I have enjoyed your magazine im-mensely, but I found the article "No Fruits, No Shirts, No Service" by Glenn Garvin (April) heavily biased and one- sided. Rather than openly address a serious problem, Mr. Garvin ostensibly wrote as a spokesperson for the Urban Institute, a pro- immigration organization that is hardly objective.
Were I to advocate a particular school, I would address those students who perform very well. I would not discuss the poor performing students. Mr. Garvin's article was written in the same manner. He failed to address the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are not contributing to our society.
While immigrants "are at worst a break- even proposition in terms of creating jobs and paying for the government services they consume," they are not contributing to the general revenue for schools, roads, military, etc. As a taxpayer, I consume no direct services from any government. Were my taxes based on the government services I consumed, I would pay no taxes.
The article's greatest misrepresentation was the expressed fear of "draconian anti- immigration laws." Few Americans support ending immigration, but most want our borders protected and immigration controlled. Immigration should be a benefit, not a burden.
Our current immigration policy does not address the needs of the United States. We have become the repository for the world's excess population. Americans cannot afford to finance open borders and a welfare state. The United States is being hurt economically, socially, and culturally.
The most interesting bit of information was that "[a]bout 60 percent of all students earning advanced degrees in American universities in engineering today are foreign." Such a glaring fact, if true, is proof that our education system has failed. While taxpayers are forced to finance scholarships (many to unqualified students), they are obtaining degrees in fields that are not "relevant to industrial innovation." Instead of financing degrees in psychology, sociology, women's and black studies, taxpayer-financed scholarships should be restricted to those qualified individuals in fields that are relevant to industrial innovation. Our immigration policy should do the same.
Richard T. Dumont
Silver Spring, MD
George Borjas, professor of economics at University of California, San Diego, who once was very pro- immigration, concludes in his recent study that immigration costs $114 billion a year in job competition losses to U.S.-born workers. Can politicians who wish to court the middle and working classes in 1996 not address immigration?
In recent years, legal immigration alone brings about 1 million newcomers to this country who need jobs, health care, welfare, and many other services that we cannot even provide to millions of native- born Americans! Even if immigrants are high achievers, should the United States invest in its own citizens or citizens of other countries?
A CBS/New York Times poll published in February shows that most Americans feel that the new Congress should stress jobs, crime, and health care. An earlier CBS/New York Times poll showed that the majority of Americans across party lines favor a reduction in legal immigration.
If our policy makers in Washington, D.C., are serious about addressing voters' informed concerns, they should support an immediate moratorium on immigration. A five- year moratorium on immigration would save billions of dollars to fund crime-prevention programs, health care reform, work-training programs for welfare recipients and low- skilled workers, and measures to stop illegal immigration. A moratorium would also provide time to work out a long- term sensible immigration policy that would respond to our economic realities and resource availability.
National Representative, Outreach