Two very different stories from the latter part of this year have one thing in common: babies.
China: Wealthy couple has 8 children in 2-month span
USA: Generous immigration laws give birth to new industry, birth tourism
The laws in each of these countries seem to be extreme in very different directions. Though I don’t agree with the law imposed in China, I do understand the fear of overpopulation that prompted them to enact it. As for what’s allowed in America (and Canada), it just seems absolutely wrong. The women coming here to have their babies born in our respective nations is clearly a scam, yet one currently sanctioned as being legal. One wonders if Jason Kenney will eventually change the law in Canada to prevent it?
You have to be sadistic to bring a child into an atmospere of bureaucratic tyranny.
It wasn’t the fear of overpopulation that was behind China’s law. It’s about controlling the population.
When every family in your country is only permitted one child, the family unit is essentially removed from the equation – think about it: once your parents are gone, you’re all alone in the world. No brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., etc., etc.
“Though I don’t agree with the law imposed in China, I do understand the fear of overpopulation that prompted them to enact it.”
With all due respect Robert, that is the most daft statement I’ve ever read by an SDA host. What Alyric said is exactly true. This has nothing to do with overpopulation, but control of people by the state. This evil policy can only result in severe suffering by the Chinese.
Mark, Alyric: How is it that you DEFINITIVELY know that China’s law isn’t about controlling overpopulation?
I lived in Mexico City for a year in 1996/97. Back then the population was around 20 Million. It was insanely overpopulated. I did a lot of reading about Mexico and learned that they were doing quite well earlier in the century until their population grew out of control. That growth hurt everybody.
I always admonish those who assert that Canadian couples need to control the number of kids they have, pointing out that we have no problem with overpopulation whatsoever; quite the opposite in fact. But other parts of the world definitely do have too many people for what their economy can currently support.
So once again, I ask, how is that you two KNOW that China’s law was not about its stated intent? I’m most curious.
If the mother doesn’t have legal residency in Canada, then the baby shouldn’t be a Canadian citizen.
Throw the “anchor baby” policy overboard without a rope.
The one child policy in China is going to be their undoing. Even Greece has a higher birth rate. As for anchor babies I agree the law should change.
I have every confidence, despite the “one child ” policy originating during Mao’s rein, that this has been reviewed many times by the Chicom government.
With Mao’s demise, many policies were re-examined…..thoughtfully….the PRC shift to capitalism being evidence of this.
The rarety of female live births is not neccessarilly an unintended consequence…it not only limits population growth in a nation primarily rural….but provides manpower for maintaining a strong military. The chinese rulers no doubt noted the necessity in the west to have to rely more and more on females for the military…..and the draw-backs involved. With the demographic problem of a rapidly aging population without an institutional social safety net for the retiree’s, the policy not only provided staff for the military but the hard reality of providing a mostly male workforce….in the traditional chinese mind…the most productive gender.
If the “one child” policy was not working as intended, with the totalitarian government in charge…it would have been abandoned in a heart beat. The Chicom party is not engaged in a popularity contest.
“hiccup’,that’s a sad tale. Fortunately,the illegals are nice,white people,also completely self-supporting,so they get no sympathy from federal officials.
Their claim of refugee status from Portugal WAS a bit of a stretch though. I guess the 10 year wait for white Europeans was too much.
“So once again, I ask, how is that you two KNOW that China’s law was not about its stated intent? I’m most curious.”
Posted by: Robert W. (Vancouver) at December 27, 2011 12:02 PM
With regard to the mess in Mexico City, if it were simply a matter of population, NYC & Tokyo would be just as bad off.
As for the China, the communist government has always realized that the only way it can stay in power is through harsh control over the people. here is a primer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKaqjEiT0EU
Interesting video, Mark. Thank you for the link.
Let me be clear about something: I don’t agree with the state forcibly controlling how many children a couple can have. Some of the results of such policies, especially the abortion/murder of baby girls, is horrific to the extreme.
With that said, I see nothing wrong with the state, or anyone else, producing advertising and providing counseling that’s designed to make women think carefully about how many children they can comfortably support. One only needs to look at the terrible situation in the poor Black communities of most American cities to see what occurs when too many babies are born.
I also saw these same problems when, for 5 years, I delivered computers free-of-charge to poor families around Metro Vancouver. What I saw inside some of those homes made me feel beyond sad for the little children there.
Again though, while I’m against state control of births, I think education is a very good thing.
So if you are in favour of the state using public money to promote small families are you also in favour of them using public money to promote other values as they see fit? Preferably starting in kindergarden? Just how far is it from relentless propaganda to legal enforcement? There is no need in Canada to enshrine abortion rights in Canada because the state has already promoted the concept of abortion on demand to the point where people don’t even think about the issue for themselves anymore.
There is a line that is being crossed here.
Coming to Canada for the chances of having a safe delivery? Fine.
Pay the bill yourself and GTFO. No anchor babies.
Yes, Robert, you show you’re totalitarian tendencies with this posting. You “understand” China’s heinous law that has resulted in millions of abortions and terrible infanticide. For shame!
DEFINITIVELY – definitively, they are monsters. Anyone who has met middle class Chinese, esp. those who have even minimal government connections, knows that the birth policy in China is negotiable, based on influence and party status. Nomenklatura Chinese have as many babies as they want.
Peasant babies are murdered, routinely. Abortions are forced, routinely. These are totalitaian monsters. Nobody should defend them.
Robert W, I have to agree with the posting about you were off the mark with the ‘agree with China’ thing.
Just the same question I can ask, how do YOU know it wasn’t done with a totalitarian mentality in mind?
Black Mamba hit the nail, Peasant babies are murdered and forced abortion is real there.
It is all about power control.