The latest news release from fairus.org 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 deportaliens.com 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
Share this page
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM