Hot-Button Issue of Immigration

* Democratic officials who “offer reasonable solutions” to the immigration issue are not paralyzed “standing on the train tracks” while the issue of immigration charges toward them, as my friend Marc Litchman writes (Valley Commentary, Sept. 5).

Democrats on the tracks voluntarily placed themselves at risk and do not deserve a dramatic “Dudley Do-Right” rescue to survive. They can avoid the careening train of voter fury by passing legislation to control our borders.

Illegal immigration is more than a perceived problem. Comprising 10% of the county and state prison population, the annual cost of incarceration of illegal immigrants is half a billion dollars. The cost of local schools is estimated to be $1 billion. The annual cost of providing medical services to illegal immigrants and their children is $900 million. Exact numbers may be elusive, but they are daunting.

Some elected Democrats respond to the immigration issue not by standing on the tracks but by sticking their heads in the sand. However, Sen. Dianne Feinstein has proposed a $1 levy on entering the United States which will raise $500 million to increase the Border Patrol. Congressman Anthony Beilenson’s proposals to deny certain benefits to children of illegal immigrants will reduce some of the luster and lure of illegal entry. With the passage of NAFTA we can provide economic opportunity to Mexican residents and benefits for our own trade.

Foreign residents understandably flee their homeland to seek a better life for themselves and their families. As a nation we must weigh the social and economic impact of that immigration and judge whether that is beneficial to our own well being.

Nineteen ninety-four need not offer a repeat of the pattern of one volatile issue’s ending Democratic political careers. The genie of public discontent over illegal immigration is long out of the bottle. Ignoring the issue is the real political danger that will end careers and allow xenophobic zealots to fill the void.

WAYNE AVRASHOW

Encino

* Marc Litchman mistakes policy for partisanship when he complains that Democrats have foundered in the San Fernando Valley because of single issues.

Mr. Litchman, a former chief of staff for both Howard Berman and Richard Katz, criticizes Valley voters for throwing various politicians out of office over busing, Proposition 13, the death penalty, taxes and now immigration. But he fails to consider that maybe he’s wrong on each of these issues as a matter of policy:

* Busing is wrong; children ought to go to school in their own neighborhoods.

* Although some of the discrepancies of Proposition 13 have grown over time, its basic premise of putting a brake on government taxing people out of their homes is still correct.

* After a fair trial and appeal, the death penalty should be applied swiftly and surely as a matter of fundamental justice.

* Taxes are too high, and Mr. Clinton’s recent economic plan, which both Valley Congressman Anthony Beilenson and Howard Berman supported, will make things worse.

* Finally, illegal immigrants are a net drain on Los Angeles County and immigration in general is swamping California. Congressman Elton Gallegly deserves praise, not scorn, for raising this issue early on.

In reality, Mr. Litchman is engaging in name-calling against those who simply disagree with him, and whom I believe happen to be right. Evidently other Valley voters feel the same way. Maybe Mr. Litchman ought to re-examine his assumption that he is right, and everyone else is wrong.

RICHARD SYBERT

Sacramento

Sybert is director of the governor’s office of planning and research. * Marc Litchman’s commentary “One-Two Knockout Punch” is correct about one thing. “The one-two punch of the tax increase and voter apoplexy over immigration could swamp . . . any Democratic candidate.” It could also swamp any Republican candidate.

The “illegals” are the cause of many problems here. They are usually the poorest of people, and most do not speak English. The majority are from Mexico and other Latin American countries.

They are not people who will take our jobs. They are people who will take advantage of the many services we provide to poor legal residents. Providing help for our legal residents is all we can afford or should afford. It’s not our responsibility to care for all of the poor people in Latin America. Arguments about not requesting welfare due to lack of documentation are irrelevant. Anyone can obtain forged papers.

Those illegals who do have jobs obviously do pay taxes, but considering that most of them are very poor and poorly educated, they aren’t even literate in Spanish. It then falls to our welfare system to provide them with places to live and food to eat.

As to all illegal aliens’ being in gangs, that is obviously untrue. However, the gangs in the San Fernando Valley are predominantly Hispanic. I know this because I was on a trial and the police expert on gangs advised jury members on gang member makeup.

While it is true that they don’t speak English, the real problem is that their numbers are so great they don’t feel a need to learn to speak English. That attitude is borne by their children into our public schools. It is a disruption in the schools to teach and speak two languages. Those whose families came to America from Europe know that learning English meant better jobs and more money.

Does this mean that no Spanish-speaking people are learning English? Of course not. I am discussing the prevailing attitude.

If all this sounds racist, I am truly sorry. America became great by everyone becoming part of the great melting pot. The illegal Hispanics don’t seem to want to participate.

The above remarks are generalizations. The don’t fit all Hispanic people in this area. The don’t fit all Hispanic people in this area. The question is, “Would all of these problems existif the Hispanic population was small?” DONALD EVANS Canoga Park