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:
I must respectfully disagree somewhat with Gary Endelman in his "The Solution To Illegal Immigration in America" and agree with John H. Frecker and millions of other Americans who do not believe that present restrictive immigration laws that limit entry are inappropriate. What is inappropriate is to say that these laws have failed when there have been no fully sincere enforcement efforts made, but only token or highly prioritized ones. The reform to immigration laws that is needed is not to eliminate employer sanctions or legalization by way of amnesty. The existing loopholes should be eliminated such as the one allowing citizenship to a child born here by an illegal and present enforcement enhanced by the CLEAR Act enabling local law enforcement to assist ICE in the identifying of illegals. I applaud Mr. Endelman for his support of the "circular rather than settled' concept which provides for the return of illegals/workers rather than a pass to citizenship, but with an estimated ten million illegals now, why do we need any additional program that has no limits to further entry including the illegal variety? These "solutions" only ensure unlimited legal immigration in addition to the illegal kind. In David Murray's letter, he likens the "bad law" of immigration to the "bad forest management" in causing forest fire problems. The truth is, the existing forestry management programs (which would have prevented or reduced the fires) have not been allowed to be fully implemented because of lawsuits and opposition by the environmentalists, much like the hinderance of immigration law enforcement by special interests. While the latter are certainly entitled to their opinions, they are frequently in opposition to the interests and desires of the citizenry. See: The poll found that 60 percent of the public regards the present level of immigration to be a "critical threat to the vital interests of the US," compared to only 14 percent of the nation's leadership, a 46 percentage point gap. Immigration laws and any reform cannot be based solely upon economic issues from the standpoint of special interests. To citizens, quality of life, sovereignty and busted budgets are of greater concern and should be given greater consideration by elected representatives.

R. L. Ranger