May 20, 2006

Saturday’s Letters: RICO Lawyer Howard Foster Shares His Letter To His Pro-Immigration Rabbi; etc.

From: Howard Foster [e-mail him]

Re: Chicago Sinai Congregation

Dear Rabbi Sternfield:

I am writing to you about the current Temple Newsletter in which you support illegal immigrants.

According to your view we Jews, as the descendants of immigrants, must empathize with the millions of Mexicans who enter the U.S. illegally.

You suggest we cannot be good Jews if we do not adhere to your philosophy.  But you cite nothing from any Jewish text or commentary in support and ignore the arguments of opponents of modern mass illegal immigration.

You fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.  American Jews entered this country legally, along with millions of others during the first major wave of immigration, 1880-1920. 

At the time, the nation needed cheap labor for burgeoning industrialization and Congress permitted this flow.  Immigration laws were tightened in 1920.  We have had limits on legal immigration, by country, ever since, for reasons that apparently escape you.

Here they are: In 1980, the Department of Labor determined that there were enough low-skilled workers to staff the nation's factories and fields and any further influx on such immigrants would adversely affect the wages and working conditions of American citizens.  Nothing has changed since then. 

The situation has, if anything, grown worse for native Americans in the ensuing decades, with 1-3 million illegal aliens entering the country per year and taking low paying jobs at any wages offered to them

I am a lawyer prosecuting a series of lawsuits against several companies for employing illegal immigrants. 

These cases are class actions brought on behalf of the legal workers whose wages have been depressed.  My clients are the victims of the policies you advocate- open borders.  They cannot earn a decent living working in these jobs and cannot raise their families comfortably.  This is the reality of modern day immigration in the U.S. 

You obviously do not know anything about the economics of immigration and apparently would prefer not to. 

Your advocacy of open borders seems to spring from the often cited, but never defined yearn for " social justice" which I hear every time I enter Sinai. 

What is "social justice?"  If it is the desire to help others, then advocacy of open borders is counter-productive because, as I told you, mass immigration causes wage depression and the loss of American jobs. 

But it does make you and other radical clergy people feel less guilty about your own prosperity.  And feeling good about oneself is, apparently, what you at Sinai strive for. 

There is no principled reason in the theology of Judaism to favor or to oppose any particular immigration policy.  It all stems from your personal perception of what you believe makes us feel good. 

There is a heavy over-emphasis on "social justice" at Sinai, and a shocking under-emphasis on the word of God.  Since God has nothing to say about immigration, then I think you shouldn't either.  And if you do choose to hold forth on the subject, then it would behoove you to take a minimum of effort to learn the basics. 

According to your editorial, the only justification for opposing mass immigration is bigotry and fear. 

But I see bigotry and fear all over your prose- bigotry and intolerance toward those who you disagree with, an unwillingness to study the issue, a virtual invitation to leave the congregation for the audacity of opposing you. 

The same is true of your poorly expressed blind hostility to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  But I suppose advocates of "social justice" are too morally superior to concern themselves with our Constitution.

Two weeks ago I argued one of my illegal immigrant cases against Mohawk Industries in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

If I am successful my case, and many others against employers of illegal immigrants, will move forward. 

I suppose if that happens, I will have no place at Sinai.  For I will be the very embodiment of all that you detest: a successful lawyer who favors the right to own guns, feels no guilt about my income, feels no need to empty my pockets when passing a derelict in the streets, is proud of my president, my country and what it stands for in the world, and opposes illegal immigration.

Respectfully, sir, I find your comments completely anti-historical, offensive, and am (again) considering resigning from Sinai as a result of them. 

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

Saturday’s Letters: A Texas Reader thinks Cheney Would Be Better Than Bush On Immigration

From: An Economist [e-mail him]

Re: Joe Guzzardi’s Blog: Cheney Bush’s Chief Immigration Salesman

Cheney is less popular than Bush, no doubt. However, if Bush left office tomorrow, I would bet Cheney would be a lot saner on immigration.

