August 24, 2007

 

Dear Editor:

 

Yes, the illegal immigrant situation is a tremendous problem in this country and every day it becomes more and more serious. Current estimates put the amount of illegal immigrants in the U.S. at 12 to 14 million and increasing yearly at a rate of 500,000. Despite all the rhetoric from Congress (most of which is political B.S.) nothing has been accomplished to bring about an eventual solution to this urgent problem.

 

Probably the greatest single industry employing the major amount of illegal immigrants is agriculture. This also happens to be California’s main industry.  Best estimates are that 65 percent to 85 percent of field workers in California agriculture are illegal. Mind you, they do have documents, but those documents, whether they are green cards or Social Security cards, are blatantly false.  However, the grower community is not obligated to ascertain whether these questionable documents, if they “appear” to be genuine, are in fact legitimate.  The I-9 document, which went into effect after the 1986 Immigration Reform Act, is required to be filled out by every employer in the U.S. when a person seeks employment. This document supposedly serves two purposes, proof of identity and the right to work in the U.S. Many employers are not even aware of the I-9 requirements and those that are, simply do not pay that much attention to the documentation submitted by the prospective applicant. So what is the solution to this pressing national problem?

 

First, Congress and the American public have to admit that we need, in substantial numbers, millions of these foreign nationals to do jobs that American citizens simply are unwilling to do. This brings up the old adage of Americans not willing to do these jobs because of sub-standard wages, especially in agriculture.  This is simply not true. I have been conducting legal compliance audits in agriculture for years, principally in the strawberry business, and know that in most cases field workers earn from $8 to $21 per-hour during the harvest season. The real reason why Americans won’t work in agriculture and meat packing plants is that this is seasonal, back-breaking work with few if any side benefits. So what is the most sensible solution?

 

If Congress can admit that we do need this imported labor, then they can start to establish a program, (not amnesty), that will eventually lead to a solution.  First and foremost it must come up with a work card that would include holograms and whatever else to make it copy-proof to go along with the I-9 requirements. This card must be presented to an employer before the applicant is hired…no card, no work. This, more than anything else, will seal the borders.  The new immigration reform law should not lead to eventual citizenship; there is already a path to acquire American citizenship that should be followed by all immigrants. Congress should also come up with reasonable numbers of people needed to do all this work. The next most important thing that should be included in any new immigration reform law is employer sanctions that should be vigorously enforced. Again, the 1986 Immigration Reform Act has these employer sanctions built into it, but they were hardly ever enforced.

 

A sensible, working, immigration reform program will take many years to accomplish these goals, perhaps as many as five or six years. But that is OK; Congress must address this problem soon. There is way too much anger and desperation about the present state of affairs to let this tremendous problem go on and on and on!

 

-Rob Cartwright

 Solvang

 

Dear Nancy:

 

I always enjoy your editorials. However, the last one on illegal immigration contains an error.

 

When an employer gets a notice from the Social Security Administration that the information an employee gave to them is in error, it is the employee's responsibility to clear up the problem in 90 days or the employer may not continue to employ the employee. It is thus not a question of firing someone, it is a question of the employee being unable to prove through certifiable, legal documentation that they have a right to be present and work in the U.S.

 

It is further a crime to use fraudulent documents to obtain work so any firing would be completely defensible. All workers in California are at-will employees unless there is an agreement otherwise, so firings for any reason at all, or no reason, are defensible.

 

Federal law makes it a crime for an employer to employ someone who is not here legally. Federal law preempts state law on this issue.

 

The bottom line is employers and employees must comply with the law, including the federal immigration law, painful and disruptive as that may be to their personal and economic interests.

 

-Kim Seefeld

 

 

Thank you, Kim for that clarification. As an employer, I try to follow the ever-changing laws regarding employees to make sure that everybody follows the legal requirements. As for illegal immigrants, there will be some serious ramifications, I fear, because of the sole focus on employers. Other issues could be changed, which would immediately drop illegal immigration, one of which is the automatic citizenship of babies born in the U.S. If the parents are both citizens it would follow that their child would automatically become a citizen. For those parents who are not citizens, it would not be automatic. It is outrageous for people who do not speak our language and do not intend to learn it, who wave a foreign flag in our faces to be demanding “rights.” Could we go to another country and demand citizens rights? Of course not. It’s time for the politicians to get a dose of common sense and straighten this mess out. It’s a mess for everyone!

 

-NCH

 

Dear Nancy Crawford-Hall:

 

The enclosed clipping is a letter to the editor from the Aug. 2, 2007 issue of the Herald and News, in Klamath Falls, Ore. It appears to represent the views of many Santa Ynez Valley residents as well as those in this small Oregon community. I thought it was “poetically” written (in a way) and would be of interest to you.

My husband and I have been permanent residents of SYV since 1979 and have seen the “here” versus “there” views gradually alter the small-town environment over the years.

For the past 16 years, we have spent approximately six months a year in both locales and have heard these attitudes expressed in these relatively small towns in both states. It seems that geographical distances don’t inhibit one’s thinking and or desire for either “here” or “there” view.

Thank you for your wonderful publication that we faithfully read, even though we are engulfed in the Cascade Mountains.

 

-Yours truly, Pat Harvey

 

“Here” is a lot better than “there.”

They come “here” partly because it isn’t “there.”

We have things here that they don’t have there, including smaller, quieter, friendlier, slower-paced, cleaner, greener, sunnier and wilder. We have a trolley car on Main Street, and that Main Street is only about eight blocks long.

