RIGHT SPEAK: No, Illegal Immigration Won’t Fix America’s Fertility Crisis: The Birth Rate Will Go Up if Americans Prioritize Having and Raising Their Own Children, Not Because They Have Foreigners to Change Diapers; To Save America, Have Lots of Children

No, Illegal Immigration Won’t Fix America’s Fertility Crisis:

The birth rate will go up if Americans prioritize having and raising their own children, not because they have foreigners to change diapers.

Americans do not need illegal immigrants to raise our children.

Atlantic writer Olga Khazan disagrees. She is angry at President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration because it is disrupting the easily exploited servant class that provides cheap childcare. As she explains, “Millions of parents in the United States … rely on immigrants to take care of their kids. … Immigrants make up at least 21 percent of the child-care workforce — and this may be an undercount.”

So? Americans are not obligated to set aside our immigration laws just so women such as Olga Khazan can have cheaper, more subservient nannies and daycare workers.

Perhaps aware that demanding lower-paid servants is a bad look, Khazan attempts to concern-troll conservatives, arguing that importing childcare workers is a crucial pro-natal policy. As she puts it, “In his first public address as vice president, Vance said it should be ‘easier to raise a family’ in America. His administration’s immigration policies could make doing so much harder.”

She argues that more immigrants, legal or illegal, mean cheaper childcare, which means more working American mothers. In contrast, “When fewer immigrants are in the American workforce, economic research suggests, women may work less or have fewer babies — possibly both.” She leans into the latter point, though she’s forced to admit that the “relationship between affordable child care and fertility is fuzzy.” Indeed, that is putting it mildly. European nations with generous childcare benefits and subsidies are not notably fecund.

Nonetheless, Khazan argues that some data shows a connection between immigration and American fertility. She provides little evidence, citing only a working paper by a grad student and a 2015 study covering data from 1980-2000, which she claims as evidence that increased immigration led to lower childcare costs, which “seems to have led to more educated women having kids.” This conclusion may have been more revealing than Khazan intended, as it suggests that her denunciation of immigration enforcement is less an altruistic effort than a form of class warfare. After all, these lower childcare costs for “educated women” result from driving down wages for working-class American women.

There are reasons for leniency in some immigration cases (e.g., those who were brought here as young children decades ago), but demanding a lax approach to immigration enforcement to have a cheap servant class is repulsive. Furthermore, importing endless waves of foreigners who will raise our children for low wages is not a sustainable solution to low birth rates. Even if low-cost childcare provides marginal increases to birth rates, it will not be enough to get native fertility back above replacement, or close to it. sexual revolution, and getting married. It really is that simple — and that hard. --->READ MORE HERE

To Save America, Have Lots of Children:

White House Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller was on Will Cain’s FOX News television show on Tuesday and made a rather startling statement.

“What they don’t teach you in school is that from 1920 to 1970, there was negative migration [in America],” Miller told Cain. “There was a half century of negative migration. The foreign-born population declined by 40 percent for half a century … [Yet] during that same time period, the U.S. population doubled.”

How was that possible?

American families were having lots of children.

“That was the cauldron in which a unified shared national identity was formed,” Miller continued. “They went through a depression together, they went through world war together, they landed on the moon together. This great period in American history happened at a time when there was negative migration.”

The debate remains red-hot these days over illegal immigration and even, to some degree, over legal immigration, too. But students of history recognize that tension over those immigrating to the United States is not a new phenomenon.

Just over one-hundred years ago, the number of newly arriving immigrants was skyrocketing and putting pressure on all the country’s services. The Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the “Johnson-Reed Act,” was designed to address the huge influx of individuals and limit how many and from what parts of the world they would be allowed to come from.

Months after the legislation was signed into law, Major Henry H. Curran, who was serving as Commissioner of Immigration at Ellis Island, was quoted in a New York Times editorial:

“We are getting half as many as we did under the old law and that is a good thing for all concerned,” he said. “It is good for the country because we can assimilate them better. Therefore, it is good for the immigrant. He receives more attention than he could otherwise get at the stations and because he is one of a lesser number his opportunities are correspondingly better.”