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:
R. L. Ranger once again strips off his mask and reveals his immigration restrictionist views. While I mostly agree with Gary Endelman concerning "real world" solutions to US immigration problems, I agree with Mr. Ranger on the issue of not conferring US citizenship on every child born here. I have long been an advocate of conferring US citizenship solely upon persons whose parents had a legal right to be in the US at the time of birth. This would end the "carrot and the stick" aspect of birthing babies in the US solely to gain US citizenship for them. I am happy to see that Mr. Ranger was able to spot my analogy concerning forestry and immigration, but I am sorry he did not see the forest through the trees. I differ from his opinion as to the root of the issue only because the US simply has no competent forestry management program. It appears that to the U.S. Department of Interior, "clear cut" is a happy word meaning "understandable", at least to the logging lobbies. Arguably, if we "clear cut" immigration laws, we may have the whole world camping on our doorstep, and there simply are not enough campgrounds in our forests to house these campers. What the US needs is understandable immigration laws that meet our country's needs, a true revision, not just an amendment. While the "special interest" environmental groups of whom Mr. Ranger speaks may be a bit over the deep end at times, without them we might have deserts and wastelands instead of forests and conservation areas. What the US needs is foresters managing the forests, just as it should have immigration experts, both liberal and conservative, designing a long-range immigration program that will benefit the US in the future, not just putting band-aid patches on the badly beaten body of existing immigration law, as is currently being done. And rabble-rousing politicians, like Rep. Tancredo and his lot, should just stay out of it and seek other topics with which they can garner the vote of their conservative constituencies. But that will never happen, because it is easier to use Congress as a bully pulpit than it is to use it as an effective tool of good government. In the end, immigration restrictionism is not the answer, because the US is a "Field of Dreams", luring those who hunger for freedom and economic opportunity - just like forests are a magnet to the soul of humanity. It is clear cut that both places must be protected, but they must also be properly managed. So far, neither forests nor immigration has been successfully managed by Congress, the ultimate watchkeepers of these two valuable resources. The bottom line is that we simply must find a non-politicized solution in order to meet the needs of the US, and administration meetings with Vicente Fox will never achieve this, because Mr. Fox has his own personal agenda for solving the poverty problems of Mexico, not the US. No, the US does not need restrictionists any more than it needs bleeding-heart social liberalists, or third world country leaders, telling the Congress what to do in order to bring the poor, tired, and down trodden to our shores. What the US needs is good government and good laws.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA