From: Linda Huhn [e-mail her]
Re: Joe Guzzardi's Column: Joe Feels Even Better About Immigration Bill…
Regarding Guzzardi's column on how he feels better about the immigration issue, thank him making me feel better also.
Sadly for me as a liberal, most of the people who come out publicly against illegal and unsustainable legal immigration are Republicans.
However, there are plenty of liberal environmentalists (including pro-choice and too-many-guns-in-our-society people) like me who are extremely concerned about the overpopulation, economic and moral consequences inherent in immigration.
How many overpopulated countries have sound economies? Why do so many illegal aliens receive social security when our own citizens are needy?
Linda Huhn is a photographer in Minneapolis. Her professional website is here
From: [Name Withheld]
Re: Saturday's Letter: A South Carolina Reader Reports From The Front On The Illegal Alien Invasion
I once worked for eight months as a medical interpreter in a local North Carolina hospital before I resigned under political correctness pressure.
I can offer some perspective on other hospital shenanigans in addition to what "A South Carolina Nurse" reports.
In North Carolina, the law requires that hospitals notify the authorities when the following scenarios are suspected or known in relation to a patient admission:
Domestic violence, child/elder/handicapped abuse and neglect, gunshot or stab wounds, forcible rape, discovery of illegal drugs incidental to treatment of a drug overdose patient, suspected DWI driver who fled accident scene, and prima facie evidence of statutory rape.
By and large, the hospital I worked for was conscientious in complying with those laws and I believe that most hospitals are.
However, when it came to dealing with single mother immigrant childbirths (by and large illegal Mexicans and some Central Americans), the hospital administration assumed a "culturally sensitive" position regarding statutory rape.
I don't know how many birth certificate worksheets and interviews I participated in with 14 and 15-year old mothers of anchor babies fathered by 20 to 30- year-old men. Believe it or not, a high percentage of fathers showed up at the maternity wards and participated in the interviews.
But the hospital as a matter of unwritten policy declined to report these cases as required by law.
And needless to say the hospital had to write off most of the billing associated with these cases.
From: Matthew Richer [e-mail him]
Re: Joe Guzzardi's Abolishing New England: Cheap Labor vs. College Kids and More Cape Cod Clamoring For Cheap Labor
In a shamelessly pro-immigration piece, the Boston Globe's designated open borders advocate Yvonne Abraham (send her mail) writes critically of Sandwich, MA's attempt to crack down on the hiring of illegals. [ Few Immigrants in Town But Concern Aplenty," Yvonne Abraham, Boston Globe, July 10, 2006]
Sandwich, unlike other Cape towns, has a large year round population so their residents have a stronger stake in the community. The Globe pretends that the immigration crack down has little local support but in reality it is hugely popular.
When I used to summer on Cape Cod during the 80s and early 90s, it was always high school and college students who worked the summer jobs—doing virtually anything for money, even housecleaning.
Now, teenagers on Cape Cod cannot find work because immigrants have taken so many of the jobs.
The Sandwich residents don't want their town to become Hyannis. Can you blame them?
It says something that even in liberal Massachusetts, local government is starting to crack down on immigration.
Richer is a Boston native who currently writes from New York where he is the U.S. editor of the British magazine, Right Now! His most recent immigration piece is an interview with Harvard economist George Borjas here.
From: Ed Nelson [e-mail him]
Re: Peter Gadiel's Open Letter To George W. Bush: I've Had Enough
I read Gadiel's most powerful condemnation of President Bush.
Brilliant! Courageous! Insightful!
The next time he writes something like that, I hope Gadiel will give me the chance to add my name to his.
Nelson is the Chairman of U.S. Border Control, a non-profit organization based in McLean, VA. and dedicated to ending illegal immigration through border security.
From: [Name Withheld]
Gadiel's vulgar letter is disrespectful of the president of the United States, hence of the United States itself.
Peter is on our side. We like him and value his comradeship. We do not wish to rebuke him, but it seems unwise for VDARE.COM to lend him a platform for such an immoderate, ill-mannered diatribe.
One cannot save the country by trashing the country. Patriotic Americans have never addressed the president by his given name.
Gadiel and all of us should to follow the distinguished American tradition of addressing the president as "Mr. President"—even, perhaps especially, when one addresses the president in censure.
In respect for the memory of George Washington and for the dignity of the high office he left to lesser men to fill, kindly either remove Gadiel's letter or edit it to fit the widely used standards when addressing the President of the United States.
Peter Gadiel responds: I did not "trash the country". The sole target of my criticism was George W. Bush. Patriotic Americans frequently address the President, in print at least, by other than his given name…"Ike", "Abe", "Teddy", "JFK", etc.
Whether or not my criticism of Bush is "vulgar" I'll leave for others to decide. However, nearly ninety people have written me; all but four are strongly supportive.
From: Vito Danelli [e-mail him]
I'm thinking that some sort of challenge should be issued to the members of the U.S. Senate who voted for S.2611.
Could any of them, I wonder, answer any questions from that 800-plus page legislation?
The following is an excerpt of what Nader said to Buchanan about the World Trade Organization (WTO), another massive piece of legislation that no one read.
"Did you hear about my challenge to Colorado Senator Hank Brown?
"We put a challenge out before WTO was voted in 1995 because we went all over Capitol Hill and had never found any Member of Congress or a staffer who had ever read the proposal.
"So I said, 'I'll give $10,000 to the favorite charity of any Congressman who will sign an affidavit that he or she has read the WTO agreement and will answer ten questions in public.'
"The deadline passed. Nobody. So I extended it a week. A quarter to 5:00 on Friday, the phone rings in our office. It is Hank Brown, and he said, 'I don't want the $10,000 to charity, but I will take you up on it. How much time do I have?'
"I said, 'Take a month.'
"So Brown reserves the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the interrogation.
"It gets better. The press is all there, and Brown is in the witness chair. We have 12 questions, and he answers every one. They weren't all simple either. It was really impressive.
"And I said, 'Thank you very much. That was really commendable,' and we start to get up.
"Then Brown announced, 'Wait. I have something to say. You know, I am a free trader, and I voted for NAFTA, but after reading the WTO agreement, I was so appalled by the anti-democratic provisions that I am going to vote against it and urge everyone else to.'
"The next day, there was almost no press. It shows you the bias against anybody who challenges those multinational systems of autocratic governance that we call ' trade agreements.'
"And Brown didn't convince one extra senator.
"Once when I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, I had to say some nice things at the beginning: 'Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, it is indeed a pleasure to testify before a committee of Congress that has read this proposed trade agreement.'
"The Chairman looked at me and asked: 'What makes you think we did?'
"Let's put it this way: 'it is impossible to exaggerate the dereliction of diligence in the Congress.'" ["Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking", The American Conservative, June 21, 2004]
Danelli is a computer consultant who was a delegate for Pat Buchanan at the 2000 Reform Party convention. Read his previous letter about S. 2611 here.
From: Suzan Donoghue [e-mail her]
I live and work in the San Antonio area. Recently, I drove by the local Wells Fargo Bank.
Then, down the road, I passed the Doubletree Hotel and there again flew the American and Texas flags with the Mexican flag flying in the middle of them.
Why are they flying the Mexican flag on American soil? And what is the significance of Mexico's flag being flanked on either side by the American and Texas flags?
Donoghue works in San Antonio law enforcement.