Peeling away more layers of the illegal immigration issue
George W. Grayson's March 30 Opinion piece, "Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them," pointed out one of the most important problems for Mexican immigrants: the Mexican government. Responsibility for illegal immigrants in the United States rests squarely on Mexican President Vicente Fox and his government. A Mexican in need of a job wouldn't risk his life coming to the US illegally if his government were looking out for him.
As Mr. Grayson said, the American taxpayer should not bear the burden of Mexico's failure to do what is right by its citizens. Americans should also not play into the hands of exploiters who take advantage of the Mexican looking for work in the US.
Underhill Center, Vt.
I really liked the April 4 article, "America eyes two paths for illegal migrants." Its writer mentioned one important fact that others seem to forget: the legal immigrants. A more open immigration law would be so unfair to those of us who paid $15,000 and waited six years for a green card. We followed the law, and now we may be in a worse situation than those who broke it. I can't tell you how angry it makes me. The US put many obstacles up for legal immigrants but may make it easy for those who are here illegally. That is way too much!
Regarding the April 6 article, "Why few young immigrants are protesting in Paris": The protests in France about the new labor laws for young people are bewildering. I was not aware that in France it was so difficult to lay off or fire an employee. I find this illogical.
Once they've been hired, these young people should assume the employer has a need for their services. If their work is satisfactory, they'll still have a job as long as the employer can afford their salaries. If the employer's business suffers and he or she can no longer pay workers' salaries, do young people feel the employer should keep them on the payroll?
Why would the young people assume they'd be sacked if their services were needed and their work was satisfactory? Any employer needs employees to stay in business but should be able to hire and fire according to the needs of the business.
The April 6 article is certainly the best article so far about the current social situation in France. People want reform, but not exploitation. People want to work, but not to be fired without any explanation. People are not against the rich, but don't accept that CEOs earn 15,000 euros a day and the jobless receive only 15 euros a day. People don't like to be despised by a privileged and often corrupt upper class. People want to have a dialogue with the country's rulers, but these rulers don't seem to like discussion with the "plebs." Behind a veil of democracy, I think France remains an unjust and unequal "ancien régime" country.
Regarding the March 29 article, "For Abu Ghraib, a limited prosecution": Again no officers are punished. I wonder why it is that enlisted personnel are so often blamed when things go wrong, but officers are credited when things are successful. Why would anyone want to enlist in a system such as this?
Des Plaines, Ill.
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 our website, 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.