An apologist for illegal migrants

Re “The next Americans,” Opinion, May 27

Tomas R. Jimenez pretends that the reason immigration legislation is controversial is described by the question, “What effect will these permanently settled immigrants have on American identity?” Like other apologists for the illegals, Jimenez tries to erase the distinction between legal immigrants who have a right to be here and illegal aliens who do not.

This is our home. If a man breaks into your home, you throw him out. He has no “right” to demand that he be counted with the invited guests or be made a member of the family with a voice about who else can come into your home. You cannot round up and deport 12 million illegal immigrants? Maybe not, but you don’t catch everyone who breaks the speed limit. What you do not do is change the law to please the lawbreaker. This is exactly what the proposed Senate bill does. We are a nation of immigrants, not a nation of illegal immigrants.

HAROLD P. ELLIOTT

Los Angeles

*

Jimenez believes that we should help immigrants assimilate into our culture by providing them with education, healthcare and jobs. For centuries, immigrants have identified the U.S. as a land of opportunity because it is free. But being free does not mean free entitlements from the government. Freedom means having the right to pursue one’s own happiness and rise as far as one’s abilities allow.

The threat to America does not come from immigrants; it comes from progressives like Jimenez who seek to transform the United States from a land of opportunity to a land of entitlement.

BRADY CUTHBERT

Irvine

*

Jimenez overlooks the essence of the inscription at the base of the Statute of Liberty, which concludes, “I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” It says nothing about welcoming people who bypass our entry doors by climbing walls, swimming rivers or sneaking under border fences. It also says nothing about inviting every human being on the planet to move to the United States.

Between 1925 and 1965, U.S. immigration levels were so low that the foreign-born population declined. During that period, the United States built the largest economy the world had ever seen. And while building this economy, we also successfully prosecuted a world war, initiated the space program, hosted a vibrant labor movement, made huge strides for civil rights and established a vast and stable middle class. The idea that we suddenly can’t run a country without an unlimited supply of uneducated and unskilled foreigners is absurd.

MICHAEL SCOTT

Glendora

*

I bristle at the insinuation that those who insist on building the wall first are anti-immigrant and, much worse, racist. For 17 years, I have been married to a true immigrant who waited in line, passed the test and took the oath of citizenry. And I have four wonderful, multicultural children to prove that assimilation works. But I am for the wall. Why? Integrity.

Nothing is sacrosanct in this country but our laws. That is where our true future and security lie. What is at risk is not our country, people, racial purity, treasure or even cultural identity. What is at risk is the integrity of our system of laws. Liberty still holds out her torch to immigrants, but they have to be documented first. A wall will, in effect, create legal ports of entry.

C. SCOTT MILLER

Studio City