Letters

Letters 04-14-14

Benishek Inching

Regarding “Benishek No Environmentalist” I agree with Mr. Powell’s letter to the editor/ opinion of Congressman Dan Benishek’s poor environmental record and his penchant for putting corporate interests ahead of his constituents’...

Climate Change Warning

Currently there are three assaults on climate change. The first is on the integrity of the scientists who support human activity in climate change. Second is that humans are not capable of affecting the climate...

Fed Up About Roads

It has gotten to the point where I cringe when I have to drive around this area. There are areas in Traverse City that look like a war zone. When you have to spend more time viewing potholes instead on concentrating on the road, accidents are bound to happen...

Don’t Blame the IRS

I have not heard much about the reason for the IRS getting itself entangled with the scrutiny of certain conservative 501(c) groups (not for profit) seeking tax exemption. Groups seeking tax relief must be organizations that are operated “primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterment and social improvements.”


Home · Articles · News · Random Thoughts · Unwelcome guest...
. . . .

Unwelcome guest (workers)

George Foster - February 5th, 2004

In an administration that is the first since Hoover’s to lose more jobs than gained, George W. Bush’s proposal to let millions of illegal workers become “legal“ seems to be a cruel joke at first glance.
Ironically, it is Bush’s liberal opponents who usually advocate such measures. The justification for similar amnesty plans is that these illegal workers do the jobs that Americans don’t want. That way U.S. companies are able to operate more efficiently with lower costs.
Look, the U.S. policy should either allow unlimited immigration pouring across our borders or have laws restricting the influx of foreigners. Unless you don’t have a problem with 99% of the world’s peoples attempting to squeeze into our 50 states, laws are needed to keep our population manageable.
We have the laws, including provisions for migrant workers and foreign visitors. What we don’t have is enforcement. About 10 million illegal foreigners (a large majority from Mexico) reside in the U.S. – most of them working or looking for jobs. No one can convince me that the 18 million unemployed American citizens are not competing for many of the same jobs that the illegals are seeking.
Also, what about the war on terrorism? Though we give lip service to stemming the flow of al Qaeda and other potential terrorists, thousands of illegal visitors slip into our country every week. Is amnesty offered for illegal immigration the message we want to send to those who consider crossing our borders unlawfully?
There is only one reason behind George W. Bush’s move to forgive the illegals – blatant pandering to the Hispanic residents in this country. The Hispanic population is skyrocketing in the U.S. – already surpassing the number of African-American residents. That can’t be a bad thing… I love the Latin culture. Many experts think the Hispanic vote will decide many national elections in the future, as early as the Presidential election of 2004.
Despite Bush’s heavily accented attempts at speaking Spanish on the campaign trail, Al Gore received most of the Hispanic vote in 2000. Since our president is apparently as difficult to understand in Spanish as English, he knows that giving amnesty to illegal workers is something Hispanic voters can comprehend. But will that be enough to send Hispanics into the Republican camp?
Recently, President Bush attended a special summit for the OAS (Organization of American States) in Monterrey, Mexico. It is safe to say that the ancestral countries of our Hispanic population have the worst relations with the U.S. than seen in years. According to a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, many Latin American leaders feel the region has not become the priority Bush said it would be when he took office.
In part because of U.S. influence, most of the countries in this hemisphere have leaders who are now democratically elected. Ironically, these heads of state no longer follow the U.S. policies like sheep as in the past. For example, the leaders of Mexico and Chile have followed their population’s opposition to the Iraq War and voted against the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council before the invasion.
The summit was called because of growing poverty in some of the region’s countries and the perception of the rest of the hemisphere that the U.S. has forgotten about their neighbors in the quest to solve national security concerns. Those with this opinion point to U.S. blindness to the freefall of Argentina’s economy, our apparent support of Venezuela’s military coup against a democratically elected president, and our lack of support for the pro-U.S. president of Bolivia who was kicked out of office.
Latin Americans deserve better. With more cooperation from the U.S., their impoverished peoples might not be as desperate to enter our country illegally as is now often the case. Also, if we did a better job protecting our own borders, we might not need to invade foreign countries in the name of national security.
I agree with political commentator Bill O’Reilly who says that the U.S. needs an additional strong military presence to back up our border patrol. The last thing we need is a guest worker plan to encourage millions more to sneak into our country.


 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close