| Author | Message | ||
     carias |
I have just read your article about the TPS and Honduras. I agree with you about the governing class of Honduras in recent decades. There are, however, some statements by you that are unintentionally not true. First, not all Hondurans on the TPS because of the late-1998 hurricane devastation are in the U. S. as "illegals". Many were there before the cut-off date as tourists, with tourist visas. I know of a number of such cases, They are currently in the U. S. 100 per centum LEGALLY, and it is an aspersion upon them to be called "illegals". Also, the number of Hondurans, legal and illegal, on the TPS is around 100,000; not close to your 600,000! These people are NOT allowed any social services from the Federal Government! I know this for a fact based upon personal experience. I am ignorant of individual state or county services. Every person who availed himself of the TPS had to pay at the beginning $225.00 to the U. S. Treasury and $100.00 more TWICE, for a total thus far of $425.00 -- with no right to federal social services. What great generosity! Run the numbers, please. $425.00 by 100,000 at least. I think it was a trade-off by the U. S. Government sneakingly trying to make itself "look good" more than it deserves. The U. S. should put the tight squeeze on the Honduranean elite right away (in the words of Israel/Zionism's shameless puppet G. W. Bush "either with us or against us"). The Honduran people in the U. S. are not the blame or cause of any economic malady in the U. S. | ||
| Lorenzo |
Carias: First let me congratulate you on your mastery of the new Discussion format. This new protocol will vastly simplify our mutual activity. Next, with respect to TPS, all I know on this topic is what I have been able to glean from the public press, in Latin America and the U. S. A. I know what Washington claims for it, and I know the complaints that have been levelled against it by immigration activists, etc. I have no case against legal immigration. Especially, I offer no opposition to legal Latin American immigration. What I protest is illegal immigrations, followed by pseudo-legal presentations that offer up arguments that, because someone has met some presumably "magic" date, or conformed to some other procedural rule, that particular illegal is now "entitled" to remain. I take a pretty straightforward view of this issue: In my opinion, an immigrant that starts out "illegal" should sremain illegal, until and unless s/he goes back to square-one and starts over. By the way, the 600,000 figure of illegal Hondurans in the United States is an "official" Hondo estimate. ...Lorenzo | ||
| Anonymous |
"all I know on this topic is what I have been able to glean from the public press" Which isn't much. Your ignorance and bias with respect to immigration is evident. | ||
| carias |
Dear Lorenzo, I think that the 600,000 refers to all Hondurans who are not U. S. citizens who are living in the U. S.; this would include legal residents. I am sure that the ones under TPS (had to be IN the U. S. before Dec. 28 (I believe this is the exact date), 1998) number just above 100,000; also about 10,00 Nicaraguans. These are the hurricane people. I understand how you have improved your letters system, but it is taking me a while to 'get' it. | ||
| Donald Titus |
Changing Weather for Temporary Protection (sic) Status Mr. Belveal: Your article about the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) with respect to Honduras is based on misinformation about the nature of the program. First of all, the U.S. Congress does not make decisions on whether to extend the TPS. This decision is made by the Attorney General under section 244(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Second of all, those registered for TPS are not illegal anymore, and only some 105,000 have registered for TPS, not the 600,000 number that you quoted. You claimed that these people are illegal unless Congress passes a law. Congress did pass a law. It’s called the Immigration and Nationality Act. You also implied that illegal immigrants are entitled to schooling in their own native language, medical care, food stamps, housing assistance, Aid to Dependent Children, etc. Legal immigrants are not entitled to welfare for the first 5 years after their entry. Illegal immigrants are entitled to none of these things. No immigrant is entitled to schooling in their own native language, but many do receive it because they happen to be residing in areas where the public schools have a curriculum in the language they speak. Finally, the decision to extend the TPS is not based on whether the government of Honduras has been a friend to the USA or how it has conducted itself or on where the US economy is on the business cycle. The decision is based on whether the initial conditions that warranted to TPS designation continue to exist. Although a significant amount of reconstruction has been completed since Hurricane Mitch, Honduras was also seriously affected by a drought and hurricane last year, causing further destruction and emergency conditions thereby interrupting Honduras’ ability to recover. The decision was based on this. Sincerely, Don Titus | ||
| Donald Titus |
The World Turns in Technological Transition In a tiresome commentary in which you ramble from unskilled labor being too expensive and oversupplied (at the same time) to conspicuous consumption, I’ve detected two basic points: that to lose our tactical/technological advantage risks losing everything and that “lots more” unskilled labor is not a benefit. Your first point is rather unsubstantiated. Many countries do not have our tactical/technological advantage and yet still have something. Many countries have had and lost a tactical/technological advantage and yet have not lost everything. With little to support it, your conclusion is weak. On the second point, I’ve yet to see a machine, by itself, picking peaches and carefully placing them in a box or putting roof shingles on a row of townhouses or catching chickens on a farm. Machines certainly help them accomplish their work, and beating the steam drill did kill John Henry, but the tools and machines merely help, not replace, the laborers, and the steam drill was operated by a laborer. I just don’t see detrimental effect that unskilled immigrants have had on the US economy. People like yourself have been arguing the detrimental effects of immigration for well over a century, and the argument is always that more immigration will be detrimental to the US. The predictions never come true, and yet new doomsday preachers continue the same argument. | ||
| Lorenzo |
Donald Titus: If you really think that the Attorney General or the U. S. Immigration & Naturalization Service arrive at their decisions independently of congress (and the White House) you have a truly imperfect view of those seriously besieged wings of government. As for the social "entitlements" illegals succeed in obtaining for themselves, your hopeful posit ignores the 'magic' that forged, fraudulent or borrowed credentials can and do regularly accomplish. You want us to believe that illegals conform to the "legal" strictures, once they have negotiated the Rio Grande. You could sell a bridge easier. I have seen these charades - up close and personal. I have lived in California for years! Concerning my HTW editorial on "Technological Transition" and its effect on the adaptability of the U. S. labor market, if not technological advantages, to what would you attribute American socio/economic ascendency? It's great climate?? There are a few support functions on the edges of the mechanized, automated, synchronized productive activity that still require people to accomplish. However the overwhelming function of humans in the production sector is that of servo-mechanisms: People push the button and pull that levers that control machines, whether this involves running a drill-press or driving a truck. As I pointed out, motive power in the U.S. is 98% from machines and 2% supplied by humans. This is as of today! Unskilled labor in the U. S. market is in vast oversupply, and until Honduras and the other 3rd World countries begin educating and training their surplus populations, the United States will have no alternative except to install measures to keep them out. Humanitarianism has little to do it. It's a matter of pure economics - and maintaining the competitive "edge", that you seem to find so superflous to America's continuing advancement. The bottom-line is that, regardless of the natural catastrophes and obvious human failures that are continually raised as arguments to the contrary, the U. S. does not have an unlimited capacity to accommodate an endless flood if refugees from the rest of the world. There clearly was a time when, arguably, that was possible. The Statue of Liberty is a testimonial to that era. But that time has passed. We must get used to this idea. ... Lorenzo | ||
| Anonymous |
"I just don’t see detrimental effect that unskilled immigrants have had on the US economy. People like yourself have been arguing the detrimental effects of immigration for well over a century, and the argument is always that more immigration will be detrimental to the US. The predictions never come true, and yet new doomsday preachers continue the same argument." | ||
| Lorenzo |
I don't reply to anonymous postings. Sign it and I will respond. ... Lorenzo | ||
| Donald Titus |
