Loads of Letters
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=650 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=t1letterblock vAlign=top align=left>Everyone,
--Following is the published letters report for the period March 1-21
--BUT FIRST: Kudos to Californian Mike Scott who racked up three letters during the first week of March. Nice going, Mike! Haydee Pavia, also in California, says illegal aliens are giving immigrants of Hispanic descent a bad name; Margaret Manning in Washington state says the only thing about our immigration policy that’s broken is the will to enforce our laws; it’s not often that we need to correct our writers, but accuracy is important in our struggle to defend American workers. Please note that H-1B visas represent only 20 percent to 25 percent of the total visas we issue every year; the rest fall into a myriad of categories; Wisconsinite James Connors warns against stimulus jobs being given to illegal aliens; Maine writer Robert Casimiro says E-Verify needs the support of Congress; William Buchanan in Washington, D.C., says the term “illegal alien” works just fine in describing those who enter this country uninvited; and Dan Sloan, a New Hampshire contractor, is tired of seeing his tax dollars being used to support illegals.
--As always, this memo is intended for participants in this program, plus a few friends, and not for wide distribution. Editors tend not to publish letters they suspect are part of an organized letter-writing campaign. So, please refrain from cc:ing us on your letters-to-the-editor and from talking about the program in public forums.
--And please remember to include the full name of the paper that ran your letter and the date.
-- NumbersUSA forwards these letters to you so you can share in the success of the program and see the published efforts of our writers. As a reminder, however, the letters are personal and do not necessarily represent NumbersUSA positions.
RECOMMENDED WRITING STYLE: We recognize that each of you has the ability to make your own decisions about how to write your letters. NumbersUSA's opinion is that letters are more likely to be published and more likely to help our cause of dramatic immigration reductions if they are written in a temperate, self-controlled way that avoids name-calling and arguments based on race, religion or national origin. A strong use of a few facts, voting records, concise analysis and sometimes humor seems the best way to advance our arguments. We encourage specific criticism of open-border politicians and others, but caution against "in your face" rhetoric. Firm but civil argument tends to get the best results. You, of course, are free to disagree. We applaud all published letters that advocate for our immigration-reduction goals, but we may not disseminate those that move outside the tone that we encourage, a tone that many newspapers include in their own letters to the editor guidelines.
--Thanks so much for your hard work and persistence.
Index:
The Washington (D.C.) Times – 3/1
(1) Michael Scott
The Press - Enterprise (Calif.) – 3/3
(2) Haydee Pavia
The News Tribune (Wash.) – 3/3
(3) Margaret M. Manning
San Gabriel Valley (Calif.)Tribune – 3/3
(4) Michael Scott
The Star-Ledger (N.J.) – 3/6
(5) Linda Kilcrease
Los Angeles Times – 3/7
(6) Michael Scott
Contra Costa (Calif.) Times – 3/8
(7) Tim Aaronson
USA TODAY – 3/9
(8) James Connors
Hickory (N.C.) Daily Record – 3/9
(9) Tom Shuford
Sun Journal (Me.) – 3/15
(10) Robert Casimiro
The Washington (D.C.) Times – 3/15
(11) William Buchanan
Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph – 3/17
(12) Dan Sloan
TC Palm (Fla.) – 3/18
(13) Tom Tomlinson
The Capital Times (Wis.) — 3/20
(14) Dave Gorak
North County Times (Calif.) – 3/21
(15) Barbara Vickroy
LETTERS WE’VE JUST RECEIVED
Odessa (Texas) American – 2/20
(16) Stacy Wright
(1)
The Washington (D.C.) Times – 3/1
LETTER TO EDITOR: A (partial) victory
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Times' editorial ("A (partial) victory for common sense," Feb. 20) is correct when it states, "Roger Barnett is a good man who has been put through hell because of the repeated failures of the federal government and the courts." I met this Arizona rancher some nine years ago. At that time, Mr. Barnett had rounded-up over 1,000 illegal-alien trespassers on his ranch and turned them over to the Border Patrol.
