Amnesty for illegals counterproductive
Regarding your June 15 editorial "Amnesty for Illegals? Try Again": Are all Latinos in the US illegal aliens? No, millions are American citizens and against illegal immigration. I am Hispanic and I came to the US as a legal immigrant with my parents prior to 1965 and I am a US naturalized citizen. I came to my citizenship and my right to vote by obeying this country's laws. Illegal aliens are in this country in defiance of our immigration laws and are having politicians pander to them for their fraudulent votes. This is a big slap in the face to those of us who came to this country legally and worked hard to earn US citizenship and the right to vote.
Laguna Woods, Calif.
Prof. Victor Davis Hanson of Fresno State University in California has published a book called "Mexifornia," which warns that it is not the number of immigrants, but the increasing percentages of immigrants who do not assimilate that creates the growing danger for American culture and law. Sadly, our public schools have contributed to this insidious and growing immigration problem by pushing bilingualism and multiculturalism. Immigrant students simply are not pushed toward success through assimilation in the same way that other students are. They are coddled instead. Those of us who have lived in California for two decades or more have seen the change, and it is discouraging, even frightening.
Solana Beach, Calif.
I fully agree with your premise that granting amnesty as a way to sway voters is wrong. Granting amnesty is also out of touch with the wishes of the majority of Americans, according to most opinion polls. This is why politicians hate the word amnesty. They are also aware that open borders are a breach of the nation's security, as potential terrorists can cross our borders as easily as the illegal aliens. Unfortunately, their need to be reelected supersedes their concern for America's security.
In reference to your June 15 editorial "Mexican Trucks on US Highways": The last paragraph is not terribly well thought out. Yes, more Mexican trucks make more pollution; but using Mexican trucks that meet the US Department of Transportation's required levels of emissions might actually reduce pollution.
For example, if we off-load from Mexican to American trucks, we would have two trucks at the border, not one. If the American truck was driven empty to pick up that load, we would definitely have increased pollution at the border and in the US. Also, in off-loading, we would probably have the two trucks on idle for an extra hour each while they await the offloading and reloading.
It would seem logical that if a Mexican or American truck were to pass straight through the border, pollution would be reduced.
Also, it was my experience that American trucks come down from Tucson or Phoenix to get loads from Mexican trucks. While not great distances, this still increases the mileage required to deliver a load, and thus increases pollution.
The drawback to Mexican trucks is that they might not have a backhaul into Mexico from their US destination. I would hope that American trucks would also be hauling straight through into Mexico, and have backhauls. Perhaps a North American system to encourage backhauls would be in order. Even the large systems in the country have some degree of problems in finding timely backhauls for their trucks - at least they did when I had one on the road in the 1980s.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Any letter accepted will appear in print and on www.csmonitor.com .
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to Letters.