Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, July 9, 1986
Opinion
More temporary working visas
would ease immigration woes
N o w that t h e
July Fourth Lib
erty Celebration
is finished, Amer
icans can get back
to their day-to-
day lives and re
sume worrying
about unemploy
ment, inflation
and the nasty
budget and trade
deficits. But one
age American expects to be paid. This
marketable trait undermines the gov
ernment-set minimum wage for labor
and the virtual monopoly held by union
workers.
Mark Ude
national problem that stayed with us
during this past weekend was the issue
of illegal immigrants.
One can say that our festivities were a
contradiction of present beliefs. We
honor the Statue of Liberty while refus
ing to upgrade the allowable quotas on
immigrants. But Emerson’s poem —
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your
huddled masses yearning to breathe
free” — which is inscribed on the stat
ue’s base was put there much later as an
afterthought, not as a reason for the
gift’s existence.
Illegal aliens on the whole work bet
ter at jobs than their American coun
terparts, primarly because they despera
tely want to keep their job, no matter
how much or how little they are paid.
This strong desire for a job usually
keeps illegals from asking for as much
as they can get from an employer. An
other fundamental reason for their low
wages is that illegals know the employer
can call up the border patrol and turn
them in, resulting in their deportation.
Both of these factors — cheap labor
and no problems with strikes or com
plaints — encourages employers to hire
illegals. This is a businessman’s dream
come true. Little or no prosecution at
tempts with minimum fines also gives
employers what they consider a green
light on the matter of hiring illegal
aliens.
Many people resent the influx of ille
gal aliens because of the potential threat
they pose to the employment chances of
American citizens. They see immigrants
as stealing away jobs that should be
filled by Americans. These jobs include
construction and other manual tasks
where illegals are willing to work for
much lower wages than what the aver-
When one examines an illegal immi
grant, one sees a person who works un
der the threat of deportation daily. Lan
guage is not a vital necessity, especially
in Florida, Texas and California, where
bilingual education is being lobbied for
heavily. The low wages which are being
paid are usually much greater than the
illegal could ever hope to obtain south
of the border. Many of the jobs that ille-
The best solution to what has been
termed an invasion is to allow an in
crease in the number of temporary
working visas. This would permit for
eign citizens to have jobs in this country
legally, while limiting the number of ac
tual immigrants seeking citizenship. As
a large number of illegals would apply,
this would increase employment and in
crease spending and buying of Ameri
can products.
And since a majority of f oreign work
ers are from The Republic of Mexico
and have families to support there, it
could indirectly affect and stabilize the
Mexican economy.
Mark Ude is a senior geography major
and a columnist forThe Battalion.
United Feature Syndicate
IRAs: tax shelters made easy
Last year, a
two-career couple
I know made well
over $100,000. At
the end of the
year, they would
have owed a cer
tain amount in
taxes but paid
only some of it.
They didn’t have
to pay the rest.
They made a de-
the government, which is to say the peo
ple, which is to say you.
Richard
Cohen
ductible contribution to their Individual
Retirement Accounts (IRAs) instead. To
paraphrase the Paine Webber commer
cial, the couple would like, to say,
“Thank you, Uncle Sam.”
Because the couple was in the 50 per
cent tax bracket, their taxes were re
duced by 50 cents for every dollar con
tributed to their own retirement — their
IRAs. It might seem nice of the govern
ment to help the couple out in their old
age, but the truth is th^t* they already
have pension plans. Their companies
provide them and, of course, they have
Social Security as well. Our couple, be
sides being affluent, is also candid. To
them, IRAs are primarily a tax dodge
and only secondarily a savings program.
By now a certain sickening realization
ought to be overcoming you: You don’t
have to be a dues-paying member of the
military-industrial complex to have gov
ernment subsidy by way of a tax shelter.
All you need is an IRA, and the higher
your tax bracket, the more you benefit.
Despite that, both the Senate (by resolu
tion) and the House (by enactment)
have voted to retain IRAs in their pre
sent form in the current tax-reform bill.
There is a good chance that when the
Senate and House butt heads in confer
ence to reconcile the differences be
tween their two bills, the IRA program
will in some form be incorporated into
the Final legislation — maybe as it now
exists.
around and borrowed the rest. They
not only did not add to the total savings
pool, they created debt. In fact, since
the inception of the IRA program, the
country’s savings rate has declined — al
though whether the decline would havfe
been steeper without IRAs no one
knows.
