LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Wrong Direction

To the Editor: Crime will increase for several reasons. Immigrant children denied schooling have no hope of ever emerging from their status of illegitimacy or of ever contributing to society. The only meaningful source of income that they may find is crime. Secondly, immigrants will not report crimes incurred against them, for fear of being reported to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Thus the crime level in immigrant areas will increase. The negative effects upon the whole of California of these increases in crime is obvious. Denying basic, and often preventative, health services to immigrants will also have negative effects upon California. Without preventative health care, outbreaks of epidemics amongst the immigrant population are much more likely to occur, and these may spread to American citizens in California. Any health economist can point out that immunization programmes are much cheaper than treating entire epidemics. Furthermore, the cheap labour provided by undocumented workers is what keeps California's agricultural sector competitive in the world market. If the flow of seasonal labourers were to be cut, this industry would surely collapse. This blow to California's already depressed economy would certainly not make any Californians better off. Thus any perceived fiscal benefits of proposition 187 are far outweighed by its tremendous costs, both socially and economically. Californians need a more logical and systemic approach to its economic problems. Perhaps they should consider a change in the welfare system and its work disincentives. Or perhaps consider the legitimization of undocumented immigrants, so that they may better contribute to society. Guilherme Roschke College '97 To the Editor: Just a quick thought: So, illegal immigrants are going to get into California anyway, Right? So, when they do, and they get sick, or contract a disease, they won't get health care. Now, without health care, these diseases, and/or sicknesses will spread, and to whom? That's right, the people of California. Illegal immigration must be stopped before health care for these people is stopped. Hmmm? I didn't seem to come up with any solutions here, just a disagreement. I apologize, but it was just a thought? Timothy Eckert The Wharton School To the Editor: This summer, I worked in construction for about a month in California. At times, I worked along side several Guatemalans. As illegal immigrants, these men belong to the group to which Proposition 187 applies and are those people Marc Teillon proclaims to be "leeches ready to drain the system." Beyond being a purely racist categorization of illegal immigrants, this assessment is simply wrong. People crossing the border from South America, the primary focal group of Proposition 187, are in general anything but parasites. When working with these men, I was impressed by the sheer intensity with which they worked and the effort they invested. They arrived before I did, took shorter lunch breaks, and stayed hours later. Beyond this, they worked faster than I could. I asked my employer about his hiring practices, and discovered that, whereas some of these workers had been with him for over a year, always working hard, never complaining, and completely reliable, Americans he had previously employed for the same job demanded extremely high wages ($14/hr. unskilled), performed less work, and often called in sick or made excuses. Basically, these immigrants, these "leeches ready to drain the system," dependably give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, a concept alien to American workers. So regardless of whether we find it necessary or fair to extend a citizen's rights to illegal aliens, they do not deserve to be called leeches, they demonstrate a greater work ethic than their American counterparts and contribute much to California's economy. Adam Strunk College '97 To the Editor: I would like to respond to a question directed to me by Rob Shegol in a letter ("It Got Him Into Penn" DP, 12/2/94) in which he correctly and astutely points out that my Princeton education got me into Penn (Medical School). First of all, I have never asserted Princeton's educational "superiority" over Penn. My major point was that Penn students should spend more time trying to improve their own undergraduate curriculum and less time putting down Princeton. Admittedly, I have made some sarcastic and somewhat obnoxious references to the fact that Penn does not share the same undergraduate academic reputation as my alma mater, and if they have offended anyone, I apologize. You can call me guilty of being at least as "pompous" as the thousands of Penn fans each year who participate in Tiger Death Fests, deliver unsportsmanlike cheers and pick fights with opposing fans at sporting events, and harbor general enmity towards anyone affiliated with Princeton -- for reasons that no Penn undergraduate or alumnus has yet to sufficiently explain. And to answer your question: In choosing among colleges and graduate programs, most people generally aim to attend the best possible institution. I gladly chose the University's medical school because it has a well-deserved reputation of being one of the top five medical schools in the country -- if I believed Penn's undergraduate program to have a similar reputation, then perhaps I would have made a different college choice. I have no regrets about the choices I have made, and I assume that neither do most Penn students. So why can't Princeton and Penn both just get along? Jeff Trost Medical School '96 To the Editor, I thought I would never say this, but, kudos to Dan Schorr ("The Final Fronier" DP, 12/2/94). That was the best column ever to be printed by The Daily Pennsylvanian. Manny Calero SEAS '97