Bush's views are fundamentally emotional, not rational. To Bush, illegals are "perfect human beings" because they walk across deserts to docilely work for low wages. Bush gets all gushy about this kind of stuff.

The Vice President is a more serious guy. No doubt he would favor cheap labor for business. However, I can't imagine Cheney having the romantic attachment to aliens that Bush suffers from.

Cheney would probably favor a real guest worker program. He might propose working in the US for 1-3 years and then going home. Under Cheney’s plan, we’d escrow 50 percent of all wages to make sure you go home. If we catch “guest workers” here after 3 years, expect prison. Try to bring your family, expect prison.

I don't favor any such thing but corporate America would love it and so would many conservatives. Cheap labor now but without the hangover later.

Of course, this sort of crassly exploitive system would be intolerable to a majority of Democrats---but not to Teddy Kennedy.

Read “An Economist’s” exit amnesty plan here

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

Saturday’s Letters: A Georgia Reader Wants VDARE.COM To Create A “Most Wanted Alien” Site

From: Michelle Ray [e-mail her]

Re: Juan Mann’s Column: Reporting Illegal Aliens: 2005 Update

May I suggest that you develop a website to accompany VDARE.COM where everyday people like myself could check the names and photos of illegal aliens who have been deported or are wanted for crimes.

Those of us who work with immigrants or live in areas with a high population of immigrants could go to this site to check if someone they are suspicious of is wanted or has already been deported. Then, we could contact the authorities.

I know some immigrants who were deported for criminal offense but then snuck back into the country, made up fake papers and moved to another state.

If there were a website available along the lines of America’s Most Wanted, someone in the alien’s new state might see his photo and report him.

I am not suggesting a site to report every immigrant you meet. I am suggesting something to help American citizens help the police. It is a felony to re-enter the country after you have been deported.

According to Ray, Homeland Security will never do its job much less create a most wanted alien website. “It will have to be VDARE.COM,” she says.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

Saturday’s Letters: An Oklahoma Reader Says “Way To Go, VDARE.COM!”

From:  Izzy Lyman [e-mail her]

Re: Joe Guzzardi’s Column: How VDARE.COM Helped Convert An Oklahoma State Representative To The Right Side Of Immigration Reform

My husband, Wid, saw Oklahoma State Representative Kevin Calvey today at a luncheon.

Kevin told him that he has received a ton of positive e-mail because of Guzzardi’s column.

Calvey (e-mail him) sends his thanks to all VDARE.COM readers.

Lyman’s previous VDARE.COM letters, columns and blogs are here.

Her recent blog on home schooling, in which she talks about her Costa Rican parents, is here.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

Saturday’s Letters: An Idaho Reader Says He’s Not “In Good Hands” With Senator Larry Craig

From: Pete Brittain [e-mail him]

Re: Steve Sailer’s Column: It’s Alive! Bush Betrayal Tries To Climb Out Of Coffin

We all know the slogan for Allstate Insurance. But it doesn’t apply to the U.S. Senate.

Idaho's illustrious Senator Craig made the following comment after Bush's speech on Monday:

"For any immigration reform to work, our borders must first be

secured..."

This comment was at the top of his Senate website.

When it came to a vote, however, Craig voted against securing the border before taking any action to control illegal immigration.

Could Craig be hitting the bars with Senator Kerry?  The most logical thing for Craig to say when asked about his flip flop would be:

"I was for it before I voted against it."

Our leaders are most definitely not looking out for us.

Read Brittain’s previous letters about the Los Angeles illegal alien demonstrations and his fond memories of California here and here.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

Saturday’s Letters:  A Los Angeles Reader Wants To Spit On Joe Guzzardi

From: Amir Ata [e-mail him]

Re: Joe Guzzardi Archive

You are a racist for sure, and looks (sic) like you are so stupid to know (sic) that your grandfathers were immigrants to U.S.

All I have for you is just (sic) to spit on your face.

Joe Guzzardi replies: What ever happened to, “Perhaps we could meet for coffee one day so we could better understand each other”?

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

Saturday’s Letters: A Legal Resident in New Mexico Wants The Same Opportunities As Illegals

From: Yvonne Magener [e-mail her]

Re: Randall Burn’s Blog: Some More Proposed Amendments for the Senate

I am writing to you out of frustration. My mother and I, both artists, have been in the United States legally for ten years on E-2 visas  which we were told was the only way we could stay.

We were assured the E-2 was the next best thing to a green card but found this false.

We are considered non-residents. We will never have the right to vote or collect social security into which we pay. Even though both my mother and I own property and pay taxes, I have to pay out of state tuition to study.

We’re now starting our paperwork to get EB-1 visa, which is the equivalent of a green card. We have to prove that we are of "extraordinary ability" and if our application is not approved, we will have to sell our houses and leave

The legal fees ($3,500 for each visa) are a financial burden and the outcome is not certain.

The Senate also voted 64-32 to levy a $750 fee on illegal immigrants who apply for citizenship and $100 for each dependent.

Cornyn, who sponsored the proposal, said the proceeds would be used to reimburse state and local governments, hospitals and other institutions that provide health, education and other services to illegal immigrants.

That's disgusting. We have spent about $12,000 on legal fees plus hours of lost earning time getting paperwork together.

It is just so unfair. We do every thing legally, and have to jump over various hurdles but still have no assurance that we will get a green card after paying large sums of money.

I would like to see an addition made to the proposed legislation granting green cards to so-called tax paying, upstanding illegals after five years: give the same right to legal aliens.

I don't think that the Senate or Congress realizes how difficult it is to get a green card.  

Magener and her mother are German but the writer was born in South Africa and lived in Spain before coming to the U.S.

See Magener’s artwork here.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

Saturday’s Letters: A Texas Reader Sees New Career Opportunities For Joe Guzzardi

From: Michael Johnson [e-mail him]

Re: Joe Guzzardi’s Column McCain, WSJ: “Amnestied Aliens Will Learn English, Civics!” Joe Guzzardi: “When Hell Freezes Over!”

Through no fault of his own, Guzzardi’s English as a Second Language classes are poorly attended. But don’t let him become depressed!

If Guzzardi can teach ESL, then he can also teach SSL, Spanish as a Second Language.

I anticipate a huge demand for SSL after listening to Bush surrender the country to Mexico and watching the Senate in action this week.

Guzzardi’s new Anglo students will probably attend class for much more than forty hours required of the aliens in the 1986 amnesty.

For fifty-four years, I had resisted learning Spanish. My attitude was that immigrants to America ought to either learn English or go to some country where their language is spoken. That such countries are Third World cesspools is not my problem.

Though long aware that immigration is out of control, I could not be certain which immigrant group would become our new majority or what our new official language might be.

It is now clear that Latin American mestizos will be our new majority and that Spanish will be our new official language.

Knowing the language of our new Hispanic government will certainly prove useful when haggling over the amount of mordida with a mestizo clerk or bribing a mestizo traffic cop.

Knowing what the members of the Hispanic majority are saying to one another might help one avoid becoming a victim of crime. Being able to tell them to get the hell off my property before I feed them a face full of buckshot might well be useful, too.

Johnson is software engineer in Houston, Texas. Unable to find a real job in the private sector because of H1-B competition, he works for a NASA contractor.

He is enrolled in a Conversational Spanish course at a local community college.

Guzzardi comments: In my column, I predicted that the English language requirement this amnesty around would be even less demanding than the 1986 level of forty meaningless hours. And, sadly, it looks like I’m right.

According to the Senate, the English prerequisite for amnesty is merely to “enroll.”

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]