At the moment, the thinking in
Washington is that the IRA will survive
in some form. As usual, compromise
looms — maybe one where the tax de
duction for the purchase of an IRA will
be pegged at the minimum tax rate.
That means that all taxpayers would
benefit equally. The affluent would still
get some benefit, but the question of
fairness would largely evaporate.
Mad? Angry? Just wait. Do you know
how the couple bought its IRAs? They
emptied their savings account and then
borrowed the rest. They went to the
bank, got a loan, went to a different
bank and made a deposit into their IRA
account. Of course, they have to pay
back the loan. The couple deducts the
cost of the interest from their taxes.
This, too, represents revenues lost to
But why? The answer is that the well-
off and the politically influential want it
while the poor and the politically apa
thetic, with a shrug and the standard
crack about how politics doesn’t matter,
will not be paying attention. It’s hard to
come up with another reason to justify
what would amount to a $22 billion loss
to the Treasury in 1987. After all, the
beneficiaries of such government lar
gess are not the poor or the otherwise
deserving and as a national savings pro
gram, IRAs seem to be something of a
dud.
It would be hard to work up a real
snit over a reasonable compromise —
one that might enable us to see if the
IRA program really does encourage
savings. But the big money and the big
lobbyists want to retain the program as
it now exists. The Senate, by a nonbind
ing 96 to 4 vote, says that’s what it wants,
too, and the House has passed a bill that
does just that.
Let us return to our $100,000 couple.
The idea behind IRAs was to encourage
savings. Money saved is money that can
be invested. But, alas, our $100,000 cou
ple is fairly typical. Notice that they did
not save any money; they moved some
IRAs now amount to a gift from the
poor to the rich. Unless President Rea
gan, who only last year wanted to ex
pand the IRA program, comes out in
opposition, there is a good chance that
once again money and inflence will
carry the day. The $ 100,000-a-year cou
ple, being well-educated, was only being
polite when it paraphrased the Paine
Webber commercial. What they really
meant to say was “Thank you, sucker.”
If the present IRA program is retained,
they will be talking about some of you.
Copyright 1986, Washington Post Writers Group
Mail Call
Liberal fwo-facedness?
gals work are menial and usually unat
tractive to American workers, and
therefore are open to the illegal immi
grant.
Yet the problem still remains. What
should be done about the flow of illegal
aliens into this country from the south
ern border.One attempt is to ignore the
problem as we are doing right now, with
amnesty and reconaissance of estab
lished illegal immigrants. But if this
country really had a mind to carry out a
task, we could establish a tortilla wa
preventing illegal immigration while
creating a new industry of border
guards, barbed wire and land mines.
But this wouldn’t really solve the prob
lem, instead, it would make it worse.
EDITOR:
I think The Battalion Editorial Board should be extremely carefulifit
wishes to accuse anyone or anything of hypocrisy. This is simply a case of
darkest pot calling the kettle black. It is amazing what a “bill of goods”the
BEB tries to shove down the throats of the sometimes naive readership hen
at Texas A&M.
Case in point: for months now The Battalion’s group of experts on
foreign and domestic affairs have clammored, demanded and showed then
outrage about the situation in South Africa. Shouting rhetoric like,
“inhuman,” “oppresive,” “censorship,” they have demanded not only than
divest our financial interests in South Africa, but also that the United State
take af firmative action to oppose the oppressive government of South Afric
Then these same blind-in-one-eye journalists completely ignore the
oppression going on in Nicaragua and declare it a “sovereign state” thaut
shoud absolutely keep our hands off of.
Nevermind the hundreds of evangelical Christians that have been
tortured and oppressed. Regardless of all that have fled the nation to take
arms against Daniel Ortega and his communist regime. These, in the eyes
our celebrated journalists don’t matter. You see, it is scandalous when there
no f reedom of the press in South Af rica, but when there aren’t even basic
human rights much less f reedom of the press in Nicaragua, where are the
cameras?
It seems you have to be black in order for the media to raise its banner
and rally around your cause, but if you are a Christian, or have any other
religious convictions, or if you wish to fight in order for your country lobe
free, and you are being slaughtered for it, don’t worry, The Battalion
Editoral Board will either close its eyes or viciously try to strangle you with
their slanted flag of secular liberalism.
Could it be that the BEB is oblivious to its own hypocrisy? And shalluc
a student body at Texas A&M be fooled by their liberal two-facedness?Tei
A&M should not allow itself to be so easily deceived.
Michael V. Foarde
In bed with Big Brother
EDITOR:
It’s two years late, but it has finally arrived. Even though it’s only a pale
reflection of the horrors postulated, it is a trend that can no longer be
ignored. Big Brother is here.
I hope that we all realize what the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the
Georgia sodomy case means to American society. A definition of termsnw
be necessary. “Sodomy” is not a synonym for “homosexuality” orevena
‘homosexual act.” “Sodomy” refers to the act of stimulating one person’s
sexual organ with another’s oral cavity. Notice, there are no specificationsas
to the gender to those involved.
A definition of the Supreme Court’s action: the ruling does not make
homosexual acts illegal. It does not even make sodomy illegal. TheSuprem
Court Justices have upheld any state’s right to make sodomy illegal for that
state’s citizens inside that state’s boundaries. Now any state may pass
legislation that prohibits oral sex between two people (including betweena
male and a female), anywhere (including your own bedroom).
Your state legislators have the right to decide what you may legally doia
your bedroom, whether you’re heterosexual, homosexual or neutered. Hip
have been given the power by our country’s highest court — in a countrv
where personal freedom, the freedom to do what one pleases in one’s own
home, is valued above all else and guaranteed by the Constitution and theB: I
of Rights — to make a criminal offense of an act that hurts no one, nor
violates anyone’s rights.
Think on that for awhile tonight in your bed — while you’re still allowed
Michael Gardner ’86
Parental rights, not censorship
EDITOR:
I quite often find myself in agreement with Karl Pallmeyer, especially
when he makes fun of the stranglehold “tradition” has on Texas A&M
behavior. However, I must take issue with his Thursday column concerning
censorship and records.
The point that the plaintiffs in this suit seem to be making is that
pornographic materials were sold to a minor. This is obviously the case;youl'
description of the poster as “vile and disgusting” leaves no doubt that itmusi
be considered pornographic. The only possible justification for the
defendant, then, is that a “warning” is sufficient to make the sale of
pornographic materials to minors legal. Only a very small segment of the
population would accept such a defense. This is why “adult” magazines,
movies, etc., are not sold or shown to children.
I understand your concern over censorship as applied to popular music.
However, this case is not about music; it is about a poster whose content,
however socially significant, is not what the vast majority of American pare®
wish to have shown to their children. Their right to keep such material from
their children is an accepted principle of law, not a new assault on the First
Amendment.
I believe in free speech. I believe in the right of consenting adults tosee.
read, listen to or sing about and dojust about whatever they want as long as
they don’t interfere with the rights of others. These other rights, however,
include the right of parents to keep pictures of “copulating penises" outof
their children’s reach.
Stephen Williams
Agricultural Economics
Not logical
EDITOR:
Karl Pallmeyer, in his Thursday column, appears to reason that the
successful prosecution of a rock group that puts obscene materials in albums
sold to children will threaten the freedom of speech for everyone.
I don’t think such reasoning is very logical.
Paul R. Koch
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staf f reserves therf
to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author's intei
Each letter must be signed and must include the address and telephone number of the writer.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Editor
Opinion Page Editor.
City Editor
News Editor
Sports Editor
Michelle Po ,!
Loren Steff
.Scott Sutherla" i
.Ken Sui'
Editorial Policy
1 he Battalion is a non-profit, seir-supportinfr newspaper operated as a coninntnit} set vice to Texas A&M andBnnii-1"
Station.
Opinions expressed in t he Battalion are those of the Editorial Board or the author and do not necessarily icpioT
opinions ol Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes lu'tlim
Department of Journalism. ^
t he Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday amlesai 1 "'
lion periods. Mail subscriptions are SI 6.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full rear. Advertising iM 111
nished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, 7 X 77343.
Second class postage paid at College Station. i'X 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald. 'Texas A&M University , College Sull 0,, 1
77843.