Illegal Aliens’ Impact on State

* I’m writing to applaud your Feb. 11 editorial, “INS Undocumented Tally Bolsters California’s Case,” which correctly pointed out that the cost of illegal immigration in California is enormous, and that while Clinton’s new budget provides some funds for partial reimbursements of the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens, it includes nothing for reimbursing the cost of medical care or education.

Yes, immigration policy is a federal responsibility, and in principle I agree that the federal government should pay for the services illegal aliens use; but isn’t it just a shell game to say that the bucks should come from Washington? Federal dollars vs. state dollars--California taxpayers pay federal taxes, too. The bottom line is: California taxpayers can’t afford illegal immigration, and they can’t depend on the Clinton administration to help them with the problem.

The old adage is true: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Illegal immigration must be stopped, and illegals already here must be deported instead of supported. Although your editorial didn’t mention it, the new immigration reform bill also provided funds for a high-tech fence at the border and 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, but Clinton’s new budget cuts funding for that fence and slashes the number of new Border Patrol agents in half. Clinton’s administration is not a friend of California taxpayers.

CAROL KEELER

Sylmar

* Your editorial notes the 2 million undocumented aliens in California, comprising some 6.3% of the state’s population. Thus, you say, “The data unequivocally show the huge financial burden borne by California.”

What will it finally take to get journalistic balance on so sensitive and inflammatory an issue? Do not these people (many of whom do return home, as your Jan. 29 article pointed out) buy gasoline, food, clothing and many other items, thus supporting many merchants? Do they not take buses and trains and pay fares while so many other Californians shun such public transportation?

Do they not shore up, or significantly bolster, with their labor and willingness so often to work for lower wages, our vast agricultural empire, our restaurants, garment industries, electronic assembly plants, construction work, gardening firms and hotels? Are not so many of them our domestics, housekeepers and nannies, providing a nicer lifestyle to the many legal Californians?

Will you not provide a tally of their monumental contributions to the economy and not just the costs? Will you not remind your readers that it is the other Californians who continue to hire such persons, thus providing the continued lure to California?

ELLIOTT R. BARKAN

Prof. of History and Ethnic Studies

Cal State San Bernardino