Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

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