Two letters raised objections to the bipartisan immigration "deal" working its way through Congress ["Immigration deal raises objections," April 4]. One writer pointed out that this deal favors business and unions because it allows workers who can be paid at a lower wage. The writer also pointed out that the jobs involved were not spurned by Americans, but that Americans refused to work for the pittance given to laborers in China and other sweatshop nations.
While I do not believe in hiking the minimum wage, I certainly do believe that a worker should be paid according to the worth of his labor, and that hiring workers off the books to save money is wrong.
The unemployment rate in the black community is over 13 percent. So, while immigration amnesty is presented as a blow against racism, the influx of those who take jobs ordinarily available to this community harms these American citizens. Is that not itself racist? Should we not rather be doing all in our power to lower the unemployment rate among our own citizens -- white and black -- before we concern ourselves with the welfare of those who have broken the law in entering this country?
Valerie Protopapas, Huntington Station
There is something incomprehensible about the proposed immigration reform bill that is not being addressed by our elected representatives. The bill apparently would allow low-skilled workers to enter the U.S. labor force.
Can any fair-minded person explain what sense it makes to invite thousands of workers to come here while our unemployment rate is 7.6 percent?
The opportunity to work needs to be offered to the unemployed American or permanent resident worker. Also, let's offer these low-skill jobs to people who are draining our welfare system, at the same time giving them a path to a brighter future.
David Duchatellier, Elmont