MB Civic

————————————————————————

May 17, 2006

Immigration, the President’s Way (10 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re “President Calls for Compromise on Immigration” (front page, May 16):

President Bush chose to tinker with the immigration crisis but not to fix it.

Sending a few troops to the border is a token gesture to make it appear as if the president is taking tough action. He deliberately ignored the cause of the crisis: employers who hire illegal immigrants and federal officials who allow them to get away with it.

The president knows that if the under-the-table jobs disappear, the illegal immigrants will go home. He proposes a thinly disguised amnesty to reward people who strong-armed their way into our country.

He knows that guest workers will never leave voluntarily, and he will never make them leave.

His disservice to our country on immigration is so serious that he and his party deserve to be abandoned by mainstream voters.

Bill Sipple
Lafayette, Ind., May 16, 2006
•

To the Editor:

I’m about as anti-Bush as a person can be, but I thought that the president’s speech on immigration was a good one. He seemed to recognize and give voice to the complexity of a difficult issue, as opposed to offering a mix of simplistic sound bites, happy talk and divisive, either-or rhetoric.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the fact that, apparently, Karl Rove and crew have decided that “nuance” is now permitted and no longer the sign of a character flaw.

Dan Carsen
Brookline, Mass., May 16, 2006
•

To the Editor:

In an attempt to straddle both sides of the immigration debate, the president’s proposals failed to please advocates of the punitive approach and the humanitarian approach.

Critical responses to the proposals from conservatives and liberals alike were not unexpected; if consensus existed, reforms would have been enacted years ago.

Meanwhile, we can only hope that the president and Congress will agree on a partial solution that will create a guest worker program and allow some of the 11 million illegal immigrants to become legal residents and ultimately citizens.

While it may not totally satisfy everyone, it will be an important first step in arriving at a more far-reaching solution.

As for the use of up to 6,000 National Guard troops, may the ill-conceived idea rest in peace.

Cy Shain
San Francisco, May 16, 2006
•

To the Editor:

President Bush got it right. Only a balanced approach can restore order to our immigration system.

Allowing immigrant workers already here to be recognized before the law is not amnesty; it is an opportunity for many to come out of the shadows.

The United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants network has been in the business of producing Americans for the last 100 years. We know that once immigrants settle into communities, they begin to adopt our values, learn English and become part of mainstream society.

The immigration debate is part of a larger culture war on what makes us American. To our fellow citizens who are worried that immigrants are changing the character of our country, we say: Have faith in America. Our values of individual liberty, equal opportunity and civic responsibility have not only prevailed, but they are also the very reason people chose to come here.

Lavinia Limón
President and Chief Executive
U.S. Committee for
Refugees and Immigrants
Washington, May 16, 2006
•

To the Editor:

President Bush’s deployment of the National Guard to patrol our border with Mexico is akin to putting on a Band-Aid without seeking a cure.

Wouldn’t his efforts be better spent building a legislative coalition to reform immigration rather than trying to nail shut one door?

And wouldn’t it be better to keep our National Guard trained and ready for natural disasters like this week’s flooding in New England and the impending hurricane season rather than burning up their service time patrolling just one of our many porous borders?

Fred Whitridge
Greenwich, Conn., May 16, 2006
•

To the Editor:

If President Bush is serious about stopping illegal immigrants from Mexico, he should devote himself to developing Mexico’s economy. Until Mexicans don’t have to emigrate to find work, money spent on border patrols is money down the drain.

Stefan Ekernas
New York, May 16, 2006
•

To the Editor:

President Bush assured President Vicente Fox of Mexico that the use of National Guard troops on the border is only “temporary” (front page, May 15). How temporary? Just until the end of this election cycle?

Kathy Eckhouse
Des Moines, May 15, 2006
•

To the Editor:

“Border Illusions” (editorial, May 16) just shows how people take away different impressions even when hearing the same words.

Rather than a speech pandering to the right, as the editorial implies, I heard a balanced, thoughtful and pragmatic proposal for addressing the immigration problem.

Border enforcement must be stepped up now, and use of the National Guard to supplement our current efforts there seems sensible as an interim step.

Rather than ignore the need for a comprehensive solution, the president offered a workable plan, and showed the very sensitivity to the plight of illegal immigrants that the editorial found so lacking.

James Stanley
Naples, Fla., May 16, 2006
•

To the Editor:

I guess clarity, like beauty, must be in the eye of the beholder. It didn’t seem at all “powerfully clear” to me that the immigration protest marchers were remotely demonstrating their “hunger to assimilate” (editorial, May 16).

On the contrary, it seemed powerfully clear to me that large numbers of them were demonstrating their hunger to live and work here in whatever manner they choose, regardless of whether that manner is compatible with the laws, customs and culture of the United States.

John M. Casteel
Traverse City, Mich., May 16, 2006
•

To the Editor:

Like leaders throughout history who exploit fear to manipulate a people, when it comes to immigration President Bush finds himself reaping a maelstrom.

First he uses 9/11 to stir and exploit nightmares of foreigners invading America to justify his war in Iraq. And then he hasn’t a clue why he can’t mollify the Minutemen and others who envision hordes of foreigners flowing uncontrolled across our borders to the south.

No wonder his administration finds itself derided from both sides of the debate.

David Ward
Washington, May 16, 2006