# Abortion & Immigration: A moderate reponse **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 20, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761 "2010-01-20T23:34:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/21 "2010-01-21T04:27:55Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Because no matter how many times I post [it](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html), it never seems to take…\* > > 1.1% of induced abortions occur after the 20th week of gestation. > > \*Not directed at you personally, Bryan Eckers, I just find that particular bugaboo so tiresome. Oh, I knew the numbers were available - I was just curious if the OP assumed the numbers were much higher. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/22 "2010-01-21T04:28:56Z")
No worries. Any time the question comes up, I’m happy to post it. My link doesn’t specify “elective”, but I think that, unless one clings to the idea that slutty women regularly have whimsical third-trimester abortions, one must assume that the majority of that 1.1% are not elective. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/23 "2010-01-21T05:02:10Z")
The 20th week is still second trimester. Third trimester doesn’t start until 28 weeks. The number of abortions after 28 weeks is far less than 1%. The number of “elective” abortions after 28 weeks is zero, at least not legal ones (and I doubt many, if any illegal ones). ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/24 "2010-01-21T05:21:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’d say you don’t qualify. As neither was a citizen at the time of your birth. Right? If they are both undergoing the naturalization process then they would both almost certainly be permanent residents of the United States. Which raises an interesting question if you are going to say that their child born in the United States is not a citizen: what are they? Are they permanent residents? If they are children of people who are in the process of becoming citizens, they are going to file for citizenship anyway. Why bother with this additional step? A love of paperwork? If not permanent residents, then what? There is a good chance they are stateless, citizens of no country that will accept them. Their parents are legal residents of the United States, in the process of becoming citizens. Should their newborn be taken away from them and dumped across the border? I guess I’m not following the intention of denying citizenship to the child of legal permanent residents who are applying for US citizenship. What are you trying to achieve? It doesn’t seem related to discouraging illegally crossing the border in the hopes of having your kid become a citizen - we are talking about legal residents here. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/25 "2010-01-21T05:33:49Z")
> [@Belrix](#): > > The immigration one was designed to remove the incentive to cross the border in order to have a baby and remove the problem of what to do with illegal parents and legal children when deportation is necessary. Migrants cross the border looking for money, not looking to make their kids citizens of a foreign country. Typical Yank, thinking everyone must want to be a Yank just because you’re so awesome. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > The abortion one is just an arbitrary line before which abortion is legal and after which it is not. I personally believe that a fetus terminated at one-week gestation is not murderous in any way but I also believe that an abortion at, say, 32 weeks is unquestionably murderous. The “20 week” rule is just a line intended to put a concrete number to what, in reality is probably a very fuzzy line. Wonderful. Do you even realize that what you described almost IS the _Roe v. Wade_ decision, except that if we did it your way lots of women will be forced to bear severely deformed children, or suffer debilitating health effects from a messy delivery? Once we make your idea humane, it IS Roe v. Wade. So why not just educate people about this? > [@](#): > > EDIT: My immigration idea allows for naturalization and all other legal methods of becoming a citizen other than simply birth on US soil. My statement of it above is incomplete. Again, most undocumenteds aren’t trying to be citizens, just resident aliens, guest workers, or the like. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/26 "2010-01-21T05:40:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Among other problems, this would mean that a woman would be forced to give birth even if it caused her serious harm; as long as it didn’t quite kill her. Crippled for life, giving birth to a baby with multiple severe defects she won’t be able to care for? Fine. > > No, especially on abortion. Let me point out that **even most pro-lifers** would consider the restrictions you propose after 20 weeks horrifyingly harsh & inhumane. Many of those same people would rather have some restrictions prior to 20 weeks than make restrictions on late-term abortion so extreme. Therefore many pro-lifers would denounce you for restricting the wrong part. They want fetal rights recognized earlier, not a policy that cripples women & forces them to bear horribly deformed children. It would actually both be not enough & way too much. About the only person who would approve of this jive is the schmuck who killed George Tiller for providing late-term therapeutic abortions. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/27 "2010-01-21T05:41:49Z")
> [@](#): > > what they like a whole lot less is when someone checks the statistics and finds out how rare this procedure actually is, and that when it’s done, it’s most always for a very good medical reason Yes! Virtually ALL late term abortions are done for reasons that are the equalivant of turning off the life support machines on a very terminally ill paitent. I wish pro lifers would realize that it’s not a black and white issue. Also most early abortions are done when the fetus hasn’t even had time to develop conditions which could impact their viabilty. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/28 "2010-01-21T05:45:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Sure, it’s incomplete as an immigration policy. But that one aspect of it I don’t think would affect much else. It simply lays down one qualification. So, let’s say all the other aspects of a new immigration would be to your liking, what is your opinion of the one mentioned? It would create an underclass of persons who hold no US citizenship despite being born here. Some of them, inevitably, would be completely stateless. Considering the level of political education in this country, some proportion of the populace would doubtless consider these non-Americans to be without legal rights, unpersons to be enslaved or assaulted at will by “real” Americans. The only sort of person I wish that fate on is a racist who would seek to consign others to such fate from birth. [Which, come to think of it, would have been a brilliant solution to the end of slavery 140 years ago.] ---
**Author:** ![Rodgers01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Rodgers01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodgers01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/29 "2010-01-21T06:21:34Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Migrants cross the border looking for money, not looking to make their kids citizens of a foreign country. Typical Yank, thinking everyone must want to be a Yank just because you’re so awesome. :rolleyes: Well “:rolleyes:” yourself: of course [it](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/07/eveningnews/main4000401.shtml) [happens](http://www.fileus.org/dept/citizenship/02-05-26-latimes-birth_tourism_asia.html). It happens in most rich countries which grant birthright citizenship (of which the US is one of the few remaining). The Irish [outlawed it](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/world/voters-reject-automatic-citizenship-for-babies-born-in-ireland.html?pagewanted=1) a couple of years ago because they thought it was being abused, and they were the last country in the EU (at the time) to have it. Anyways, I wouldn’t mind outlawing citizenship-by-birth, but don’t know that it would be worth the hassle (having to change the Constitution and all…). Better to secure the borders, reform visa procedures, and **increase** and **diversify** our legal immigrant pool. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/30 "2010-01-21T06:58:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Constitutionally irrelevant. An amendment can change that. IIRC, there has been a bill offered up a few times in the last few years to do just that. It all goes back to the interpretation of the law written in 1865-6. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/31 "2010-01-21T07:04:21Z")
> [@Driver8](#): > > If they are both undergoing the naturalization process then they would both almost certainly be permanent residents of the United States. Which raises an interesting question if you are going to say that their child born in the United States is not a citizen: what are they? > > Are they permanent residents? If they are children of people who are in the process of becoming citizens, they are going to file for citizenship anyway. Why bother with this additional step? A love of paperwork? > > If not permanent residents, then what? There is a good chance they are stateless, citizens of no country that will accept them. Their parents are legal residents of the United States, in the process of becoming citizens. Should their newborn be taken away from them and dumped across the border? > > I guess I’m not following the intention of denying citizenship to the child of legal permanent residents who are applying for US citizenship. What are you trying to achieve? It doesn’t seem related to discouraging illegally crossing the border in the hopes of having your kid become a citizen - we are talking about legal residents here. Ah, I misread. I was thinking a “legalization” process of some sort. You raise a good point. I’m not sure about those legal residents who are awaiting the naturalizing process. I don’t know if that process is abused in the way the OP is thinking. I don’t think it is, in which case they probably should be legal. On the other hand, though, what if the parents fail the naturalization process? Then we’d have the type of problems the OP is trying to avoid. No? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/32 "2010-01-21T07:05:34Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Let me point out that **even most pro-lifers** would consider the restrictions you propose after 20 weeks horrifyingly harsh & inhumane. Many of those same people would rather have some restrictions prior to 20 weeks than make restrictions on late-term abortion so extreme. Therefore many pro-lifers would denounce you for restricting the wrong part. They want fetal rights recognized earlier, not a policy that cripples women & forces them to bear horribly deformed children. It would actually both be not enough & way too much. First, I was talking about what I thought the results of the OPs “Exceptions only for the life of the mother” would be; I myself am very pro-choice. And second, I think you are very overoptimistic about what the pro-lifers want; if they thought they could get away with it I’m sure they’d put laws into force that flatly ban abortion even if it kills the woman. And gloat about all the “sluts” they are killing. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/33 "2010-01-21T07:07:38Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Migrants cross the border looking for money, not looking to make their kids citizens of a foreign country. Are you kidding?! People sneak in all the time with their kids in the hopes that their kids can grow up in the U.S. instead of their home country. On our dime, of course, degrading our school system and putting undue pressure on our health care system. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/34 "2010-01-21T09:27:40Z")
