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:
No one could fault ILW.COM for a rare technical error and the marvel is that Immigration Daily usually is without such. Of more concern to limited immigration advocates is the continual and deliberate portrayal of our clearly stated position of limited, selected and allocated entry as anti-immigration, seemingly for the purpose of "demonization". This type of editorializing and "grasping at straws", attempting to rationalize a dubious, contrived case for excessive immigration seems to be the thrust of the Billie Gray letter of May 8th who comments upon your editorial "leap in reasoning". He was not referring to your technical error, but to your philosophical one in concluding by supposition that the unclaimed SS funds can in large part be attributed to illegals. Even to the extent that this may be true, the callous position that these funds benefit US at their expense, only displays another of many deficiencies of the "pro" immigration position. Other numerous negatives of mass migration are likewise glossed over or ignored by the "pros", but cannot be by citizens who must bear the realities of the imposed burdens. These include social, financial, cultural, resource, destabilization, sovereignty, political, lifestyle, security and other costs. These advocates never mention the proclaimed separatist positions of many radical groups who have not assimilated and have no allegiance to America. Your recent mention of Hispanics contribution to the Special Operations forces in the Iraq war (with your taunt to limited advocates and their assumed "hostility") is another example. This scenario/contribution would not be precluded under more reasonable and limited immigration policies. The latter would eliminate many of the negative aspects of present excessive entry practices while preserving most of the positive ones. The immigration problems and controversies we face today cannot, for the most part, be attributed to our historically generous, but limited, policies but rather to those who take advantage of them beyond reason for their own purposes.

R. L. Ranger