As the original, "Daily Troll" post notes by implication, a large part of our immigrant population is Hispanic. The majority of these people are Roman Catholic, and have been taught, since childhood, that "children are to be welcomed as a gift from God". Many of them take very seriously the teaching (promulgated in Humane Vitae) that contraception is immoral[1]. Force it on them, and, sooner or later, the ACLU-lus (strange bedfellows, indeed) are bound to to jump into the fray, and point out, quite correctly, that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

I agree that those who can not support themselves--let alone an added child--should not deliberately procreate--nor should they do so by careless "accident"[3]. However, this does not require altering body chemistry or structure--just self-control (unpopular though it may be) and a sufficient understanding of reproductive physiology[4].

Remove incentives to "crank out babies for the Welfare dime", and you remove a motive for irresponsible procreation. This would be more compelling if we, in the USA, hadn't created the incentive, in the first place. While we have made efforts to correct it, we still have a long way to go.

I also agree that poverty (a collective injustice) breeds crime (a personal injustice); and that crime breeds poverty. What should we expect injustice to breed, but more injustice? But shoving immigrants back across the border will not produce justice, any more than ignoring our own, native-born poor would; it only hides the problem from our sight.

Teach immigrants English and "make" them work? Let learning English--and teaching their own tongue--be their work, for a time! Have someone who knows both tongues get them started working with a "native" English-speaker who wants to learn their language; then get out of the way. This has the added benefit of building personal connections that may help when the immigrant feels fluent enough to confidently seek other work. Some who turn out to have a gift for language might later be hired, at full salary, as permanent instructors/facilitators. It sounds just crazy enough, that it might actually work.

---

1. To explain concisely (if broadly): that which prevents fertilization denies willingness to accept a child, and is therefore contrary to the virtue of charity; that which acts as an abortifacient murderously disregards the sanctity of human life, and is therefore contrary to the virtue of justice; both disregard the sovereignty of God, who wills each person into being.

2. Before anyone jumps on the "but they're not even citizens" bandwagon (with regard to immigrants), remember that this Article restricts the powers of Congress--it makes no mention of citizenship. Indeed, citizenship isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights! Our entire theory of government is based on the axiom that inalienable rights are endowed upon us by our Creator; and that legitimate government proceeds solely from the need to safeguard these rights. Therefore, notions of "citizenship" have no place in the discussion of fundamental rights.

3. This, too, is contrary to the virtue of charity mentioned in [1], and to the responsibility of parents to the care of their children, before and indeed without regard to any outside, social responsibilities.

4. The Roman Catholic Church, not coincidentally, goes to great lengths to promote this understanding of the variations in the female reproductive cycle, associated physiological manifestations, the maximum lifetime of male and female gametes, and how best to use this knowledge either to prevent or to promote conception, as desired. Unlike "calendar rhythm", it seems actually to work.

-- 
HadEnuf?