Immigration, Mexican Bailout

* There is a disturbing irony in the positioning of two stories on the front page on Jan. 28. The headline of Column One reads: “For Them, Prop. 187 Is Just the Beginning.” In the adjacent column, the headline is: “50 Years After Auschwitz, End Is Remembered.”

Supporters of Prop. 187 now talk of a “Refounding Amendment” which would restrict citizenship to those “born of an American,” a notion with a frighteningly familiar ring. How can we put the past behind us, when ominous clouds of intolerance warn us of what might still lie ahead?

ARNOLD GROSSMAN

Marina del Rey

* I was shocked with Glenn Spencer’s (founder of the Voice of Citizens Together) comments. His comparison of Mexican immigration to the Southwest with the struggle of U.S. forces against the Viet Cong is ludicrous. I would like to remind Spencer that 20% of American casualties during the Vietnam War were Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans, even though they made up only 5% of the American forces in Vietnam. His comparison is an insult to every American soldier of Hispanic origin who died or was wounded in the Vietnam War.

LUIS ERIC SANTAELLA

Rancho Santa Fe

* Linking the Mexican bailout to the threat or likelihood of increased illegal immigration is balderdash. The notion that the United States cannot control its southern border is deceit and mendacity of the highest order. If the federal government--whomever is in charge--wishes to control illegal immigration, it will.

ZANVILLE S. GREEN

Studio City

* It was only a short time ago that the Mexican government, politicians and people were protesting against us and telling Californians that Prop. 187 was wrong and inhuman. Now these same people need a U.S. loan guarantee of $40 billion to stay afloat. It seems that they should have been keeping their own house in order and let us worry about ours.

JOHN S. KELLY

Whittier

* Mark Fineman is not reporting the news, he is rewriting history in “Chiapas” (photo essay, World Report, Jan. 24).

First he echoes President Ernesto Zedillo’s stance that the Dec. 19 Chiapas “action” was directly responsible for the immediate departure of $1 billion in capital. Many observers feel that Zedillo unjustly cast the blame on the Zapatistas for Mexico’s new economic woes. Second, Fineman reverses the history of the negotiating situation--in fact, Zedillo had unilaterally appointed a negotiating team unacceptable to the Zapatistas, who initiated the idea of mediating through the Roman Catholic Church.

METCHE F. FRANKE

Aliso Viejo