Letter to the Editor: Factors to consider in immigration debate
Dear Editor:
I wish to thank you for publishing both sides of the immigration debate. (The Downey Patriot, 2/1/18) However, some overwhelming key issues are missing in both arguments.
Probably the primary issue should be the environmental impact of immigration into this country. Given that the world climate is changing, the polar ice caps are melting, climate disasters from hurricanes to fires abound, can this country afford to take millions from third world countries where their carbon footprints are minimal and probably put them behind the wheel of a gas guzzling car? This is a highly dangerous practice which much of the world may not live to regret.
Another overwhelming fact has to do with the employment trends in this country. Per a recent PBS presentation, the number of day laborers, meaning people working on contract with no benefits, has topped 30% of the workforce and will soon top 40%. Is a society with such a substantial proportion of day laborers desirable? This means more than 40% of the population without health insurance, without pension plans, without the security of a permanent job whereby they can plan for themselves and for their families.
Immigration has played a substantial role in the creation of this situation. A primary example is with the taxicab industry in New York City. We had a friend who for nearly 40 years drove a cab within NYC. He bought himself a house. And toward life’s end had a pension.
Today, cab drivers are effectively day to day laborers. They lease the cabs for 24 hours. Good business, bad business, good weather, bad weather, they make or don’t make the lease amount that is their problem. An American doesn’t want to earn the $20,000 or so likely yearly salary for driving a cab in a city where a $300,000 apartment is a cheap one. There is someone from China who will do it. Don’t want Chinese, here are five or more Indians; no Indians? How about 20 or more Mexicans? We may also throw in a few Haitians. A similar situation has occurred in many other industries.
The above brings to mind the impending radical changes to be brought about by automation. It is quite possible that, within the next five years, there will be driverless taxicabs. What is to be done with the Indians and others driving taxicabs within N.Y.? Has anyone thought of that? Has anyone thought of all the industries to be automated? This doesn’t come up in the debate.
Ignoring the above at one’s own peril is in addition to the nonsense spewed by Linda Sanchez and her cohort Ms. Chu starting with the title of their article. If the system worked, we wouldn’t be having this debate, would we?
There is, then, the story of a Filipino woman who came to the U.S. to take care of her father. How does such an occurrence benefit the average U.S. resident? That woman came here when she was over 60 years old. What financial means did she have to assure us of being able to assume her obligations, particularly regarding healthcare? Every time she is brought to the hospital, someone, perhaps the hospital, will face bills possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars. Such costs, particularly due to visitors and immigrants walking away from hospital debts incurred, have been the cause for the closure of many such facilities.
The Chu- Sanchez article mentions Ted Kennedy in a positive light. The fact of the matter is that Ted Kennedy factually misled the American people by saying that diversity immigration would approximate 300,000 people per year. By the time Kennedy died, it had reached a million per year not counting the Reagan amnesty to more than 3 million and the impending amnesty to more than 11 million.
The dynamic duo then mentions diversity. Factually, there no diversity since the pendulum has swung the other way. The LAUSD, for example, is 85% Hispanic. Is this the diversity of which they are talking?
We need people to represent the interests of the current legal residents of this country. I have never heard of a German caucus, of an Irish caucus or of an Italian caucus. By joining the ethnic caucuses which they have, Chu and Sanchez represent, at best, the interests of these groups and apparently the interests of these ethnic groups more outside of this country.
We need people who represent the interests of all the current legal residents of the U.S. I doubt whether even Hispanics or Chinese go to the polls to elect a representative to serve the interests of Chinese or people from Guatemala for example. Global warming, the automation of work, the use of H1B visas to knock Americans out of work are threats to the quality of life of all residents of this country and should be matters of concern to all our representatives.
Finally, is this the same Linda Sanchez of whose election against Dornan there were insinuations of illegal alien voting to give her the seat? If so, this article follows.
Pierre Dauphin
Downey