Here people escape things that are there, like traffic, hustle, bustle, noise, pollution, big-city rush and big-city rushed attitudes.

Soon, they start talking about how it was there, more shopping, bigger stores, more fast food, faster driving and no trolley cars blocking up the main street. They want here to be like there.

Along with more shopping, we get more asphalt and more traffic and more litter and more graffiti and faster driving and faster attitudes – all the things they came here to escape. Now, there’s no time for slower and sweeter and historic – all the things they came here to get.

If they have their way, here will become there; and we will all be searching for somewhere else with less asphalt, less traffic and a pretty little trolley on Main Street.

Remember, even when offered “progress” and convenience,” all that makes here better than there – let’s keep it that way.

 

-John Bailey, Klamath Falls

 

Dear SYVJ:

 

I am writing to respond to a comment made by a reader who wrote to this paper about Supervisor Brooks Firestone and his response to the Zaca Fire. In her letter in the Aug. 17-24, 2007 issue, The Good, The Bad, The Missing, Jennifer Adams of Buellton correctly observed that the supervisor was a guest at a July 4 party, which was being held at a ranch located about two miles west of Bell Canyon, where the blaze began. To precede her (negative) opinions about Firestone’s response to the fire, Ms. Adams begins her account with an insinuation that Firestone’s presence here had something to do with the reinstatement of our fireworks permit that day, allowing our show to go on when other county shows were denied.

 

I am the person who produced the party at Oak Savanna Vineyard, an all-day family event that began at noon, with a rodeo and ended with a fireworks show at 9:30 p.m. It is true that, in spite of the growing fire, our permits were reinstated in the late afternoon and the show went on as planned (as did the one at the Santa Ynez High School), but Ms. Adams is incorrect to suggest that Firestone acted to influence the Fire Marshall’s decision in any way. I know this because I was there when the green light was given.

 

At about 1:00 p.m. on July 4, I received a call from the Fire Department, which told me that our permits had been pulled, and this seemed to me, to the owners of the property, and also to Supervisor Firestone, with whom I spoke directly, like a completely reasonable and understandable, if disappointing, decision.  In fact, Firestone was positively adamant in his deference to the decisions of the Fire Marshall.   

 

By about 2 p.m. that afternoon, an active staging area for the firefighters had been established across from the main entrance to our property on Foxen Canyon Road. Since 11 a.m., their helicopters had been flying in a seemingly continual rotation up Bell Canyon and back to Oak Savanna, sucking water from our ag pond, and they were also filling their water trucks from our property’s hydrant. Even though the blaze was just a few hours old, it already looked like the Fire Department was settling in for a hard battle. At this time, the wind changed directions and I had the chance to speak in person to the Fire Marshall, whose office I had dealt with before, as part of the routine inspection for obtaining the permits for our fireworks show.

 

After sharing his concerns with me about the growing fire, the marshall made it clear that, close as it was to us, our property which, is located to the west of Bell Canyon was in no apparent danger. He also explained that our fireworks permit had been pulled because of his fear that increased vehicle traffic on Foxen Canyon Road, the arrival of our guests, which he assumed would be later in the day, would impede the movement of the firefighting vehicles up Foxen. I told him that all of our guests were already on the property, just in case their departure might present problems for him. The vineyard manager, Felipe Hernandez, also explained that we had additional exits from the property. Based on this information, plus a reexamination of the location where the show was to take place (a short walk away from the Fire Department staging area), the Fire Department reinstated our fireworks permit.

 

Even though Jennifer Adams did not suggest that our fireworks were unsafe, I feel compelled to add that our show was produced by Souza, one of the oldest and most reputable pyrotechnicians in the country.  Souza has produced fireworks displays for Macy’s, Disneyland, the Olympics in Athens, the Statue of Liberty in New York, and just about every city in the state of California. The fireworks at Oak Savanna Vineyard were deployed over the aforementioned ag pond which is surrounded by acres of irrigated grapes. We have held this show for the last five years, and in preparation for it, we mow the few clumps of dried grasses and brush that manage to remain in the area, prune the nearby trees, and we have three filled water trucks with trained operators standing by in the highly unlikely event that anything catches fire on the ground.

 

Our July 4 fireworks show was enjoyed by several hundred families, including relatives, neighbors, employees and friends, including Supervisor Firestone and members of his family. But for Ms. Adams to suggest that the fire marshall was influenced by Supervisor Firestone or any other member of our community during those critical early hours of the Zaca Fire is an insult to the integrity of our county firefighters.

 

-Stephanie Valentine,

Director of Special Events

Oak Savanna Vineyard

Los Olivos, Calif.

 

Response to Steve Pappas Commentary:

Steve, I moved to the Valley about a year ago, have been involved in many matters related to the county, planning and development in Santa Barbara and the Hollister Ranch. I agree with your assessment of the use of these overlays as both dangerous and rife with the opportunity for abuse. This is just another grab on our private property rights, which will ultimately be used to force unwanted high density (supposedly affordable) housing and commercial projects. Your most recent article on the new Greater Santa Ynez Valley Baseline Study is equally alarming. I'd appreciate you spending a few minutes with me over a cup of coffee to discuss these matters.

I'm a proactive conservative, who wants to help preserve and protect our natural environment and the agri-ranching community we live in.

-John Wilczak
 Santa Ynez

 

Dear Editor:

 

Democrats, Independents and Republicans do agree on one thing. The government is too big and the private sector worker can no longer afford higher fees taxes and bonds to support them.

 

-Kevin O’Connor

 Santa Barbara