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:
With the recent comments against more reasonable immigration controls, it is more clear why there is such controversy. That some think it rational to base such a critical matter upon romanticized or fictional novels, quotes or poems is not realistic. Mr. Baer's letter calls Jean Valjean of Les Miserables a hero and refers to the social injustice issue. Why did he steal the bread to begin with? Could he not have gotten a job making, selling or delivering the bread or other job as most do? Why did he later violate his probation and then steal from the clergyman who gave him another chance? Perhaps the policeman Javerts was the real hero by upholding the law and by persisting, showed Valjean the error of his scoundrelly ways and thus accounting for his later redemption. Earlier, Mr. Baer in a letter to the Editor refers to a quote that US Pres. Polk "engineered" the Mexican problem to our advantage. As this means to "manage skillfully", I certainly hope that Polk would do so. The articles go into great detail as to how the Mexicans started the War which they lost and would have lost the lands anyway. The moneys paid to them were agreeable and were suggested by Mexico and while seemingly small by todays inflated values, was a great amount then. By the way, how much did the Mexicans pay the Indians when they made their claim? Karmell Bowen's mantra of a new global paradigm without borders is not an improvement of our present Constitution, if replaced by the deceitful UN Charter which would reduce most of US to slaves on the global plantation. Her hoped for dream of "more effective living together" would thus not be realized for that reason as well as the chaos and infighting of overly mixing different cultures which she mentions. The desirable migrants to which she refers could also come under a limited arrangement, for the most part. But there is no unlimited right of foreigners to be here as many of them seem to think. Dave Anderson's letter appears to question my "interaction" with migrants. While not done for expected profit, I can assure him that since where I live, as the number of Mexicans has risen at least five time the previous number in the past five years, that I have experienced more interaction than I would have freely chosen had the loose border advocates not decided for me. Some interaction is positive, but there are many I don't want to mix with such as those frequently in the news for various serious crimes or offenses including one recently sexually assaulting a horse. An anonymous letter to the Editor was wondering about my "white slavery" reference. No name's letter also repeats a common charge against those who want responsible, controlled, limited immigration with the "bigotted" label. What is truly shallow is to resort to meaningless name calling, rather than substantive and responsible dialogue assuming such is available. Should limited migrant advocates resort to similar methods, it might be more appropriate to refer to the open border crowd as unpatriotic, antiAmerican, disloyal, financially motivated xenomaniacs who are selling out their fellow citizens. Rather than looking towards idealized and fictional excuses for diluting America, it would be far more appropriate to consider real heros and accounts of the many who have sacrificed for the sovereignty of a self-governing Republic for the benefit of it's citizens. One example would be the 186 patriots who in 1836 took a stand for liberty and America at the Alamo in Texas knowing they would not survive.

R. L. Ranger