On ImmigrationrnThere you go again, on immigration.rnYou restrictionists have enough interestingrnarguments to make, you don’t needrnto resort to bogus complaints. John C.rnVinson did this in his February reviewrnof The Immigration Invasion, by statingrnthat “the proliferation of Korean-ownedrnliquor stores in South-Central LosrnAngeles has made many of the localsrnrestless.”rnThe Korean immigrants didn’t creaternwhatever concentration of alcoholic beveragernlicenses exists in South Central.rnThe number both of beer-and-vvinernand hard-liquor establishments in thernarea declined by more than 10 percentrnbetween 1982 and 1992, essentially thernperiod of major inroads by proprietorsrnof Korean descent. To the degree thatrnSouth Central is saturated with boozernmerchants, this was even more truernwhen the owners were mostly black or,rnbefore that, white.rnOf course, however many bars andrnliquor stores are in a certain area andrnwhoever owns them, the ultimate explanationrnfor the presence must be that customersrndemand it. You might explorernthat subject when you take a break fromrnthe immigration wars.rn—Tim FergusonrnWall Street JournalrnLos Angeles, CArnMr. Vinson Replies:rnThough Korean immigrants didn’t creaternthe South Central booze commerce,rnthe’ have at least played a role in maintainingrnit—a point, I believe, Mr. Fergusonrnwould concede. It was not myrnpurpose, however, to single out Koreans,rnas a group, for criticism. Rather, it was tornpuncture the hubris of certain Koreansrnwho seem to think they are Cod’s gift tornAmerica. Such hubris, I hasten to add, isrnby no means limited to Koreans.rnI was also aiming to puncture thernstrange self-abasement of certain Americansrnwho tend to view immigrants asrnvirtual saviors. To hear these people tellrnit, wc native-born citizens are simply toorndecadent to maintain America withoutrnregular transfusions of foreign familyrnvalues and work ethics. One wondersrnhow we ever survived before the 1965rnImmigration Act.rnLet’s not oversell others or sell ourselvesrnshort. All that glitters from abroadrnisn’t gold. Sometimes the glitter is just arnreflection off a wine bottle.rnOn The HundredthrnMeridianrnI’ve just completed one of ChiltonrnWilliamson’s columns and I’m literallyrnembarrassed. I now understand what itrnis that he has been trying to express thesernlast few months in his work. Everythingrnhe wrote about his elk hunting trip isrnabsolutely perfect, and yet it sounds sornanachronistic! This is what is so embarrassing.rnThe people in that particularrnstory should be myself and most Americans,rnand yet, my daily concerns involvernthe resale of my silly condominium in arnSan Diego suburb and my family’s upcomingrn”trip” to Disneyland! My Cod,rnmy God, why have we forsaken Thee?!rnThank you, Chilton Williamson, Jr.,rnfor giving my envv a proper stirring.rn—Bob SalernSan Diego, CArnChilton Williamson, Jr.,rnReplies:rnMr. Sale has taken firm hold on ThernHundredth Meridian: I couldn’t havernput it better myself. The column, inrnspite of its apparent general popularity,rnhas been misunderstood by some readers,rnwho have taken its purpose to be thernglorification of gore, guts, guns, and evenrnalcohol. The fact that wTiat were untilrnrecently common realities of human experiencerncan be mistaken for some sortrnof sick fantasy suggests that it may berneven later than I dreamed.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnT H E CONTRACT WITH America isrnlooking more and more like an electionyearrngimmick. Consider the strange alliancernthat Representative Henry Hydern(R-IL) has made with freshman RepresentativernLynn Woosley (D-CA) to federalizernthe collection of child supportrnpayments. If Congress ever passes thern”Uniform Child Support EnforcementrnAct” as part of the COP’s “welfare reform”rnpackage, then every state in thernUnion will be required to notify thernInternal Revenue Service of all courtorderedrnchild support decrees. Thereafter,rnthe IRS will act as the collectionrnagent.rnSound like a good idea? Consider this,rnfrom a Hyde-Woosley briefing paper onrnthe bill: “Custodial parents will bernpresumed to have assigned the right torncollect support to the IRS unless theyrnaffirmatively elect to retain such rights.”rnMore insidiously, the IRS really won’trn”collect” anything. Employers will.rn”Wherever possible, collections shall bernmade through wage withholding orrnthrough estimated tax payments for thernself-employed.” To make the bill morernattractive to those who might notrnsupport it, “when not enough money isrncollected to pay both child support andrntaxes, child support payments will havernpriority.”rnOf course, the Hyde-Woosley billrnsounds great. Many fathers abandonrntheir kids. If Dad heads for the state line,rnMom must seek the help of multiplernstate agencies and lawyers to collect whatrnis owed the children. In 1990, Hyde andrnWoosley report, 65 percent of womenrnwho “wanted child support did not obtainrnit,” while in 1989 “25 percent ofrnthose women supposed to receive childrnsupport received nothing.” They also sayrnnearly 16 million children under age 18rnlive with only one parent, and that inrn1990, 10 million women had childrenrnunder age 21 in fatherless homes, thernpoverty rate for which was 32 percent.rnWhether a woman “wants” child supportrnand whether she is entitled to it arerntwo different things, but in any event thernbill’s authors aver that collecting childrnsupport requires so much bureaucraticrntestosterone that only the IRS can do it.rnHyde and Woosley say the 1,500 staternagencies charged with collecting childrnsupport only get nine percent of thernmoney they are after, or about $3.98 ofrnchild support for every dollar spent tryingrnto collect it. Less than one dollar forrnevery ten dollars owed is collected, andrnHyde and Woosley estimate they couldrnmove 300,000 single mothers off therndole by collecting the child support theyrnarc due.rnJUNE 1995/5rnrnrn