Letters: Immigration deal raises objections
Regarding "Crucial deal reached on immigration" [News, March 31], I was not aware that I have been voting to have my interests as a citizen represented by either big business or labor unions. I do not support amnesty, nor the importation of low-paid workers while Americans struggle for work in this poor economy.
Silly me, I have been casting votes for senators and congressional representatives who, I hoped, would have enough spine to protect our citizens and their interests. They want the few jobs here not already outsourced to be filled by foreigners willing to work more cheaply than our own citizens. These are not jobs Americans won't do. These are jobs for which Americans demand to be paid a realistic wage. This is not China.
What about what Americans want? We want our laws respected and enforced. We want our borders secured. We want use of the E-Verify database to be mandatory nationwide. We want our jobs to go to Americans first.
Leslie Dimmling, Garden City
Ruben Navarrette Jr. raises the same lie that pro-Hispanic and Latino supporters have been raising for years; i.e., that people against legalization are anti-immigration ["Rightward tilt to immigration reform," Opinion, March 31]. The truth is we are anti-illegal immigration.
An acquaintance of mine, a college graduate, polylingual, waited eight years to immigrate legally. What Navarrette and his ilk are saying is that those who did the right thing are fools. His message is, break the law, and we will change the law for you.
The 1986 Amnesty Act for 2 million was supposed to be a one-time event. Now we have 11 million here illegally. The next time it will be 50 million. We have a choice: Enforce the laws or throw open the borders.
And before anyone starts screaming that I'm an ultraconservative, they should know that I am proud to be a very liberal Democrat.
Edythe Fishbach, Gateway