Having an improvident underclass burgeoning beyond the carrying capacity of all available support systems --- whether by illegal immigration (invasion) or by natural reproductive increase, or both --- is a real problem. But why would reproductive maiming of non-consenting women be the solution?
Wouldn't it just make more sense to strictly enforce existing immigration laws, eliminate the "hook" of "anchor babies," deport those who reside here unlawfully, and put a cap on every form of welfare benefit?
After that cap is reached, the options for the dependent mothers are: get a job or an income-producing gig, get a husband, avail yourself of the services provided by private charities (church-based and other non-profits), or relocate someplace else where the prospects are better.
Eliminate freeloading invaders; cap benefits; encourage whatever form of productivity or self-sufficiency people can manage. I've got all kinds of ideas on this (in short: a low-taxed, de-regulated gig economy which would re-install the bottom rungs of small entrepreneurship or workforce participation) but not enough time or space to elaborate the idea here.
All this is better, more conducive to an ordered and law-respecting society and more congenial to human liberty, than poisoning the drinking water with anti-fertility chemicals, or "treating" women against their will with Sangerite-Maoist-veterinary "medical" solutions.
This kind of respect for law and liberty is the very foundation of a free society.
Or so I have always believed.
Those are great ideas, but not even Trump is saying things like that. He only says he’ll deport the worst of the criminals. And people are losing their minds over even that mild statement...they’re rioting, etc. Last night Leslie Stahl asked Trump, “Are you reeeeaaallly going to deport people?!” in the same tone of voice one might say, “Are you really going to throw people into the ovens?!” There are now so many illegals here, and the media is so much on their side, doing any deporting at all is now considered controversial.
All I hope for at this point is that some illegals will self-deport if life here gets more difficult for them, and Trump’s wall will eventually slow down the invasion of new ones. I have little hope that our immigration laws will ever actually be enforced the way we want. As someone else said, only God can really fix this disaster now.
That would be a preferred solution. Eliminating government welfare entirely would be the best solution. If a woman faced the prospect of having to support her own kid by the sweat of her own brow, working at Burger King or wherever, they would pay much more attention to their birth control methods.
Two factors would work against that, though:
1) The tendency of welfare moms to put their own comfort ahead of their baby's. We would keep seeing news stories of children being malnourished because of "heartless" caps on welfare payments.
2) Middle-class women would vote against it. If a poor woman does not have welfare as an option, one of her other options is to compete with working-class and middle-class women for the affections of guys with decent jobs, whether as wife or mistress. What welfare currently does, is take millions of young women out of the competition for the pool of desirable men, and there are lots of middle-class women who would want that to stay that way.
As an example of how arguments against limiting welfare would proliferate, look at your own statement above. The proposal in post #7 by soycd was to put contraceptives in the food fed to welfare recipients. There was no "non-consenting" aspect to it. A woman who did not want to eat food with contraceptive would have the option of getting a job and buying her own food.
I get the impression that ANY attempt to make benefits conditional upon women accepting measures to limit their producing more babies they cannot support, would be fought by you as being "non-consensual". Do you disagree?
Are you willing to impose caps on benefits, even if it results in women making their children suffer? If your solution is to take away the kids and put them up for foster care, what measures would you accept to discourage the women you take the kid away from, from producing more?