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