ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

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



Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:

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

Dear Editor:
In response to the six letters to the editor which preceded mine yesterday, I submit the following, In response to Manuel Magdaniel's letter, a thoughtful comment. Yes, laws are not always moral, nor their application. However, deportation laws are not in that category and they should be more vigorously enforced. Why should the "plight of the illegal immigrant" take precedent over the "plight of the overburdened US citizen"?   Also, I don't believe the persons who originally came to America were "illegals" as the few Indians were mostly nomadic, the country largely wide open and there were no laws controlling entry then. Comparing then and now are worlds apart.  It would be like holding them to today's environmental standards. In response to David Murray's letter, another very thoughtful comment and the "The Golden Door" is very moving if overly dramatic and certainly can't be the basis for realistic immigration policy. In response to Richard Baer's letter, 9-11 did not establish that all immigrants are terrorists, but what it did establish to all except the most myopic, is that lax immigration and border policies allows some terrorists. The "overly mixing of cultures" comment was made by another person to which I was responding, but Mr. Baer's letter severely exaggerates in comparing limited immigration advocates to the Holocaust and the purchase of Mexico's tenuous land claims as "stealing". A person feeling the great need to overly interact with other cultures and to resolve guilt has the option to visit that country without the necessity of that country relocating here. If they all do that, then we have no country.   In response to Justin's letter, perhaps he could explain why the Mexicans or any other culture can justify an unlimited "right to migrate" here which precludes any citizen's rights. In response to Ali Alexander's letter, a very appropriate observation. In response to M.S.'s letter, the "guilt trip" agenda has succeeded with MS and even if one accepts some of that, today's policies can't be made on yesterday's perceived guilt. They have to be based upon today's reality. I agree that illegals are "not a treat", but in the numbers that are allowed today, they are a threat, culturally, if not physically (some are both). The severe pressure for cheap labor is a result of excessive government spending, the solution of which is to reduce that spending to Constitutional standards. To displace citizens with foreigners and not to control borders and immigration as other nations do, may work for special interests, but is violative of our sovereignty and citizen's rights.

R. L. Ranger 

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: