Signs of a Continuing Immigration Debate

Re “2 Suspects Were Themselves Illegal Immigrants,” May 6: “Illegal immigrants.” “Illegal aliens.” Repeatedly we see these terms, which have come to connote some sort of hardened criminals. As a public school counselor, over the years I have come to know an untold number of undocumented youngsters.

As a mother, I have often talked to their mothers, who almost consistently explain that they took the risk of coming here to protect their children from great hardships and even to save their children’s lives. In most cases, they tried but failed to get the necessary papers to save their children by emigrating legally.

Do they come here to rob, to kill, to rape, to embezzle? No. They come to pick our crops, to bus our dishes, to clean our houses, to take unwanted jobs in our factories.

So as fellow human beings, I beg of you to recognize that they too are human beings. As mothers, I ask you, would you risk what they have risked to protect your children?

Marilyn Goodman

Santa Monica

*

Instead of arguing about sealing or securing the border, we should discuss “order on the border.” Patrol those areas where the desperate could become injured trying to enter or the sinister may achieve ingress for criminal or terrorist purposes. But also let offices appear in Mexico where Mexican citizens can receive work visas. Those needing to hire provisional workers could travel south to these offices to find workers with ready -- and official -- documents.

Bring the entire process into the clear light of scrutiny instead of the scorching light of the desert sun. Right now, too many gain too much by keeping these practices underground and illegal.

Chuck Wagner

Culver City

*

Re “Volunteers to Patrol Border Near San Diego,” May 5: If concerned American citizens are “vigilantes,” then what are elected officials and law enforcement professionals who refuse to enforce America’s laws?

Charles K. Sergis

Calabasas

*

Re the May 5 article on a TV station revamping its controversial ads: What an ignominy that Lenard Liberman, the executive vice president of Liberman Broadcasting, is being forced to change the Channel 62 TV news billboards. I fail to see a link between these billboards and “encouraging illegal immigration.” What in the world has happened to our 1st Amendment rights? Are they now only for talk radio?

Lieberman said he did not think the billboards would “generate such a controversy.” I think the majority of controversy was instigated by the imprudent talk show hosts at KFI and the individuals (audience) they both speak and think for. I am offended by the billboard on Ventura Boulevard that was put up by the radio station. It implies I am too ignorant or misguided to know where I am. Can we please have this billboard changed or removed, at once?

Eileen O’Neill

West Hills

*

Re “A Sign of Controversy Over Immigration,” Commentary, May 4: I do not disagree that the influx of illegal immigrants has lowered the cost of doing business for many types of businesses (Patt Morrison used as an example the lower cost of a restaurant breakfast). The problem is that these folks use government services that they are not entitled to because the vast majority of them pay little or no taxes.

So the advantage I gained from the cheaper breakfast is being taken away in taxes to support these poor people (or we run big deficits). I have no way to tell whether I am ahead or behind in the grand scheme of things. All I know is that I think it is unfair for me to have to support these illegal immigrants with my tax dollars. I apparently have no choice in this matter as a taxpayer. That is why I had supported Proposition 187. I really do not care if they come in the end. Just do not make me pay for them.

Brian Kelly

Santa Ana