These 5 letters from the amnesty crowd on the benefits of illegal aliens to our country are worth reading.

Readers are welcome to share their comments, email:
mailto:editor@ilw.com  (300-words or fewer preferred).
Many letters to the Editor refer to past correspondence,
available in our archives.
http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/archives.shtm

(a) Dear Editor:
Responding to ID's comment (09/29/06), I'm afraid the point it
misses in quoting the Declaration of Independence is to ignore
the context under which that document was drafted. It further
fails to take into consideration whether or not illegal aliens
have legal standing to redress their disagreement with US
immigration law in the courts. ID's editorial appears to treat
the subject as though the entire world were just one huge body
politic, with all men being subject to and entitled to redress
their grievances throughout the world, anywhere they choose.
Such is just not the case.  I believe that it again misses the
point when, as it states, "David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi . . .
" (neither of which were lawyers or jurists, but rather
visionaries, philosophers and poets), " ... held that when there
is a conflict between natural law as perceived by an individual,
and civil law, the individual should not merely criticize that
law and make an effort to have it reformed, but he is obliged to
in fact actively disobey the unjust law." They were undoubtedly
talking about "individuals" who actually had legal standing to
criticize the laws of a country by virtue of being citizens of
the country whose laws they were advocating to change. The
Declaration of Independence was written when there was no
country. There was no democratic process at that time - no forum
in which to redress their grievances, and so they rebelled.  Such
is not the case today, and illegal aliens are certainly not on
the same footing with the American Patriots who drafted the
Declaration. I do not believe citizens of other countries meet
the criteria for standing that would allow them to redress the
types of grievances we are discussing in the immigration debate
in the courts, or otherwise.
David D. Murray, Esq. Newport Beach, CA

(b) Dear Editor:
It isn't often that I argue on the same side as the
restrictionists, but, I have to disagree with the opinion in the
09/29/06 ID comment that someone who enters the country illegally
can claim to be supported by any kind of law, natural or civil,
now matter how noble or urgent his or her motives may be. To say
that an illegal immigrant is upholding the spirit of the founding
fathers by crossing the border to join his family or to argue
that "natural" law overrides the right of a nation to protect its
borders or determine who may become a member of its society is
unreasonable and dangerous. To this extent only, I agree with
letters such as R.L. Ranger. As for civil disobedience to an
unjust law, while I admire Gandhi and Martin Luther King, their
example is hardly applicable to laws setting immigration quotas.
How many EB-3 immigrants, for example, should be admitted each
year according to "Natural Law"? There may be some laws, however,
that are so repugnant to any sense of justice or fairness that
civil disobedience might have to be considered. The provisions of
HR. 4437 which could make it a felony for anyone to give even
humanitarian advice or support to an illegal immigrant, or to
fail to report one's own illegal family member, might come into
this category. But in general, if we wish to have any kind of
civil society at all we cannot let every person be a law unto
himself. When we have bad laws, we should change them, not
disobey them. Here again, I have some very limited agreement with
the opinions in Mr. Ranger's letters. We both want to change the
immigration laws according to the standards and procedures of a
civil, democratic society. But in very different directions.
Roger Algase, Esq. New York, NY

(c) Dear Editor:
Please see the 11th Circuit September 27, 2006 decision in the
Williams v Mohawk Carpet RICO case (see above in news), on remand
from the Supreme Court.  The decision reinstates the US workers
federal and state RICO claims.  The decision reemphasizes that an
allegation that the employment of illegal aliens depressed the
wages and working conditions of US workers is sufficient to meet
the proximate cause element of the civil RICO statute, and that
corporations are persons subject to suit under Georgia state
RICO.
Michael M. Hethmon, Esq., General Counsel for Immigration Reform
Law Institute (IRLI)

