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: www.barnesreview.org 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
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
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: www.fairus.org ]
as most are not against controlled, limited immigration, only excessive,
out-of-control and illegal immigration, a huge difference. See:
www.limitstogrowth.org 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
Share this page
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM