This blog is here to notify readers of a new post--though the discussion of the Tuesday Column is on Facebook (simply friend me there to participate)
To subscribe to the feed paste this: http://keithdrury.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
I don't know if you mean this partly in jest, but I think you're right. Here in Britain, we've had 7 million abortions since the '60s, and a pensions crisis caused by our under-60s population being around 7 million too small to sustain the pensions of the retired. The solution? To bring in around 7 million tax-paying under-60s from outside the UK, thus making the sums add up.
I agree with you 100%--even I am surprised. I especially like your economic argument--we need to save Social Security on the backs of our immigrants. Of course all 4 of the Ron Paul lovers out there will blanch--but that's OK with me.I would propose one additional item to your new immigration platform. Reduction of social security benefits for every person who does not have at least 1.5 qualified children. That is an average of 1.5 children who will or would have paid into the Social Security (exceptions for children who would have otherwise qualified but for early death or disability).That means an optimum family size of 3 children for a married couple to retain full social security benefits. This is consistent with the notion that the current social security scheme requires more than a one to one relationship between payee and benefit recipient.This kind of provision would move us back toward a more historic retirement system which involves children taking care of their parents. We might even offer a program where parents who aborted their children can recruit immigrants to replace them--sponsoring the immigrant and providing a financial guarantee that the new immigrant does not end up on welfare.IMHO this is one of Drury's best ideas yet. Addressing the immorality of our immigration policy as well as legalized infanticide in one tidy package.
Does having a Soc. Security system nessesitate an ever-growing population? Something doesn't seem right here...Not to be the environmental dooms-dayer, but... can't we figure out a way to configure society that ends with a stable population (at least as stable as a human community might be)?
Have you made this suggestion somewhere before? It seems like I have read it elsewhere. Or somebody else had the same bright idea.
Chris, I roughed it out on my political blog a while back.... so now I'm promoting it to a full column. ;-)
I got a great idea that will increase the speed at which these numbers of people will become equal. As all the immigrants are coming in all those baby boomers, especially those who waved the banner to eliminate life all those years ago, should be shipped to other countries. So as we gain workers to increase profits we lose the millions of dependants on the system. Now I understand that these countries might not accept these people but I am sure the lines of illegal immigration can go both ways. If they can find people willing to be payed enough to risk their lives getting folks here to work then for the right dollar we can find people willing to ship those 65 and older there.
I've got a better solution...let's reverse Roe v Wade and allow the 1 million unborn citizens of the US every year to become working tax-payers.
KeithI like Chap's idea better, reverse Roe vs. Wade. Of course to do that you would have to elect politicians who would support it, so that eliminates most of your favorite democrats. Tax paying, legal immigrants sounds like a good idea to me.
Craig, As you might expect from a "federalist" I am in favor of a national law banning all abortions and against reversing Roe to "let states decide" decide on abortion. If abortion is killing (and I think it is) then a "states rights" argument letting some states abort babies while other forbid it would merely enable a travel-to-abort program and is a weak solution to this national shame.
Keith I was thinking more about where Roe v Wade came from, the Supreme Court. The Court since FDR has become politicized. Justices are chosen on the basis of their political leanings, especially on the issue of abortion. I would suggest that a liberal democrat president would more likely chose justices that are in favor of Roe v Wade and a conservative republican more likely to select a justice who opposes it. This is one of the reasons I don't vote for democrats, along with the fact that I do not think socialism is a sound economic system.
I like the idea in theory. To make it work the easiest (that's what really makes Americans jump on board, is if it is easy) would be to import only English speaking immigrants. I don't think Americans have a problem with immigrants if they work hard and speak English, no matter what anyone else says. I don't think it's a racist issue (though it sounds racist all the time), I just believe Americans want to understand and be understood. So you put some hard-working, tax paying, English-speaking people in this country and most people will be on board.
I wonder if anyone really knows how many illegals we have in this country. If they are here to stay, then, as we have done with all the immigrants in the past, they should be allowed to become citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities that involves. Before we do this, I would suggest that we simply try to find out who they are (a daunting task, to be sure) and why they are here. In Great Britain Muslim immigrants have shown a remarkable resistance (hostility, actually) toward assimilation. Philip Jenkins thinks that fears of an Islamic takeover of Europe are overblown, but reports I read sometimes contradict this. Of course, overturning Roe is what we should be praying and working for, regardless of how we deal with immigration.
I don't think it's wise to vote with the Abortion issue in mind. There have been presidents from both parties since RvW and none of them have had it overturned. The Democrats are honest when they say they are pro-death and the Republicans lie when they say they are pro-life so it becomes a tragically moot point.
To Keith and Craig:The Supreme Court has always been politicized. John Marshall, probably the most important Chief Justice in history, was a leading Federalist and quite political in every sense. FDR's court packing scheme simply brought part of the the politics of the court out into the open--to FDR's ultimate advantage.
While I like your logic here, and I think you make a good point, I think the real "immigration problem" is an open border. There are lots of ways to deal with immigration policies and naturalize illegal immigrants--but the problem is the border that anyone can cross. So, close the border and start admitting new residents(from a diverse mix of countries--lots of poeple want to come here, not just our southern neighbors) to make up the shortfall of murdered children.
Keith’s idea takes seriously an important reality regarding undocumented immigrants that radically conservative politicians are missing. Many of the undocumented immigrants now in our country will not go back to their home country. They do not consider it to be a viable option. Their whole family is here. They have no property or jobs to return to and the economy in their home country is in shambles.So as these immigrants are pushed from one state to another by draconian laws depriving them of driver’s licenses and jobs, they’ll just go underground elsewhere. Meanwhile, these restrictions will deprive our government of revenues from taxes and social security. The immigrants will still be here, depending on our health care and educational systems, and driving, but now without licenses and insurance. Guess who will pick up all the added costs. In the long term, marginalizing this immigrant population will produce a huge generation of second class citizens with a very high price tag both socially and economically.On the other hand, just imagine the revenues our government could receive from social security and taxes if those who have been working in the country for say three or more years would be put on a pathway to citizenship. Even with hefty fines, background checks, and probation periods, many would be eager to get on board. At the same time, the border definitely needs to be secured. This is indisputably an urgent priority matter. Plus other serious measures would need to be enacted to address the economic situations in neighboring countries.
While I agree that we should seek social and economic reform inside our own society and we should reach out to help our neighbors with their socioeconomic woes, as a conservative, I don't want to see our government reaping more income. To me, the prospect that government programs could be better funded by taxing immigrants seems to be opposed to the idea of economic jsutice. We would simply be extending economic oppression to them by insisting upon the restribution of their resources. So, give them a path to citizenship--but not so we can collect more tax revenue! I know that the reform of the tax system and the issue of social entitlement programs is not the subject of this discussion, and I don't want to draw us off topic. I just wanted to clarify that my fiscal conservatism drives me down a slightly different path to social jsutice.
A marvelous "modest proposal!"
Ha! Great tongue-in-cheek suggestion to conservatives who have anti-abortion bumper stickers next to anti-immigration bumper stickers.Not only does legalization mean increased gov't revenue, it also provides a way to track criminal activity and protect undocumented immigrants who are victims of crime: right now, a woman in this country working to support her children who's raped won't go to the police about it if she fears being deported.
Be careful what you wish for, especially if you think low wage immigrants will (be able to) pay for your high cost healthcare. They come with more than a toothbrush. Besides, haven't you almost achieved your magic number of 49 million through the illegal variety?!
Post a Comment