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:
The latest news release from informs US that at the unprecedented, mass immigration invasion level that we now experience will result in 139 million more "Americans" in the next 50 years, according to the Census Bureau, mostly from immigrants. We can become fixated upon the past and debate various points forever, but the relevant topic now, when population related stresses and budgets are already severe problems, can only be: Is this the future we want for America regardless of our present societal mix (or how it came to be)? Indeed, some seem to relish engaging in such non-productive, often petty, nitpicking, giving credence to yesterday's comment of the same, stale letters. (i.e. -- the site is an advocacy site, DHS is and INS were responsible for the plan; also, my general, qualified references to early Indians never mentioned any "right" of entry, only the lack of any modern law, thus they could not be illegals. To compare conditions then to today's codified law is ludicrous.) Why is it considered bigotry when limited immigration advocates seek to reduce entry, but not irresponsible and damaging to hold the unlimited view, or is this just another diversion? It may be helpful to reveal such absurdities by comparing speed limits to entry limits. Why would an opinion of a lower, prudent speed limit which would result in safety and order be labelled as bigotry or intolerance? Would it not be more appropriate to say that those advocates of unlimited or very high speed rates should reconsider their views in respect for the rights and safety of others? Deportation laws are to illegal immigration what citations are to traffic violators. Neither one may ever completely eliminate the problems, but a vigorous enforcement is required to minimize them. Imagine the chaos if traffic laws were not enforced or were ignored by many. While I am not an immigration lawyer, skilled in your procedures, maybe some of you "can't see the forest fires, because of the trees". Our southern border is being invaded by large groups of 50 to 100 illegals every day, hundreds of thousands every year. It has been characterized as a war zone. Our northern border is also violated. Visa overstays are routine and other illegal acts are deliberately planned, some by terrorists. While this may benefit some agendas, who among you can seriously claim this is good for America? Has 9-11 taught us nothing? Have those lost lives and untold other sacrifices to build America been in vain? Has citizenship become so cheap and meaningless? Will personal interest and gain ever be set aside for principle again? The question: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"(or madam?) is relevant today. The right to control entry rests with our sovereign nation, not with any presumptuous "right" assumed by foreigners or utilized by others and not all can come or should. A legitimate concern and opinion of lax immigration policies and loose border control is not hate, bigotry or racism, it's more like a righteous indignation and concern that millions of Americans of all backgrounds have that policies are not serving their interests nor the best interests of other nations.

R. L. Ranger