June 03, 2006
Saturday’s Letters: A
California Professor Urges Using Environmental Impact
Laws To Stop Senate Sellout; etc.
From: Nancy Harkey, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus [e-mail
her]
RICO laws are being used to sue employers for
depressing American wages through deliberate pursuit
of illegal alien workers—a very
positive and hopeful development.
And on another front a new organization—"Choose
Black America"—is considering suit if amnesty
legislation is passed on the grounds that job
displacement has
particularly negative effects on
black Americans.
I suggest one more avenue for legal action—the use of
Environmental Impact law. Any legislation involving
amnesty and future large-scale guest worker programs
like S.2611 should be
analyzed thoroughly and completely in the
Environmental Impact format before it is passed.
The federal government usually requires impact reports
in projects requiring physical construction.
The Senate bill,
S. 2611Title IV Section 401, specifies that an
environmental impact report must be generated. It
does not, unfortunately, require this before the
bill is approved but within 90 days after the enactment.
The information requested is in great depth—including
everything from effects on U.S population for the next
fifty years, to loss of habitat and productive farmland,
impact on future class size in education, and "which
small towns and rural counties are likely to lose
their character as a result of such growth…"
This is exactly the information that is needed before
any such bill is enacted. But no—the entire
timeline is for post-enactment.
Furthermore, there is nothing in this section that
indicates that any policy or action should or would
change as a result of these findings.
Either the various drafters of this bill went off
entirely on their own tangents, or the reference to an
impact report is merely lip-service.
Clearly an
impact report is supposed to guide the development
of policy, not follow after it.
It is hard to imagine anything that would more
greatly alter the American environment—both physical and
social—than S. 2611
On the physical side, the numbers of new immigrants
being discussed will enormously affect water resources,
air quality,
population density, and the need for
housing, schools and other public buildings.
On the social side, we will have
worker displacement,
wage depression,
welfare costs and
eroding national unity.
That such a bill can be voted on with less formal
consideration than the construction of a California
mini-mall is unbelievable.
What we need before the House attempts a compromise bill
is a very complete environmental impact analysis.
In addition to what Section 401 suggests, it should
include a thorough statement of the problem, then the
complete description of all possible impacts, and a
description of possible alternatives that would mitigate
or eliminate these impacts. (See
the original legislation.)
Following such a report, there is typically a
requirement for responses, and a period of public
hearings, open to all affected parties.
For S. 2611, this would include officials from states,
cities, and counties.
The usefulness of a complete impact report would be
its ability to get all the potentially destructive
issues out in the open.
Robert Rector at Heritage Foundation has done a
terrific job on estimating population growth and related
costs to taxpayers.
But we need a forum that includes more than just
academics. Every concerned American should have an
opportunity to respond to S. 2611.
Harkey’s mother emigrated from Scotland and her father
from
Norway. Her specialty at
California State University at Pamona, was
biological psychology. Harkey describes herself as
"a political conservative on most issues with first hand
experience in how painful that can be in the academic
setting." Since her retirement, Harkey has
published, with her daughter, a two- book set on
effective parenting titled Raising
CuddleBugs and BraveHearts, Volume
I
and
Volume II
(website
here.)
[PermaLink] [Top]
[Letters Home]
Saturday’s Letters: Vietnam
Veteran Calls McCain A "Disaster"
From: [Name Withheld]
Re: Joe Guzzardi’s Column:
McCain Musings On Memorial Day Weekend
McCain is a disaster. As VDARE.COM has documented,
he has no morals.
I am also sick of all the baloney of how
McCain is a hero because he was a POW.
I was a draftee grunt in that stupid conflict. I
remember the sage advice of my platoon leader, a Korean
War vet, to save our last cartridge for ourselves as we
did not want to be captured.
Since our daddies were not honchos if we were captured,
we would likely have been killed on the spot or shipped
to
Cuba or Czechoslovakia for chemical warfare
experiments.
If
McCain were a hero, he would have gone down
fighting. Instead, McCain chickened out.
I fear that the misguided voters who equate militarism
with patriotism could propel the amoral
McCain into the White House.
It sure would be nice to get someone in the Oval Office
who actually takes his oath of office
seriously. I think
Calvin Coolidge was the last one to do so.
After being drafted, the writer served 14 months in
Viet Nam with the First Air Cavalry Division from early
December 1968 through the end of January, 1970 where he
was assigned to heavy weapons infantry. He holds a Ph.D.
and is an instructor at a Midwestern university.
[PermaLink] [Top]
[Letters Home]
Saturday’s Letters: An
American In Iraq Appreciates VDARE.COM
From: Michael Grussing [e-mail
him]
Re: Joe Guzzardi’s Column:
McCain Musings On Memorial Day Weekend
Here in
Iraq, VDARE.COM is one of the few sources of truth
available to me.
I supported
Pat Buchanan years back when he ran for president.
Now, having lost so much respect for
President Bush, I wish there were someone like
Buchanan to surface and save the day.
I appreciate the information on
McCain since I really didn’t know much about him and
had actually thought he would end up a possible
front-runner.
Now I would campaign against him.
Thanks and keep up the great work.
[PermaLink] [Top]
[Letters Home]
Saturday’s Letters: A New
Hampshire Reader Is Losing Her Little "Piece of Heaven"
To Immigrants
From: Jeannine Stergios [e-mail
her]
From today’s headlines:
Report Finds That Manchester Takes in Bulk of State’s
Refugees
(by Kathryn Marcocki, Manchester Union-Leader,
June 2 2006)
According to the report,
"The state of New Hampshire
took in refugees at a rate of 43.2 per 100,000
population in 2004, three times the national rate of
17.8 refugees per 100,000 population."
As a consequence, our schools are experiencing stabbings
on a regular basis,
refugees aren't taught proper hygiene, naked babies
are carried in sacks in freezing weather, free lunch
lines get longer, ESL classes grow larger and larger and
health departments are broke.
Meanwhile, the rest of us get ripped off while our
government continues to import more and more Third World
people.
I blame the State Department, the
Lutheran Church and
Catholic Charities—they bring refugees to the United
States because it
keeps them all employed.
The very least the
refugee industry could do is have them dress like
Americans.
How does one become American when you are encouraged to
act like a foreigner?
Stergios, who is in the real estate business, still
can’t figure out how "these refugees who live
in public housing are able to purchase $260K houses
within two years of arriving here while my own employees
are struggling to afford homes."
Joe Guzzardi
adds:
For an in depth look at how
refugees can overwhelm a small city, read
Roy Beck’s
article "The Ordeal of Immigration
in Wausau"
here.
[PermaLink] [Top]
[Letters Home]