Letters and Op-Eds

Jim Elvin
Statesman Journal

Are we on a path to destruction?

We have numerous politicians, in both parties, who continuously vote for what they know is wrong for our country, but continue to do so because of their party pressure.

The illegal alien problems are a prime example of this. Both parties are failing our country here and the majority of the citizens are becoming very irritated by their lack of action.

Donald Trump has excited our country with promises of some real action concerning the illegal alien nightmare. He makes us think there might be some hope.

The burden and expenses brought to our taxpaying citizens are continuing to grow. Those include failure to obey our laws as illegal immigrants cross our borders and ignore most of our other laws. The refusal to learn the English language is costing us billions.

How many illegal aliens do you think pay any taxes?

Years ago we were concerned about overpopulation. We must forget that problem now because the illegal aliens are exploding our population.

Some illegal supporters claim that we need the cheap labor. Are these supporters the same people who want to raise the minimum wage?

Do you care?



The independent student newspaper at the University of Illinois since 1871


Letter to the Editor: Cartoon apology unnecessary

By Chuck Prochaska | [October 30, 2015] 1 hour ago

A decade later history repeats itself. This is because the Daily Illini still hasn't learned. I am so disappointed that your paper has chosen to apologize for the "illegal immigrant" cartoon and has gone so far as to suspend the editor that chose to run it.

In your apology, you write that the cartoon does not represent your "ideals as an organization, company or the individuals who work for ‘The Daily Illini." No kidding! That's called sarcasm, and the cartoon you ran is what's called "satire." It's not supposed to represent your ideals. In fact, it accomplishes the opposite, and effectively criticized those who would think that dressing as an "illegal immigrant" would be an appropriate or funny Halloween costume.

But this message was lost upon you, Illini Media, and those whose knee-jerk reaction is to condemn, rather than think about and understand the political message in the cartoon.

In 2006, when I was the Opinions Editor at the Daily Illini, the Editor in Chief and I chose to run satirical cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, but only because the cartoons had ignited a firestorm of riots overseas. We did so alongside a letter from the editor explaining that, despite the cartoons’ offensive nature, we felt that our readership deserved to see the root of the international news and was mature enough to handle it.

Like your editor today, we too were suspended and chastised by leadership at Illini Media. However, we were roundly applauded by journalists and free speech advocates outside the politically correct Champaign-Urbana bubble. It is a decision that I do not regret and would repeat again today.

What your paper has done in this most recent act of backtracking and second-guessing is worse than the fate suffered by myself and the editor nearly 10 years ago. You have rejected pure satire under pressure from academics who neither understand the nature of the political commentary nor respect the institution of a student newspaper.

It's a shame to see that the lessons learned by all a decade ago could not have been applied in the aftermath of the publication of the "immigrant" cartoon. A student newspaper is absolutely the forum to publish satire, test boundaries, and invite intellectual diversity — both liberal and conservative.

To paraphrase Justice Brandeis, the remedy for bad speech is not enforced silence, it is more speech. Publish letters to the editor. Give your detractors the forum they deserve. Just do not apologize for your actions, and do not punish your brave and witty colleague.

We've been down this road before, and the University of Illinois deserves better.

Chuck Prochaska is a 2007 University graduate.



Letters to the Editor

Tester voted against making US safer

ONLINE-ONLY letter to the editor | [October 30, 2015] 1 hr ago

Montana's only Democrat Senator Jon Tester voted against a Senate bill this week that would have withheld funds from so-called "sanctuary cities," cities that do not follow U.S. law regarding the turning over of illegal aliens to federal immigration enforcement agencies. Many of these illegals have been deported numerous times and have committed serious felonies, including murder, rape, drug trafficking and child molestation.

One such felon murdered Kate Steinle in the city of San Francisco last April. The illegal alien perpetrator had several felony arrests and had been deported five times. San Francisco refused to surrender him to federal immigration authorities and turned him loose on the streets. Thus an innocent American citizen was murdered. The bill also had provisions that illegal immigrant felons serve time in federal prisons for the serious crimes they committed on U.S.soil, "Kates Law," named after the murdered San Francisco citizen Kate Steinle.

Serious crimes against American citizens by illegal aliens with felony offences happens all too often in "sanctuary cities," and could be prevented if the cities would follow U.S. immigration laws. All law-abiding Montanans should call Tester at 202-224-2644 or e-mail him at senator@tester.senate.gov, and ask him why he voted against making our major U.S. cities safer from dangerous felons.

Gerry Christensen,




Opinion .> Letters to the Editor  

Politicians need to work for good of party

Posted: Thursday, October 29, 2015 5:10 pm

Partisan politics once again became a disgrace and a blow to the security of the American people. The bill not brought to a vote was regarding sanctuary cities and enacting enforcement of repeat offenders by violent felons of re-entry into this country after being deported. It was Democrats who effectively blocked this bill from being presented for a vote. They did this believing the passage might hurt their chances of keeping the Hispanic vote. Hispanics that I know and some that I am related to do not favor giving illegal aliens sanctuary. They were either born here or went through the long, expensive process to legally enter and stay in this country. Yes, most Hispanics and other minorities vote Democrat, but those who work hard and don’t have their hands out for welfare don’t necessarily vote Democrat. All of the U. S. will continue being victimized by illegal aliens, who shouldn’t be here, only because of politics. It’s time that our politicians worked together for the good of the country instead of their political party. Personally, it is my opinion that those who vote against security should be tried for treason and barred from any future involvement in politics. I realize that my wishes will never come to fruition, but it is something that all voters should consider in the voting booth.

Ken Sipes, Yuma


Sun Journal

Letter: One monetary immigration solution

For some politically correct or illogical compassionate reasoning, many Americans support the Constitutionally defiant permanent immigration of illegal aliens onto our soil.

By Chip Fadeley, New Bern

Posted Oct. 28, 2015 at 5:40 PM
Updated Oct 28, 2015 at 5:41 PM

For some politically correct or illogical compassionate reasoning, many Americans support the Constitutionally defiant permanent immigration of illegal aliens onto our soil. Somehow, these undocumented people are tallied at only eleven million. Maybe this soothes the pocketbooks of our taxpaying citizenry more so than if we were dearly paying for three times as many illegal aliens. If you don’t believe that our taxpayers are purposefully being taken advantage of, then you are as daft as those citizens who present an argument by questioning “Weren’t your ancestors immigrants to America?” - Yes, they were Lawful Immigrants to America. To further defend and prove their point they then question “When did your ancestors arrive to the New World”? If you answer that they came over on the Mayflower, you, in this day and age, are now criticized for your ancestor’s stealing or cheating Native American Indians by planting and building upon their land. Maybe these criticizers now reside on land which was properly deeded to a British Officer beforeThe American Revolution; and his ancestor’s alive today can lay legal claim to their property. You can’t change stupid. If you are so passionate about paying for all of these illegal aliens, then why don’t you legally adopt a family, and then you can feel good about yourself and place them on your health care plan, and feed and shelter them, and pay for their education. That action would prove your loyalty to the cause; and in-turn alleviate the lengthy undue burden currently subjected to all of us taxpaying citizens.


People’s Press

READERS WRITE: Transforming America

Posted: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:30 am

To the editor,

Well, the Democrats and liberals have done it again and shown their true colors. It is no surprise they voted to keep sanctuary cities to make sure all illegal aliens are safe from the law and able to keep all their rights.

And let’s not forget the tears they shed, along with the most dishonest, unlawful so-called president this country has ever had, when this administration has released from prison thousands of felons, lots of them illegal aliens.

This is the same administration that wants to disarm all law-abiding gun owners so as to make the streets safer for all armed criminals.

And don’t forget the illegals that get deported and keep coming back.

There is a reason for the open borders policy of this administration and that is to transform America from the Land of the Free to the Land of the Freeloaders.

To get the country back to resemble the America it used to be, we must honor honesty, integrity, love of God, family, country and respect for the flag and the troops who fought and died for us.

Larry Taggart



NJ.com True Jersey

Dear Sen. Menendez: You broke your oath | Letter

By Letters To The Editor | The Jersey Journal The Star-Ledger
on October 28, 2015 at 10:30 AM, updated October 28, 2015 at 10:33 AM

Dear Senator Menendez,

On Tuesday, Oct. 20, you voted in the Senate to block S.2146, the bill that would crack down on sanctuary cities. The bill, called the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, needed to overcome a 60-vote threshold. It would withhold certain federal funding from states or cities that refuse to comply with requests from federal immigration officials to turn over immigrants who are in the country illegally.

Sanctuary cities and the associated violent crimes by illegal immigrants are reaching a critical point, and we cannot wait any longer to take action to protect Americans here at home. Your vote in fact supports and allows for illegal immigrant with multiple felonies and deportations to commit violent crime on innocent Americans. In fact, your vote puts more and more Americans in danger - you are not protecting the public--but endangering us by allowing sanctuary cities to break the law.

In essence, Mr. Senator, you have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and may I remind you of the exact wording of that oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Mr. Senator, you have broken that oath by not "defending" the United States against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Please read the rest of your oath, and please reconsider if you should really "serve" your constituents who are in danger under your "service" - because you have broken your solemn oath.





Letters: Don't silence differences of viewpoint

Oct. 28, 2015 | Updated 12:00 a.m.


Let’s see if I have this right: 650 students out of a student population of over 30,000 sign a petition asking to exclude the Border Patrol/Immigration Service from participating in the UC Irvine job fair, stating that it is an affront to undocumented (illegal) students on campus. So the agency caves in and will not recruit on campus.

I find it incredible that 650 students can deny the rights of the remaining 29,000-plus students to be able to ask a federal agency recruiter about job opportunities. Just another case of the tail wagging the dog in this country. I guess these 650 students feel it’s OK to infringe upon the rights of others (the majority) so long as their minority gets its way.

Bernie Esposito

Lake Forest


Deseret News

Letter: Needed law

By Steve Case
For the Deseret News
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 28 2015 12:00 a.m. MDT

Robert Neale’s recent letter (“‘Kate’s Law,’” Oct. 12) is misleading. He says the law will “punish illegal immigrants who come into America after being deported,” but he leaves out the important phrase, “who have an aggressive felony conviction.” As Bill O’Reilly points out, several hundred people have been killed in the U.S. by such illegal immigrants, mostly over illegal drugs. It is mainly the sanctuary cities that are responsible for these deaths because they refuse to hold the illegal felons for the feds. Surely this law is much needed and will save lives.

Steve Case

West Jordan



Letters to the editor:

Published: October 28, 2015

Immigration distinction

On Oct. 20, the Senate took up a bill to end federal funding to cities that do not comply with federal law in regard to criminal illegal immigrants and “sanctuary cities.” The Senate Democrats cut off debate and the bill went nowhere. Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez attacked the bill in a typical liberal fashion by accusing the Republicans in a hateful and slanderous speech of being anti-immigrant.

Using the term anti-immigrant is very common among Democrats when the issue Republicans are concerned only about is illegal immigration. So are the Democrats incapable of understanding the difference between legal and illegal immigration or do they not care about the difference?

Carlos Hernandez





October 27, 2015

Illegal aliens

A federal case moving to trial in Texas could provide a means to stop the practice of extending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

Donald Trump recently called for legislation to end that unpopular practice, which polls show Americans oppose by more than two to one, and even Jeb Bush admitted that it’s legitimate to call those children “anchor babies.”

The Pew Research Center estimated that 340,000 children are born annually to citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries. This does not include those born to birth tourists primarily from Asian countries. These babies enable the parents to access a variety of programs intended for U.S. citizens that you and I struggle to pay for with our work and taxes.

The Texas case is still in its pretrial stage, but an explosive document filed there by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the debate that Trump touched off. The legal brief includes a sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general that openly admits Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system. The advantage of birthright is immense: free birth costs, food stamps and temporary assistance money.

Rep. Steve King has stepped up to this challenge and already has 27 co-sponsors for his bill (HR140) to define citizenship.

Betty Homyer, Granite City



Letters to the Editor:

Letters to the Editor 6:54 p.m. EDT October 27, 2015

No rights for illegal immigrants

President Obama said that the reason he is protecting millions of illegal immigrants by executive order is because of compassion. This decision is incorrect. The president is required to implement laws passed by Congress and nothing more. The Supreme Court justices are the only ones who can give intent and meaning to the words of laws. They will make the final decision on this matter.