Mr. Barnett was infuriated by the ongoing destruction of his property caused by hordes of illegal immigrants, as well as by the repeated failures of the Border Patrol to stem this relentless flood. Mr. Barnett was fed up with the unmerciful stealth migration that had knocked down fences, gates, trampled flowers and shrubs, cluttered neighborhoods with filthy litter, mountains of rotting garbage, piles of discarded diapers and toilet paper, food containers and plastic water bottles, and sundry filth everywhere - acerbated by the stench of excrement, poisoned (or throat-slit) pets and livestock and lots of stolen property that wasn't tied-down.
Of special ire was Mr. Barnett's 82-year-old rancher-widow neighbor who lived behind her chain-linked fence with a shotgun and pistol always nearby - an American citizen who was afraid to come out at night and challenge the hordes who'd ruined her crops and garden and made her a virtual prisoner in her own home. She was afraid to buy more guard dogs since the last two were poisoned, probably by illegal-immigrant smugglers known as "coyotes." Every door and window of her home had bars on them. She'd been burglarized more than 30 times.
There's still little sovereignty ortranquillity for U.S. citizens along much of our frontier with Mexico, especially at night. Ranches and communities have been transformed into staging areas for hordes of illegals to pillage, trample and destroy on their relentless onslaughts into our sovereign nation.
It's still unknown whether ideological whiffs of charlatanry and narcissism by open-borders groups like Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) are sufficient to sustain the fallacy that walking distance to our borders and tribal chauvinism are justifications for ignoring this nation's immigration laws.
Michael Scott
Glendora, Calif.
(2)
The Press - Enterprise (Calif.) – 3/3
RE: Inland Latinos say Border Patrol engages in racial profiling.
Editor:
I am an American citizen of Hispanic heritage and if getting rid of illegal aliens means I have to be stopped to show if I am legally here, I will be glad to be stopped.
I live in Orange County and here, the Border Patrol would not have to stop anybody. Illegal aliens here hang around on corners and parking lots, where they wait for jobs and where they also relieve themselves of bodily functions.
Illegal aliens are giving a bad name to American citizens of Hispanic descent, in particular those of Mexican heritage.
Haydee Pavia
Laguna Woods, Calif.
(3)
The News Tribune (Wash.) – 3/3
Re: “Immigration reform can’t exclude enforcement” (editorial, 2-27).
Thank you for standing up for reason and fairness in federal action against both the lawbreaking employer and the illegal workers found at the Bellingham factory.
However, I disagree with your claim that our immigration system is somehow “broken.” The only thing “broken” is the virtual lack of enforcement we have suffered through for decades, resulting in some 15 million illegal aliens living and working here.
We have no “barriers to citizenship and legal status that encourage lawlessness.” Anyone who wants to come here, work legally and become a citizen has the opportunity to apply and wait their turn, along with millions of other applicants from all over the world.
Our country cannot support the literally hundreds of millions of people who would like to live here. We have immigration rules, and there’s nothing wrong or unfair about them. They just need to be enforced. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is doing just that by charging the employers and deporting the illegal aliens.
Margaret M. Manning
East Sound, Wash.
(4)
San Gabriel Valley (Calif.)Tribune – 3/3
Taking away jobs
It would be a humongous mistake to follow Ruben Navarrette's advice to rely solely upon the federal government to enforce our immigration statutes.
According to the Department of Labor, more than 11 million American workers are looking for jobs. Our jobless rate is 7.6 percent nationally, and more than 10 percent here in California. We've got the highest jobless loss in over 20 years.
In spite of this, we continue to hear clamors from open borders legislators like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to continue ignoring the unemployment horrors of unskilled and unemployed Americans, a population segment with the fewest resources with which to cope.
With such massive unemployment throughout our nation, it's unconscionable that 5 percent of our work force is comprised of illegal immigrants, jobs that could be taken by the millions of unemployed, low-skilled Americans.
A February 2009 report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) disclosed that the unemployment rate among native-born high school dropouts is 17 percent. But the rate among legal and illegal immigrants without a high school diploma is only 10.6 percent. Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly employed in lower-skilled and lower-paying jobs, the same jobs urgently sought by unemployed American workers.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, last year was a period in which the U.S. granted 744,531 permanent green cards to working-age adults, ages 20-64, and 912,735 new employment authorization documents to temporary foreign workers. That adds up to an annual rate of 1,657,266 new foreign workers (not counting illegal workers) added to our economy. There's no data anywhere to be found reflecting a match of market needs to this massive infusion of foreign labor.
Clearly, Americans can't rely solely upon their federal government's failures to protect them from the ravages of illegal immigration.
Mike Scott
Glendora, Calif.
(5)
The Star-Ledger (N.J.) – 3/6
Stimulus benefits foreigners
Whom is this stimulus package for? The government will import 2 million H-1B visa workers and 1.5 million permanent residents over the next two years who will compete for the 1.2 to 3.6 million stimulus jobs.
Exploited visa workers, mostly paid below a fair market wage, are used to replace fired American workers. Add in millions of illegal aliens, and expiration of the E-Verify system that quickly and accurately ensures workers are legal, and it sounds like a losing proposition for the millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans.
I cannot imagine the tragic condition of our country should Americans not get the jobs. Billions of our tax dollars will provide jobs for foreigners as cheap labor.
Linda Kilcrease
Dover, N.J.
(6)
Los Angeles Times – 3/7
Get real on immigration
Re “ICE fishing,” editorial, March 2
When will The Times stop elevating illegal immigrants to victimhood status?
Even if illegal immigrants are waiters, car-washers and nannies, once a court has issued deportation judgments against these individuals, those orders must be enforced.
The Times seems impervious to the reality that fugitive status applies both to those who've entered our country illegally and then committed crimes, and to those who've entered illegally and then been issued deportation orders by our courts and ignored them.
Wouldn't it be in our interest, with our jobless rate at 10.1% here in California, if all 554,000 illegal immigrants with outstanding deportation orders be sent home and their jobs filled by unskilled, unemployed Americans?
Michael Scott
Glendora, Calif.
(7)
Contra Costa (Calif.) Times – 3/8
No headline provided
This is regarding the recent Times article, "Californians divided on population growth's impacts."
If California is considered overcrowded by only a slim majority, then a huge minority must think that the mother of 14 children doesn't have enough kids. California is overpopulated. Witness just one example: water rationing.
The growth-mongers at the Public Policy Institute of California and their ilk should stop misleading the public about the cause of this growth: It is not due to the "natural" increase of the traditional populace but from immigrants and their children.
Absent mass immigration - legal and illegal - the state would not be riding the steamroller to an unsustainable future. The state needs to stop accommodating this avoidable growth and work actively to stop it. This means the Millers and Tauschers, the Boxers and Feinsteins, must work toward immigration reduction consistent with recognizable limits to growth.
Tim Aaronson
El Cerrito, Calif.
(8)
USA TODAY – 3/9
Don't let illegal immigrants take stimulus jobs
The USA TODAY article "Stimulus law may allow illegal workers to take jobs" summarizes yet another way illegal immigrants are stealing from honest, hardworking citizens (News, Monday).
The stimulus package is being paid for by U.S. taxpayers and is for the benefit of this nation's citizens. The stimulus package is not intended as free funding for illegal immigrants who are ruining our schools, cities, health care system and the very sovereignty of the United States.
Enough is enough. I ask my fellow citizens of the United States to insist their representatives in Congress uphold their oath of office and enforce the laws of the USA. Direct your representative/senator to support E-Verify, an effective tool to prevent illegal immigrants from taking U.S. jobs. If we do not protect our sovereignty, there will be no United Sates.
James Connors
Lake Geneva, Wis.
