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.This requires no further comment, but I'm wondering why a state so worried about a labor shortage just reaffirmed a ban on cloning.
"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."
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.
Comments to "Legal Abortion: Now With Free Mexicans!":
Yeah, we need to make Americans way more desperate so that they understand how awesome it is to be American.
steveintheknow | November 14, 2006, 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?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!
gl | November 14, 2006, 2:47pm | #
Hahaha!!! Missouri Republicans say the darndest things.Don't you get it steve? Illegal immigration is a problem because it's illegal!
steveintheknow | November 14, 2006, 2:52pm | #
Fuck, your right.J Sub D | November 14, 2006, 2:53pm | #
Hahaha!!! Missouri Republicans say the darndest things.John Ashcroft. 'Nuff said.
GILMORE | November 14, 2006, 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".
J Sub D | November 14, 2006, 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.
Jozef | November 14, 2006, 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.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 14, 2006, 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.
steveintheknow | November 14, 2006, 3:34pm | #
-mr. nice guyBTW 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 | November 14, 2006, 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 either1) 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 | November 14, 2006, 4:05pm | #
Is the American economy really dependent on perpetual population growth as the article implies?GILMORE | November 14, 2006, 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.
GILMORE | November 14, 2006, 4:19pm | #
Is the American economy really dependent on perpetual population growth as the article impliesyes. 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.
Racists Suck | November 14, 2006, 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.
Racists Suck | November 14, 2006, 4:40pm | #
Though I must add that I do agree with Keith vis-a-vis the Irish.thoreau | November 14, 2006, 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?
Aresen | November 14, 2006, 4:52pm | #
JadagulNice 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.
Number 6 | November 14, 2006, 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.
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.
Racists Suck | November 14, 2006, 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.
J sub D | November 14, 2006, 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.
Racism Sucks | November 14, 2006, 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?
highnumber | November 14, 2006, 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.)
Truth | November 14, 2006, 5:49pm | #
"the sentiment that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is a racist."Sentiment, in this case, refers to a misguided belief.
Number 6 | November 14, 2006, 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?
MikeP | November 14, 2006, 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.
J sub D | November 14, 2006, 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.
highnumber | November 14, 2006, 6:07pm | #
I do...advocateAs 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.
MikeP - You are right that a lot of people who are anti-immigration are racist. Nobody complains about the bloody Aussies, do they?
MikeP | November 14, 2006, 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.
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.
highnumber | November 14, 2006, 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."
Jim Walsh | November 14, 2006, 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)
J sub D | November 14, 2006, 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."
J sub D | November 14, 2006, 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.
MikeP | November 14, 2006, 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.
Brian Courts | November 14, 2006, 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.
Johncjackson | November 14, 2006, 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.JimBobT | November 14, 2006, 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 | November 14, 2006, 9:31pm | #
So, we've aborted too many people and now we need Mexican clones to replace them? I'm sooooo confused.CSI | November 14, 2006, 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!"
MikeP | November 15, 2006, 5:16am | #
Next you should look at the crime stats from FBI and INS. They're shockingThe 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.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 15, 2006, 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.
FinFangFoom | November 15, 2006, 8:08am | #
MNG, they train people to border jump?GILMORE | November 15, 2006, 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 shitOK 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
GILMORE | November 15, 2006, 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.
GILMORE | November 15, 2006, 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
GILMORE | November 15, 2006, 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.
Racism Sucks | November 15, 2006, 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.
Mr. Nice Guy | November 15, 2006, 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.
Qbryzan | November 15, 2006, 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 statusThe 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.
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.
MikeP | November 15, 2006, 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?
GILMORE | November 15, 2006, 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