Printed letter, March 10, 2010

Immigration reform
can benefit all of us
Letter writer Dana Isham expresses a widely held fear that reform of our immigration law will cause difficulty for the American worker and for our economy. His fear has been heard throughout the history of American labor. Countless studies have proved these fears to be groundless.

We are close enough in time to study and analyze the latest apprehension. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act indicates that the amnesty thus provided the undocumented Latinos (during an economic downturn) raised wages and catalyzed increases in education, consumption, job creation and tax revenues. Small-business development and purchases of homes were specifically notable.

At root of the debate over the future of immigration reform is the larger question of our moral compass as a nation. As Professor Joseph Stiglitz has shown, the shift in the last 20 years from product-focused entrepreneurship to investor-driven profit making has made Wall Street and K Street the hub and attraction for so many whose forebears actually built America.

If we would be able to reform our present “enforcement only” immigration laws so as to respect the dignity of every human being, the integrity of his or her family, the educational potential of their children, the quality and diversity of their many talents and cultural richness, we should have taken a huge step of turnaround.

Reallocation of the vast expense needed to maintain the technological screen for prevention of newcomers to a new focus — fair trade rather than free trade — would allow many who now brave danger and even death to provide for their families the chance to remain in their native lands and to meet there their parental responsibility to provide.

An America thus converted could learn from our mistakes, could reawaken to the dignity of all of our brothers and sisters and help to build with them a true icon of society

JOHN KIERNAN

Grand Junction

Bible offers no room for diversity of thought

Regarding the recent column titled, “Diversity of thought should be accepted by Christians”: If I understood the column, it could be summed up with the idea that Christianity must accept diversity of thought and get rid of as much as possible of the tribe concept or at least minimize the distinctions that are there because of it.

However, it is all too clear that two important things were left out of this well-written column.

I would ask the writer: What does he believe about the Bible? Is it just a good book or is it God’s word? Christianity is based on a person, Jesus Christ. There is no room for diversity of thought in the Bible. There is one God, one savior, one way of salvation. “Thus saith the Lord,” thunders from the Bible’s pages, which states clearly that God’s word is truth. The Bible to the Christian is his sole authority for faith and practice. There is only one revelation from God, the Bible, God’s word. The writer does not go down that road.

He also fails to define a Christian. One can be religious, moral, sincere, patriotic and not be a Christian. Being a Christian is defined in the Bible. A Christian is someone who, by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 1:7), is saved. He has repented of his sins and put his faith and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. He has accepted God’s only way. It is simply that.

No man can ever live the Christian life until he becomes a Christian. Mankind at its best is lost and without hope. Man has shown himself to improve his eternal and present lot. God has supplied the one way that can change it all though Jesus Christ alone. There is no other way, no other door, no other choice (Acts 4:12). Each one who is a genuine Christian seeks to live for God and honor him.

ANDREW LINDER

Grand Junction

Safety zone needed at Caprock Academy

As a father to a wonderful little girl, I write this mainly to see if I might be able to get something done about a school zone for Caprock Acadamy.

I understand that it is not a conventional public school, but, as a taxpayer nevertheless, shouldn’t my kid and all the other kids who attend Caprock be as safe as the public school kids?

DUANE COFFMAN

Fruita

Just say no to latest health care proposal

If you watch, listen or read the liberal media, it is easy to come to the conclusion that the Republican Party is blocking this health care bill. The party of no, as it has been called. Columnist Bill Grant even pulls out a New York Times poll that says Americans support the public option on health care reform, although this is contrary to every other poll I see.

Democrats have a sizeable majority in the House, had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a socialist, deceiver-in-chief in the White House. If the American people were truly behind this bill, it should have been a slam dunk, passed a long time ago.

The reason that it hasn’t passed is that a majority of the American people have clearly spoken that they don’t want this bill.

The Republicans do not have the votes to stop the bill.  We clearly have our government working against the will of the people. They think that they are our rulers, not public servants. They exempt themselves from having to live under this very bill.

We are $14 trillion in debt. They want to add another $2.5 trillion dollar entitlement and make government bigger. They want to force people to buy insurance that they won’t have to. If there really is $500 billion in fraud in Medicare, wouldn’t we be better served dealing with that first?

The people are stopping this and we must continue to speak out, even though members of Congress believe they know what we need better than we do.  Health care reform is needed but this bill is not the answer.

MICHAEL HIGGINS

Grand Junction

Medicare cuts drive more folks to emergency rooms

By cutting Medicare reimbursement rates to doctors, the government will make the health care issue more complicated and worse than ever before.

Medical groups cannot legally drop the Medicare patients now on their rolls, but there is nothing to stop a medical group from going out of business, then re-establishing itself as a different group. A new medical group does not have to accept any Medicare patient who comes to its door.

With more Medicare patients without primary-care physicians, they will have no choice but to got to the emergency room when they need care of any kind.

If you think the emergency rooms are crowded and slow to serve people now, the tsunami coming will be amazing. The care these Medicare patients will seek may not be an emergency in the true sense of the word, but it will be an emergency, since they will have no other choice.

The cost of the years of learning and training that must be put in to become a practicing physician will force many in the field to move out of primary care entirely. This kind of trickle-down economics, in which medical groups go out of business and emergency rooms and clinics become overloaded, is bringing more hardship in the health care system than we have seen in the past or at the present.

Being an old economist in more ways than one, I know that if we don’t pay attention to what is going on right now, the consequences will be irreparable in the future. We will not be able to go back easily.

BEVERLY KINGSLEY

Grand Junction



COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.




Search More Jobs






THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy