Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Legal Abortion: Now With Free Mexicans!
The rest of the country hasn't caught up yet, but Missouri Republicans now know who is to blame for illegal immigration. Immigrants? No. Businesses? Nah. Aborted fetuses? Bingo.
A Republican-led legislative panel says in a new report on illegal immigration that abortion is partly to blame because it is causing a shortage of American workers.
"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," [said Rep. Edgar G.H. Emery]. "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."
This requires no further comment, but I'm wondering why a state so worried about a labor shortage just reaffirmed a ban on cloning.
|11.14.06 @ 2:36PM|#
Yeah, we need to make Americans way more desperate so that they understand how awesome it is to be American.
|11.14.06 @ 2:43PM|#
So if we are so desperate for workers what's the problem with illegal immigration exactly? And how did abortion get so accurate in only killing off the workers who would actually want those shitty jobs?
|11.14.06 @ 2:44PM|#
Yes! Women of the world, begin breeding new workers to do menial jobs! It's not just the right thing to do, it's your duty to society!
|11.14.06 @ 2:53PM|#
Hahaha!!! Missouri Republicans say the darndest
things.
John Ashcroft. 'Nuff said.
|11.14.06 @ 2:57PM|#
He might mention that since real wages have declined in last 10
years, many people CHOOSE not to have children (or fewer children)
because they can't afford it.
The nice thing about Mexican laborers is that they wipe their own
asses, and you dont have to give them the birds and bees
talk.
I hate these nativist, 'have more babies' fucktards. We need
employees; immigrants need work. What in god's name is their
@(*#$@# malfunction??
Oh....they're *brown*....ish.
Does he really think if we all started popping out more Good White
Babies that we White American parents would be encouraging them to
get into seasonal agricultural labor? "Be a man, Johnny: go pick
oranges".
|11.14.06 @ 3:08PM|#
I'm against illegal immigration. The canard that they do jobs
that Americans won't is a partial truth at best. They do jobs that
Americans won't AT THOSE WAGES.
That this has anything at all to do with abortion is fanciful at
best, delusional at worst.
|11.14.06 @ 3:17PM|#
Last I've heard, abortion was responsible for drop in
crime...
But seriously: I'm convinced that minimal wage is responsible for a
great deal of immigration, as it prices all legal workers out of
market for low skilled labor. That said, as soon as the current
illegals are legalized, they'll be too expensive for their jobs
(especially if minimal wage goes up), and we can expect another
wave of immigration.
|11.14.06 @ 3:22PM|#
Okay, I want to throw this out there...
What about American money going back across the border? From what I
understand, many/most immigrants, as hard-working and industrious
as they are, don't contribute to our economy by spending their
wages here, but mail the money "back home" to help their families.
How does this help us, exactly, beyond their labor?
That's why the Mexican government is so up in arms about us
building a fence. All that money coming their way is sort of a
national welfare. I even heard stories about Mexican officials
training prospective immigrants on how to sneak over here. This
strikes me as being a bit parasitic.
I'm taking a hard stance here, and will probably get glommed. But
I'm interested in what people think.
|11.14.06 @ 3:34PM|#
-mr. nice guy
BTW it's never easy going against the grain. Anyway, I guess one
response would be that if their families were allowed to come with
them, under a legal and regulated system, the money wouldn't flow
the other way.
Of course another argument would be to address the anti-immigration
argument that they are really doing jobs that other Americans would
do for higher wages. If this is actually true then they are adding
to the economy by doing them for less, thus lowering the cost of
goods and services. Those are just two that come to mind.
Jadagul|11.14.06 @ 3:35PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy: well, first of all, we benefit from getting
low-cost labor regardless of what they do with the money. But the
choices are either
1) they spend the money immediately on American goods. They act
exactly like low-wage native workers.
2) they send the money home and never spend it on American goods.
We as a nation have gotten their labor without having to give them
anything in return, because the money we pay them is never
redeemed for goods. In addition, this reduces inflationary
pressures by cutting the money supply a bit. We should like
this.
3)they send the money home, but eventually it gets back to America
and is spent on our goods. This is basically a zero-interest loan
from them to us; not as good as option (2), but still pretty
cool.
CSI|11.14.06 @ 4:05PM|#
Is the American economy really dependent on perpetual population growth as the article implies?
|11.14.06 @ 4:17PM|#
The canard that they do jobs that Americans won't is a
partial truth at best. They do jobs that Americans won't AT THOSE
WAGES.
How is that "a canard" (i.e. false or unfounded assumption)? A
partial truth isnt a canard; it's simply incomplete. You suggest it
leads to a false conclusion ('at best') - but then state that the
conclusion is accurate, but that more information helps clarify the
already-true point.
I think the distinction you offer is certainly very important, but
certainly doesnt help make the case for less immigration
overall.
Making the distinction between 'legal' and 'illegal' immigration is
often simply a deflecting argument for saying that "less
immigration is what we need" = which is in fact entirely
incorrect.
The point is that this country will need to reduce barriers to
immigration and let more people work legally as we go forward, and
as our population ages, or else we face severe economic downturns.
Arguing for more white babies in the meantime will not help 1000s
of farmers around the country get their crops in at a profit. If
you're libertarian, and you believe in ending farm subsidies, one
should also endorse open borders to enable our agricultural
industry to have access to the cheap, willing seasonal labor pool
next door.
|11.14.06 @ 4:19PM|#
Is the American economy really dependent on perpetual
population growth as the article implies
yes. and productivity growth.
not just population growth, but also working-age population growth.
As baby boomers start to leave the workforce we're going to
increasingly need more people to do their jobs, and there just aint
enough white folks to do it all PLUS pick grapefruit in Tehas.
|11.14.06 @ 4:39PM|#
"Oh....they're *brown*....ish."
I coached the PR National women's gymnastics team as well as
gymnasts from all over the world.
I have worked for decades helping homeless youth, the overwhelming
majority of which are black and brown.
I live in an inherited home located within an ethnically diverse
urban neighborhood and wouldn't "white-flight it for the world" and
am in the process of donating the property to be used as a
safe-house for battered women with children, many (or most) of whom
are black and brown.
I am opposed to illegal immigration. So when you make the claim
that it's due to my dislike of *brown*....ish folks, I can
confidently counter with - you and your tired little argument are
so full of shit.
thoreau|11.14.06 @ 4:46PM|#
MNG-
We trade with Mexico. What if a person working in California sent
money to his family in Arizona? Is that really such an awful thing
for California?
|11.14.06 @ 4:52PM|#
Jadagul
Nice refutation of MNG's implied mercantilist hypothesis.
Gilmore
The macro-economic argument for unending growth is inherently
statist and collectivist. It is not essential that everyone's
income improve forever, nor is it the function of the state to see
that it does.
While it is true that most people want their personal economic
standard of living to improve, government manipulation of the
economy to bring this about inevitably favors some at the expense
of others.
|11.14.06 @ 4:58PM|#
Racists Suck- You are capable of distinguishing between the
implication that much of the anti-immigrant sentiment is racist and
the sentiment that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is a
racist.
Right?
If so, then why pretend otherwise, unless it's to score rhetorical
points.
Larry A|11.14.06 @ 5:04PM|#
I would speculate that the number of "potential workers" lost due to abortion is miniscule compared to the pregnancies prevented by postponing marriage in favor of finishing education. Obviously we need to rethink the "no sex until marriage" standard.
|11.14.06 @ 5:20PM|#
"Racists Suck- You are capable of distinguishing between the
implication that much of the anti-immigrant sentiment is racist and
the sentiment that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is a
racist.
Right?
If so, then why pretend otherwise, unless it's to score rhetorical
points."
Please clarify. Thanks in advance of your efforts.
|11.14.06 @ 5:26PM|#
A capitalist will always try to reduce costs, however minimal,
to gain a competitive edge. Hence, he will hire desperate illegals
to lower prices even though harvest labor costs are a small
fraction of total crop costs. If produce prices went up 10% due to
a 100% increase in harvesting labor costs, while simultaneously
massively reducing illegal immigration and it's costs, would that
be such a bad thing to the American consumer?
There is no way to sugarcoat this. Anyone who advocates open
borders is an idiot living in a fantasy world. There are 300
million of us now. Ithink that is more than enough.
|11.14.06 @ 5:30PM|#
""Racists Suck- You are capable of distinguishing between the
implication that much of the anti-immigrant sentiment is racist and
the sentiment that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is a
racist.
Right?
If so, then why pretend otherwise, unless it's to score rhetorical
points."
Oh now I get it -- Because the world is racist, you want me to
embrace racism as the only responsible choice.
Brilliant! Does this mean that since the world is also sexist, it's
okay for you to still be beating your wife?
|11.14.06 @ 5:38PM|#
There are 300 million of us now. Ithink that is more than
enough.
Whoa, there! Since when are you King?
(Seriously, I thought it was Kos' turn after the elections and
all.)
|11.14.06 @ 5:49PM|#
"the sentiment that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is
a racist."
Sentiment, in this case, refers to a misguided belief.
|11.14.06 @ 5:52PM|#
Oh now I get it -- Because the world is racist, you want me
to embrace racism as the only responsible choice.
Yes. That's just what I said, isn't it?
|11.14.06 @ 5:53PM|#
Because the world is racist, you want me to embrace racism
as the only responsible choice.
In case you really are missing Number 6's point, it is that the
fact that you are not racist does not mean that everyone who is
against immigration is not racist.
One could be anti-immigration because he is a nationalist,
culturist, educationist, languagist, plain old garden variety
protectionist, or sufferer of some other pathology that impels him
to divide the world into "us" and "them" -- all without being
racist. Nonetheless, it is hard to ignore that an awful lot of
people who are against immigration are racist.
|11.14.06 @ 6:00PM|#
Whoa, there! Since when are you King?
I didn't advocate a one child policy, forced sterilization, or even
an end to immigration. I do, however advocate stopping uncontrolled
immigration, which appears to be our present policy.
|11.14.06 @ 6:07PM|#
I do...advocate
As long as you're willing to advocate, I won't question the
legitimacy of your throne.
For real, now, MikeP would like to tell you something. Go ahead,
MikeP.
|11.14.06 @ 6:59PM|#
MikeP - You are right that a lot of people who are anti-immigration are racist. Nobody complains about the bloody Aussies, do they?
|11.14.06 @ 7:09PM|#
J sub D,
If by realist, you mean someone who confers upon themselves and
their chosen collective the freedom to travel, live, and work
throughout a vast dominion while denying those same freedoms to
someone from outside their collective, ... well, your definition of
realist is different from mine.
|11.14.06 @ 7:10PM|#
We don't get serious about our borders because the corporate welfare elite owns the congress. Importing millions of poor people does nothing for limited government libertarianism. Milton Friedman understands this simple fact. Why the editors of Reason don't is a mystery. I could be conspiracy minded like Raimondo and say, follow the money.
|11.14.06 @ 7:11PM|#
Aaaaaaarrrgggghhhhhh!!!!!! Nooooooo!!!!!!!
He invoked "the Immigration Realist!"
Haven't heard from him for a while. Maybe we're ok as long as no
mentions "the Lone Wacko."
Aw, shit! I did it.
At least it's not "underzog."
|11.14.06 @ 7:11PM|#
Nobody complains about the bloody Aussies, do
they?
...or the Irish living and working illegally on Long
Island...
(Not a joke...they're out there)
|11.14.06 @ 7:45PM|#
MikeP do you propose telling all of Latin America to "Come on up
if you want."?
Like I said earlier, "There is no way to sugarcoat this. Anyone who
advocates open borders is an idiot living in a fantasy world."
|11.14.06 @ 7:49PM|#
But enough of that. The original thread was about A
Republican-led legislative panel says in a new report on illegal
immigration that abortion is partly to blame because it is causing
a shortage of American workers.
Truly moronic.
|11.14.06 @ 8:27PM|#
MikeP do you propose telling all of Latin America to "Come
on up if you want."?
Not in so many words. After all, Connecticut does not tell all of
Mississippi to "Come on up if you want." They simply allow free
travel between the two.
|11.14.06 @ 8:42PM|#
Like I said earlier, "There is no way to sugarcoat this.
Anyone who advocates open borders is an idiot living in a fantasy
world."
When someone has to resort, not once but twice, in a thread to
calling those who would dare to differ with his esteemed opinion,
"idiots" (perhaps he was afraid we would miss it?), I guess it
should offer little surprise that he fails to muster even the most
rudimentary of principled arguments and is left instead to flail
away with the always compelling "argument from
self-importance"
There are 300 million of us now. Ithink that is more than
enough.
|11.14.06 @ 8:53PM|#
All this time I thought these guys would support abortion because it means less babies on welfare. I never imagined all the productive work those fetuses could be doing.
|11.14.06 @ 9:04PM|#
those who would dare to differ with his esteemed opinion,
"idiots"
Sorta like calling those opposed to mass immigration racists.
Mass immigration with a welfare state is idiotic. According to the
New England Journal of Medicine, 80 hospitals in California have
closed their doors due to servicing????
Next you should look at the crime stats from FBI and INS. They're
shocking
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=15968
The Wine Commonsewer|11.14.06 @ 9:31PM|#
So, we've aborted too many people and now we need Mexican clones to replace them? I'm sooooo confused.
CSI|11.14.06 @ 11:00PM|#
Is the American economy really dependent on perpetual
population..
yes. and productivity growth.
If that's the case, then in less than 500 years your average
American will be living in a coffin-like personal habitation module
and eating Soylent Green while economists and politicians will be
proclaiming something like "we are facing a demographic crisis!
Unless we get a trillion new workers to replace the current
generation of retirees our economy will collapse!"
|11.15.06 @ 5:16AM|#
Next you should look at the crime stats from FBI and INS.
They're shocking
The only thing that's shocking is that you refer to these "stats"
as though they might bear even a passing resemblance to
reality.
These look like a newly manufactured incarnation derived from an
older list of manufactured
numbers.
|11.15.06 @ 7:39AM|#
t:
C'mon. You know states take measures in attempt to keep
money/spending within state, mostly in the form of taxation. And I
see a huge difference between cash staying within our country
(though interstate) and money being sucked down into Mexico.
This is probably the biggest thing that pisses me off about the
Mexican government: Instead of doing what they need to do to
strengthen their own economy and bring themselves out of
third-world status, they instead train illegals to sneak over here
and bitch about what we decide to build ON OUR SIDE OF THE BORDER.
If the Mexicans were able to get their act together, they would
provide a better way of life for their own people (thus decreasing
the compulsion to immigrate) and be a better trading partner with
us and the rest of the world. Everyone would win.
All said, the staving of inflation and the lowering of production
costs certainly are excellent points, and take the sting out a
little.
|11.15.06 @ 8:54AM|#
I am opposed to illegal immigration. So when you make the
claim that it's due to my dislike of *brown*....ish folks, I can
confidently counter with - you and your tired little argument are
so full of shit
OK great, you're not a racist. I'm proud for you.
but you again deflect the point -
you apparently think the country has plenty good labor #s at
reasonable cost.
You are wrong, and the country does need low cost labor. Whatever
your reasons for distaste for 'illegal' immigrants, you havent
answered the point about making immigration easier or not (i.e.
producing less 'illegals')
JG
|11.15.06 @ 9:00AM|#
The macro-economic argument for unending growth is
inherently statist and collectivist. It is not essential that
everyone's income improve forever, nor is it the function of the
state to see that it does.
it would be nice to hear some reasoning behind this.
|11.15.06 @ 9:03AM|#
If that's the case, then in less than 500 years your average
American will be living in a coffin-like personal habitation module
and eating Soylent Green while economists and politicians will be
proclaiming something like "we are facing a demographic crisis!
Unless we get a trillion new workers to replace the current
generation of retirees our economy will collapse!"
No, because of the productivity growth.
see changes in US productivity 1990-2000
yes, it was a factor of technology, but the point about population
v productivity is still clear.
JG
|11.15.06 @ 9:05AM|#
. If produce prices went up 10% due to a 100% increase in
harvesting labor costs, while simultaneously massively reducing
illegal immigration and it's costs, would that be such a bad thing
to the American consumer?
Yes.
|11.15.06 @ 9:17AM|#
"In case you really are missing Number 6's point, it is that the
fact that you are not racist does not mean that everyone who is
against immigration is not racist."
Now I get it. Just because my truck is brown....ish, that doesn't
mean all trucks are brown....ish. I never thought of that
before.
|11.15.06 @ 9:39AM|#
FFF:
Perhaps "training" is a strong word (though the right-wingers
certainly mutter about it). But the Mexican government officially
came out with a "how-to" guide:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002143941_comic07.html
It only makes sense. The Mexican government has everything to gain
by this huge cash cow. It is much easier this way, as opposed to
actually making an honest effort to strengthen their own system and
become self-sufficient.
|11.15.06 @ 10:34AM|#
This is probably the biggest thing that pisses me off about
the Mexican government: Instead of doing what they need to do to
strengthen their own economy and bring themselves out of
third-world status
The only problem I have with this thought, is that it assumes that
the Mexican government gets to make it's own choices. I recall not
too long ago they were considering drug legalization, but we put a
stop to that really quickly.
|11.15.06 @ 11:28AM|#
Let's not confuse legal and illegal immigration. A nation has a right and a duty to control its own borders. If anyone would like to discuss numbers, education levels, country of origin and other specifics of LEGAL immigration I'm all ears. It's a discussion that is long overdue. If anyone thinks that illegal immigration should be tolerated, encouraged or justified, I refer you to the rule of law. After that I will ignore any explantions, mealy mouthed excuses and lame moral justifications.
|11.15.06 @ 3:17PM|#
If anyone would like to discuss numbers, education levels,
country of origin and other specifics of LEGAL immigration I'm all
ears.
Total numbers: 6.7 billion, rising as needed
Education levels: Any
Country of origin: Any
All migration should be legal. Armies or agents of a foreign power,
terrorists, violent criminals, and public health risks are on the
short list of people that the state can legitimately keep out of
the country.
Are you happy now?
|11.15.06 @ 7:04PM|#
J sub D =
your distinction doesnt seem to address the question about why
illegal immigrants have to be illegal, or why our laws cant be more
flexible and more in tune with 'laws' of supply and demand. Its a
simple enough point. What do you have to say to the issue of many
American businesses (as mentioned, agriculture for one) needing
access to more labor, cheaper labor, faster than the law currently
can process?
example of SC peach farmer making the case =
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec06/immigration_08-17.html
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245