dubious proposition. If we want to end illegal immigration, the key would be to eliminate the minimum wage and all labor laws that make a legal employee more expensive than an unlawful one.
I have to say the Missouri Democrats may be right here.
As an aside, let us assume there was some merit to these claims. The political reality is that the number of socialists and center-left Democrats will explode as illegals vote, so the numbers of abortions also will explode as the leftists they elect introduce infanticide laws in the next few years.
The savings with illegals comes in part from the avoidance of taxation and other laws, along with the power that an employer has over someone with such a fragile status.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
go after the employers hard to make sure all the illegals are paid the higher minimum wage, and ditch the guest worker provisions for paths to citizenship (to lead to higher minimum wages and nationalization as the aliens are legalized and vote). Of course, as small businesses collapse across the country, the Dems will blame the GOP. And in a sense, they will be right.
All these democrats voted for minimum wage laws in many states, including here in Ohio. Yet they also support the presence of all these illegals, who are here because they can be paid less than minimum wage.
At the same time, they can't understand the reason for the labor shortage, even as they go to their pro-choice rallies.
It must be something being a democratic leftist. You have to do more than ignore logic and reality. The ability to
self-deceive must be a talent for them.
I'm involved in the pro-life movement and made the same observation a while ago when the illegal alien debate was raging. God is not mocked! I think that it is ironic that the labor shortage is very close to the number of abortions performed since 1973.
------------
"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Add another to the list of unintended consequences of abortion...
How does unemployment figure into all of this? If the unemployment level in 2005 was approximately 7.5MM citizens, then a couple questions seem obvious: why aren't they taking up the jobs that illegals are being hired for? Are they almost all highly skilled workers who simply can't find work here? If we suddenly had 47MM more citizens available for work, what percentage of them would be currently unemployed? If we're talking about filling low paying unskilled jobs with previously aborted citizens, then the assumption must be that we expect a significant chunk of those "un-aborted" citizens would be likely to take the low paying jobs. Is that backed up by the data - are most abortions being performed on the low income, low skilled population that we might expect to ordinarily produce additional low skilled workers?
Anyway, I think it's dangerous to take a position that the significant value of some new lives is to fill low paying unskilled jobs in place of (illegal) immigrants, if you want to thwart people who, for example, make the argument that the significant value of some new embryos is to fill a scientific research need. It seems to me any argument that drifts away from the premise that a conceived human being is a person for all ethical and legal purposes will be frought with similar comparative analogies about the relative value of the many ways in which we might "use" the new life as a means to solve society's problems.
"Is that backed up by the data - are most abortions being performed on the low income, low skilled population that we might expect to ordinarily produce additional low skilled workers?"
I think the answer is yes. Here's some data I saw:
"The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women)."
I think it would have been more accurate for Mr. Emery to say, "If you kill 44 million of your potential poor workers...".
But some, yes. Still beats being dead.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
One of the theories in that book is that the drop in the crime rate over the last 15 years is tied to legalized abortion - fewer unwanted babies to grow up and get into trouble. The theory has come under significant debate and challenge in the years since the research paper was first released, but my guess is that it is as least as solid as the thought that illegal immigration is a result of legalized abortion.
On the other hand, perhaps the thinking is that if all those crime-inclined babies had not been aborted, the resulting high crime wave would have scared the illegals away.
Illegal immigration is relative to what? I find it hard to justify the pro-illegal immigrant stance when no one has justified its existence. Where are the facts that supports this argument. If we take abortion as one of the causes then we can assume at the minimum of 16 years ago we've had a massive decline in our population. I say this because of child labor laws...well we are talking about illegal workers so maybe this doesn't apply? Employers are not jumping up and giving us their labor needs because it would be stupid to advertise that you're presently breaking the law employing illegal aliens. The government has all kinds of programs where migrant labor can be requested providing the employer sponsors the immigrant and plays by the rules. As far as I can determine these programs are not being used because there is no statistical data being published or touted by pro or con. We haven't a realistic figure of how many illegal aliens are in this country.If you want to find out how many illegal aliens are here pass an ordinance that prohibits renting to them and inventory the protestors.
Attempts to sanitize this subject by blaming it on abortion make as much sense as granting amnesty to the people that violate our laws. The lawbreakers need to be punished and that includes the employers that created this problem in the first place. I find that all pro-immigrant supporters have a private agenda that includes cheap labor, more potential religous members, family, foreign influence and intimidation, and the bottom line VOTES. The sad part is these supporters expect the citizens to pay for this invasion. Not this rednecked red blooded American citizen!
There’s a good logical reason that marriage, historically, has been more of a business alliance between two families, than just something that "lovebirds" decide to do, some sunny day. Families were the business, the militia, the welfare system, and the social security. Where there was government, it was a competing business, a competing army, mostly corrupt. So procreation, to maintain the family business, was something they left to chance. In that setting, abortion, aside from being sinful, was stealing from the family business--insulting both God AND the family.
Make that:
"So procreation, to maintain the family business, was something they never left to chance."
People do go on about an alleged "labor shortage" in America, when there is zero evidence for such an occurence. People come here from Mexico because the standard of living is higher here, even for those without a job. The typical illegal gets over $1000 per year in benefits and healthcare which they could not get in their home country.
As real economists have pointed out, you cannot have a welfare state and open borders without going bankrupt. The US seems determined to provide proof of this proposition.
Your point reminds me of an interview of some CEO I recently read in The Dallas Morning News. He said his company has to go overseas to find employees because he just can't find enough qualified employees here. The same article cites the fact that his company has been laying off thousands of American employees in order to "cut costs".
Just who does he think he's fooling?
In the construction industry, wages in constant dollars are the same for 2004 as they were in 1990. The alleged desperate demand for labor never seems to result in a rise in wages. It looks as if the laws of supply and demand have been revoked in America. Or, more likely, the demand simply is not there in the first place. But mere facts and data are irrelevant to this discussion.
You have to add the code words. He means "qualified employees willing to work 12 hour days for dirt," which tend to be easier to find overseas...
And here's another just as weak as the "Abortion was responsible in the drop in crime since the 70's." Gee whize, the fun one could have pitting these cases against each other.
Pardon me if I roll my eyes.
that most of those terminated pregnancies would never have happenned in the first place without liberal abortion laws. either birth control would have been used or a bit more restraint would have been practiced.
on the subject indicates that the pre-Roe abortion rate was a small fraction of the post-Roe rate.
Believe it or not, humans are not cats in heat or rutting swine. They do have the ability to restrain themselves or practice caution.
Wow, now THERE'S a meaningless statistic. I have no idea how you'd go about determining the rate of abortion back when it was illegal and hence not reported to anybody (for fear of prosecution, not to mention the lack of such "modern" reporting and record keeping in those days), so OF COURSE one would expect the reported rate post Roe to be larger, since they're all reported now.
And anyhow, yeah, I expect a significant number of women who would not have had abortions did have one once they were (more) safe and not illegal. This should surprise no one. The positive effect of Roe is that those who would have had one anyhow are now protected from prosecution and can have an effective and legal abortion if they so choose.
Kudos on the comparison of humans to swine and cats. Talk about an effective argument!
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson
Neither swine nor cats murder their unborn.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Excellent point. Nor do they have opposible thumbs or use tools. There are some other differences I could come up with if I really set my mind to it, but none spring right out.
abortion has never been a federal crime, however, starting at the turn of the 20th century, states began outlawing abortion, with some providing provisions for the mother's life and incest. In the late '60s, states began making abortion legal, under some circumstances usually.
In 1973, we were having a national debate on this issue, one that actually favored abortionists, when, I suppose, they decided they couldn't wait to win the debate legislatively, and challenged the Texas abotion law, in effect creating abortion-on-demand regardless and in spite of the Supreme Court's muddled reasoning about viability and all that.
Since then, very little debate over the core of the abortion issue. As all SCOTUS nominees like to say, it is settled law. Unfortunately, I'd like to see it unsettled, and return this devate to the states. But, Federalism is not in the cards,and our 50 experiments in self-government continue to devolve to one central amorphous blob dictating to all of us the morality of immorality.
The CDC keeps numbers on abortion, and we're pretty close to the 47M since they started keeping stats on legal abortions in 1970. Today, we have for sure 16M less citizens ages 18-36 due to legal abortions. Certainly the laws of supply and demand tell us that, when 16M people are removed from the ecomony, only bad things happen. Just using 2000's numbers, the 12% of the population that is black is having 35% of the abortions. It is amazing that the community that is most reliably Democrat, is voting for a party that supports a policy that borders on infanticide for this race. It amazes me that the black community does not recongize this - and continues to support these politicians.
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
Of course, granting the number 47 million, that still does not mean that the population is 47 million smaller as a result of Roe, since conception rates skyrocketed after Roe.
I've yet to find anyone who can even give me a decent estimate of what the population might actually be, however, so 47 million it is.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments