Letters: Immigration debate rages on

I was disappointed that President Barack Obama's speech on immigration reform was so brief ["Obama forces the issue," Editorial, Nov. 23]. It didn't give him the opportunity to speak about the higher burden this will impose on taxpayers, or the fact that school and law enforcement systems will be stretched to their breaking points.

I was also hoping he would address terrorist threats like the Islamic State group and the ease with which they can get into the country now, more drugs in communities, and the frequent incursion of MS-13 gangs in our small communities.

Vince Iuliano, Holbrook

I chuckle when I hear politicians admonish immigrants to go to the back of the line. What line? There is virtually no line for people from South America, when the store seems closed through a quota system.

The plain truth is that the immigration system in the United States has never been fair for all people. Immigration laws have always been selective. One example is the National Origin Formula of 1921, which assigned quotas to limit immigration from Russia and southern Europe, and deemed immigrants from Asia unworthy of entry into the United States.

The current uproar is directed at one particular group, the ones from across our Southern border.

Frank Geffrard, Central Islip

My husband's great-grandfather emigrated from Lithuania to escape being forced into a labor camp, leaving his wife and three young children behind. He worked hard, saving every penny, and more than three years later, he sent for his wife and two sons; his daughter had died.

We are almost all the children of immigrants. The difference between past immigrants and the ones today is a matter of respecting our laws. The people who came here years ago to escape death and disease did so legally. Their homelands were no less dangerous than those of today's immigrants. They waited until they could afford to send for family members, instead of smuggling them in.

The immigration laws we have will work, but only if they are obeyed.

Dolly Kalhorn, North Babylon

What nerve! Opinions writer Clara Cortes states that she is here illegally ["How Obama's order changes my life," Opinion, Nov. 21]. She announces that she is a lawyer who could not afford to live in her own country, so she comes here knowing that she will not be able to practice law. We also read that she must commute for 2.5 hours to Brooklyn, where she cleans homes.

You would think that a lawyer would have a better grasp of reality. Who is she working for, and is she working for cash? Is she paying none of the plethora of taxes the rest of us pay on our earnings? Those taxes pay for her safety, her children's education and the roads she uses. Are we to feel sorry for her?

Roy Sperrazza, Melville

I really do understand that the vast majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come here with the intention of making better lives for themselves and their families. And I really believe that the United States needs to create a more inclusive work-visa program.

Though Clara Cortes entered the country illegally, she seems to be under the illusion that she should be entitled to legal status because she married a citizen and had a child. The fact remains, she broke our laws and entered the country illegally. What about all the people who wait their turn -- as my parents did -- and enter the country legally? Must they take a backseat to people like her?

Robert Gerhardt, Huntington Station

The past and future of LI's electricity

In "Debt solution: Raise LIPA rates" [News, Nov. 18], PFM Public Power Group urges the Long Island Power Authority to, among other things, raise rates to balance its books.

For more than a decade, LIPA customers have become debt-ridden from these outrageous electric rates. LIPA rescued the near-bankrupt Long Island Lighting Co. in 1998 for billions of dollars. From its first day, this gave LIPA one of the lowest credit ratings of any major public power entity in the country.

Paul Lozowsky, Patchogue

Editor's note: The writer is the director of the Utility Consumer Advocacy Project, a watchdog organization.

As LIPA considers once again raising electric rates, Long Island governments must take full advantage of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technology. The program offered through LIPA-PSEG Long Island is limited and not effective by itself.

More local government involvement is necessary. Energy efficiency programs provide substantial return on investment, making them a sound financial move for municipalities.

Christine Keogler, Middle Island

Editor's note: The writer is a former intern for the Long Island Environmental Voters Forum, a grassroots group.

Sending aid abroad that's needed here

Has our government gone absolutely insane? That's what I mumbled to myself after reading the we, the taxpayers, are going to provide $68 million over five years to help Mexico reform its court and judicial system ["U.S. pledges judicial aid," News, Nov. 22].

Then I read that we are vulnerable to cyber-attacks from China and one or two other countries ["NSA chief: China could shut grid," News, Nov. 22]. This seems like a project on which the United States could spend $68 million in this country, and I can think of thousands of others that need attention.

When is our government, with a $17.6-trillion deficit, going to wake up to the fact that we do not have the funds to take on every problem of every country in the world? Why doesn't Mexico fund the overhaul of its justice system with some of the $600 million in aid we send there every year?

Everett Mann, Miller Place

Keystone pipeline not, most urgent debate

Thanks, Newsday, for reading my mind! "Environmentalists can move on to the climate change fights that really matter" instead of arguing about the Keystone XL oil pipeline ["The politics of Keystone," Editorial, Nov. 20].

The debate is tired. Opponents fail to admit that tar sands oil already enters our economy by rail.

The company Regional Economic Models briefed congressional staff recently, presenting a study that shows that a steadily rising fee on carbon, returned as a dividend to American households, would create millions of jobs as well as reduce emissions.

By focusing on the root of the problem instead of getting hung up on one specific project, we have a better chance of stopping climate change.

Ashley Hunt-Martorano, Medford

Editor's note: The writer is a volunteer co-leader of Citizens Climate Lobby Long Island, an advocacy group.