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:
It is hard to be too critical of David Murray's recent letter when he properly refers to limited immigration advocates as "restrictionist" and not anti-immigration as some do and I certainly have tried to openly support that position as the proper, prudent one. But it is he who becomes lost in the forest with his rambling fire analogy and critical comment on Rep. Tom Tancredo "and his lot". To the applause of millions, Tancredo is fighting the real fires and those of excessive entry and was recently commended by Secretary Norton of the Interior Dept. for his outstanding leadership in rousing support for the recent passage of their Appropriations Bill and funding of the fire suppression programs. Murray's letter blames everyone except the special interests who are a big reason why we don't have stronger laws and/or enforcement of immigration laws and more effective forest fire control. At , a number of pending legislative proposals are listed, which most Americans want, but the special interests have opposed, just as environmentalists have impeded many fire management proposals. One of these, would address the undeserved granting of citizenship to the birth here of children of illegals, a point that we both agree on. Another proposed law, the SAFER Act (Securing America's Future through Enforcement Reform) introduced by Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC), has the potential to provide the resources and reform our legal immigration system so desperately needs. This legislation would attempt to strengthen our borders, increase screening and tracking of aliens, remove alien terrorists, criminals, and human rights violators, enhance enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act, expedite removal proceedings, and reduce emergency immigration workload levels. What true American could not support these goals? Yes, "we need a labor pool" as Murray states in his previous letter, but that need not dictate that unlimited foreigners fill that need. A limited, Bracero type program with secured borders and no citizenship by birth, together with sensible restrictionist legislation and reduced government taxes and spending (which puts enormous pressure upon business and individuals to cut costs) is the proper solution to immigration, sovereignty and citizens interests. Otherwise, all but the elite will wind up as workers on the global plantation if the out-or-control fires of immigration are allowed to continue.

R. L. Ranger