Deja vu on immigration legislation
To the editor:
One side of the illegal immigrant debate seems to rest heavily on the "need for a cheap source of labor" to occupy jobs that American workers are not willing to take (agriculture, service work, etc.). Why are Americans not willing to take these jobs? Low wages and no benefits.
It struck me as ironic, then, that a May 10 Review-Journal article on immigration stated that "service-worker unions see low-wage workers as the backbone of a new labor-union movement."
So if the newly proposed immigration reform act grants 12 million-plus illegals permanent access to jobs in America, how long do you think it will be before the unions organize these workers? And what do you think will be their demands? Higher wages and better benefits, for sure.
Then what do we have? Twelve million workers who either get their demands and drive up wages to the point where legitimate American citizens would have taken those jobs to begin with, or these "amnesty illegals" will lose their jobs because of their demands, end up on welfare, and a new batch of illegals will cross the borders to take their place.
And here we go again.
J.J. Schrader
HENDERSON
Hostile takeover
To the editor:
In response to Mel Lipman's recent letter advocating allowing illegals to stay in this country because of their children: Most illegals have no intention of assimilating -- they want the money, not the responsibility.
Mr. Lipman's reference to the 14th Amendment is correct, but how can he not call what's happening a hostile takeover? Has he not seen the marches? Our flag upside down under a foreign flag? The announcements that they intend to take back what they consider theirs?
This is not a human rights issue -- it's an issue of a people who would rather invade our country than effect change in their own.
It would be un-American of us -- and just plain wrong -- to deny opportunities to would-be legal immigrants who want to be citizens just because these illegals can get here easier.
JOHN DEVINE
LAS VEGAS
Illegal patients
To the editor:
As a taxpayer, I resent and strongly object to a $41.4 million bailout for UMC (Review-Journal, Wednesday). Your article specifically notes that the hospital provides "care for the indigent." I -- and I am sure all taxpayers -- want to know what portion of the budget shortage at UMC is attributable to indigents and what is attributable to illegal immigrants.
If this subsidy is shoved down the throats of taxpayers, I demand that hospitals have immigration agents on duty at all times to verify the citizenship of all people accessing hospital services for any reason.
Failure to do this is a slap in the face to all American citizens who are entitled to the benefits they deserve as legal American citizens.
William Mulholland
LAS VEGAS
Council pay
To the editor:
I would like to know how many people have a part-time job that pays $45,000 per year. Probably none. But according to Mayor Oscar Goodman, this is not enough for our City Council members (Review-Journal, Thursday). Nor is almost $60,000 per year enough for someone to make a living, according to Mayor Goodman.
If you took a poll, I'm sure that the majority would love to be able to work full-time making $60,000 a year -- or, better yet, part-time making $45,000 a year.
If he wants to give someone a raise so bad, why doesn't he look to our teachers?
STEPHEN TUTWILER
LAS VEGAS
On the dole
To the editor:
How easily John Stossel in his recent commentary paints everyone who works in any area that could be linked to the government as being on the dole. He does not, however, include himself -- even though he broadcasts on the airways that were sold at subsidized prices so that private operators could make a profit.
Mr. Stossel should also to be counted among the Americans that he disparages in his article.
BILL BETHKE
LAUGHLIN
Wrong candidate
To the editor:
How in the world could you endorse Stacie Truesdell in the upcoming Ward 5 City Council election (Review-Journal, Friday editorial)? The mailboxes of Ward 5 have been inundated with hateful brochures and fliers from her campaign on an almost daily basis.
As the manager of a senior community in Ward 5, I know that for the past six years Ricki Barlow and Lawrence Weekly have been very supportive and helpful to our seniors. We had never heard from Ms. Truesdell before this election.
It would appear that your newspaper is not aware of the ongoing attacks against Ricki Barlow and how demeaning they have been to our election process. Please reconsider your endorsement and support the candidate that has been available and of assistance to all residents of Ward 5: Ricki Barlow.
Michelle Woodward
LAS VEGAS
