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 lengthy Letters to the Editor by Justin Randolph and SJD could be Exhibits A and B in the case against excessive immigration. It seems that many, having been the beneficiary of overly generous immigration policies have difficulty in embracing the national interest and in addressing the immigration and ilegal problems. JR opines that "it is too late to do anything about it" and since whites have had an "easier time of it", we should just not worry about the billions of people who would like to come here for a "better life" and not worry about the millions who illegally already have. Bank robbers are just looking for a better life, but just don't want to live by the rules. He attributes it to "hate" and "venom" any nationalist or restrictionist viewpoint, regardless of reasonableness or logic. Our borders and sovereignty (for which many have fought and died for) mean nothing to him. He refers to them as "lines" drawn on a map which can be can be easily changed seemingly oblivious to the fact that the present Aztlan threat intends to do just that. He then pats himself on the back for his "moral superiority". SJD's letter misleadingly attempts to romanticize the criminal acts of illegals and dares to compare the millions sneaking across our borders to the limited, orderly process that took place at Ellis Island where many were turned back for disease and other reasons. He wearily brings up the mistreatment of Indians (more to justify his views rather than any concern, I suspect). He asks what happened to the concept of "manifest destiny". The Mexican radicals and others just call it by another name today, "La Reconquista". Corporations call it getting a handle on labor costs while Globalists refer to it as the New World Order. SJD's letter ignores that Spain, France and England had longstanding claims to all of present day America for which there is no record of their ever paying anything to the Indians. The US (typically) paid for most of it's acquisitions not only to the Indians, but to settle the other claims. The Louisiana Purchase in l803 (See: ), The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the Oregon Treaty of 1846 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Typical of the Indian Treaties was the Middle Oregon Tribe Treaty (See: which called for substantial sums to be paid and which was signed by the Indians. But it is immaterial, misleading and divisive to look backwards in to history (particularly when erroneously done) to resolve todays different problems. We don't have wide open spaces now to be settled, only crowded spaces, busted budgets and excessive demands upon our structures and social systems. Americans today need to wake up and smell the tacos and the rice. If our Nations has been narrowly limited and arranged solely for the purposes of selling products and having (low paying) jobs, the "indisputably immoral institution" of slavery to which SJD refers is still with us ten fold.

R. L. Ranger