Printed letters, June 2, 2011
It is commendable that recent letter writer Thomas Acker prefers to view Mexico in a positive light as “the U.S’s third-largest trading partner,” with its “overall commerce of $108 billion or 12.6 percent of U.S. Trade in 2011.” That does help some to defray what Mexico costs us, but I’d say it’s an uneven trade.
According to a recent study by The Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration now costs federal and local taxpayers $113 billion a year. To top it all off, illegal immigrants send more than $30 billion annually back to their countries of origin, money that will no longer be circulated in the United States, and they cost American workers about $200 billion a year in suppressed wages.
It is true that only about 60 percent of illegal immigrants are Mexican, but it is also true that most illegal immigrants enter through our border with Mexico, creating a huge human-smuggling industry.
The cost of that open border is incalculable when it comes to property and lives lost. The “safety in numbers” theory is borne out by the fact that Latino drug traffickers have managed to establish a huge distribution ring throughout the United States, which has resulted in the drug wars that have caused the deaths of 35,000 Mexicans and a number of Americans.
Acker states, “whole sectors of our economy are almost completely reliant upon foreign labor: agriculture, construction, hospitality, etc.”
I agree with the fact that agriculture is dependent on migrant workers, but are the other jobs he mentions new fields? Seems like just the other day English-speaking Americans filled those jobs.
We need to get real with the facts and figures and wake up to realize that illegal immigration is a huge factor in the financial crisis we have in this country today, and that we can no longer afford to provide social security for the world’s indigent.
Poor-driving parents can’t advise their kids
I read Kevin Lemarr’s letter to the editor in the May 27 edition of The Daily Sentinel with much interest. The four points he made were very informative. I drive throughout the city constantly as a requisite for my customer service position and rely heavily on the other driver’s knowledge and exercise of primarily the first three points.
I must add, however, my apprehension in reference to the information in the sixth paragraph, where he stated that “three-quarters of tweens say they will rely heavily on their parents’ advice.” Advice?
How can a young driver learn to use turn signals when so many parents don’t use them properly? How can that driver learn to turn to the nearest lane when the parent never does? Even when “Stay in Lane” signs are posted, people cross the solid white line (illegally) to get across the road.
We should clean up our bad driving habits before trying to advise young learners. On the good side, I can honestly say, I’m glad I’m as old as I am.
RAY G. TENNANCOUR
Compassion for rapturists is best Christian response
Terry Bridgman’s letter of May 31 declares the “rapture guy … ignored all biblical teachings.” If he is correct then the veracity of interpretation and prediction should properly be addressed by Bible scholars and theologians. One would expect atheists to be the last group consulted, if at all.
Some may think that frightening the world population with Armageddon is a cruel money-making hoax. Compassion for the “rapturists” spiritual plight, and perhaps attempts at enlightenment, would seem to be an appropriate Christian response.
Atheists can only react with human concern and bemusement.
Memorial Day service marred by speeches
I attended Memorial Day services at the Veterans Cemetery. I know people worked hard to make this a great event. But this is an official military cemetery. I and folks around me were dismayed at too many politicians taking too long to talk.
It was not the time or place to hand out of memorabilia to show appreciation to people who have donated their time there. It was not the time or place to list companies that have made contributions to the cemetery.
We were there to thank those buried, not others. While these contributions are appreciated, they are better recognized elsewhere. Memorial Day at a military cemetery should be conducted with military decorum.
The military and ceremonial units present did a fine job. Short, to-the- point speeches by a few politicians would have been OK and maybe a special guest or a high-ranking military officer or enlisted man. This was a military ceremony at a military cemetery — think Arlington or Fort Logan.