(d) Dear Editor:
By beginning ID's specious 09/29/06 Comment with the deliberate
falsehood that restrictionists are "anti-immigration", the
twisted logic progresses to the preposterous conclusion that
enforcement advocates are "anti-American" and Hobbesian.  Rather,
the opposite is true and when the Declaration of Independence
states, "...it is their duty... to provide new guards for their
future security...", the "natural law" that would follow is the
absolute right to select, limit and control entry. This would not
include the "right" of any of the hundreds of relatives of the
millions of illegals to decide to ignore our laws in coming here
or to be resolved of sanctions, or their employers.  Such a
position is irresponsible, insulting to law as well as logic and
is truly anti-American.  The illegal can reunite his own family
by leaving or our laws can assist that by the existing, legal
remedy of deportation.  Why should we bear the guilt of a
separation which the illegal chose?  The Roger Algase letter
(9/28/06 ID) thinks that the aberration that is NYC, or that CA
and TX are becoming, should be the norm.  This and ID's comment
are simply masks for an arrogant attitude by greedy businesses,
some foreigners and other advocates that places their improper
demands above US citizen concerns and laws of our society.  To
wrap such refuse in the noble efforts of our founding fathers and
to label it "patriotic" is beyond incredible. In my previous
analogy of the lighthouse to the enforcement position, both of
these positions would attempt to remove or rationalize away, it's
immutable authority.  In the latest outstanding article by Frosty
Wooldridge at the NewsWithViews website, the relevant question is
asked, "...can anyone name a single advantage to adding 100
million people to America in 34 years?"  SB 2611 would do this.
HB 4437 and other enforcement and controls would limit entry to
reasonable levels.
R. L.  Ranger

(e) Dear Editor:
The border security issue being an extension of the war on
terrorism debate provides fresh meat for both parties this
election year to try out their national security ideologies on an
issue not yet spoiled for voters by years of divisiveness.  It is
this politicizing of such a momentous issue which leads to the
sad conclusion that the immigration debate has been hijacked
wholesale by the rhetoric of fear employed to dumb down the
national dialogue and render we citizens ripe for the political
juicing of our would be representatives. To reduce the
immigration debate to the level of national security alone, while
one relevant aspect of it, is to ignore the much weightier
consequences such legislation would conjure.  Undoubtedly, the
decision we make regarding our stance on immigration will
determine how we proceed forth into the future as a nation.
Perhaps the most crucial yet least represented point in the
immigration debate is that our conception of the division of
labor is transcending our archaic nationalistic paradigm.
Outsourcing continues to send more blue-collar labor overseas,
leaving Americans to educate themselves or join the ranks of the
unemployed.  American's resistance to this cuts to the heart of
the anti-immigration sentiment, because the only aspect of the
labor market immigration has any effect on is unskilled labor.
Globalization is a reality that we must face, and no amount of
legislation will stop the transformation of our national economy
into a global division of labor. We need to look to the world
that we will inevitably inherit, and choose to face it with a
sound, comprehensive policy which meets reality head on, rather
than turning our backs to the future in favor of the instant
gratification of political rhetoric.
Jordan R. Silk

(f) Dear Editor:
Mr. Ranger's letter (9/22/06 ID) recently remarked, "The current
spinach scare is likely a result of unsanitary and unscreened
illegal workers and may only be a harbinger of things to come."
This type of remark, while obviously baseless, also does those in
the restrictionist camp a disservice by making them appear to be
xenophobic.  Surely this unfounded claim would not resonate with
the vast majority of restrictionists, though it sounds to me like
the type of claim a Nazi might have levied against a Jew or
homosexual in Nazi Germany.  Are foreign-born individuals less
sanitary than Americans or is this a glaring example of the
racism that those favoring tolerant immigration policies
attribute to a minority of restrictionists?  If anything is
unsanitary with respect to non-citizen agricultural workers and
those working in slaughterhouses, it is likely the work
conditions created by their employers under which non-citizens
labor.
Michael J. Eatroff
_________________________________________________________________

tags: technorati