Illegal immigrants believe they possess the same rights as U.S. citizens, because they have lived here for years. They are not citizens and have no rights under the Constitution. They claim we must accept them because of the suffering endured by the separation of families. All immigration involves separation of families. The U.S. is a sovereign nation and all who come here must obey our laws.

At one time in our history, all immigrants were welcome. Eventually, Congress established a quota system to ensure equal participation from around the world. Is it fair to allow Hispanics – living closer to us – to enter and remain while others are waiting patiently to immigrate legally? Favoring one group over another removes equality from the system.

Caroline Kalafut




LETTER: Why are we rewarding illegal immigrants?

11:55 a.m. EDT October 27, 2015

The Oct. 19 article “Ground zero for hot topic” about Latino immigrants in Freehold Borough raises many questions. The first question is if Hispanics are here illegally, shouldn’t they be apprehended and deported? Isn’t sending their children to American schools theft of services?

Why should Americans be made to pay for the education of the children of foreigners residing here illegally? Why also should those children be taught in a foreign language? Isn't it interesting that anyone should think criminal behavior should be rewarded by spending the tax money of American citizens who are struggling to make it here in this state?

Lastly, why would this type of article be written at the same time our tax base is disintegrating as businesses and individual taxpayers flee the state in droves to escape the insane taxation?

Tom Dilberger




Tri-Valley letters:

Valley Journal/Times-Herald

Posted: 10/27/2015 02:04:28 PM PDT | Updated:  72 min. ago

Deportations distressingly far too low

As Republicans rejected Barack Hussein Obama's Comprehensive Reform Immigration Bill, he has taken the "I'll show you" attitude by deporting fewer illegal aliens.

Supposedly "11 million illegal aliens," as has been stated for years, are here: Let's be realistic and honest by increasing that number to at least 20 million. This figure includes those children who are old enough to shave and crossed our border this summer. Our prisons are overcrowded by hundreds of illegal aliens who came here only to work but now occupy cells. The mere fact they are here illegally is proof positive they came here to "work the system" and should be returned to whence they came.

Our inept president has deported only 2.4 million, as stated, while sitting in the highest office of our land, and that number is diminishing rapidly. Here may I add that I do not respect that person. He is nothing but an inept substitute of what a president should be, disgracing the coveted office of the president by making it a mockery. Our prisons are overcrowded due to illegal alien criminals who entered our country without an invitation. There should be no need for taxpayers funding the building of additional prisons. The mere fact they are here and broke our law is proof they came for an alternative motive than working.

Obama's open-door policy is evidenced by allowing millions here for humanitarian purposes and with terrorists at our doorstep, he has laid out the welcome mat to hundreds of thousands from the war-torn countries without their being fully scrutinized. Citizens of this great country, we are fast experiencing the beginnings of a Third World country. Better wake up and get your heads out of the sand. In closing, I would like to add, "Press 1 for Spanish, 2 for Chinese and 3 for English." What country do I live in?

LaVerne Walters

San Ramon


Massillon, OH

Letter to the Editor: Illegal aliens are invaders who should be kept out of America

Posted Oct. 27, 2015 at 10:00 AM

I would like to ask our government and some of you Democrats something: Where did you come up with the term illegal aliens?

These people aren’t illegal aliens, they are invaders! They’re coming across our borders as invaders, with no identification, no Social Security numbers or green cards — trespassers!

Any other country would call them invaders. Here, they want amnesty and our benefits. We have people coming from all over the world and we open our arms to them. What a gift!

They come and receive all of our benefits because of our government. Their coming here hurts us, taking our jobs, our culture, our laws and our country — Mexicans, Muslims, Isis, and others.

I agree with Mr. Trump. Build a secure wall with proper defense to keep them out. They don’t belong here. And we should send all the invaders back to where they came from. Including the ones we keep in jail.

Why should we give them all benefits when people in America are starving? We would be saving hundreds of millions of dollars.

Are you listening government? That goes for you Democrats and Republicans. Oh, don’t leave Obama out!



News-Press NOW

Your letters Oct. 27, 2015

Posted: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:45 pm

Illegal immigration dishonors ancestors

As I sat and listened to Obama offering legal status to 5 million illegal immigrants, I wanted to puke. Why?

I was told about how my father, at the age of 15, arrived at Ellis Island in the U.S. All he had was a few dollars in his pocket. He was alone with hundreds of others from the boat.

They were not greeted with food stamps, housing, English lessons, or assistance or help — they were on their own.

If  they did not have a sponsor, a job, someplace to stay, and weren't able to pass a physical exam, they were put on the next boat back to the old country.

Once they cleared Ellis Island, they did not demand anything, they worked for what they needed — no handouts from the government. They learned English on their own (it was the language of their "new"country) and learned how to assimilate.

My father was the man of the house in Sicily since his father died when he was 10. No school, just work to help feed the family.

Arriving in America, I recall stories of him shining shoes, working at the packing plants or whatever he could find. Handouts were not taken, nor considered.

They came to this country to make it, and to become American citizens.

I see what our government has done to dishonor those millions who came to this country legally; not following the rules is a dishonor to their memory.

Who are the true Americans? Those who cross the border illegally? Or those who went through the government-mandated process at Ellis Island and didn't accept free stuff?

Ben Pecora
St. Joseph



LETTER: Americans want immigration laws enforced

1:07 p.m. EDT October 26, 2015

In response to the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a convicted felon who was in this country illegally, Senate Republicans introduced a bill entitled "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act" (S2146) that would have blocked certain federal funding to local law enforcement agencies that did not cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security in turning over undocumented immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Under President Barack Obama's Priority Enforcement Program, illegal immigrants identified as having committed serious crimes or whom ICE considers a national security threat are to be detained by local authorities and turned over to ICE for deportation. The operative words are illegals who have committed serious crimes or whom ICE considers a national security threat.”

Senate Democrats blocked the bill and in defending his vote against the bill, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., said, "We are witnessing the most overtly nativist and xenophobic campaign in modern U.S. history." His statement is not only absurd, it is untrue. The vast majority of Americans don't oppose immigration, they oppose illegal immigration.

This bill had nothing to do with nativism or xenophobia. It had everything to do with imposing consequences on local authorities for refusing to comply with existing law, and in the process, endangering the welfare of citizens.

There is something radically wrong when elected officials who make the laws refuse to enforce them. In voting against this bill and supporting sanctuary cities, you have to question whose interests New Jersey Sens. Menendez and Cory Booker represent.

Ralph Cicirelli
Asbury Park


THE Advocate

Letters: Democrats have the wrong idea of the "Know Nothing" Party when they twist the words of people with different ideas

Advocate story

Oct. 25, 2015; 6:15 p.m.

Cokie and Steve Roberts's "Return of a party that knows nothing" implies that present-day Republicans are the reincarnation of yesterday's "Know Nothing" Party, an anti-immigrant group for the 1850s.

The Democrats have a sinister ability to twist (spin) the words of those with whom they disagree, so as to completely change whatever narrative is being discussed. About 15 years ago, many Americans were becoming increasingly concerned with the growing amount of illegal aliens. But, soon aliens became immigrants, and then illegal was dropped so that the narrative became that Republicans were against immigrants. The Roberts' state that today the "haters" are against Arab Muslims and Latinos from Mexico.

They then attack Dr. Ben Carson for his remark that he would not agree with electing a Muslim president. They went on to quote a segment of the Constitution which states that no religious test shall ever be required as qualifications to any office or public trust under the United States.” But they did not expound on Carson's explanation that his concern would be that a Muslim might make his religious tenants, such as Sharia Law, take precedent over the Constitution and/or American values in general. Carson further stated that he would not want to elect anyone who could not subordinate his or her religious beliefs to the Constitution of the United States, and our mores and practices.

It is not hate to want to preserve the values, practices and traditions of one's homeland, especially when those elements have helped to create the greatest country in the world. For some reason, the Democratic party and their enablers in the press seem to constantly want to find things wrong with America and denigrate the country. But if our society is so terrible and our country so wrong, why are millions of people constantly trying to come here?

And now there are reports of attempts to silence global warming dissenters, and non-PC speech on university campuses. If true, this is very dangerous to the free exchange of ideas, which are a necessity in a democratic republic.

Ronald Usner, B.A. M.A. retired mortgage lender/nonprofit manager



Letter: Heitkamp wrong on sanctuary cities "no" vote

By Ryan Moran Today [10-25-2015] at 10:56 a.m.

The United States Senate put forth a bill that was called the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. This bill would withhold certain federal funding from states or cities that refuse to comply with requests from federal immigration officials to turn over people who are in the country illegally.

This legislation was finally put forth after the murder of Kate Steinle, who was gunned down while she was walking with her father by an illegal immigrant who was in San Francisco because he said that he knew they were a sanctuary city and he would not be deported. He has a lengthy arrest record, yet the sheriff refused to hold him for federal officials so he got out and committed the murder of an innocent citizen.

It is ludicrous that we have sanctuary cities and it is preposterous that we have legislators who refuse to crack down on them. Well, the bill failed to pass because Democrats failed to support it. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., voted "no" on the bill. At the next election cycle, I hope that all residents of North Dakota remember how instead of protecting U.S. sovereignty, ensuring good enforcement of our immigration laws and policies, that Sen. Heitkamp chose to be as partisan as she possibly could and vote with Harry Reid and for the wishes of the president rather than what would help to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens.

According to the dailysignal.com, a government report commissioned for Congress by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that sanctuary cities released more than 9,000 illegal immigrants whom federal authorities were seeking to deport between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2014. As of last year, 69 percent of those were still at large in the United States.Of those still at large, 1,377 had another criminal arrest that resulted in the detainer. Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.”

Let's all thank Sen. Heitkamp by letting her office know how we are disgusted by not supporting this bill, by allowing illegal immigrants with criminal records to go free, and to degrade the safety of the citizens of the United States. As well as by voting "no" in the next election cycle.


CASPER Star Tribune

Bailey: Money should be spent on Wyoming citizens

[October 24, 2015] Updated 15 hrs ago


The first thing that should be done is to immediately defund the programs and infrastructure which work to provide benefits and services to illegal aliens in Wyoming.

According to the latest stats, Gov. Matt Mead's administration pays out nearly $60 million each year to provide benefits and services to illegal aliens living in Wyoming.

This means that just under a third of the needed cuts would be met, by just defending these programs.

All tax and royalty money collected should go only to Wyoming citizens not illegal aliens.

J.R. BAILEY, Midwest


Sun Journal

Democrats don't care about citizen safety

Richard Grover

Letters | Saturday, October 24, 2015

"Sanctuary cities protect dangerous illegal alien criminals" was the title of an article in the September 2015 Judicial Watch Verdict.

The nonprofit, non-partisan Judicial Watch, through a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, obtained the following statistics from the Obama Administration's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office:

During 2013, the Obama Immigration and Customs and Enforcement Office outright released 36,007 criminal aliens who had been convicted of the following crimes: 193 homicide convictions; 426 sexual assault convictions; 303 kidnapping convictions; 1,075 aggravated assault convictions; and 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions, as well as numerous other felonies.

Many of these felons seek asylum in any of a number of sanctuary cities in the U.S., where they are immune from prosecution by federal or state authorities.

It seems that the Obama Administration and many Democrats are more interested in coddling prospective Democrat voters than they are about the safety of American citizens from criminals.

Richard Grover, Mason Township


The Daily News Online Ë– Serving The Lower Columbia

Opinion / Letters to the Editor


[October 23, 2015] 9 hours ago

Finding sanctuary

On Monday, Senate Democrats blocked a bill that would defund the left's lil' pet in the so-called "Sanctuary City" which of course is a covert way of building up a mass voting block 20, 30, or 50 years down the road.

The theory is that the left will manipulate the ignorant, the uninformed, the unaware and the illegal into thinking that the right, as well as white Americans, are only after them for their color of skin, place of origin and/or xenophobia, rather than the laws that they have violated.

Kate Steinle was shot to death in San Francisco, which is a big time "sanctuary city" by a man who was (1) an illegal alien, (2) who had seven felony convictions, (3) who had been deported five times, and (4) a man who sneaked back across Obama's impossible border (hold laughter) six times only to get high once again and commit murder.

The message from the left to every single illegal alien down the road is vote for us and we'll protect you with birthright citizenship that was never meant for you, "Sanctuary Cities" that violate our oath of office and American law, an open border agenda, and a cradle-to-grave socialist payout if either Clinton or Sanders is elected.

Let's not even mention the time, money, resources, and jobs that illegal aliens take from law abiding Americans…

The left has taken our Constitution, our laws, and our trust and flushed them down the toilet. The only thing left protecting our country is our money and our guns, and gee whiz wouldn't you know it, those are next!

M.R. Thompson


TribLIVE | Opinion/The Review

Support Kate's Law

Letter to the Editor
Friday, Oct. 23, 2015, 7:18 a.m.
Updated 4 hours ago

We always have elected officials talking about gun control. What do we use to guard our home? Citizens need guns to ward off home invaders. If these criminals have guns, we, as citizens, need them to protect our homes and family.

It is hard to stop a criminal from shooting someone. But, when they do, we should praise the sentence to put them in jail when caught. When a criminal invades someone's home and is caught, the law has to raise their penalty for jail time to think about what they did.

We are now trying to have illegal aliens who commit felons against persons serve a five-year prison sentence after first offense and an additional five years for every time they are caught again. The new law being enacted is called Kate's Law. All elected officials have to speak out and have this law enacted. We, the people, have to know which elected officials do not believe we need this law, and not vote for them. This is for the good citizens in the United States. We need life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

God bless America.

Hugh Scurfield


The Press-Enterprise


LETTERS: Gov. Brown disappoints Californians


Published: Oct. 21, 2015 Updated: 10:53 p.m.

Re: "DMV to register voters"  [News, Oct. 11]: Gov. Jerry Brown is an enigma. First, he signs a bill allowing illegal aliens to get driver's licenses. Now he signs a bill that automatically registers people to vote when they obtain a driver's license, which could lead to voter fraud.

This state is run by idiots.

No illegal alien should be given a driver's license. No illegal alien should be allowed to vote.

Giving a driver's license to an illegal alien will not make the roads safer. They will never pay for insurance, and if they do they will cancel it as soon as they have their license.

When I was hit by an illegal alien, he gave me a false identification, a false address and a false insurance number. He just drove off, and I paid the bill.

If California cannot identify illegal aliens with driver's licenses and deliver that information to our voter qualification authorities, California should be sued for incompetency and fraud, and the governor should be impeached for not upholding our laws.

American citizens are allowed to vote, not illegal aliens.

I urge all readers to demand that the California secretary of state make sure that no illegal aliens are entered on the voter rolls.

H. G. Chaffin



Letter To The Editor

The following article was posted on October 21st, 2015, in the Santa Maria Sun - Volume 16, Issue 33

They have no rights


Your article entitled “Life on Alert,” Oct. 15, 2015, depicts the plight of an illegal alien Mexican woman in a biased, anti-American sympathetic way. Your Sun paper aids and abets her illegal status. She should be wary of being deported. She is here illegally—without papers as iis her companion. Just what does the Sun not understand about ILLEGAL?

As an alien she has no rights. If the situation was reversed and she was illegal in Mexico she would be deported, or worse, thrown into their miserable jails. You media types do not believe in our American laws, only if they suit you like the president does. Your use of "undocumented immigrants" just illustrates your "double think" about the issues.

The reason she is here is because Mexico is such a degenerate and failed country. They are at war with the U.S. because they will not control their border and do nothing to stop illegal aliens from escaping their miserable environment. In doing so they violate our sovereignty, and act of war.

You make the U.S. look like the bad guys when the problem is Mexico, where stupidity and incompetence reigns as it has since the Spanish left in 1821.

And yes, most of the illegals do a decent job and want a good life, and the American immigration laws are not clear, but we are much more tolerant of people's plight than you would see in Mexico. Most illegals do have a chance of a better life in the U.S.

I wish them well. My folks were legal immigrants from Poland in 1858.

The people that prey on the poor Mexican workers are also illegal aliens, not American citizens.

The problems are there, but the direction of your views is wrong.

ICE has every right to look into these illegals every day because they are illegal.

We Americans cannot make up for the failed governments all over the world that cause such pain for so many persons like your example.



Letter To The Editor

The following article was posted on October 21st, 2015, in the Santa Maria Sun - Volume 16, Issue 33

Immigrants have an adverse impact


Shelly, that's a pretty one-sided, sad, sad, story ("Life on Alert" Oct. 15, 2015). The poor, poor illegals, oh, excuse me, undocumented aliens.

Before I start, I'll tell you, my mother is an immigrant (Japanese), my wife is an immigrant (Surinamese/Dutch). I don't hate anyone. Before the racist card gets thrown.