Mr. Belveal: You have a truly imperfect view of John Ashcroft if you think he will permit Congress dictate the way he conducts the duties given to him under the law. I see you’ve changed your wording: rather than being entitled to benefits, you now say they obtain them by fraudulent means. That’s certainly true for some people. You ask, “if not technological advantages, to what would you attribute American socio/economic ascendancy (sic)?” I never said that it wasn’t due to technological advantages. I merely disputed your claim that without it, we would lose EVERYTHING. That’s a pretty tall claim. You say that “the U. S. does not have an unlimited capacity to accommodate an endless flood if (sic) refugees from the rest of the world.” I agree with that. It’s a good thing the U.S. does not have to accommodate an endless flood of refugees from the rest of the world. Europe is a destination for many immigrants, and many consider it beneficial to the economy. In fact, several European countries, faced with the prospect of an ageing workforce, are looking at ways to attract foreign workers. Some respected economists in the U.S. claim that immigration is beneficial to the U.S. economy. You say that “the United States will have no alternative except to install measures to keep them out.” Actually, one alternative exists: to allow them in, at least some. As I previously stated and was quoted by anonymous, “I just don’t see detrimental effect that unskilled immigrants have had on the US economy. People like yourself have been arguing the detrimental effects of immigration for well over a century, and the argument is always that more immigration will be detrimental to the US. The predictions never come true, and yet new doomsday preachers continue the same argument.” | ||
| Donald Titus |
Lorenzo Dee Belveal’s Response to a Critic In a letter to Honduras This Week, Lorenzo Dee Belveal responded to criticism of one of his Editorials with unassailable evidence. The evidence: U. S. Department of Labor Unemployment statistics - September, 2001- 4.9% October, 2001 - 5.4% "the biggest one-month rise in 21 years, and the highest unemployment rate since 1996." March, 2002 - 5.7% April, 2002 - 6.0% Mr. Belveal commented, “These numbers are unassailable. They represent the reality of U. S. unemployment.” They actually represent an estimate by a bureaucracy of underpaid economists who conducted a telephone survey, but that’s beside the point. Mr. Belveal’s unassailable numbers have absolutely nothing to do with the editorial in question, The World Turns in Technological Transition. In that article, Mr. Belveal’s main point seemed to be that “lots more” unskilled labor “no longer constitutes (sic) a benefit to the world’s most sophisticated society and only global super-power.” How is this related to unemployment rates? Is the fact that the unemployment rate is 6% (one of the lowest in the world) evidence that unskilled labor is no longer a benefit? The only assertion that Mr. Belveal makes in his editorial that is even remotely related to unemployment is his statement that “[Unskilled labor] is clearly in oversupply in the American market, as witness the growing inability of workmen (and women) to find gainful employment within the limitations of their skills and, thus are reduced to depending on social programs, charitable inputs, etc., for their daily support.” If unskilled labor were in oversupply, then it stands to reason that a lot of unskilled laborers would be unemployed. Most are aware of a worldwide recession. The US economy entered a recession in 2001. If one were to review all the U.S. Department of Labor unemployment statistics, one would notice that the current 6% unemployment rate is the LOWEST peak unemployment rate of any recession since the Department of Labor started gathering this type of data. For a recession, 6% is extremely low. Unless Mr. Belveal is going to try to convince us that the arrival of unskilled immigrant labor caused the U.S. and worldwide recession, then one might conclude that the figures Mr. Belveal cited actually invalidate his assertions. Not only are unemployment levels low, but also the number of people on welfare and the number of people in poverty in the U.S. has declined over the past five years despite the addition of millions of immigrant laborers, many unskilled, to the U.S. workforce. In fact, the very fact that millions of unskilled laborers continue to come to the U.S. and find gainful employment is a rather unassailable fact that supports the assertion that the demand for unskilled labor in the U.S. is still strong. In his conclusion, Mr. Belveal wrote, ”I could go on, but shall not.” Please don’t go on, Mr. Belveal. Give it a rest. | ||
| Donald Titus |
Pitfalls of Lorenzo Dee Belveal Lorenzo Dee Belveal thinks we are becoming a nation of thugs and street fighters. He fears “we have lost - or are in the process of losing - our capacity for constructive participation in the business of 'government by the governed'.” “We are becoming a nation of thugs and street fighters,” he adds. To support his assertion, Belveal references outrages in Los Angeles, Seattle and Washington, politicians adept at deceit and hate billboards, among other things. Belveal blatantly fails to appreciate that the vast majority of the participants in the protests in Seattle and Washington did not commit outrages but peacefully participated in a vast public forum which, together with the other activities of the participants like websites, news releases, reports and other lobbying efforts, conveys a meaningful message. The bad behavior of a few does not render every participant a thug. Persons adept at deceit, street thugs and hate exist not only in a popular government but wherever human beings are found. To suggest that popular governance causes these human character shortfalls is silly. To consider it a pitfall if a system of government fails to improve human nature is just as ridiculous. | ||
