ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
How anyone with America's interests foremost in mind could find fault with Ali Alexander's common sense position on immigration policy is amazing. However, with my qualification, I have resolved my own question as many have other agendas other than America's interests and the result is the complexity we find today on this topic. (More's the pity.) These agendas include globalists seeking to dilute US cultural and economic strength to facilitate transition into the NWO, business interests who place profit above citizens, borders or nations, immigrant hopefuls from every land who want to come here, illegal immigrants who have violated our laws in coming, crooked officials who take bribes, immigration attorneys who can't see beyond their fees and liberals who place guilt trips upon themselves and others as typified by Richard E. Baer's letter. Mexico was paid for the lands in question, they were not "stolen". After winning the War of 1946-48 which they started, we could have just taken over all their land which some wanted to do and many nations in the past have done. [Ref:  Click on Archive, scroll to March/April 2001 issue ] His letter does not mention that many who sold black slaves were black or that many slaves were white in our early history. Even "devotion to family values" can be destructive to our society when criminal activity is adopted as the Mafia has shown. In any case, it is futile to attempt today's policy based upon long ago history. If you have title to a house that you paid for, you make the policies regarding that house today, regardless of past occupancy. Mr. Alexander's clear criteria of how many immigrants can we absorb consistent with our economic and cultural needs is correct, but other's agendas will not accept it because of self serving interests. We cannot allow unlimited numbers of immigrants or whoever wishes to come here. We must be selective based upon what can be contributed as most nations require. No house or nation can be open to any who wish to come or break in. Limited, selective, allocated and controlled entry is in order if they abide our rules and come respectfully, not arrogantly and illegally. [ See: "America for Sale: Visa Roulette" ] The capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who helped plan both WTC terrorist attacks has just been announced along with the fact that he was educated in the US.  While all who come are not terrorists, every migrant arrives with his or her imprinted culture which affects ours in some way as does a drop of dye in water. When the quantity of dye drops becomes sufficient, the result is unrecognizable from the original solution. Immigration only works when limited and controlled. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has introduced a bill to reduce legal immigration from one million a year to approximately 300,000.   H.R. 946, the Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003, would enact a five-year moratorium on many categories of immigration, including extended adult relatives, and would significantly cut back on the number of skilled workers and refugees. It also would eliminate the visa waiver program. In light of terrorism threats and our present security needs as well as the lax and excessive policies of the past, this is clearly what America needs. Mr. Alexander's critique of ILW.COM's Feb. 28th editorial is on target as Americans are more than economic units or statistics or should be. To view citizens or migrants merely as replaceable producers if cheaper or other labor is available, all for the glorious privilege of sustaining the bloated over-spending of government budgets is beyond crass. This also precludes leaving "Marxism in the trash-can of history" with such views, as does characterizing immigration only as an "economic phenomenon", ignoring cultural impact and life quality aspects. Your astounding editorial of Feb. 26th also deserves comment.   In your zeal to justify excessive immigration, how you can discourage reasonable and proper immigration controls by predicting that they may be used against law abiding citizens who are concerned about the immigration invasion by defining them in Orwellian fashion as terrorists, is really stretching your case past credibility. Immigration laws pertain to non-citizens and terrorist laws should address real terrorists, not citizens expressing their valid opinions by Constitutional right.   We don't even deport hard core criminals or murderers, only too few illegal aliens.   While government overstepping its proper function is always a concern, it is a separate matter to be addressed and it's misleading to use that as an excuse to do nothing about excessive immigration.       Finally, your frequent references to "anti-immigration" advocates are not accurate or fair [ pun intended, see: ] as most are not against controlled, limited immigration, only excessive, out-of-control and illegal immigration, a huge difference. See: for details. A person who is against Federal aid to education should not be portrayed as against any education.   It has been said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. These are words to be seriously considered.   The divisiveness of present lax, mass immigration policies and loose border control results in Balkanizing and destabilizing of traditional America.

R. L. Ranger