New Immigration Law and Hardship Cases

Marita Hernandez’ article (May 25) on the new immigration law makes me wonder why there has not been a greater outcry from the general public against this law.

I suspect that many people in the Southwest have firsthand knowledge of hardship cases similar to the ones Hernandez cites. Hopefully, not too many are as grotesque as the one concerning a family of seven, in which each member qualifies for amnesty except one 8-year-old boy.

Do the American people really want husbands to be separated from their wives and parents from their children? Do they really want to put a man in the position of Salvador Sanchez, who must choose between losing his family, perhaps for good, and returning to El Salvador to certain penury and possible death? I doubt it.

There is another aspect of this problem that did not come within the scope of Hernandez’ article. That is the economic impact of the law. The big growers, with their political clout, are protected, but what about others?

I have a friend who owns a small factory, staffed by hard-working Latinos. He pays them salaries well above the minimum wage, and they are productive and contented. About half of them do not qualify for amnesty. My friend must fire these men, leaving them with no source of support for their families and uncertain prospects of finding other work, or he must face prosecution. With his work force cut in half, he cannot maintain productivity, and this flourishing, growing enterprise will be forced to shut down. Why doesn’t he hire Anglos? He tried that, several times, and it was a disaster. They took the jobs and the money but would not work.

And what about the women who can hold good jobs, often necessary to their survival, because they have reliable Latinas in their homes to take care of their children? Day care is dicey and often hard to find. What will these women do? Hire Anglos? Are you kidding?

The fact is that our immigrant population, often accused of “taking jobs away from Americans,” is willing to do work that Americans will not do. Send these people back home and small businesses will close all over the Southwest, and probably in other parts of the country as well.

No doubt, some of these workers are exploited because of their vulnerable situation. We can’t put up with that, nor, of course, can we allow unlimited immigration. However, there has to be a better way.

Like what? Well, my own suggestions for a new bill would go something like this: move the amnesty cutoff point to a much later date; include in the bill a proviso that families will not be broken up, with appropriate safeguards against cheaters; send no one back to his or her country of origin if there is genuine danger there; increase funding for the INS and, with the additional personnel that could then be hired, close the border tightly, admitting only immediate family members of those who are legally here.

POLLY DILLARD

Los Angeles