Illegal immigration and the laws of the land
I confess: Many, if not most, of my (and my wife’s) ancestors were undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, they did not pay one cent of income taxes. Notorious lawbreakers? No, there were no immigration laws when they arrived, just like income taxes were not required until after 1913. Those ancestors broke no laws because such laws did not exist.
Those who blather about their own undocumented ancestors as absurd justification for the illegal aliens in the U.S. today are creating a dangerous smoke screen to cover widespread disrespect for our laws. Such comparisons are totally irrelevant. Undocumented immigrants in the early 1800s were not illegal aliens because there were no applicable immigration laws. Immigration laws now exist. These laws demand respect.
We are a nation of laws, and that is fundamental to the basic fabric of our society. Immigrants (and apparently some citizens) must learn to understand that personal disagreement with a law does not justify ignoring or defying it. Further, amnesty, such as any shortcut to citizenship, is a despicable insult to the legal immigrants who followed our laws. Illegal aliens are deliberate lawbreakers and must face the consequences. Otherwise, what are we teaching our children?
Thomas E. Mullins, Denver
Politics and religion
Re: “A rabbi and Republican? Oy vey!” May 22 David Harsanyi column.
There is too much influence by clergymen on politics today. A clergyman can and should preach to his congregation the word of God as his particular religion and beliefs dictate. Religious leaders are entitled to their political beliefs, but they should not convey them to their congregations.
Rabbi Bruce Dollin has overstepped his bounds by airing his political affiliation publicly. I defend his right to belong to whatever party he wishes, but he should keep that part of his thoughts to himself.
Howard M. Botnick, Aurora
That’s entertainment?
Re: “Pussycat Dolls move from dance troupe to pop phenomenon,” May 19 7Days story.
Ick. That’s all I have to say after reading about the so-called Pussycat Dolls. The picture of the glam girls scantily clad in black leather and suggestive poses says it all. They expect to be taken seriously nonetheless, and why not, since newspapers like The Post give them space on the front of the entertainment page. The clincher is the quote from one of the singers that teenage girls and even 4-year-old girls look up to them, so they “must be doing something right.” Have our standards really drifted this low?
Suzanne Digre, Littleton
Should U.S. make English the national language?
Re: “Senate sends mixed signals on English as national language,” May 19 news story.
Regarding pending immigration reform and the Senate’s English-language amendment, I see it as another symbolic effort and a waste of Congress’ time. To have any meaning, we should be able to stop publication of government documents, ballots, etc., in any language other than English. That should hold for the business community as well. As it stands, there is little necessity for foreign speakers to learn English. We have become a country of enablers.
Other barriers to the incentives to immigrate illegally should include:
1) No automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. This is in itself is worth an amendment.
2) Details must be worked out on how to ensure that guest workers return to their countries when the terms of their visas expire. Many have entered legally, and just stayed. How will the proposed ID card for foreigners work if the applicant says, falsely, that he or she is a citizen and doesn’t require the card? Will this end up as racial profiling?
3) Fines and/or prison sentences must be levied and enforced against entities that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Without these measures, we will end up with another meaningless piece of legislation, not much better than its predecessors: useless and ineffective. Many will see it as just another political gesture without any merit.
Jo Hunter, Lakewood
…
It is time to tell our legislators to change or go home. Case in point is making English our official or national language (whichever is legally more correct). Avoid confusing words like “common,” which was proposed. Does this mean Denver should have a different language than Lakewood?
Tell Washington and Colorado to pass laws that are basically proper and enforce them. We must avoid vague terminology, which leads to confusion and enforcement difficulty. Get back to the basics that made the U.S. great. Tell your legislators to pass only meaningful and proper laws or you will not vote for them next time.
Ray Rohlfing, Lakewood
Judicial term limits
Re: “Term limits for judges?” May 23 news story.
While I generally agree with the concept of term limits for elected representatives of the people, having term limits for the judiciary makes no sense. I suppose that a component of supporter John Andrews’ argument in favor of judicial term limits (if not his total reasoning) is that we have to resolve the problem of “judicial activism.” My understanding of the notion of judicial activism is that appellate and Supreme Court justices make decisions that are not viewed as proper by some observers. Those decisions are then labeled as having been made as a result of judicial activism. The recognition is never made that what is activism for one person is just a good and proper decision by another person.
Stability in the judicial system is critical, and from that standpoint, term limits make no sense at all.
Jim Hidahl, Denver
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
