Is US responsible for plight of illegal border-crossers?
Regarding Joseph Nevins's Aug. 8 Opinion piece, "Beyond the season of death on the US-Mexico border": Various polls tell us that people who live in the US want to tighten control on the border. I am surprised that more people do not realize that the people coming across from south of the border are in need of the mere sustenance necessary to survive.
I rejoiced when the Berlin Wall came down, not suspecting for a moment that the US would be building a wall that's three layers thick in some places to keep out human beings who simply want to be able to eat and to feed those left behind.
When these tattered souls are seeking simply to find a way to stay alive by coming here, why do we not offer them water, food, and shelter instead of hostility and disdain?
I should think we could find a better use of the funds that will be used for all the walls, all the surveillance, all the incarceration. This money could easily help those in need on both sides of the border.
It makes me wonder, too, who is really gaining by all of these actions. What companies are constructing these walls with our tax monies?
But mostly, it makes me wonder what has happened to our humanity when we can think of those in need of help, who offer so much good to our country when given the chance, as an enemy to let die of heat stroke, dehydration, and starvation instead of offering those basic needs in compassion.
Mr. Nevins's piece addresses important humanitarian, economic, and political issues on the inevitable illegal immigration to the US via Mexico.
But Nevins's conclusion that globalization is the cause of "the world's profound socioeconomic inequality and instability," and thus propels poor Mexicans to seek a better life in the United States, is not fully true.
A much more reasonable and realistic explanation could be found in Mexico itself, where governments throughout the years have not created job opportunities for its Maxican citizens, and instead implicitly encouraged illegal immigration to the US, which remedies the economic plight of poor and unemployed Mexicans because once in the United States (and working illegally), they send remittances to their families back home.
In other words, there is no real economic incentive under the present economic system for the Mexican government to create or encourage job creation and opportunities in Mexico (or even have a functioning border patrol on the Mexican side).
Regarding the July 25 article "Case of cruelty, or compassion?": My sincerest admiration for those running no-kill animal shelters is tarnished by only one issue. If you'll forgive the pun, the tail is wagging the dog (or cat).
To reduce the number of unwanted pets, we need to reduce the number able to procreate yet one more litter. Therefore, we need to adopt laws which would require owners to neuter their animals before the age of 5 months. There should be a hefty fine levied against those who don't cooperate.
For those who can't afford the neuter/spay route, every opportunity should be made at the local level to assist.
Having a low-cost clinic once a month in the middle of the week, as we have here, is not useful. People are working and, if they can't afford the surgery for their pet, they certainly can't afford to lose a work day to get to a clinic.
Domesticated animals depend on us for their very lives. Let's meet our responsibility.
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.