Letters to the editor

Borderline subversion

How the government works to overthrow its citizens

Editor, The Times:

The fact that there are more than 210,000 illegal aliens ("immigrants," for the liberals) in Washington is just mind-blowing.

The taxpaying state residents are footing social-services bill for this? What gives the state or the federal government the right to use tax money this way? This is an outrage and I demand governmental accountability.

Not one Democrat or Republican who is allowing this looting of the working class and property owners will ever get my vote again.

The government is subsidizing employers who are avoiding environmental and wage laws. In other words, the government is an accomplice to the crimes being committed by the employers and the illegal aliens. This is a direct attack upon the taxpaying citizen. We are being taxed without representation.

Despite all the happy talk about the May Day demonstrations by the socialists, 97 percent of the American legal population are against amnesty for the illegal aliens or the illegal aliens even being here!

I sense a civil war brewing ...

— Mark Lemmon, Ocean Shores

Assimilating chaos

How we cross over from the status quo to crumbling society

Well, one thing we know now: Citizenship doesn't necessarily make you smart. Or a nice person. American citizens are torching Mexican restaurants in America and writing threatening hate letters to prominent Americans of Mexican descent. The volume of ignorance and venom dripping in Internet chat rooms is breathtaking. And, of course, the Minute (doesn't this mean "tiny"?) Men are still in their tough-guy mode along the border.

On the night I was born in the heart of La Ciudad de Nuestra Seņora, la Reina de Los Angeles, there were many viejos [old-timers] who had been living there when it was still (gasp) part of Mexico. I went through school with their grandchildren.

Those who are not too hysterical will appreciate how recently things have changed. This border, which has become such a fevered fetish for so many, is just a bureaucrat's pipedream. It is too soon to tell if it will delineate much of anything for very long. History and demographic pressures in this hemisphere may render it meaningless no matter how high we build the walls or how many tiny men patrol.

Bienvenidos to reality, amigos. Relax and enjoy the ride.

— David Long, Seattle

Ghost town in Old Mexico

Why do Mexicans feel they will have an easier time getting what they want in America? Why are so many people breaking the law to come here and putting pressure on our government to change the laws for them? Why don't they stay in Mexico, where they live legally, and use all this energy to change the laws there to better their lot?

Maybe the Mexican government is more resistant to change than ours. Perhaps they feel that their economy is so bad that they can't fix it. Unfortunately, the consequence of gaining these rights will be a change in the U.S. economy that will be worse for them and poor Americans — a market that is flooded with unskilled labor.

The Mexican system is broken, and until it is fixed, we'll just see more poor people coming to the U.S., where we already have a huge population living in poverty.

We can't take everyone in. There aren't enough resources.

I hope Hispanics start asking questions about the root causes of their situation instead of just blindly demanding rights. I hope they take some of this considerable energy and use it to make positive changes in their own country.

— Rachel Somers, Lynnwood

Taking our orders

I went to McDonald's on May 1 to protest the illegal-immigrant boycott. Instead of seeing the usual group of middle-aged, Hispanic, Spanish-speaking McDonald's workers, I saw young, American, English-speaking workers.

So much for illegal immigrants taking jobs "Americans won't do." It looks to me like illegal immigrants take jobs that teenagers and young adults will do.

— Chris Veal, Everett

Low-hanging fruit

On May 1, millions of people who have entered our country illegally [took] to the streets demanding the same rights as those afforded to citizens of the United States. Their main excuse for being here is that they do the work that Americans refuse to do.

Unfortunately, their claim is true. No one is going to pay $5 for a head of lettuce, or a dollar each for tomatoes. That's what would happen if farmworkers were paid a minimum wage.

We have an inactive work force that could do those jobs. Millions of Americans are spending their days lying in bed, watching TV in prison; why shouldn't they work 40 hours a week (or more) like the rest of us do?

— Gene Davis, Lake Forest Park

Choice among equals

Start with the basics

I am confused. William Saletan's "Life after Roe" [guest commentary, April 30] addresses the issue as though Roe vs. Wade were about a long-overdue correction of an injustice or like matter. Roe vs. Wade was (is) about the absolutely selfish acts of a) not taking responsibility for one's own "choices" and actions, and b) convenience of the "morning after."

We anti-abortion advocates have nothing to gain by campaigning to take away any bona fide "rights" that are "endowed by the creator."

We merely want the basic fundamental right of "life" in the Declaration of Independence statement "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be honored. We speak for the unborn.

Saletan goes on to decry the attempted delay of releasing and legalizing the "morning-after pill" as though this were just a bureaucratic move to fit someone's political agenda. No, the pill is merely just a more efficient way of killing and we'd like to prevent that.

Unless she was raped, the woman made her choice. Our society must not condone the killing of another human being merely for her "convenience."

— Sonny Starks, Oak Harbor

A minor consideration

Wanting to make Roe vs. Wade irrelevant is a fanciful dream, and might work if we lived in Utopia. But in real life, 12-year-olds get raped and consequently get pregnant, and the idea of birth control in any form is not an option for them.

We need to consider the reality of the society we live in. We need to keep Roe vs. Wade!

— Diana Smith, Seattle

A small exaggeration

Those in the pro-choice camp make it seem like women's rights will be out the window once there are any restrictions at all placed on abortion. No privacy, no rights for women anymore. It sounds like we're being set back a hundred years. Next thing you know, we'll lose the vote and be chained to the kitchen stove.

It is frustrating that the language is always so extreme. The percentage of abortions performed because of incest, or because a mother's life is in danger, is very small, yet people love to cite these cases as reasons why abortion should be available to all.

The reality is that between 93-95 percent of abortions are performed as birth control. Is this really acceptable?

If the pro-choice movement really were concerned about women, wouldn't it direct its efforts toward teaching women to use safer and less traumatizing methods of birth control? If it focused more in this direction, perhaps it would gain respect from the other side and a common ground could be found for people on both sides.

— Cori Miller, Seattle

End of life's contraries

William Saletan's survey of technological progress in contraception demonstrates why we should call this issue "reproductive choice" or "reproductive freedom," and not "abortion."

Like Saletan, I want to ensure that any sexually active adult has access to the full range of options that he describes.

In his last paragraph he mentions, in passing, our nation's major obstruction to such progress: the anti-choice movement. It opposes everything he sensibly advocates. It opposes accurate sex education; access to birth control for adult women; advocates that pharmacists practice medicine, just to deny valid prescriptions; even [opposes] vaccinations against cervical cancer!

Although it remains perfectly silent when right-wing men take sexual liberties with women, the anti-choice movement strenuously opposes every last bit of sexual freedom for women, any and all forms of contraception included.

If we wish to follow Saletan's excellent advice, we must first ensure that the anti-choice movement has absolutely no say whatsoever in our politics. We must make it as irrelevant as a pro-slavery movement would be today, and for exactly the same reason: It opposes basic human dignities, rights and freedoms.

— D. Patrick McArdle, Seattle

Embrace humanity

Stamp out brotherhood

Leonard Pitts Jr. thinks George Bush is finally displaying his self-proclaimed "compassionate conservativism" ["Look who's no longer conserving his compassion," syndicated column, April 20].

In discussing the imbroglio over illegal immigration, he agrees with Bush's remark that "... we're talking about human beings, decent human beings that need to be treated with respect." Well, duh?

Nonetheless, Pitts thinks Bush "has it right" and is "heartened, albeit mystified" by Bush's "earnest reminder."

Mystified? Pardon the cynicism, but I'm not. The prospect of cheap labor is enough to elicit compassion in any conservative. We'll see how touchy-feely Mr. Bush and other conservatives are when migrant labor starts to unionize.

— Barry Brower, Everett

Future nostalgia

The way we weren't

From the monorail to tearing down the viaduct, The Times in recent years has consistently opposed efforts to loosen this region's dependence on the automobile. Now all Editorial Page Editor James Vesely can do in the face of high gasoline prices is shrug and say, "My only advice is to buy a gas lock" ["At the pump, the movie never ends," editorial column, April 30].

Perhaps Vesely should acquaint himself with the law of supply and demand. If American metropolitan areas like ours had embraced walkable communities instead of suburban sprawl, and transit instead of freeways, the United States wouldn't be "addicted to oil," in George W. Bush's words, demand wouldn't be so high and neither would prices.

By the way, if Vesely truly believes gas is "heavily taxed" here, he ought to take a vacation to Europe [where] gas costs $5.50 and more a gallon thanks to steep taxes that fund public transportation. Funny how they're not the ones facing a "gas crisis."

— Mitch Gitman, Seattle

Serial bites

Post-raising ban

Instead of creating a new stamp that would still be usable after a rate increase, or making you buy 2- or 3-cent stamps ["Postal service proposes an everlasting stamp," News, May 4], why not just allow your current stamps to be used until they're gone? The post office could simply stop selling the lower-priced stamps.

After all, the gas stations don't make you come in and pay extra for what is still in your tank, which you purchased at a lower price.

— Mike Rosen, Seattle