Immigration and security
The Swift & Co. meatpacking plant raids resulting in the arrest of 1,297 workers highlight three important facts:
The call to improve Basic Pilot by expanding it to include all U.S. citizens and non-citizens would increase bureaucratic red tape and breach personal privacy, putting all of us at the mercy of databases.
Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has the simplest and most effective answer: a guest-worker program.Chertoff has repeatedly called for Congress to pass a guest-worker program to “answer the economic need” of this country for people to work certain jobs that U.S. citizens don’t want. Why don’t we listen to the guy we’re paying to protect us?
Marcie Dahlen, Evergreen
…
The quote on the front page of Wednesday’s Denver Post shows just how horribly out of touch Tom Tancredo is with the American people. A November 2006 Quinnipiac poll reports that 65 percent of Americans support a guest-worker program for illegal immigrants and 69 percent support a path to citizenship for those enrolled in such a program. So what exactly is Tancredo talking about when he whines that the president and Congress are “hell-bent on cramming this mass amnesty down the throats of the American people?” Heaven forbid we enact policies that Americans actually want.
Lawrence Jones, Conifer
More than one language
Letter-writer John C. Gessert was disturbed with Sen. Ken Salazar giving his State of the Union preview speech in Español. Mr. Gessert stated, “No one accommodated my German- speaking great-grandparents, who understood that it would be necessary to learn English to succeed in America.” For your information, Mr. Gessert, our forefathers, in writing the Colorado Constitution, did accommodate your great-grandparents, as well as my Spanish-speaking grandfather (born in 1874) and English speakers of the state. The Colorado Constitution was written in English, Spanish and German.
Carlos Santistevan, Denver
Electoral College
Re: “Electoral-vote change gains,” Jan. 23 news story.
A bill introduced by state Sen. Ken Gordon and Rep. Jack Pommer to corrupt the Electoral College process as established in the U.S. Constitution will take away the voice of the people of Colorado in deciding who will be elected as president of the United States, and will allow states with the most population, such as California and New York, to dominate the process.
This bill takes into consideration not how the election results in Colorado decide who our electoral votes go to but will go to the ticket that gets the most popular votes nationally.
It appears the voters of Gordon’s and Pommer’s districts – and any legislators who support this lunacy – need to immediately reconsider who is representing them.
Robert LaLanne, Colorado Springs
Ethics in government
Re: “Cancer survivor may be victim of Amend. 41,” Jan. 25 news story.
I voted for Amendment 41. I knew exactly what I was voting for. The simple truth is that a majority of voters in the state are fed up with Colorado employees and representatives who misbehave. I have been surprised at the protests about all the problems this amendment will allegedly cause.
As a Colorado citizen, I expect those who work for me (anyone who gets a state paycheck) to be above reproach. That means being entirely free of obligations to any special interests.
The local TV networks have enormous influence in all aspects of our lives. Kaela Mattson’s grandfather, who is her caretaker, is a state employee. A cash gift to her is an obligation to him. Even though it may be a small obligation, it places the interests of Channel 9 above those of the general citizenry. In some way, the public will pay. If the money is that important, Kaela’s grandfather could find employment in the private sector.
State employees and representatives, take heart. I, for one, am not backing down on the ethics issue. It’s past time for the voters to redefine how the business of government will be conducted.
Bob Melvin, Denver
Campaigns and the media
At the beginning of many reports about political candidates is how much money they have in their campaign funds and how likely the funds are to grow. Does the media’s fascination with these numbers reveal bias stemming from the likelihood that they will end up receiving a huge portion of those funds? If a candidate has the most money in his war chest, is the media more likely to give him more – and perhaps more favorable – coverage?
Peter Ludwig, Denver
Does TV affect behavior?
Next Sunday, companies will spend millions of dollars for a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl. Why? Simply because they believe that what people observe on TV will affect their behavior.
Hollywood filmmakers who craft violent movies with profane language and MTV rap video producers have sworn to Congress that what people observe on TV has no effect on their behavior.
Both convictions cannot be right.
Concerned parents need to decide which view is correct.
John P. Cardie, Westminster
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331; Fax: 303-820-1502; E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
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.
Archives: Missed your favorite columnist or the latest Mike Keefe cartoon? Archives available at The Denver Post Online (www.denverpost.com)
