Now
Partly Cloudy
85.0°
High
92°
Low
71°

Letters, 5/17: Immigrants create jobs

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:05:21 am CDT

We hear a lot of anti-immigration sentiment now, and some of it is based on the idea that immigrants take jobs from American citizens.

It’s an old story — nothing new about it. The argument was made over a century ago, when there was a lot of immigration from Europe.

What people don’t seem to realize is that the immigrant who takes a job also creates jobs for others. He is not only a producer but also a consumer.

Confusion arises because the job a worker occupies is clearly identifiable, but the employment he creates is spread around: a fraction of a retail clerk, a fraction of a food distributor, a fraction of a home builder, a fraction of an auto mechanic, etc.

On the average, each worker (including family) consumes as much as he produces. So the net effect is no change in jobs for American citizens. But there is a contribution to the general economy because of increased production.

Edgar Pearlstein, Lincoln

Message in parks vote?

Your post-election editorial about the parks bond issue (“Tale of two cities,” LJS, May 11) is another feeble attempt to paint Omaha as that shining city in the east and Lincoln as its somewhat inept little brother.

I voted for the parks bond and wish it had passed, but I hardly think its failure was the death knell for Lincoln. 

You hold up Omaha’s passage of their bond issue as an example that Lincoln should follow and quietly neglect to mention the fact that Omaha’s budget process is always more contentious than Lincoln’s.

There’s also a geographical factor going on here. The school bond issue was set by a community group to improve schools all over town. The new buildings, such as the one up northwest, tend to be in established neighborhoods, and the construction will indicate to people in the neighborhoods that we care about their part of town.

On the other hand, the park that would have been paid for by the parks bond was way down in south Lincoln, and a huge chunk of the dollars in the 2004 streets bond issue was earmarked for new streets at the perimeter of the city.

Maybe the voters are saying that we should be looking inward at the city core instead of just thinking sprawl. You think?

Jim R. Johnson, Lincoln

Bond hits close to home

Although I generally support ballot measures aimed at improving our park system, this time I am pleased that the recent bond issue lost at the polls. And I don’t even pay property taxes!

I have always rented housing in Lincoln and have an amicable relationship with the owner of my duplex unit. But a few months ago he informed me that, because of the many property tax increases imposed since I moved here in 1995, he had no choice but to raise my rent for the first time since then. Of course, I could not realistically come up with a reason to protest his decision.

The lesson I learned from this is that whatever raises the owner’s property taxes will surely affect the rent I pay.

For this reason, I urge my fellow renters to closely examine any issue that may affect property taxes. 

Steve LeMoullec, Lincoln

Right’s hypocrisy shows

When I was younger, someone once told me to be careful who you dislike because they tend to have a personality most like your own.

Nowhere is this epitomized more than in conservative Republicans. They decry liberals for creating the victim class, even though they portray themselves as victims of the left-wing media and other liberal groups, including colleges and the courts.

It’s not true, of course. After all, they own AM talk radio and Fox News (or, as I see them, Faux News).

Conservatives complain about big government and out-of-control spending, yet they have spent more money and expanded government more than any Democratic administration or Congress. Conservatives want freedom of religion yet try to force those views on others and deny them the right to their beliefs, such as gay marriage and abortion, even though no one is trying to make them gay or force their women to have abortions.

These are just a few examples of the utter hypocrisy of the right.

Brian Shaw, Lincoln

Let’s call in the troops

I say: If within the next three months tribute has not started to flow from our Eastern satrapies we elect a new executive officer, re-garrison with Greek and Algerian mercenaries, and reduce all towns that will not submit to raw bricks.

Who’s with me?

Oscar Sarafian, Lincoln

Is a ban on alcohol next?

While the experience of the many other states that allow legal concealed carry suggests that CCW permit holders are much less likely to be arrested for committing violent crime (and indeed, any crime) than their non-permit-holding counterparts, many still feel that it is the CCW holder who must be questioned and their motives held in suspicion.

Even though history has amply demonstrated that the regulation of material items is not an effective means of controlling dangerous, stupid and irresponsible behavior, let’s ignore that and go down the path anyway.

Excerpted from the Department of Justice Bureaus of Statistics in 2002 on “The role of alcohol in crime victimization”:

“About 1 million violent crimes occurred in 2002 in which victims perceived the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offender’s use of alcohol, about 30 percent of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking.”

Isn’t it about time for alcohol control? Wouldn’t less alcohol on the streets make our society safer? Wouldn’t those in law enforcement be safer with less alcohol on the streets?

Since so many believe that regulating non-politically correct devices like firearms and their use is good for society, why shouldn’t it work equally well for glorified and glamorous items, like alcohol?

Even if the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens use alcohol responsibly, I ask you, what is the need for alcohol?

Let’s make society safer. Ban personal choice.

Tim Matthews, Platte Center


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
evp wrote on May 17, 2006 7:01 am:
" Tim - Although your comments are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it might not be a bad idea at all to ban alcohol altogether. I was appalled to learn earlier this week that Nebraska leads the nation in teenagers and young adults being killed in alcohol-related accidents. (Not to mention all the other crimes being committed while under the influence that would not happen were the person not drinking alcohol - just ask any cop working O St. on a random weekend night.) Too bad we cannot effectively legislate against stupidity - no matter what we try to remove from society in statute, we can never remove this overwhelming influence on any balance we attempt in the equation - stupid choices made by stupid people. I still believe in trusting my fellow citizens with a proven track record against stupidity to continue to do the right thing no matter what the issue - and that includes having the right to carry a lethal method of personal defense on their person with much more precaution that that taken when issuing things like drivers licenses or the personal liberty to walk in a bar and order a drink. We must first assume that "all persons are stupid" when we begin to legislate every possible avenue of choice to protect the public from themselves and each other. Once we learn that "stupid" will never be controlled legislatively, perhaps we can begin to make more sane reasonings with regard to legislative limits on personal freedoms. Evidence-based outcomes must be balanced with the degree of legislative control we find necessary to craft against anything we seek to ban. This is common sense my friend, and it is time we revisit it. Privileges are always issued under the law with proper precautions - where the rubber meets the road is in how effective they prove to be given time and experience. Your argument about the privilege of drinking is extrtemely well taken and does beg the question of the need for increased control of alcohol, be it total or partial. As the great Homer has said, "Stupid is as stupid does." If evidence-based outcomes are to be used as sound reasoning for legislation/regulation of our personal choices, then banning alcohol makes much more sense! The chances of an alcohol poisoning on O Street (among many other dangerous arrest situations) far outnumber any that exist for the "shoot-outs on O Street" that I keep reading about here online. Homer is right - and I plan to continue to enjoy the ramblings and musings of stupid people who randomly choose what evidence-based outcomes they want to rant and rave about. "

Lisa wrote on May 17, 2006 8:10 am:
" "Edgar" - Nobody is offering anti-immigration sentiments. However, ILLEGAL immigration is a problem because - well, it is ILLEGAL! Immigrants who come to this country by following the law are not an issue - they are welcome! When are some people going to get it - this is about breaking the laws, taking advantage of the system - ILLEGAL ALIENS - not immigrants! "

Dan-Formerly of NE wrote on May 17, 2006 8:27 am:
" Tim, be careful what you wish for, Mayor Seng may try that, since of course, she knows what's best for everyone. "

Allen T. wrote on May 17, 2006 8:44 am:
" Edgar: You keenly and thoughtfully address an issue that doesn't exist. No one that I know is against immigration. Immigrants are good for the country, because they work hard, pay taxes and bring their culture to our melting pot while simultaneously becoming strongly patriotic citizens. Illegal immigrants, while they admittedly contribute to the economy, extract services from the government that they do no pay for in terms of income taxes. There is a distinct difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants and people on both sides of the debate need to remember that. "

Don Rempel wrote on May 17, 2006 8:45 am:
" Brian - to imply that only conservative Republicans are hypocrites is just plain wrong. They have been big spenders. This is true. But how are conservatives trying to force their religion on others? They are just trying to keep their freedom of religion. It is the liberal democrats who want to take God out of everything. As far as abortions and gay marriage is concerned, conservative Christian republicans have morals and want to defend them just like the liberals want to defend their right to do anything they want without being responsible for thier actions. It is in fact the liberal democrats who will do anything and say anything in order to get back into power. As a result they stand for nothing. The Prime example of a hypocrite is John Kerry from the last election. "

dtw wrote on May 17, 2006 8:47 am:
" Right on, Brian. "

Allen T. wrote on May 17, 2006 9:00 am:
" Brian Shaw: A. Republicans do not set themselves up as victims, in the true sense, as they do not request money from the media or colleges for their "victimization." B. Conservatives "own" AM radio because liberals have not managed to be successful in that format, though they have tried. Fox News is merely a counter-balance to the perceived bias of CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and NBC. By the way, isn't it utter hypocrisy to condemn conservatives for feeling victimized, but not condemn the victim groups set up by liberals? C. I admit that I am not happy with the rate of government spending, but that said; Republicans spend money on the military and national defense. I'd rather my money go that soldiers than midnight basketball, “art,” etc. D. Aren't those for abortion and gay marriage trying to force their views on Christians? (I am not actually opposed to gay marriage, because I see it as strictly religious, while I feel that abortion is less about religion and more about differing definitions of life). That's what a representative government is all about; people trying to get their points of view represented in their government. Liberals’ continued refusal to “tolerate” Christians, conservatives or anyone that disagrees with them while simultaneously demanding tolerance is a real example of hypocrisy. "

Gerard Harbison wrote on May 17, 2006 9:02 am:
" On average, in the world economy, each worker produces slightly more than he consumes (think waste). But that doesn't hold for the US in isolation, and it certainly doesn't hold for a subset of US residents. Illegal immigrants are in effect a government subsidy for meat-packing, constuction, and other low-wage industries. "

Edgar wrote on May 17, 2006 9:04 am:
" I have not seen any anti-immigration sentiment, none at all- zero. What people are against is ILLEGAL immigration- huge difference, not even in the same category. You need to get your facts straight, and research all of the ways that ILLEGAL immigration hurts our ecomonies- local, state, and federal. "

Gary wrote on May 17, 2006 9:10 am:
" Lisa is 100% correct. When it comes to the phrase "illegal immigrants", folks like Edgar Pearlstein are willing to skip past the former part of the phrase and focus on the latter. It's actually a disturbing trend, because they reveal and general disregard for our legal system and the laws contained therein. They may only be after a better life, and heaven knows I won't fault anyone for that, but why can't they do it legally like everyone else? Is it laziness? Is it fear of not being accepted? Or is it blatant disregard for our laws? I don't know the reason, but I do know that no excuse is good enough. Do it legally, fly the American flag, maybe even try to learn our language...do that, and we'll welcome you with open arms. "

Mark M wrote on May 17, 2006 9:46 am:
" The only thing I see wrong with Brian's comments is that he calls this incredible bunch running our country, "Conservatives". These people are not Conservative. These people are New World Order Neo-Cons of the worst kind. They have all the power they need to totally overturn Roe v Wade before tommorrow morning. Instead, they choose to use it as a wedge issue in election years. These people that Bush has surrounded himself with apparently don't know the difference between politics and policy. It is really quite impossible to think of even one good thing that this Administration and his cabinet have accomplished in the past 5 years. Democrats don't want God out of everything. I know you have heard that over and over again on AM radio. Democrats want Religion out of government, period, just as our forefathers wrote into law. Gay marriage? Who in the heck cares? These are tax paying Americans. Allen it is always enjoyable to read your legal mumbo jumbo. I look forward to it daily. When you state that "Fox news is merely a counter-balance to the PERCEIVED bias of the "other" news channels", you are actually agreeing that Fox News as a news channel is completely laughable. Most that see a "bias" on the other channels, are hearing that there is one over and over and over again on AM radio. Pretty soon you believe it. Virtually everything about Fox News is absolute Neo-Con. Saying that "Liberals do not tolerate Christian views" is absolutely incredible. Where did that come from. I am a devout Christian but I do not want religion of any kind in my government. You'd think we would learn from the Middle East fanatics. Open your minds and quit hiding from the horrors of the truth. "

taj wrote on May 17, 2006 11:22 am:
" Oscar - ??? "

Josh wrote on May 17, 2006 12:46 pm:
" Great post, Mark M. I just want to comment about the whole Fox News vs. the rest issue. Fox News is a joke, and even an outsider who is not familiar with our politics can see that. And the key word about the others is a "perceived" bias. In fact CNN is usually trying hard to stay in the middle, and sometimes digging up the truth or commenting on policies and actions of those in our government is not always nice and complimentary to those in power... but it's the same no matter if it's democrats or republicans in power, so anybody who rails on that whole bias issue really listens to too much AM radio. "

redaunt wrote on May 17, 2006 1:04 pm:
" Anyone who finds themselves pondering the issue of immigration should take the time to watch the mock-umentary film "A Day Without A Mexican". The movie sheds a suprising light (albeit with satirical humor) on the contributions migrant workers provide on a large scale, along with many facts and statistics about what those contributions are, and what the "common Americans" perceptions of the Latino population are. It made me look at things in a different light... Just a suggestion! "

Kelly wrote on May 17, 2006 2:15 pm:
" I second Josh's sentiment-GREAT post, Mark M. I, too, am a Christian who firmly opposes religion in government. To those Christians who do want to combine politics and religion, what if the religion being espoused by our government was something other than Christianity? What if Muslims or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses became the majority in Congress and the White House and started making laws and political decisions based on a religion other than Christianity? If that were to happen, I have a feeling you wouldn't think mixing religion and politics is such a great idea. In order to truly have freedom of religion, we must have separation of church and state. "

Josh wrote on May 17, 2006 2:26 pm:
" This is to redaunt- again, none of this issue has anything to do with Latinos in general or the work that legal migrant workers do. This whole argument is about those who come here ILLEGALLY and are living, not paying taxes, taking advantage of social programs, using schools, etc. "

Lisa wrote on May 17, 2006 2:31 pm:
" Wait - "redaunt" doesn't get it either. This isn't about immigration - it is about ILLEGAL immigration. And as a "common American", my perception of ILLEGALS is someone who is willing to break the law, disrespect our nation and disrespects other immigrants who are trying to come to this nation legally. Just how it is - the facts...! "

Jessica wrote on May 17, 2006 3:34 pm:
" Last summer I visited a local emergency room. My bill's, yes, that's plural (one for the doctor and one for the hospital)came to about $800. I don't have health insurance, and haven't for the last few years. Not because I don't want it, but because any employer that I have worked for in the last few years doesn't offer it. I'm educated, pay taxes, and follow the laws of the community that I live in. So what is the difference between me not having health insurance and an illegal immigrant not having health insurance (and I guess I should stress the word ILLEGAL)? I am STILL paying for this hospital bill, yet if I had jumped the border, it would have been free!!??!! Illegal immigrant women aren't having their babies at home, they are having them in hospitals, how is that paid for? When they are sick or need an operation, they don't hop up on the kitchen table and let the neighbor take care of it, they go see a doctor. I can't be the only person in this situation - yet I never hear much about it. What kind of benefits can I get for being an unmarried white girl with no children who makes too much for any kind of assistance, but not enough to pay for outrageous medical bills (I also pay full price for every doctor visit and prescription) that are so high because so many people are now allowed to get by without paying any at all!!!!????!!!! "

Gary wrote on May 17, 2006 3:58 pm:
" I just want to take a moment to make sure I've got it straight. As a conservative, I am willing to concede that Fox News is not "fair and balanced" as it would suggest, but I would also point out that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and etc. are also not fair and balanced, and do, indeed, have an inherent bias in there reporting. "

mp wrote on May 17, 2006 5:25 pm:
" I keep hearing that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes but that is very much a right-wing myth. Every employee that gets a paycheck has taxes withheld...no exceptions. The illegal immigrants probably are using the same social security number as others and taxes fed, state, FICA etc are being credited to that account. I have some friends who prepare taxes during the tax season and they report that they regularly see immigrants who have W-2's and want to file for a refund but are unable to prove the SSN on the W-2 is theirs. Without that verification, they cannot file for a refund so they are actually paying more in taxes than the rest of us. I don't care for the illegal immigrants than the most of us, but I believe the best way to eliminate the problem is to increase the penalties and fines for the employers that continually hire these illegal immigrants against the law to a point that is not profitable for them to hire them. Also do a better job of enforcing the labor laws already on the books instead of cutting the budget for the border patrol and labor enforcement. When is the last time you heard of a raid on a business that hires these illegal immigrants? I can't remember any for at least a couple of years. Can you? If they can't find work, they won't try and get into the US illegally! "

suzie wrote on May 17, 2006 7:08 pm:
" You are correct, mp, they can't prove their SSN's. In the past several years I have found that my own SSN has been used by ILLEGAL people on two different occasions, and those are the ones I know about, there could well be more! Jessica, I pay for health insurance (LOTS!) and still can't afford to go to the doctor, and yet I am paying for health care for ILLEGALS. No wonder they want to be here...free health care, free foodstamps, you name it, they get it at OUR expense. "

Brian Hassler wrote on May 17, 2006 8:16 pm:
" Chuck Hagel's amnesty plan is an abomination that will add over 100 million aliens to our population over the next 20 years!!! Of course, Hagel in the past has obstructed justice by telling the INS to not enforce the laws against meat packing companies that were (and still are) hiring illegals. He should be sharing a prison cell with Duke Cunningham. Apparently though, Nebraskans have no problem with illegals or Hagel. Therefore, my solution is to move all illegal aliens from my state (California) to your state.Then you might finally understand what the word invasion means!!! "

Dan wrote on May 17, 2006 9:56 pm:
" MP why is it the right-wind is myths, lies and propaganda, and the left-wing is always the truth. How about BOTH are telling a story that is slanted to there prospective and the real truth is some where in-between. The only time the news media is for capitalism is when there contract is up for negotiation. It all boils down to ratings and then advertising money. "

Allen T. wrote on May 18, 2006 1:57 am:
" Jessica: Are you aware that you can get health insurance without it being offered by your employer? My wife and I had to do so for a number of years, when I was in school and her work did not offer insurance. If yopu want insurance, it is available at a reasonable (though not cheap) price. "

Ca$h Money wrote on May 18, 2006 7:59 am:
" How about those illegals who are working for cash under the table? How much in taxes do you think they are paying????? None. They are running straight to Western Union every week to send money back home. Also if they are using SSN's of others then how would you like yours used and maybe have the IRS do a little audit on you? I know I would not want that to happen to me. "

rich bures wrote on May 18, 2006 2:26 pm:
" you have to check your SSN at least 4 times a year - also medacare and all - don't bank on line either - never answere spam from other countries - maybe we ought to live in a cave - "

Anjie wrote on May 18, 2006 2:27 pm:
" Re: The failure of the Parks bond. Do you think than the over one-and-a-quarter-million dollars the city lost in (non-tax-generated) keno revenue over the first full year of the smoking ban had anything to do with the city requesting the bond in the first place? (I kid you not... this info is available from the City to anyone who asks.) "

Jessica wrote on May 18, 2006 3:44 pm:
" Allen - I've checked into that before, thanks. And somehow reasonable and not cheap just don't seem to fit in the same sentence. The reason it's not cheap, and the reason anybody's health insurance isn't cheap, is because so many people are getting health services provided to them at no charge. Someone has to pay for it, so it falls to us. "

4 parks wrote on May 18, 2006 5:34 pm:
" Re Parks bond: The parks bond came up because it was an unmet, urgent need and opportunity. The parks have been underfunded by the city for a decade-plus. "

Mary wrote on May 18, 2006 8:17 pm:
" RE: to all of you people. I am a Female Mexican...ILLegal by the way. I just have to say that what you people are saying is not true for every illegal immigrant. I personally have lived in the United States with my family for about 12 years, paying taxes, working like any other responsible American. What you dont realize is that we come to the US looking forward to live the AMERICAN DREAM, although we are partially denied this dream because we are always in fear of where we are going to be "tomorrow" if HR 4437 or any proposal like that is to pass. The Us should allow responsible people the right to be here legally, and yes i know...the US is affraid to legalize terrorists. But if you really think about it, there are lots of Citizens of the US comitting crimes, not only immigrants. Also, I think it is not fair how US citizens are allowed to enter Mexico to go on a vacation, and latinos cant come here to WORK. I heard that there is a bigger wall going to me made in the border, well ok, but to make it fair Mexico should deny the entrance of anyone who is not Mexican. How does that sound??? "

Wotcher wrote on May 18, 2006 10:13 pm:
" TO KELLY: Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christians. Secondly, Jehovah's Witnesses do not involve themselves in polictics, they don't vote and they don't run for public office either. "

Lisa wrote on May 18, 2006 11:04 pm:
" Mary - looking for the American dream does NOT mean breaking the law. You do not belong here if you can not follow the rules to enter this country legally. US citizens going to Mexico are entering your country on vacation - to spend tourist dollars, not to break the laws. Illegals coming here drain the US system and then send their money back to Mexico. So put a wall up to keep the US citizens out - there are plenty more beautiful places to visit and spend $. As long as the wall keeps illegals from entering our country against the law - it is working! Go home and enter this country legally! "

Jessica wrote on May 18, 2006 11:48 pm:
" Mary you wouldn't be in fear of where you'll be tomorrow if you weren't here ILLEGALLY!!! Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp? And go ahead and deny the entrance of travelers to Mexico, there are plenty of other places they can go and spend their money. Interesting though, that you are willing to accept American money in America and not in Mexico. Why is that? "

Allen T. wrote on May 19, 2006 8:56 am:
" Mary: One reason that you can't live the American Dream is that you aren't American. That's not an insult, just a fact. Instead you are living the illegal immigrant dream...make a better life for yourself, but never know when that life might be interrupted by deportation. The US does allow responsible people that right to be here legally...its called legal immigration. Americans go on vacation to Mexico...and spend money there that they bring from the US. Illegal immigrants are not on vacation in the US and they didn't bring money with them to leave in the US. They make money and send it out of the US...for the most part. America permits the entrance of people from all over the world...if they have the proper documentation. Mexico does the same thing (and illegal immigration is already a felony in Mexico) by requiring proper documentation of immigrants. P.S. If not being allowed to go to Mexico anymore will somehow reduce the number of “illegals” entering this country, I'll give up that right without much concern. Mexico is a beautiful place, but so are many other places. Jessica: Cheap is $25...that's what my insurance is now through my work. Reasonable is in the $100 to $200 range, what we paid when neither employer offered insurance. Those words “cheap” and “reasonable” can fit in the same sentence because they are not synonyms. "