What laws do other countries have about birthright citizenship? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/35 "2010-01-21T14:50:40Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > What laws do other countries have about birthright citizenship? Here is something by [Ron Paul.](http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html) > [@](#): > > No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship. And some [blog I can’t vouch for.](http://www.voiceforvoters.com/?p=47) > [@](#): > > Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Spain, United States, and Venezuela. > > Countries that do NOT Grant Automatic Birthright Citizenship > > Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Columbia, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and Zaire. [Here’s something](http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-observing-birthright-citizenship.html) that I think is reliable. > [@](#): > > Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship > > The United States is just one of many nations that offers the unconditional citizenship of children born within its borders. The following is a list of nation’s that also grant Birthright Citizenship: > > Antigua and Barbuda > Argentina > Azerbaijan > Barbados > Belize > Bolivia > Brazil > Canada > Colombia > Dominica > Dominican Republic > Ecuador > El Salvador > Fiji > Grenada > Guatemala > Guyana > Honduras > Jamaica > Lesotho > Mexico > Nicaragua > Pakistan > Panama > Paraguay > Peru > Romania > Saint Christopher and Nevis > Saint Lucia > Saint Vincent and the Grenadines > Trinidad and Tobago > Uruguay > Venezuela > NOTES: > > NO European nations grant Birthright Citizenship except for Romania > Canada is the only developed nation other than the United States > NO nation, other than the United States, has more than 200 million people > Every nation has fewer than 50 million except the United States, Pakistan, Brazil and Mexico ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/36 "2010-01-21T16:17:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Ah, I misread. I was thinking a “legalization” process of some sort. You raise a good point. I’m not sure about those legal residents who are awaiting the naturalizing process. I don’t know if that process is abused in the way the OP is thinking. I don’t think it is, in which case they probably should be legal. > > On the other hand, though, what if the parents fail the naturalization process? Then we’d have the type of problems the OP is trying to avoid. No? If they fail the naturalization process then they would remain legal permanent residents. It still isn’t clear what the advantage of taking away their newborn would be, since they themselves are still perfectly legally entitled to remain in the United States. My impression is that you are more interested in illegal immigration cases, but I believe our commentary illustrates an important point: whatever you do make sure you have a thorough understanding of current immigration law. I doubt your intention is to drop kick newborns of legal residents over the border but that could be a real consequence of a badly implemented simple “no birth-right” policy. It is simple to come up with easy and wrong solutions on the internet, but the reality is much more complicated - what do you do with all these edge cases, many of which involve legal immigrants who have followed all the rules. You are talking about a massive restructuring of immigration law, with many potential unintended consequences. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/37 "2010-01-21T16:59:24Z")
> [@Driver8](#): > > If they fail the naturalization process then they would remain legal permanent residents. It still isn’t clear what the advantage of taking away their newborn would be, since they themselves are still perfectly legally entitled to remain in the United States. > > My impression is that you are more interested in illegal immigration cases, but I believe our commentary illustrates an important point: whatever you do make sure you have a thorough understanding of current immigration law. I doubt your intention is to drop kick newborns of legal residents over the border but that could be a real consequence of a badly implemented simple “no birth-right” policy. It is simple to come up with easy and wrong solutions on the internet, but the reality is much more complicated - what do you do with all these edge cases, many of which involve legal immigrants who have followed all the rules. You are talking about a massive restructuring of immigration law, with many potential unintended consequences. All good points. My goal is for us to control immigration into our country. To know who everyone is and to be able to tun the spigot in a way that benefits us. If we want more immigrants, we open it. If we don’t, like now with high unemployment and an undue burden placed on a specific population (blacks), then we can close it. This idea necessitates having an immigration process that is much simpler and faster then what we have now. I also think a guest worker program, like what Canada has, would be a great benefit. I also want a system that minimizes abuse, I don’t know the number of people covered by permanent residency status. If it’s tiny, we don’t have to worry too much about it. Especially if whatever changes we make stop illegal immigration. And we’d have to make sure that the permanent residency provision we’re discussing couldn’t be abused and turn into a big problem down the road. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/38 "2010-01-21T22:59:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Number 1 is Unconstitutional. And that is the problem. We need a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen and good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/39 "2010-01-21T23:09:57Z")
I’m still unsure of what problems the OP’s proposals intend to solve. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761/40 "2010-01-22T23:33:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > First, I was talking about what I thought the results of the OPs “Exceptions only for the life of the mother” would be; I myself am very pro-choice. > > And second, I think you are very overoptimistic about what the pro-lifers want; if they thought they could get away with it I’m sure they’d put laws into force that flatly ban abortion even if it kills the woman. And gloat about all the “sluts” they are killing. A) Sorry, my “you” was actually still directed at the OP, despite following a quote from you, Der Trihs. B) By “most pro-lifers” I mean most who self-identify as pro-life, which covers a lot of people who are just a bit to the right of the law, & a good deal of those who accept that some abortions are necessary even if they deplore “abortion on demand” for non-medical reasons. I’m thinking here of my mother, who is a social-conscience pro-life Pubbie. She would, I expect, want to protect women where possible, & not have the law written to force a woman to be crippled in “hard case” scenarios. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-immigration-a-moderate-reponse/525761.md?page=3)