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:
Yesterday's Editor's Comments claim to the connection between the invasion of Iraq and positive change in immigration, or the perception of the general public of immigration, is hardly substantiated. So how is it that invading Iraq will make immigration look positive to the US public, or bring positive effects in general? The invasion will surely stir a defensive and likely an offensive movement in response. For every act of aggression, there is a response. Considering that only 1-9% (according to the Zogby poll, I think it was) of the public of many of Iraq's neighbors support the invasion of Iraq, it is very easy to conclude that many people will be unhappy. I disagree entirely with your claim that "vanquishing the terrorists would make America safe from terror and simultaneously damage the anti-American, anti-immigration program." I want to ask: who is terrified, those invading or those waiting for the bombs falling from the sky? Who exactly is being vanquished, with this invasion? I also disagree entirely with your claim that "unfortunately, terrorism thrives in a part of the world where we do not have sufficient military and covert resources to take direct action against the terrorists, or the ability to pressure other governments to do so." The US has plenty of military bases in the Middle East and the Gulf area. Moreover, the US has managed to force "regime change" in Palestine (now the democratically elected leader is being "replaced" before being granted negotiating power), and now the US is demanding by way of military might that "regime change" be implemented in Iraq. "Terrorists" are those who are opposed to policies or specific actions and choose violent means to demonstrate opposition. There is an act or policy that is being demonstrated against, and as long as the inflammatory act or policy exists, there will always be "terrorists". As for the anti-immigration agenda, it will be pushed forward every time that foreign person succeeds in causing a violent act he/she believes is defensive or justified retaliation.

John Smith