Anyone For Romney?
- Thread starter Runnie_D
- Start date
Merozoite
New member
But they are paying taxes!
Let me repeat myself:
Many immigrants, when they arrive, obtain a tax
payer ID card (it does not require a social security number) so they can have
taxes withdrawn from their paychecks. Illegal immigrants contribute about seven
billion dollars each year in taxes. This is actually beneficial to the American
economy. There are more people drawing from social security right now than are
paying into it, so the revenue is needed.
Let me repeat myself:
Many immigrants, when they arrive, obtain a tax
payer ID card (it does not require a social security number) so they can have
taxes withdrawn from their paychecks. Illegal immigrants contribute about seven
billion dollars each year in taxes. This is actually beneficial to the American
economy. There are more people drawing from social security right now than are
paying into it, so the revenue is needed.
beer.
Active member
ill elaborate a little
hispanic people are really nice. i love hispanic culture. they eat healthy food, exercise, and don't smoke. their tv shows have hot, tan women with big tits and asses in thongs. their food is healthy and tastes great.
they come to this country trying to secure a better life for themselves and their families. i would do the exact same thing in their position. they work their asses off doing work you would never want to do. they may not pay taxes directly, but they still pay sales and other taxes. their children dont deserve to not go to school or learn to read and write english because of their parents.
i have never had a hispanic person ever commit a crime against me. I have never even had any hispanic person ever say one rude thing to me. this is quite amazing because i can recall times where every other ethnic group of people have been dicks to me, but not one case of a hispanic person doing so.
youre just a racist if you cant stand to see a sign with english and spanish on it. grow the fuck up.
liquidsword
Member
He's a Presidential candidate who happens to be mormon.
Not a Mormon running for president.
Not a Mormon running for president.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
ummmmmm.....what?
liquidsword
Member
yeah made sense in my head...
Seems like some people see him as a Mormon who if he is elected will base all of his decisions by consulting the Book of Mormon.
Hence "He's a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE who happens to be Mormon"
and yeah i'm from Utah put 2 and 2 together
Seems like some people see him as a Mormon who if he is elected will base all of his decisions by consulting the Book of Mormon.
Hence "He's a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE who happens to be Mormon"
and yeah i'm from Utah put 2 and 2 together
beer.
Active member
I think you mean moron. seriously, hes pretty dumb. have you watched the debates? he really sucks, is just awful at debating.
also, he has stated that his religious beliefs play a guiding role in his life. so he is a mormon running for president. you need to wake up and actually learn about the candidate.
boston globe--In the most closely scrutinized moment of his presidential campaign,
Mitt Romney declared yesterday that religion is central to his life and
to America, but that he will not be a spokesman for Mormonism or serve
the leaders of his church if he is elected president.
so religion helps him make decisions in life. so he wont be obeying the president of the mormon church, but none-the-less hes said that his faith plays a role in how he thinks.
also, he has stated that his religious beliefs play a guiding role in his life. so he is a mormon running for president. you need to wake up and actually learn about the candidate.
boston globe--In the most closely scrutinized moment of his presidential campaign,
Mitt Romney declared yesterday that religion is central to his life and
to America, but that he will not be a spokesman for Mormonism or serve
the leaders of his church if he is elected president.
so religion helps him make decisions in life. so he wont be obeying the president of the mormon church, but none-the-less hes said that his faith plays a role in how he thinks.
liquidsword
Member
i don't disagree with any of the facts you just said.
i said some people though... not cnn
i'm not saying anything else will just start another religious bashing thread.
you can pm me if you want
i said some people though... not cnn
i'm not saying anything else will just start another religious bashing thread.
you can pm me if you want
liquidsword
Member
except this one and facts are things that are not opinionated like saying Romney sucks at debating etc...
BravoWhiskey5280
Active member
I haven't followed the race that much but I don't really like Guilliani due to his view on guns....I like McCain and Huckabee.... I'll be happy as long as Hillary doesnt win...
molsongolden
Active member
romney is a douche.
rudy is a republican economically but he is socially liberal. just vote for him and everyone can be happy. we dont need to raise taxes we need to cut spending. even if you are a democrat you have to be able to agree with that and if you can agree with that you can vote for giuliani
rudy is a republican economically but he is socially liberal. just vote for him and everyone can be happy. we dont need to raise taxes we need to cut spending. even if you are a democrat you have to be able to agree with that and if you can agree with that you can vote for giuliani
Utahpowderskier
Active member
I disagree. I think that he actually does a great job in the debates. I want to yell at him for his views sometimes, but I think he kicks ass at the debates so far.
molsongolden
Active member
no
lt.milo
Active member
merozite is actually correct. I do not support obama so that is not why i agree with her. Most major economics say that however you put it, they are helping our economy. If they did not come over, things here would be much more expensive making the middle class much lower. The immigrants do pay taxes, how do you guys think they stay here? We obviously can't allow anyone to come here, but we can't stop all of them.
-this is froma Ron Paul supporter. He wants to build a fence.
Remember that you don't have to agree with all of your favorite presidential candidates ideals. In this case, merozite is completely correct. We would actually be screwed without any at all.
-this is froma Ron Paul supporter. He wants to build a fence.
Remember that you don't have to agree with all of your favorite presidential candidates ideals. In this case, merozite is completely correct. We would actually be screwed without any at all.
almostaskier
Active member
one of the idiocies of his campaign.
Quinny
Active member
I'm sorry but its fucking criminal that illegal immigrants can come here and get away with the crap they do. They do not pay taxes, do not vote, raise crime rates in poorer neighborhoods, and do not bother to learn the fucking language of the country they now live in. There is so much shit wrong with that its not even funny.
We need to gain control of the border first and foremost. Having an underfunded and dysfunctional border control does not just pertain to the movement of people, it also presents a threat to national security. Not to mention a large portion of illegal drug trafficking comes up though Mexico. The amount of illegal immigrants flooding in also contributes to the country's debt because that huge population of people leeches government money both directly and indirectly. It isn't fair to anybody, especially the immigrants, to make them bend to our rules until we are unable to control the border. Deciding what to do with the illegals without closing the border is like treating a gunshot wound with pain killers...all it does is create a temporary remedy without actually solving the problem.
We need to first and foremost gain absolute control over the border. Then we need to absorb the illegal immigrants into the system. Make them into citizens, teach the English, and force them to pay the same taxes as everybody else does!
I don't care who you are or what ideology you associate yourself with, this is hands down the most important issue this country has right now.
We need to gain control of the border first and foremost. Having an underfunded and dysfunctional border control does not just pertain to the movement of people, it also presents a threat to national security. Not to mention a large portion of illegal drug trafficking comes up though Mexico. The amount of illegal immigrants flooding in also contributes to the country's debt because that huge population of people leeches government money both directly and indirectly. It isn't fair to anybody, especially the immigrants, to make them bend to our rules until we are unable to control the border. Deciding what to do with the illegals without closing the border is like treating a gunshot wound with pain killers...all it does is create a temporary remedy without actually solving the problem.
We need to first and foremost gain absolute control over the border. Then we need to absorb the illegal immigrants into the system. Make them into citizens, teach the English, and force them to pay the same taxes as everybody else does!
I don't care who you are or what ideology you associate yourself with, this is hands down the most important issue this country has right now.
almostaskier
Active member
They do pay taxes.
They can't vote because they aren't citizens. Most citizens don't vote, is that illegal?
They don't raise crime rates at all. In fact, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Urban Institute, two non partisan research organizations have found, through decades of research, that immigrants are disproportionately unlikely to commit crimes". A study in 1998 by the FBI concluded that immigrants did not raise crime rates over time. They didn't help, but nothing changed.
Crime rates are based on arrest and conviction stats. It's the people who get caught who get the blame, and latino and black population rarely get off easy. Also, most of the time you see immigrants on TV, they're shown as criminal.
Arrests for drug related are thirteen times higher in Hispanic youths than whites. I dare say with all the pot talk on here and everywhere else that white youths engage in as much use and sell of drugs as nonwhites.
It's not that they don't bother to learn the language: they have NO MEANS to. Nothing is set up for them to even begin to learn english, and they're stuck working jobs that don't give any training benefits, or hands on english experience. If you're going to call illegal immigrants lazy, you should go and check out where they work. If you're gonna say that they aren't motivated to learn english, i'll have you know that they would want nothing more than to be able to speak english well enough to get a better job than the one they have now. They simply have no way to do it.
Damn all those poor kids who have no good schools and horrible teachers, why can't they get motivated enough to get out of the ghetto?
They can't vote because they aren't citizens. Most citizens don't vote, is that illegal?
They don't raise crime rates at all. In fact, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Urban Institute, two non partisan research organizations have found, through decades of research, that immigrants are disproportionately unlikely to commit crimes". A study in 1998 by the FBI concluded that immigrants did not raise crime rates over time. They didn't help, but nothing changed.
Crime rates are based on arrest and conviction stats. It's the people who get caught who get the blame, and latino and black population rarely get off easy. Also, most of the time you see immigrants on TV, they're shown as criminal.
Arrests for drug related are thirteen times higher in Hispanic youths than whites. I dare say with all the pot talk on here and everywhere else that white youths engage in as much use and sell of drugs as nonwhites.
It's not that they don't bother to learn the language: they have NO MEANS to. Nothing is set up for them to even begin to learn english, and they're stuck working jobs that don't give any training benefits, or hands on english experience. If you're going to call illegal immigrants lazy, you should go and check out where they work. If you're gonna say that they aren't motivated to learn english, i'll have you know that they would want nothing more than to be able to speak english well enough to get a better job than the one they have now. They simply have no way to do it.
Damn all those poor kids who have no good schools and horrible teachers, why can't they get motivated enough to get out of the ghetto?
beer.
Active member
you make a lot of well-researched points. its ok though, you wont convince quinny. after all, this is the most important issue right now. in reality its another wedge issue. it plays off of xenophobia and racism in america.
illegal immigrants get deported when picked up from crimes, often times. so its only logical that they are less likely to commit a crime. try to get a hispanic person to buy beer for you.
why, why do people care if someone doesnt speak your language? its not like they get jobs as receptionists. grow the fuck up
illegal immigrants get deported when picked up from crimes, often times. so its only logical that they are less likely to commit a crime. try to get a hispanic person to buy beer for you.
why, why do people care if someone doesnt speak your language? its not like they get jobs as receptionists. grow the fuck up
Quinny
Active member
You missed the point.
All of their plights can be far more easily solved if they are allowed to integrate into the system, or alternatively we don't have to worry about it at all if we kick them out (though the latter is unrealistic).
We can't actually control taxes unless they are citizens. I'm not talking about the payroll taxes that the government requires of businesses (that has dick to do with the immigrants themselves). I'm talking about income tax. If they live here, they should pay the same taxes that everybody else does, they do not.
They can't voice change in the government because they are not allowed to participate in the system. If you make them citizens and give them the opportunity to vote, they can actually do something about their situation rather than bitching, complaining, and marching at protests rallies under a Mexican flag. It's not productive.
Crime rates are high because they are poor. They will always remain poor and working class if they are not part of the system. They have no vertical mobility in the system. They need to become citizens if you expect any of them to progress to the middle class or beyond. Their current status is just reinforcing a caste system which is bad for capitalism.
They also can not move vertically without a good education. Furthermore, they should not be allowed to move to higher education (assuming they can even afford it) unless they are on the same playing field as any other legal US citizen. They cannot progress from poverty unless they become legal citizens. When they are citizens, they can be allowed to the opportunities the rest of us have because we all pay and equal price for it.
The drug problem does not necessarily have any proportionality to illegal immigrants. It has more to do with that fact that we can't control our border. You're over reaching into and issue I didn't even bring up.
They can't learn English because they are not integrated into the system. Politicians can't ignore them anymore if they become legal citizens. Then we can instate programs in through seminars and schools that teach them the language.
And no, we should not accommodate their Spanish beyond basic necessity. Beyond that is just more of this feel-good politically correct bullshit thats counter productive to society. A group of people that cannot speak to each other can not possibly maximize efficiency in the economy. It's bad for capitalism.
All of their plights can be far more easily solved if they are allowed to integrate into the system, or alternatively we don't have to worry about it at all if we kick them out (though the latter is unrealistic).
We can't actually control taxes unless they are citizens. I'm not talking about the payroll taxes that the government requires of businesses (that has dick to do with the immigrants themselves). I'm talking about income tax. If they live here, they should pay the same taxes that everybody else does, they do not.
They can't voice change in the government because they are not allowed to participate in the system. If you make them citizens and give them the opportunity to vote, they can actually do something about their situation rather than bitching, complaining, and marching at protests rallies under a Mexican flag. It's not productive.
Crime rates are high because they are poor. They will always remain poor and working class if they are not part of the system. They have no vertical mobility in the system. They need to become citizens if you expect any of them to progress to the middle class or beyond. Their current status is just reinforcing a caste system which is bad for capitalism.
They also can not move vertically without a good education. Furthermore, they should not be allowed to move to higher education (assuming they can even afford it) unless they are on the same playing field as any other legal US citizen. They cannot progress from poverty unless they become legal citizens. When they are citizens, they can be allowed to the opportunities the rest of us have because we all pay and equal price for it.
The drug problem does not necessarily have any proportionality to illegal immigrants. It has more to do with that fact that we can't control our border. You're over reaching into and issue I didn't even bring up.
They can't learn English because they are not integrated into the system. Politicians can't ignore them anymore if they become legal citizens. Then we can instate programs in through seminars and schools that teach them the language.
And no, we should not accommodate their Spanish beyond basic necessity. Beyond that is just more of this feel-good politically correct bullshit thats counter productive to society. A group of people that cannot speak to each other can not possibly maximize efficiency in the economy. It's bad for capitalism.
liquidsword
Member
didn't read it.
did you copy paste that? ha
did you copy paste that? ha
Quinny
Active member
And just because I'm not a pretentious left wing dickhead that always agrees with you does not mean my mind can't be swayed. I think its an important issue because it has an effect on almost every other everything other domestic issue of importance. But fine, you can go ahead and call me a xenophobe and a racist because you don’t have the balls to face up to the problem that affects you and everybody else in this country.
What do you suggest we do?
What do you suggest we do?
almostaskier
Active member
That's basically exactly what I said, just this time you didn't call them lazy moochers that hike crime rates up.
almostaskier
Active member
They aren't integrated into the system because the system does not let them integrate. Hipsnics are very much invisible when it comes to laws, and the system is inherently discriminatory.
Otherwise, I agree. We shouldn't let them get away on simple spanish. To do that, we need to make it so they can learn english.
Otherwise I agree with what you said this time.
Otherwise, I agree. We shouldn't let them get away on simple spanish. To do that, we need to make it so they can learn english.
Otherwise I agree with what you said this time.
almostaskier
Active member
Well, you DID say:
I'm sorry but its fucking criminal that illegal immigrants can come here and get away with the crap they do. They do not pay taxes, do not vote, raise crime rates in poorer neighborhoods, and do not bother to learn the fucking language of the country they now live in. There is so much shit wrong with that its not even funny.
"They don't pay taxes", which means that they don't pay into the system, which would imply they mooch, no? But they do pay taxes, and WANT to be legal, so they're actively TRYING to be on par with everyone else, just we don't let them. Also, 75 % of the illegal workers here work in the formal economy, with fake documents. They have taxes deducted from their paychecks just like you and I, but they aren't going to claim any refund. For the rest, they cost us about 2.7 billion dollars in unpaid taxes. In comparison, 25 million US citizens earn money from the informal economy, which costs us 195 billion dollars a year, according to the IRS.
"They don't vote", which we won't let them do, because they aren't citizens, and we provide no way for them to be able to vote. You're asking them to stop bitching (an example of such bitching from the immigrants themselves please?) and fix their situation... but they have no means to do so. Alright, build a mansion with no tools and no materials aaaaaand GO! By the way, most citizens don't vote, does that make them bad people? The "they don't vote" argument is a weird one man.Normal citizens don't vote, most immigrants would love to be legal enough to vote, there is no means for them to get legal enough to vote, and you're criticizing them for not voting?
"They raise crime rates in poorer neighborhoods" isn't true, they DO NOT raise crime rates. They may fall into criminality because of poverty, but at no larger rate than any other poor demographic. The poverty which is largely caused by a lack of english proficiency and the exploitation by large corporations and business and employers of a cheap, expendable and vulnerable labor force.
"They don't bother to learn the language". Sorry dude, but if "bother" doesn't insinuate laziness in attempting to learn english, i don't know what does. You think they don't want to? really? A June 2006 study in Pheonix showed that there is an 18 month waiting list for ESL classes. In Boston, there are at least 16 725 adults on a waiting list of three yaars for ESL classes. New York had the same dilemma.
By the way, the US Census bureau estimates that 65% of immigrants over the age of 5 speak english "very well" to "well", and 23% speak it "not well", and 12% "not at all".
They're trying. They aren't lazy, like you insinuated. They aren't raising crime rates, like you said. They can't vote, not because they don't want to, like you insinuated, but simply because we don't allow them to. That's on us, not them. They also pay plenty of the same taxes, which isn't what you said, they don't take their benefits back, and they generate less loss of revenue than other US citizens.
So what words exactly did i put in your mouth?
I'm sorry but its fucking criminal that illegal immigrants can come here and get away with the crap they do. They do not pay taxes, do not vote, raise crime rates in poorer neighborhoods, and do not bother to learn the fucking language of the country they now live in. There is so much shit wrong with that its not even funny.
"They don't pay taxes", which means that they don't pay into the system, which would imply they mooch, no? But they do pay taxes, and WANT to be legal, so they're actively TRYING to be on par with everyone else, just we don't let them. Also, 75 % of the illegal workers here work in the formal economy, with fake documents. They have taxes deducted from their paychecks just like you and I, but they aren't going to claim any refund. For the rest, they cost us about 2.7 billion dollars in unpaid taxes. In comparison, 25 million US citizens earn money from the informal economy, which costs us 195 billion dollars a year, according to the IRS.
"They don't vote", which we won't let them do, because they aren't citizens, and we provide no way for them to be able to vote. You're asking them to stop bitching (an example of such bitching from the immigrants themselves please?) and fix their situation... but they have no means to do so. Alright, build a mansion with no tools and no materials aaaaaand GO! By the way, most citizens don't vote, does that make them bad people? The "they don't vote" argument is a weird one man.Normal citizens don't vote, most immigrants would love to be legal enough to vote, there is no means for them to get legal enough to vote, and you're criticizing them for not voting?
"They raise crime rates in poorer neighborhoods" isn't true, they DO NOT raise crime rates. They may fall into criminality because of poverty, but at no larger rate than any other poor demographic. The poverty which is largely caused by a lack of english proficiency and the exploitation by large corporations and business and employers of a cheap, expendable and vulnerable labor force.
"They don't bother to learn the language". Sorry dude, but if "bother" doesn't insinuate laziness in attempting to learn english, i don't know what does. You think they don't want to? really? A June 2006 study in Pheonix showed that there is an 18 month waiting list for ESL classes. In Boston, there are at least 16 725 adults on a waiting list of three yaars for ESL classes. New York had the same dilemma.
By the way, the US Census bureau estimates that 65% of immigrants over the age of 5 speak english "very well" to "well", and 23% speak it "not well", and 12% "not at all".
They're trying. They aren't lazy, like you insinuated. They aren't raising crime rates, like you said. They can't vote, not because they don't want to, like you insinuated, but simply because we don't allow them to. That's on us, not them. They also pay plenty of the same taxes, which isn't what you said, they don't take their benefits back, and they generate less loss of revenue than other US citizens.
So what words exactly did i put in your mouth?
beer.
Active member
pwned.
I am gonna use all those as talking points against anyone that wants to spew this hate-filled garbage. way to go, excellent, excellent points.
http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/12/new_texas_study_says_illegal_i.html
read this article. it details exactly what happens when illegals are removed. it causes declines in almost all different aspects of the economy.
in any case, american natives do not want to work construction jobs for 7 bucks an hour. so there are no jobs being stolen, really. i live in an area with a SHITLOAD of illegals. it doesnt bother me one bit. I have never had a job taken, or a crime committed against me by one. the only consequence is I can get two of the biggest tacos you've ever seen with huge chunks of real steak and avocado for five bucks. hell of a deal, thanks mercado latino.
while I agree a secure border is important, I think its only if we make becoming a U.S. citizen much easier. as it stands there are much bigger problems in this country. social security, healthcare, eliminating the war on drugs, and many other things.
I am gonna use all those as talking points against anyone that wants to spew this hate-filled garbage. way to go, excellent, excellent points.
http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/12/new_texas_study_says_illegal_i.html
read this article. it details exactly what happens when illegals are removed. it causes declines in almost all different aspects of the economy.
in any case, american natives do not want to work construction jobs for 7 bucks an hour. so there are no jobs being stolen, really. i live in an area with a SHITLOAD of illegals. it doesnt bother me one bit. I have never had a job taken, or a crime committed against me by one. the only consequence is I can get two of the biggest tacos you've ever seen with huge chunks of real steak and avocado for five bucks. hell of a deal, thanks mercado latino.
while I agree a secure border is important, I think its only if we make becoming a U.S. citizen much easier. as it stands there are much bigger problems in this country. social security, healthcare, eliminating the war on drugs, and many other things.
almostaskier
Active member
Shut it. I didn't write that to "pwn" anyone. I just happen to disagree with Quinn this time, and Im backing up why. I just wrote a research essay on this, and this matters a lot to me.
I totally get where he's coming from, and he's right about a lot of the problem behind immigration. Dude knows what he's talking about, i just wanted to point out a lapse in language. His idea about fixing the borders first and then the immigrants is correct.
I totally get where he's coming from, and he's right about a lot of the problem behind immigration. Dude knows what he's talking about, i just wanted to point out a lapse in language. His idea about fixing the borders first and then the immigrants is correct.
almostaskier
Active member
That's basically what quinn is saying, he wants to integrate them, AND secure the border. That's a great solution.
treejib_pow
Member
i go for romney, he is a bad ass.
treejib_pow
Member
i go for romney, he is a bad ass.
Gigantaface
Member
The legalization of abortion is responsible for the crime drop, not Guliani
Utahpowderskier
Active member
Are you seriously saying that the legalization of abortion solved NYC crime problems? I am hoping that I am missing some sarcasm here...
lt.milo
Active member
read freakanomics. when you legalize abortion, crime rates go down. Just think, all these unwanted babies will have bad family lifes and are more likely to be involved in crime.
now, this is NOT saying that abortion is a bad thing, this is just one thing that has been repeatedly proven throughout history, and while I have never heard it applied to the crime rate in modern day NY, I think it is very plausible.
now, this is NOT saying that abortion is a bad thing, this is just one thing that has been repeatedly proven throughout history, and while I have never heard it applied to the crime rate in modern day NY, I think it is very plausible.
Gigantaface
Member
no sarcasm at all
In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.
This theory is bound to provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections, ranging from the quotidian to the moral. The likeliest first objection is the most straightforward one: is the theory true? Perhaps abortion and crime are merely correlated and not causal.
It may be more comforting to believe what the newspapers say, that the drop in crime was due to brilliant policing and clever gun control and a surging economy. We have evolved with a tendency to link causality to things we can touch or feel, not to some distant or difficult phenomenon. We believe especially in near-term causes: a snake bites your friend, he screams with pain, and he dies. The snakebite, you conclude, must have killed him. Most of the time, such a reckoning is correct. But when it comes to cause and effect, there is often a trap in such open-and-shut thinking. We smirk now when we think of ancient cultures that embraced faulty causes—the warriors who believed, for instance, that it was their raping of a virgin that brought them victory on the battlefield. But we too embrace faulty causes, usually at the urging of an expert proclaiming a truth in which he has a vested interest.
How, then, can we tell if the abortion-crime link is a case of causality rather than simply correlation?
One way to test the effect of abortion on crime would be to measure crime data in the five states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country.
In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. Between 1988 and 1994, violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell 13 percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and 1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of the other states.
But what if those early legalizers simply got lucky? What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state's abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. (This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation.) Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states. (New York City had high abortion rates and lay within an early-legalizing state, a pair of facts that further dampen the claim that innovative policing caused the crime drop.) Moreover, there was no link between a given state's abortion rate and its crime rate before the late 1980s—when the first cohort affected by legalized abortion was reaching its criminal prime—which is yet another indication that Roe v. Wade was indeed the event that tipped the crime scale.
In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.
This theory is bound to provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections, ranging from the quotidian to the moral. The likeliest first objection is the most straightforward one: is the theory true? Perhaps abortion and crime are merely correlated and not causal.
It may be more comforting to believe what the newspapers say, that the drop in crime was due to brilliant policing and clever gun control and a surging economy. We have evolved with a tendency to link causality to things we can touch or feel, not to some distant or difficult phenomenon. We believe especially in near-term causes: a snake bites your friend, he screams with pain, and he dies. The snakebite, you conclude, must have killed him. Most of the time, such a reckoning is correct. But when it comes to cause and effect, there is often a trap in such open-and-shut thinking. We smirk now when we think of ancient cultures that embraced faulty causes—the warriors who believed, for instance, that it was their raping of a virgin that brought them victory on the battlefield. But we too embrace faulty causes, usually at the urging of an expert proclaiming a truth in which he has a vested interest.
How, then, can we tell if the abortion-crime link is a case of causality rather than simply correlation?
One way to test the effect of abortion on crime would be to measure crime data in the five states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country.
In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. Between 1988 and 1994, violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell 13 percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and 1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of the other states.
But what if those early legalizers simply got lucky? What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state's abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. (This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation.) Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states. (New York City had high abortion rates and lay within an early-legalizing state, a pair of facts that further dampen the claim that innovative policing caused the crime drop.) Moreover, there was no link between a given state's abortion rate and its crime rate before the late 1980s—when the first cohort affected by legalized abortion was reaching its criminal prime—which is yet another indication that Roe v. Wade was indeed the event that tipped the crime scale.