| Donald Titus |
Lorenzo Dee Belveal – The Shot Gun Approach to Trying to Prove the Adverse Effects of Immigration In another verbose diatribe Lorenzo Dee Belveal continues using the shotgun approach to arguing against immigration in “The United States of America as Banker, Policeman, and Sanctuary for excess populations.” Among the ramblings Mr. Belveal considers branch plants in Mexico of American companies to be “economic benevolence.” Bigotry, ignorance or perhaps some other factor causes Mr. Belveal not to consider the excess profit margins that said companies earn by locating said plants in Mexico where cheap labor is abundant. Then Mr. Belveal contends that Argentina believes that it is “the responsibility of the United States to provide the wherewithal to save the Argentine system from the predictable results of its own wrongheaded economic excesses.” I would like to issue a public challenge to Mr. Belveal. I challenge him to provide some evidence of the above claim. However, the main point of Mr. Belveal’s diatribe seems to be just another weak anti-immigration argument; that the US, due to fiscal limitations and preoccupation with the post September 11 war on terrorism, is unable to provide legal residency to Mexican and Honduran immigrants currently in the US or to accept more immigrants from other countries. Mr. Belveal evidently believes that immigration is costly to the United States and that the United States is unable to deal with its domestic policy concerns while fighting a war on terrorism (or chew gum and walk at the same time). The United States is capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time. It may be of news to Mr. Belveal, but Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and her staff spend most of their time on domestic issues, not in fighting the war on terrorism. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao is not lacing up combat boots but ensuring worker safety at domestic worksites, monitoring US labor unions and protecting US private pension plans among other things. US domestic issues continue to be the primary concern of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce and other agencies. Cost estimates of immigration vary to some degree. The anti-immigration group, Center for Immigration Studies, estimates that immigrants cost the US somewhere between $11 billion and $20 billion per year and puts downward pressure on wages of low-skilled workers. Other studies found that, when all taxes are considered, the US Federal, state and local governments collect up to $20 billion in taxes more than costs incurred as a result of immigrants and that the effects of immigration on unemployment and wages of low-skilled workers are minimal. This information tells us that the net economic effect that immigrants have on the United States is small, and it is uncertain whether that effect is a net gain to the US or a net cost. There is one thing that is certain and that is the fact that Lorenzo Dee Belveal will write yet another piece arguing, with no evidence to back it up, the dreadful adverse effects of immigration. | ||
| Anonymous |
Donald Titus, you are a mad man. | ||
| Anonymous |
A COMMENT FROM A READER HONDURAS THIS WEEK JUNE 24, 2002 Dear HTW: I would like to ask what is so special to Mr. Dee Belveal writing that warrants so much attention of your publication? No other than the President of the United States has graciously granted a TPS extension to our compatriots in the US. Proof of the solidarity the American People have demonstrated through decades of political turmoil and natural disasters in Honduras. As a US citizen and tax payer, I give permission to the US government to allocate funds and spend the share of my taxes on aid packages to third world nations in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, which includes Afghanistan by the way. There are many more like me here in the US. Enough of rambunctious writings that beat around the bush with veiled implications and poorly worded analogies of the plight of illegal Hondurans and the worldwide war on terror; Time is running out for TPS beneficiaries, and they should get organized to solve their situation. They should be warned of this, not scape-goated for recent world events like Mr. Dee Belveal seems to imply. Honduras and its people are a firm ally of the US, ask Mr. Colin Powell in the State Department. Eduardo A Sanchez Via Internet | ||
| Anonymous |
Good comment, Mr. Sanchez. | ||
| Donald Titus |
A COMMENT FROM A READER HONDURAS THIS WEEK JULY 15, 2002 "So far that evidence indicates you exaggerate Mr. Dee Belveal." Eduardo Sanchez |