From: V1904G@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Info-India) Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka Subject: CBS Fuels Hatred Against Immigrants: Act Now Date: Tue, 16 May 95 15:28:35 EDT (Info-India/Appeal For Individual Action/95-5) CBS has again fueled anti-immigrant sentiments, and that too by depicting a false picture in its "48 Hours" program on 11 May 95. It is reports like these that lead to hate crimes. This report needs to be strongly protested. ACT TODAY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! A suggested draft letter is attached below to help you write; you can simply cut it, take a printout, and send it through ordinary US mail. You are strongly encouraged to draft a different letter with your personal comments. BRIEF SUMMARY OF CBS PROGRAM: Many natives are losing their computer-related jobs after working for as long as 7-8 years. The jobs are being taken by foreigners. People come from various places on temporary visas and they work for lower salary than what natives would work for. According to a U.S. Government official, these people come because of a loophole in the system. The "illegal" immigrants further aggravate the issue by creating innumerable problems pertaining to health services, law, crime and education. *********************** Suggested Draft Letter ************************** To CBS 48 Hours 524, West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 975-4848 I am writing regarding your recent broadcast on immigration (CBS 48 Hours, 11 May 95). Besides obviously fanning the flames of hatred against immigrants in general and certain ethnic groups in particular, your broadcast only served to spread false information on the subject of immigration. It is unfortunate that a network of the stature of CBS should resort to fueling anti-immigrant sentiments for deriving some shortsighted benefits of sensationalism. To convey the unambiguous impression that immigrants take away jobs -- when it has been proved beyond doubt that the net contribution of immigrants to the U.S. economy is significantly positive -- violates all norms of fair reporting. It will be too naive for anyone to claim that the U.S. immigration policy is based on altruism or on principles of charity. One of the three priorities that dictate the U.S. immigration policy is to allow U.S. employers to bring in a relatively small number of skilled workers from overseas (the other two priorities being family reunification and refugee protection). The success of the U.S. economy depends to a large extent on the idea of the free enterprise that facilitates business organizations to function at the most efficient level. The immigration policy selectively allows businesses to induct from overseas certain categories of people whose skill level per unit of wage is higher than what is available within the U.S. Because of this, the U.S. companies are able to stay competitive in the global marketplace so that they can create more jobs for those at home. Thus the U.S. immigration policy is directly and effectively designed to benefit the U.S. economy. According to the nonpartisan Urban Institute, immigrants and refugees pay approximately $28 billion a year more in taxes than they consume in services. Considering that only 9% of U.S. population is foreign- born (the percentage was 15% in 1900), the net surplus of $28 billion contributed by immigrants and refugees assumes great significance. Thus the immigrants not only consume very little of welfare funds, but they subsidize, as it were, the welfare of others. When the immigrants are so obviously and immensely contributing to the U.S. economy, it may be difficult to understand the basis for the anti-immigrant sentiments. A probable explanation is that most of the tax revenues paid by immigrants are sent to the federal government, while most of the costs associated with helping newcomers get started -- education and health care being the primary areas -- are borne primarily by state and local governments. Moreover, newcomers mostly live only in seven or eight states in the U.S. Local vested interests and press reports intent only on sensationalism ensure that people do not get the whole picture. But anti-immigration sentiments and the resultant anti-immigration measures only hurt the interests of the U.S. economy. Business Wire of 16 Mar 95 carried a report on how Anti-Immigration Laws Could Damage High-Tech Industry. "At every important high-tech company in America, the crucial players, half of them, are immigrants," says George Gilder, who frequently writes about international competition and the information superhighway. "You exclude immigrants from our high-tech industries and what you get is Europe, where they have no important computer or semiconductor company now after 20 years of focusing on information technologies." Nathan Rosenberg, a Stanford economist who studies the history of technology, agrees: "It seems to me that the American high-tech industry will suffer, will suffer tremendously, if these anti-immigration measures go into effect" (Business Wire, 16 Mar 95). Several studies have documented the impact of immigrants on the nation's economic well-being. In the most comprehensive study to date, the U.S. Department of Labor has concluded that immigrants keep U.S. industries competitive, increase employment through higher rates of self-employment, and increase wages and mobility opportunities for many groups of U.S. workers. The same report also notes that in cities with many immigrants, there is virtually no evidence that immigrants displace natives and cause unemployment. "Immigrants bring with them high-tech expertise and the knowledge of the way businesses organize and market themselves in other parts of the world," says Glenn Garvin, contributing editor of Reason. "But the recent battle against illegal immigrants threatens to stem the tide of legal immigrants as well" (Reason Magazine, April 95). An effective way to encourage xenophobia -- and your "48 Hours" report probably does that well -- is to confuse and blur the distinction between legal and "illegal" immigrants. While legal immigration is definitely designed to benefit the U.S. economy, "illegal" immigration is something over which we have comparatively less control -- most probably because 60% of the "illegal" immigrants enter the U.S. legally and become "illegal" when they stay in the country after their visas expire (most undocumented immigrants do not come to the U.S. by "crossing a border"). It should also be noted that out of the 22 million foreign born people in the U.S., 87% are legal immigrants and naturalized citizens; only 13% are undocumented or "illegal" immigrants (Golden Door, Winter 1995). This means that only 1.25% of the total U.S. population is here without proper papers. Also, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare programs and most social service benefits. The only services to which undocumented are entitled are emergency health care, K-12 public education, and nutritional programs for newborns and school children. The reason for extending these services to undocumented is that it will cost us more in the long run in terms of health, safety and prosperity, if we deny these basic services to those here without papers. Thus even the undocumented immigrants are dealt with so as to benefit the U.S. society only. According to a World Bank 1992 estimate, there are 100 million international migrants of all kinds on the globe, constituting 2% of the world's population. Out of this, only around one third reside in Western Europe, North America and Australia. The U.S. admits approximately 1.1 million international immigrants each year as a part of a conscious policy designed to serve its national interests. I hope that in future you would broadcast better researched reports that present a true and complete picture of the situation instead of indulging in self-defeating propaganda. Sincerely,