Immigration Controls

Dan Stein’s Commentary (“Legal Immigration Levels Have to Drop, Too,” Dec. 6) attempts to blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration by falsely suggesting that current congressional proposals to revise immigration laws represent “a constructive culmination” of the campaign for Prop. 187.

Having just completed a study of California public opinion and immigration (for 1982-95), I can affirm that California attitudes regarding illegals have not only been contradictory (yes, they use public services but, yes, they take unwanted jobs, etc.) but they have also been significantly less hostile to legal immigration than those polled nationally. And even they fluctuate considerably.

Legal immigration has not been the “hot button issue” Stein claims; illegal immigration has been--when pressed. For example, he asserts that legal immigration is “now running nearly” 1 million per year, yet that last occurred a few years ago, due primarily to persons given amnesty. Only 804,400 immigrants were admitted in fiscal year 1994. Moreover, great numbers of illegals do not remain in the country and approximately 160,000 legal immigrants remigrate each year, as well, lessening their impact.

ELLIOTT R. BARKAN

Professor of History & Ethnic Studies

Cal State San Bernardino

*

* Legal immigration is not a problem. Prop. 187 was targeted toward illegal immigrants. Due largely to the inability of lawmakers to come up with solutions to illegal immigration, they now are targeting legal immigration.

The bills of Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) call for the drastic reduction of legal immigration, mainly by eliminating most of the family reunification categories, which, in light of the national discussion to encourage strong family values, is contrary to what we, as an American society, are striving for.

For most immigrants, the nuclear family is the entire family, regardless of age and marital status. Children and parents continue to support each other long after the child becomes an adult. In fact, according to a 1994 Urban Institute study of the working-age immigrants (excluding refugees) who entered the U.S. during the 1980s, only 2% utilized public assistance, compared to 3.7% of working-age native-born Americans.

Why should anti-immigrant advocates force immigrants who bring in a very strong sense of family values to conform to something that is worse off? Is this sound public policy? I think not.

VICKI SHU

Immigration Project Coordinator

Organization of Chinese Americans Inc.

Washington

*

* Rose Bird states that the backers of Prop. 187 knew that a portion of the measure would be ruled unconstitutional, which is certainly true (Commentary, Dec. 8). However, she fails to acknowledge that today’s court is far different from the 1982 court that ruled 5-4 on Plyler vs. Doe, which established the precedent of education for illegal alien children in Texas. If the Supreme Court hears Prop. 187, many feel that it will overturn the Plyler decision.

While Bird criticizes Gov. Pete Wilson for his support of Prop. 187, it was his stand that brought this problem to national attention.

I, like other backers of Prop. 187, am in favor of continuing immigration that will benefit all Americans, provided that we encourage those who will not become a burden to society.

BYRON SLATER

San Diego