Why the Democratic Party needs illegal immigrants

kw: politics, abortion, analytical projects

I have been mulling over a curious phenomenon for about twenty years, since I began to gather threads of this idea after the amnesty for illegal immigrants enacted in 1986. At that time there were three million of them. In the past 34 years a further 11-12 million people have entered the U.S. illegally. That is the curious phenomenon: The Democratic Party has increasingly pushed for a further amnesty, and many, perhaps most of the party's national leaders even call for open borders. Open borders would eliminate national sovereignty! I wondered, "Why?"

I think I know why. The population of Democrats and potential Democrats (children born to parents who are Democrats) has not been growing as rapidly as the population of Republicans and potential Republicans. As I figure it, the primary reason behind that trend is legalized abortion, which began January 22, 1973. From that date until the end of 2001, plus the first ten months of 2002, the number of abortions reported to the CDC was a bit over 34.4 million. That is the number of persons who would nearly all be living today, and eligible to vote.

34.4 million. That is more than 10% of the current U.S. population. That is a lot of "missing Americans," who simply faded into the ashcan of history (This does not take account of any children that could have been born to babies aborted before about 1984, some of whom would also be eligible to vote this year).

Who obtained those abortions? For the entire period of about 47 years, Republicans and some Democrats who are people of faith have decried the Roe vs Wade decision, and legislatures in "red states" have enacted numerous laws to restrict abortions. All that time, Democrats, and a very few Republicans, have loudly supported "abortion on demand", and have either fought restrictive legislation or initiated lawsuits to get such laws struck down.

How many of the women who chose abortion were Democrats and how many were Republican? It is inconceivable that there is an exact 50:50 split. Millions of the women who chose abortion were Republicans, but even more were Democrats, but what is the proportion? It is certain that Democrats were the majority, whether it is a slender majority or a great majority. Republican women have the hurdle of belonging to a political party that is vocally anti-abortion, and usually also belonging to a religious establishment that opposes abortion. Fewer Democrats are religious, so in general there is no such hurdle for a Democratic woman.

Based upon my experience with many people of all political stripes, I think the proportion is between 60:40 and 55:45. It is quite possible that the real ratio is even more skewed, but being a conservative, I'll be conservative in my estimates. This table of "missing" voters shows the implications.

The column "Difference" shows the impact. I estimate that if there had been hardly any abortions, legal or otherwise, since 1973, the number of Democrats eligible to vote would be between 19 million and 20.7 million more than there are today, while the number of such Republicans would be between 13.8 million and 15.5 million. Many "purple states" would have become solidly "blue," as would the country as a whole.

The apparent "loss" of between 3.4 million and almost 7 million Democrat voters over the past forty years is tough to make up. Thus the need for illegal immigrants. It is no surprise that in border states, and to some extent in the tier of "next-to-border" states, illegal immigrants can get more "services" than retired veterans. It is a national shame that homeless veterans are living in the streets not far from nice houses filled with criminals (that's what illegal aliens are).

The cynical Democrats look upon the twelve million illegals as a gold mine. It is worth spending tons of money on them, all the while reminding them that it is the Democrats who are "caring" for them. Whenever they get amnesty, and voting rights soon after that, they will remember. If just five million of them begin to consistently vote Democratic, there will be little chance for anything resembling bipartisan politics to be found anywhere in this country. They will be free to enact whatever they want without effective opposition. This alone has a greater potential to bring an end to liberal Democracy in America than any other factor.

A Darwinian view of abortion

kw: current events, abortion, evolution

When abortion was legalized about forty years ago, much was said about the elimination of back-alley "house of horrors" abortion clinics. I wish it were so. The case of Kermit Gosnell (I decline to use the title Dr.) shows that, somehow, the back alley is still with us. Some would say it shows the effect of a continuing social stigma, but the reality is much more banal. Clean clinics cost more, and far too many women have no medical insurance.

As much as I hate to admit it, abortion has a place in population moderation ("population control" bears too much hubris). The most modern methods of conception prevention, mis-named "birth control", are about 99% effective. It has been estimated and published a number of times that a woman in the Free World who uses the pill, an IUD, or a condom for every sexual encounter, intending to have no children during her thirty to forty years of fertility, will on average conceive three times. As a character in Jurassic Park said repeatedly, "Life will find a way." If a woman wants fewer than three children, what is she to do? RU-486 is one possibility, but only when used early. Abortion is the final resort.

In an ideal world with a generous economy, the cost of raising a child would not be a deterrent to having one. Welfare moms take note: you appear to be living in such an economy, albeit a bit skimpy on the "generous" side. But in the face of a planet that in forty years will be bearing nine billion persons, something has to give. The planetary economy will give out at some point.

However, there will always be wide differences in the number of children a particular woman or particular couple wishes to raise. Again, referring only to the free world, the cultural preference is now to have one or two children, not more. But some want more, and some want none. In Darwinian terms, what does this mean?

It means a lot of abortions. Abortions have become a factor in natural selection among humans. It can be imagined that the tendency to of some people to use abortion more than others is genetically determined, at least in part. People with those genetics will have fewer offspring than others, and many will have none. This will lead to a gradual reduction in "abortion-favoring" genes in the population. Generation after generation, the proportion of women who can "easily" choose abortion will decrease. Perhaps, if we are lucky, newer versions of the Pill will be developed that are more like 99.9% or 99.99% effective. Otherwise, the number of abortions will slowly decrease, and population will grow beyond UN projections.

Again, "Life will find a way," which in this case means population moderation is going to get harder as time goes on.