Federal Funds for Immigrant Costs

Leon Panetta, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, states in “Funding Services Is a 2-Way Street” (Commentary, June 3) that the Administration is seeking a 30% boost in assistance on repayment to border states of costs related to illegal immigration, such as incarceration, education, medical services and welfare payments.

He fails to accept state estimates of these costs or the number of illegal aliens residing in California. He also plays the common game of blurring the line between legal and illegal immigration. In a direct slap at Gov. Wilson, he rejects his estimate of $3 billion as the cost of services delivered to illegal immigrants in California. This figure is based on a number of studies by respected researchers from the nation’s leading institutions of higher learning and actual documented figures from various state agencies. What basis does Panetta cite for his figures, other than INS estimates, which still do not account for the wide disparity in the amount offered by the Administraton compared to the claim by California?

Also, Panetta fails to indicate what actions the Administration plans to correct this problem, other than adding more border patrol agents. What Panetta offers is a Band-Aid for massive hemorrhaging of state funds that impedes our ability to deliver vital services to legal residents.

BYRON SLATER

San Diego

*

The border problem is a result of the federal government’s failure to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, not the fault of the individual states that border those foreign countries. Panetta asks those states to share the burden.

Mr. Panetta, they have been shouldering the majority of the burden. It is because of this that they are suing your level of government for its “fair share” of the cost.

We border states bear this burden for the entire nation. Let citizens of Kansas, South Dakota, Missouri, Tennessee, etc., sink or swim with us. Why the discrepancy in cost between Texas and California? Well, perhaps it is more expensive to live in California than Texas. I wish Washington, D.C., were on the border along with California. I bet if you and your Administration had to live with us in the border states that you would be singing to a different tune.

Stopping illegal immigration is not a cure-all for the ills that plague our country. I know this as well as millions of other citizens. We object to illegal immigration in the same way we object to, say, crime or higher taxes. Not stopping or controlling the flow of illegal immigrants because it isn’t a magical solution to all of our societal ills is not a valid reason for allowing it to continue unchecked.

KEVIN LEE SMITH

San Pedro

*

A substantial majority appear to favor the so-called “Save Our State” initiative--the anti-immigration initiative (May 29). Most of our public officials also seem to favor such legislation to bar illegal immigrants from attending public schools and to exclude them from public health services.

The American people have always had traits of fundamental fairness. As such, I would think that, being fair, if illegal immigrants are to be denied such public services, the public would not expect them to pay for services not received. Therefore, I believe the public would support the idea of exempting illegal immigrants from paying state income or sales taxes.

MARK FOX

Santa Barbara