(9)
Hickory (N.C.) Daily Record – 3/9
Union-backed policies flood labor with illegals
In her argument for the laughably named "Employee Free Choice Act," North Carolina AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer MaryBe McMillan says that "for the last 25 years, real wages have dropped even though working people's productivity has soared."
What Ms. McMillan doesn't tell you is that it has been the policy of the governments of the United States and North Carolina — strongly backed by the AFL-CIO — to flood the low-skilled labor market with cheap, often illegal foreign labor. For the low-skilled native-born, this means depressed wages and fewer jobs.
Construction, for example, is an industry heavily impacted by immigration. In 2004, according to the Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of Current Population Surveys for 2000 and 2004, 24 percent of construction workers in the U.S. were immigrants. How did native-born construction workers fare that year? They had a 12.7 percent unemployment rate. That figure does not include construction workers who gave up trying to compete against illegal laborers.
New jobs? Who gets them in states like North Carolina with large immigrant work forces? Not native workers. Between 2000 and 2004, the number of immigrants working in North Carolina increased by 193,000. The number of natives working fell by 190,000.*
What's the AFL-CIO policy on mass illegal immigration?
"In February 2000 the AFL-CIO Executive Council issued a statement demanding repeal of all IRCA employer sanctions [for hiring illegal workers> and supporting amnesty for all illegal workers regardless of their length of time in this country. Undocumented workers should be welcomed, as they have made 'enormous contributions to their communities and workplaces' . . ." ("Why Unions Promote Mass Immigration: Behind Organized Labor's Interest-Group Alliances," Carl F. Horowitz, Special Report, National Legal and Policy Center, 2006)**
In fairness to the AFL-CIO, its policy on mass illegal immigration is identical to that of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce and other cheap labor business lobbies. Potential recruits for the former; exploitable labor for the latter.
Tom Shuford
Lenoir, N.C.
Sources cited in the letter:
*All stats are from the Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of Current Population Surveys for 2000 and 2004. See "Jobless Recovery? Immigrant Gains and Native Losses," Center for Immigration Studies, October 2004:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1104.pdf
Table 5 is the source for 24% of the construction workforce [nation wide> being immigrant in 2004 and for the unemployment rate of 12.7% for native-born construction workers.
Table 6 is the source for immigrants in North Carolina gaining 193,000 jobs between 2000 and 2004 while native born North Carolinians lost 190,000 jobs.
**"Why Unions Promote Mass Immigration: Behind Organized Labor's Interest-Group Alliances," Carl F. Horowitz, Special Report, National Legal and Policy Center, 2006 [excerpts>
PDF file:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=50&hl=en&ie...
(10)
Sun Journal (Me.) – 3/15
Congress should put its trust in E-Verify
By Robert Casimiro
Verifying the documentation of employees is a valuable service, not a discriminatory practice.
Trust, but verify. Ronald Reagan made this Russian proverb popular during his negotiations with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev during the Cold War.
It is also useful to characterize E-Verify, the federal government's
voluntary system for employers to verify documentation of prospective employees, to ensure they are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work in this country.
It is something that makes so much sense, one would assume everyone would be for it.
Originally known as Basic Pilot, E-Verify got its start in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. It was first used in five states, later became available nationwide and has grown in acceptance until it is now used by more than 100,000 businesses across the country and has an accuracy rate of 99.6 percent, according to Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., one of the original backers of Basic Pilot/E-Verify.
A friend here in Maine who has E-Verify for his business tells me it is fast - needing only 10 to 15 seconds to respond-and it allows prospective employees 10 days to straighten out problems they may have with their documentation.
Identifying problems with an employee's documentation is one benefit seen as a drawback by those who are against it.
I had an experience that showed the value of verification when I obtained my Maine driver's license. E-Verify and the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles both access the Social Security Administration database, so the example is apt for a discussion of E-Verify.
My name, Social Security number and date of birth did not match what the SSA had on file. After getting over my ire at having to make an extra trip from Bridgton to Portland to resolve it, I ended up with a better appreciation of the security and privacy it accords the user.
If a verification process is used, such as for a license or with E-Verify, the employee knows right away of discrepancies and can straighten them out. Otherwise, the employee may find out years later, which could affect serious issues, such as Social Security payments. The longer it takes to discover a "mismatch," the longer it will take to correct the record.
Knowing about a mismatch right away is a benefit,not a hindrance of E-Verify; many Maine businesses are using it.
Yet because of the federal government's erratic enforcement or just plain indifference to the problems posed by illegal aliens, many states, counties, municipalities and private businesses have had to pass their ownregulations and enforcement rules that include the use of E-Verify.
Arizona and South Carolina have made it mandatory, as has Columbia County in Oregon and, recently, Albertville, Ala., passed an ordinance requiring contractors to use E-Verify.
Rep. Calvert is trying to make E-Verify mandatory with a bill filed in January of this year, H.R.19, to require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification. There is another bill, H.R. 662, filed by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, which would also extend its usage and authorize additional funding.
But if E-Verify is so great, why is it so opposed by business interests,civic organizations, and legal institutions? Eleven years after its initiation, the proponents of E-Verify are still fighting an uphill battle to gain its acceptance.
The Wall Street Journal, a mouthpiece for the business community,is
probably its most vocal detractor - it is content with businesses hiring illegal aliens and sees the issue of verification as detrimental to business.
The House version of the stimulus bill contained a provision making
E-Verify mandatory for contractors who receive funding for stimulus
projects, but it was stripped out.
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates up to 300,000 illegal aliens could be employed because the verification requirement was taken out of the bill.
So, how do our legislators stand on E-Verify?
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted to table renewing E-Verify. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voted against tabling the program. I contacted the offices of Reps. Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud but had not yet received answers.
Not only should our legislators support E-Verify to enure that jobs in this tight employment climate go to Mainers, but it should be of extra importance to Sen. Collins because she is the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and verification is a national security issue.
Robert Casimiro of Bridgton is executive director of Mainers for Sensible Immigration Policy (MSIP). E-mail:
arcasimiro@msn.com
(11)
The Washington (D.C.) Times – 3/15
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Clearly 'illegal'
As a sidebar to the arrest of Ingmar Guandique for the murder of Chandra Levy, The Washington Times (”To be 'illegal' or not to be — Newsroom question,” Page 1, March 6) took note of how the press shuns use of the “dreaded “I-word” in describing an “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant.” Media avoid reality by describing Guandique - already in jail for two separate incidents of assaults on young women - with such tender euphemisms as “jailed laborer,” “undocumented worker,” “Salvadoran day laborer,” etc. A recent California Court of Appeals decision clarifies the English-language terminology.
California allows illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition when attending its public universities, while denying this cut rate to out-of-state U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. In a ruling somewhat favorable to 43 out-of-state citizen students who argued this violated federal law (see Robert Martinez et al., v. Regents of the University of California), the court began by defining terms:
”Defendants [the Regents> prefer the term 'undocumented immigrants.' However, defendants do not cite any authoritative definition of the term and do not support their assertion that the terms 'undocumented immigrant' and 'illegal alien' are interchangeable. We consider the term 'illegal alien' less ambiguous.”
The 1996 federal law (8 U.S.C. 1623) in question in this case used the term “alien who is not lawfully present” instead of “illegal alien.” The court then drove its point home by declaring: “In place of the cumbersome phrase 'alien* who [are> not lawfully present,' we shall use the term 'illegal aliens.' ”
The California Court of Appeals is quite familiar with illegal-immigration issues, and they are in the business of defining legal terms. Clearly, “illegal alien” best describes Guandique's status.
William Buchanan
Washington, D.C.
(12)
Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph – 3/17
Little sympathy here for illegal immigrant
I would like to respond to the March 2 piece by Telegraph columnist Eduardo A. de Oliveira titled "Immigrant hopes 100-day promise isn't hollow one." It was so misleading I was wondering if it was written in "doublespeak."
We hear of the plight of the poor "immigrant" Juan Silvestre, an "undocumented" worker. First of all, while he may be an immigrant he is an illegal immigrant, not an "undocumented worker."
By his own admission he snuck into the U.S. 15 years ago, was driving an illegally registered vehicle with no insurance, and transporting four other illegal aliens across state lines.
We're supposed to feel sorry for him because he has a family, including a 9-year-old son? And somehow it's all OK because he has been paying some taxes? How about his illegal employees?
While I do feel sorry for his people, whose home country is so poor, let's be realistic. I work in construction and I have firsthand knowledge as to how this works.
First, someone sneaks into the U.S. and finds a job. Contrary to what the advocates would have you believe, they are not doing jobs that Americans won't do. They are doing jobs that Americans won't do for such low wages, and the only reason they get the jobs at all is because they will work cheap because they are here illegally.
So the contractors get an unfair advantage against their competition by illegally hiring someone for less than the going rate. Since they are illegal, they can't be on the books, therefore they are not covered under workmen's comp or any other insurance.
Since they are illegally living six, eight or more to an apartment, they can live quite cheaply and send money home. Soon more friends and relatives arrive and since they, for the most part, are very good workers, they soon find more contractors willing to break the law and hire them.
Finally, someone marries a U.S. citizen and gets citizenship. Then he can legally run a business, but he still hires more illegals.
Bottom line? A legitimate company cannot compete against one that uses illegal employees. Just the insurance, Social Security and unemployment taxes add over 30 percent to our costs.
Let alone the cost to society. Our taxes are spent to arrest him, jail him, give him a trial, etc., and who paid to send his illegal help back to Mexico? We do.
I'm sorry but I do not feel sorry for someone who has been breaking numerous laws for 15 years. And sorry, Paloma, but just because "there are kids involved" doesn't cut it. If you hadn't been here illegally, then there wouldn't be children here would there?
I don't have anything against anyone coming here legally and following the laws of our country, but I'm very tired of hearing how I need to be taxed more and more so anyone who can sneak across our border can be allowed to live here with no consequences.
Dan Sloan
Nashua, N.H.
(13)
TC Palm (Fla.) – 3/18
Letter: Stimulus bill fails to ensure jobs go to U.S. citizens
We were told the massive economic stimulus bill was urgently needed to provide jobs for the growing number of unemployed Americans. Nearly 11 million Americans are unemployed. An estimated 7 million illegal immigrants are employed.
The House version of this $1 trillion bill, without objection, required anyone receiving stimulus money to use the E-Verify system to ensure all new hires were legally authorized to work. This would have ensured that illegal immigrants could not obtain stimulus jobs.
However, Democratic leaders stripped E-Verify from the final version of the bill. Now billions of taxpayer dollars may be spent on even more jobs for illegal immigrants and not unemployed Americans.
Tom Tomlinson
president
Florida Population Connection
Palm City, Fla.
(14)
The Capital Times — 3/20
Dave Gorak: Democrats prefer illegal aliens over jobless Americans
Dear Editor: Any remaining doubt that Democrats prefer illegal aliens over unemployed Americans vanished March 10, when the U.S. Senate voted to table an amendment to an omnibus spending bill that would have reauthorized the E-Verify program for five years. Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl supported the 50-47 vote to table the amendment.
E-Verify -- the free, easy-to-use program that allows an employer to determine within seconds whether a hire's Social Security number is legitimate, and has never resulted in a citizen or legal resident losing a job because of faulty data -- will sunset Sept. 30 unless it receives additional funding. Why did the Senate agree to only a six-month extension? Because the Obama administration plans to use it as a bargaining chip in the fall when it seeks amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegals. Never mind that 11 million Americans are unemployed at the same time 7 million illegals are allowed to keep their jobs. Never mind that this pathetic federal government continues to issue 138,000 green cards to foreign workers each month even though more than 3 million jobs have been lost during the past 14 months.
The sooner Wisconsinites understand that Feingold is anything but "progressive" and that Kohl is less than honest when he says he's "nobody's senator but yours," the better off this state and the nation will be. We don't need a Congress controlled by Democrats or Republicans. What's needed are responsible, thoughtful legislators who take the oath of office seriously and put the interests of American citizens above all else.
Dave Gorak
executive director, Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration
LaValle, Wis.
(15)
North County Times (Calif.) – 3/21
Unions care about teachers, not students
How hollow, hypocritical and predictable to claim that "Protests were to save kids, not teacher jobs" (Carolynn Ramsey, Letters, March 17). Teachers unions invariably take the side opposing the ultimate benefit of our children.
For example, they opposed the "95-5" proposition, which wanted 95 percent of school funds to be reserved for the classroom and direct aid to the classroom, with only 5 percent spent on administration. ... "95-5" failed because of a barrage of misleading ads.
I also recall that teacher unions spent big money to fight Proposition 187. Though it passed ... it was killed by bipartisan backroom deals that prevented it from going to the Supreme Court to challenge 1983's Plyler v. Doe, which ruled that it was not an "undue hardship" on taxpayers to educate the children of the approximately 1 million illegal aliens in our nation at that time.
How much money would our children's classrooms have if either of these proposition were in force today? Unless teacher unions have the backbone to make hard, non-PC calls for our kids, these current protests are about teachers' jobs and nothing else!
Barbara Vickroy
Escondido, Calif.
LETTERS WE’VE JUST RECEIVED
(16)
Odessa (Texas) American – 2/20
Stimulus Helps Illegal Aliens
Wording was added to the stimulus to protect American steel while wording to protect American workers, (E-Verify) was removed by the Democratic leadership. Yep it's the same Democrats that promised change.
Obama talked big to the American people and it now appears that is all it was, big talk.
He talked about how injustice was making the American dream just that a dream, never to be realized. Obama's Democratic team has stripped E-Verify from the stimulus. This means our tax dollars meant to create jobs for our fellow Americans struggling to obtain the America dream can and will go to illegal aliens.
These illegal aliens can then send the millions of tax dollars to foreign countries, to be forever lost to the American economy. These same illegal aliens will, in many cases, also get tax dollars for their health care, education, and housing.
Is this what Obama meant when he said he wanted to end the injustice that kept Americans from obtaining the American dream? Is this what the Democrats mean when they say they are the party of the working people?
I think the Democrats need to be known as the Party for the Greedy Rich and the illegal aliens that they work for.
E-Verify and protecting working Americans was not a concern for Nancy Pelosi as she rushed off to her luxury eight-day vacation in Italy, knowing she has protected the illegal alien work force of the greedy rich.
Stacy Wright
Odessa, Texas
================
The letters program - as all the projects of NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you, along with grants from private foundations to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America. Would you consider making a donation? Click on:
https://www.numbersusa.com/donate or send your donation to NumbersUSA, 1601 N. Kent St., Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2105; 1-877-885-7733.
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redoversmallheader vAlign=top align=left></TD></TR><TR><TD class=t1redundersmallfooter vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>This may be a good time for you to make sure that you've let us know all of the areas you are interested in. In order to further customize the type of alerts you receive click here
http://www.numbersusa.com/survey?action=longlist
As a NumbersUSA subscriber, you will receive occasional emails about immigration-related opportunities. If you want to increase or reduce the frequency of these emails, click here and choose from Total Activism, Moderate Activism, or Limited Activism at the bottom of your registration form:
http://www.numbersusa.com/user
NumbersUSA - relies upon individuals like you to reach its goal of an environmentally sustainable and economically just America.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Numbers USA
1601 N. Kent Street
Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209
http://numbersusa.com/video
Hernandez
ASSOCIATED PRESS A makeshift memorial forms outside a Baskin-Robbins in Aurora, Colo., where an illegal immigrant plowed his car into the shop, killing three. Two injured women have filed claims against Denver, arguing its sanctuary policy contributed to the Sept. 4 crash.
