Debate Over Immigration

* The Times’ series (“The Great Divide”) last month on immigration represents a valuable contribution to public understanding of this complex issue. It is important that policy-makers and the public are aware of the difficulties involved in controlling our borders as well as the fact that many illegal immigrants legally enter on temporary visas and then attempt to stay permanently.

The series pointed out there is concern also over the level of legal immigration. In light of the 1990 law that opened the door for legal entry by an additional 40%--just as unemployment was soaring--it is hard to see anyone disagreeing with the view that our immigration law is out of touch with reality.

One issue that the series seems to have missed is the effect of immigration on the U.S. population, currently at 258 million people. When the Census Bureau issued a population projection in 1992 forecasting a population of 383 million by 2050, it noted that this was a big jump over its 1989 forecast, because the assumptions about immigrations had changed. In 1989 the projection was that U.S. population would level off at about 300 million by 2020 and then begin to decline.

The Census Bureau’s current projection is about 90 million more people than it foresaw in 1989, largely because of the higher volume of legal and illegal immigration. As the 1990 law shows, we can change the estimate by increasing or decreasing immigration. The question we as a nation, and you as a newspaper, ought to be addressing now is what limit to our immigration-driven growth makes sense in terms of our environment, our schools, highways and hospitals, our urban crowding, and our water, food and energy supplies, to name a few just a few areas.

JOHN L. MARTIN, Research Director

Center for Immigration Studies, Washington

* The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has a lot of gall claiming that the current anti-immigrant hysteria is the result of lawmakers “who have failed to heed FAIR’s urgings that the flow (of immigrants) must be halted” (Nov. 24). In fact, a few years ago, FAIR assured lawmakers that employer sanctions would do the job. It should be quite clear by now that FAIR’s hare-brained schemes haven’t worked. But there they go again, promoting more racist programs that are doomed to failure. The time is long overdue to recognize that it is easier and cheaper to treat immigrants as a welcome and essential part of our economy and culture, rather than to build Swiss-cheese walls to keep them out.

MIGUEL MUNOZ

Pasadena

* If FAIR doesn’t want the world’s poor to come to the United States, let FAIR try to stop the world’s wealth from coming here, as it now comes via low-paid cash crops and products extorted from stressed work forces abroad, and in resources taken on the cheap to support our hyper-consumptive lifestyle. Of course people try to follow their wealth!

Erecting a wall merely reaffirms the theft. Instead let’s take apart the cause by working for world justice--something we should be doing for its own sake, not just because injustice contributes to chaotic migration.

JOE MAIZLISH

Los Angeles

* One cost of illegal immigrants not fully explored in your series is the fact that those who work “off the books” do not pay their share of income, disability, unemployment and related taxes.

They do, however, avail themselves of tax-supported county medical services and, in cases of need, fire, police, etc. At the same time, they remit a large proportion of their earnings to their home countries, thus supporting their native economies and freeing their governments from the need to provide a decent economy and social services.

ELINOR J. LENCH

Sepulveda

* First, on behalf of the California Latino Legislative Caucus we commend you for your series on immigration. The majority of the stories included new information that brought the immigration debate to a higher intellectual plane.

However, we want to go on record protesting your insensitivity to the Latino community in the final article (Nov. 30). The topic was polarization in the politics behind immigration.

For the last year the Latino Caucus has been working on formulating a comprehensive immigration policy. In August we unveiled a 14-point plan designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

The plan was tough, fair, balanced and the source for many of the proposals you attributed to other elected officials. Among our suggestions: Stop using state tax dollars to incarcerate undocumented prisoners, encourage citizenship, increase enforcement of labor standards, beef up the border patrol, redistribute tax dollars to ensure immigrant costs are paid with immigrant dollars, and asset forfeiture for immigrant smugglers.

The Times insulted us by portraying our contribution to the immigration issue with two sentences in a chart and completely omitting us from the text of the story.

The article attempted to give perspective on who the players are on this issue. You relegated the Latino Caucus’ contribution to the “others” category and thus portrayed that our efforts are meaningless.

Shame on you. Once again The Times sat us at the back of the bus. It’s time for The Times to give more to the Latino community than lip service. Covering Latinos in Los Angeles entails more than covering Latino appointments to commissions, immigration and bilingual education. You need to cover people and integrate Latinos into all issues--just like you do every other community.

RICHARD G. POLANCO, Chair

California Latino Legislative Caucus

Assembly, D-Los Angeles