Arizona Daily Wildcat Online
Front Page
Go Wild
Live Culture
Police Beat
Special Sections
Photo Spreads
The Wildcat
Letter to the Editor
Wildcat Staff
Job Openings
Advertising Info
Student Media
Arizona Student Media Info
Student TV
Student Radio
The Desert Yearbook
Daily Wildcat Staff Alumni


Arizona Daily Wildcat
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Print this

Immigration column rife with biases, inaccurate information

Kara Karlson's "A day without an American" column reminded me of rants I've heard from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. Ms. Karlson's piece was full of biases and loaded with inaccurate information. She claims undocumented immigrants are a drain on the welfare system. Yet impartial and scholarly studies reveal that few of them ever collect welfare benefits.

At the same time millions of migrants pay local, state and federal taxes without ever claiming refunds or getting public services. And they work for low wages in backbreaking jobs that Americans avoid. As a consequence, migrants help to keep the cost of living low. That represents a gigantic subsidy to all of us.

Remittances sent by migrants back to Mexico tell only half the story. Huge amounts of money come back to the U.S. in Mexican purchases of U.S. products, property and business investments, and bank deposits. That cross-border money flow creates a lot of jobs for Americans. The reality is that the U.S. and Mexican economies are highly integrated.

Yes, children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens. But, contrary to what you say, foreign-born parents cannot use them as "anchor" babies to gain permanent residency in the U.S. and certainly not to collect welfare benefits.

Oscar J. Martinezr
regents professor of history

Alternative statistics give insight to affirmative action

David Schultz has apparently been listening to just a tad bit too much Michael Savage these days. Mr. Schultz's column "TV embodies affirmative action" indicates that affirmative action is wrong

because Theo Huxtable could go to college easier than Darlene Connor. Stunning logic. I reaffirm my feelings that people learning from TV is a terrible idea, especially because Mr. Schultz seems to have gotten a lesson in college acceptance from two fictional characters, neither of whom wanted to attend college.

Lets put aside the fact that neither Darlene nor Theo actually expressed any desire to go to college and simply look at Mr. Schultz's statistics. Schultz is comparing apples to oranges. I think it's common sense that a rich kid, regardless of race, is more likely to attend college. I'll grant that.

However, what is being compared is the statistics of rich black kids verses poor white kids. Even then the spread was only 6 percent. A more compelling argument would be to look at the percentage of rich white kids to rich black kids. Now, I looked at the same statistics Mr. Schultz used and found out why he didn't bother to compare oranges to oranges. It's simply because the statistics don't back him up.

These are the numbers as the appeared on the same Survey on School Enrollment from 2004 that Mr. Schultz cited. Number of black students enrolled full time in a four-year university (in 100,000) with an income of $40,000 or more: 10. Number of white students (non-Hispanic) enrolled full time in a four-year university (in 100,000) with an income of $40,000 or more: 174.

So I think a more fair comparison would be Theo Huxtable vs. Darlene Connor after Roseanne won the lottery, which happened in the second to last season, if I remember correctly. That was just before she left Dan. The show went pretty much downhill after that.

Katie Mannr
junior majoring in English

Determination, research can help gain access to education

David Shultz's editorial ("TV Embodies Affirmative Action") makes some valid arguments, but he misses the point. David and I are Caucasian Americans. We can hardly claim to understand the complex issues that surround racial discrimination. Our ancestors never had to experience the horrors of slavery or the oppression of Jim Crow Laws.

It is true that a large number of minorities, as well as women, experience freedom and prosperity in this day and age. It was not affirmative action that brought greater equality and success to those groups who had been oppressed for so long. Somewhere along the line some individuals had the fortitude to demand and seize their God-given rights.

Those individuals realize that they alone were responsible for their own happiness and success. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has the determination and knows where to search can find financial help for further education. The Theo Huxtables and the Darlene Conners of this world can both be successful.

A few of my Asian-American friends received twice the amount of financial assistance than I did. Rather than be bitter about it, I am proud of their accomplishments and brag about them any chance I get. To say that they got more assistance because of their race unfairly negates all the hard work they've done and continue to do.

Rachael Poe
sophomore majoring in family studies and human development

Wildcat wrong to denounce student turnout at forum

I would just like to thank the Arizona Daily Wildcat for publishing the "Paltry student turnout at forum deplorable" editorial. It was probably the whiniest and most cynical editorial that I have ever read.

Here is my question: So what if students don't participate in these forums? Will the presence of the entire student body at these informal meetings really have any universal effect on the cost of tuition? Ah, I don't think so. Over the past decade, this university has become more of a corporation than an educational institution. I'm pretty sure they'll do whatever they please in regards to the structure of our tuition.

If the author of this editorial really cared about this issue, they would not bitch about it in the Daily Wildcat. They would mobilize their student body, and they would try to inform as many people as possible about the importance of these forums.

Another pathetic part of this editorial was the childish jabs the author took at the apathy of the student body. Yes, it is true that most people couldn't care less about tuition. Their parents pay for it. So they are allowed to spend their time worrying about what clothes they are going to wear for the evening and the awesome two-for-one specials at Gentle Ben's.

I suggest the author of this editorial spend less time worrying about what other students are doing in their free time and try to find an effective way of communicating the important issues that affect our tuition. For now, I'm going to go enjoy some of those two-for-one specials at Gentle Ben's and continue to ride out the rest of my college career on the parent's tab. Hopefully tuition won't be too high next year.

Kyle Booenr
senior majoring in molecular and cellular biology

Fundraising coverage should be positive

I would like to applaud the Arizona Daily Wildcat articles that attempt to detail the spending on Campaign Arizona's celebration finale. The information provided a glimpse at some of the major benefactors who support crucial initiatives on campus through their deep philanthropic giving. Kudos for beginning to educate students on the millions of dollars in subsidies that they are receiving to pursue their academic dreams.

I feel, however, that the focus has been misdirected in a negative light, and that further education is necessary. There are many misnomers about how and where the university raises its funds for programming and capital expenses. It is because of these generous donors that the university exists as it does today.

As a former ASUA treasurer and intern at the University of Arizona Foundation, I was able to gain a deep understanding of what it takes to make philanthropy happen. The bottom line is that it costs money to make money. At one point, Campaign Arizona was running at a record rate with regard to spending for fundraising purposes. The purpose of the kickoff and the finale of Campaign Arizona is symbolic and highly worthwhile. It is vital to recognize that private donors are the ones who ante up to pay the bill for the extravagance. Without it, you cannot have the cornerstone to a highly touted fundraising endeavor.

I encourage you to further cover these types of stories and to shine light on all that is positively associated with the funding of the university. It is my hope that some day students will stop focusing so much time and attention on tuition hikes and the like, and start contributing that time toward the betterment of financial philanthropy on campus. After all, the reason these donations are made in the first place, is to help each person on campus during his or her stay at the UA.

Cale Miller
UA alumnus

Write a Letter to the Editor
Sticks, stones beat words in Ohio
Firearm 'protection bill' protects the wrong people
Editorial: Biting the hand that feeds
Restaurant and Bar Guide
Housing Guide
Search for:
advanced search Archives


Webmaster -
Copyright 2005 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media