Netlets for Monday, May 12

The city of St. Paul should not be wasting valuable resources by challenging the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War's need for a permit for Sept. 1 in court.

When city officials agreed to host the Republican National Convention, they agreed to host a major demonstration. The Republican Party has led a bloody and brutal war on the Iraqi people. This war has needlessly killed Iraqis, Americans and steals resources we should instead spend on human needs at home.

St. Paul should grant a permit for a march route to the Xcel Center and stop seeing its role as protecting delegates from public opinion.

MEREDITH ABY, MINNEAPOLIS

Budget deal ought to promote general welfare

Your endorsement of Marty Seifert's ideas on dispersing the Health Care Access Fund (HCAF) for long-term care (editorial, May 3) fails to recognize the distinction between so-called "welfare" and subsidy.

Long-term care funds come from Medicaid or Medical Assistance as it is called in Minnesota. They flow to indigent seniors and the disabled. The HCAF subsidizes insurance for working poor who pay a small premium. Gov. Tim Pawlenty paints it as "welfare" and Seifert's plan would confirm that! It would also rescue legislators who own and manage nursing homes in the state.

Aren't we tired of starving government, placing poor people in opposition to each other, and bickering over diminished revenue? It is not a matter of "either-or" but of "both-and!" Let's end the shell game and promote the general welfare!

MARY K. LUND, MINNETONKA

Looking for leadership from the governor

I was recently at St. Thomas More Catholic School in St. Paul when Gov. Tim Pawlenty spoke about leadership to the students. After the talk, the students asked him questions and I was surprised by the intelligence of the questions, and how much they cared about transit.

One student asked: "How come you vetoed the light rail between St. Paul and Minneapolis? Because it would be good on pollution and do other really good stuff." Another student wanted more hybrid buses, while another student asked: "Why don't we fully fund transit?"

This question really jarred the governor, and he responded with: "Ah... well a big transportation bill did pass recently, and then I vetoed it. But then the Legislature overrode my veto, and there was lots of money for transit in that bill, more money than we've ever had in the history of our state."

Pawlenty talked to the students about leadership, but where is he aiming his leadership? I just don't see what kind of legacy he is aspiring to leave, when mostly what he exudes is reluctance and negativity. What is his vision?

LONNIE ELLIS, ST. PAUL

Teens using what works

Teens using e-nudity to get noticed (Star Tribune, May 5)? How sadly unsurprising, considering the pornified world we've cultivated with our money, our attention and our repression of public objection. It will only get worse before it gets better. How many more peoples' lives will our exploitive sex-saturated culture devastate up to that point?

MOIRA OLSON, EDINA

'Illegal' immigrants? It's not that simple

If the immigration issue were as simple as the writer of May 7 letter ("Protest was a rally for illegal immigrants") believes, we would have solved it long ago.

Before debating how things should or should not be, I start from the fact that all of us are "God's children." If you don't think in those terms, we are all human beings endowed with the same basic human dignity. And, most of us in this country are descended from immigrants. At issue is the fact that some of us, in recent years have gotten here without proper documentation. Twelve million people don't just drop in; there are forces within and outside our borders bringing this about.

At the most basic level, if you could not find work and could not feed yourself and your family, what would you do? If you knew that by crossing a border illegally, you could find work and have enough to support yourself and send back to your family, would you not do it? An example of causes of migration is that the we (the United States) have signed treaties, such as NAFTA, that flooded other countries, Mexico in particular, with cheap goods, particularly corn. Many local producers and manufacturers lost their livelihood as a result.

Meantime, on our side of the border are employers ready and willing to hire these very people to pick and process our vegetables and fruit, process our meat, clean our offices and hotels, put roofs on our houses, care for our children, etc. Despite being paid lower wages than other comparable workers, most manage to live and send money home.

Undocumented workers do pay taxes: Payroll taxes are taken out of their paychecks; they pay sales tax every time they buy something; they pay rent, which includes a property tax component, and they pay Social Security taxes that they will never draw on. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service gives undocumented workers a tax ID number so they can file their taxes! They do not receive any government benefits and most stay as far as they can from any government office.

But, "they are illegal." Yes, they came to this country without papers, or overstayed a visa. They broke an administrative law. Do we consider ourselves as an "illegal person" when we break an administrative law? I find it distasteful to classify any person as legal or illegal.

Our current immigration laws no longer fit the reality of the global economy. Every year the United States issues some 4,000 work visas for low-skilled workers, yet our economy absorbs about 400,000 workers every year! We also often hear, "Why don't they just get in line and wait their turn?" The United States has a lottery system that each year issues a specific number of visas to each specific country. However, Mexico and most Central and South American countries are not even part of the lottery, i.e., there is no line to get in!

The law is not an inanimate object. Laws evolve over time together with society as it evolves and matures. It used to be "legal" to have slaves; more recently it was "legal" to enforce racial discrimination. "Legal" is not always "right" and "right" is not always "legal."

Of course it is desirable for all immigrants to arrive legally, no one wishes it more than them. Sure there are legitimate security concerns. If we had a realistic immigration system, it would be much easier to identify criminal elements. Sure, the number of immigrant workers should be managed so as not to drive down wages for everyone. Sure, other countries should "get their house in order" so as to reduce the number of desperately poor people. What is needed is comprehensive immigration reform that addresses all the different facets of this extremely complex issue simultaneously. The answer will take all of us putting our minds, and hearts, together.

MARIA T. VALENCIA, ST. PAUL