The system is broken; amnesty not the answer
The arguments to grant the roughly 11 million illegal aliens legal status in the U.S. are not logical.
Amnesty supporters decry opponents as racist and bigoted, insist that the economy needs these people, that the immigration system is broken, and that reform means that the border will be secured.
Why does pointing out that people who have broken federal laws constitute racism?
If there are 20 million unemployed and underemployed Americans, shouldn't their welfare be our first concern?
If the immigration system is broken (e.g. the federal government is refusing to enforce immigration laws), why should we suppose that passing another law will stiffen the federal spine? Finally, why does it take additional legislation to secure the border?
The answers today are as obvious as they were back in 1986 when the last immigration amnesty was passed into law: various business groups want cheap labor, the Democrats want additional voters for the welfare state, amnesty will allow chain migration and birthright citizenship to further dilute the voting power of the native population, and the promised crackdowns will never occur. Contact your congressman to stop immigration amnesty.
FRED BIRNBAUM, Boise
Don't grant legal status for those here illegally
Fellow Americans, are you in favor of giving millions of illegal immigrants a "path to citizenship" (a euphemism for "amnesty")?
If so, you must not care about the plight of millions of unemployed or underemployed Americans, who will then have to compete with illegal immigrants, who are usually willing to work for less money than American workers.
The media and other supporters of illegal immigrants assert that America was "created by immigrants" and that we should therefore allow millions of "undocumented" immigrants (another euphemism!), to become Americans, too.
I was a legally admitted immigrant myself in 1959. So I know the difference between being a legal immigrant (with a Green Card, a permanent resident visa) and an illegal immigrant (without such a document).
I am not "anti-immigrant." But I do resent the fact that illegal immigrants cut in line ahead of millions of other people who would probably love to live here, too.
It is politically expedient for both parties to pass an immigration reform bill (I explained why in my April 19 Reader's View).
The bill will benefit large corporations looking for cheap labor. But will it benefit the millions of Americans who are desperately looking for work?
ROBERT BOESTER, Boise
It's a stalemate
The rich people in this country will never agree to gun control because they are afraid of the poor people in this country.
The poor people in this country will never agree to gun control because they are afraid of the rich people in this country.
The middle class people in this country will never agree to gun control because they are afraid of both the rich and the poor people in this country.
End of story.
JIM RODES, Crouch
Unrestricted rights could apply to other areas
The Second Amendment to our Constitution places no limits on the age of people carrying weapons. To make sure that all people are safe, we should give assault weapons to kids in preschools and elementary schools, right?
It may be time to admit that if all people are given unrestricted rights to do what they want any time they want, we all lose our freedoms, period.
For example if we choose to drive at any speed we want and drive in any direction that pleases us, our freedom to drive is gone. Perhaps it is time to recognize that when our Founding Fathers used the word "weapon" they had the flintlock in mind not the assault weapon.
Things have changed, folks, and so must we if we want to live together in peace here in America.
TOM EDGAR, Boise
IRS AND TEA PARTY
Tax rules must not favor one group over another
Tea party bashers: The IRS is obligated to use one set of rules to process all applications for tax-exempt status.
The tea party application needs the same evaluation as President Obama's former church of 20 years, led by Rev. Wright, or the ACORN organization.
The United States has a $17 trillion national debt ($54,000 per American), has accumulated $15 trillion in unfunded public sector retirement obligations. The tea party is trying to influence smaller government and out-of-control spending!
Have you noticed? - In the shadows of the sequester, the federal government has 27,000 new job openings with an average salary of $76,000-plus benefits. These new jobs include: bartenders, waitresses and golf instructors.
Question: If government employees have a $15 trillion public sector retirement benefit deficit, who do you think will be paying the retirement benefits for these new government employees?
(A) Your great-great-great grandchildren.
(B) Your great-great-great-great grandchildren.
(C) None of the above - the United States will be bankrupt.
It's simple math, ask a fifth-grader!
MARTIN DUARTE, Kuna