But why not present the whole story, instead of sugar coating it? I get it, they are from a horrible place, no jobs, corrupt government, drug cartels, danger. And somewhere along the line, it is all our (the U.S.) fault. But why not tell the truth about what is happening here?

According to Wikipedia, approximately 3 to 4 percent of illegal aliens work in ag. That kind of blows the line about "they do the work Americans won't: regarding picking vegetables and fruits. Do you know many people in the construction trades? I know a lot. And every one of them has had their wages reduced, from $25 to $30/hour in the 90's, to $15 an hour, sometimes less, because an illegal alien will do it, without workers comp, without health insurance, without paying taxes. The industry has been decimated by illegal labor. You can blame the employers, but if the guys weren't here in abundance, they wouldn't hire them.

Besides construction, roofing, paving, tile work, and all the other trades, there are jobs like gardening (how many Japanese and other gardeners did there used to be around here—they are gone, replaced by illegal labor), dishwashing, cooking in restaurants, and many, many other, back-door jobs held by illegal aliens.

Do you have any kids, Shelly? Remember the jobs that teens and college students used to do to work their way through school—dishwasher, fast food, car wash, etc.? Those are all held by illegal aliens now. Where is a student supposed to get some work experience, a little extra money, when some 30-40-50-year-old illegal alien gets that job and stays there for many years? My kids had to leave this area to find work.

Stolen SSI numbers. False identities. Unlicensed, uninsured drivers. Uninsured people using the emergency room, where they will NEVER pay, while you or I have to take up the slack.

Many, many more examples, but you get the gist. It is absurd. It is NOT to help them in any way. It is to use them to make money. Both Republicans and Democrats want them here, because both make loads of money off of them. But the rest of us have to take up the slack and pay higher bills.




Letter: 14th Amendment spurs debate

Posted Oct. 20, 2015 at 2:01 AM

I wrote to Sen. Elizabeth Warren to request that she stop her irresponsible support of illegal aliens having their unwanted "anchor" children become citizens of the U.S. She wrote back to me as follows: "As you may know, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' The Birthright Citizenship Act seeks to effectively rewrite the 14th amendment by restricting birth citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or nationals and children of permanent residents.

"For more than a century, our courts have repeatedly confirmed that the American Citizenship Clause means exactly what it says — that children born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of the status of their parents. I oppose efforts to undermine this longstanding constitutional right."

I then wrote a rebuttal to her as follows: "I find it alarming that a United States senator has such an appalling lack of knowledge of factual American history. The 14th Amendment, although unlawfully passed by a radical-dominated Congress, was intended to protect the citizenship rights of freed slaves in both the North and the South. It was understood then and well into the 20th century that the provision of citizenship to children born within any territory controlled by the USA was contingent upon the status of the parents. Exceptions were granted on a case-by-case basis for non-citizens who had moved to the USA lawfully and were in the process of becoming lawfully naturalized citizens of the USA. Your remarks about how citizenship rights being given to anybody who is born within USA territory is completely wrong, and is an outright assault upon the sovereign safety of these United States of America! Why don't you read the comments of both the men who sponsored the 14th Amendment bill and those who argued against it shortly after The War Between the States was over circa 1865-1866. Shame on you!"

William H. Losch


The Ledger.com

Editorials & Letters


Letter: Illegal immigrants a serious risk

Published: Monday, October 19, 2015 at 12:01 a.m.

Upon being elected president, Barack Obama pledged to support and enforce all laws as currently written under our Constitution. He promised to enforce these laws whether he agreed with them or not.

This president has repeatedly demonstrated his refusal to obey his oath of office. He has changed the immigration policy by himself or by refusal to enforce laws already on the books or by using executive privilege and unlawfully changing the law.

Many times President Obama has prevented his Justice Department from carrying out the law with illegal immigrants. His administration has prevented Border Patrol from doing its job by apprehending these people and deporting them immediately.

Instead, he allows these people to stay in our country, even though some are apprehended many times. Many are convicted criminals, and some go on to commit serious crimes.

No country can maintain its sovereignty without securing its borders and managing the flow of people coming into the country. For the past six years, Obama has refused to close our borders and given no support to Border Patrol to prevent this intrusion.

It appears his primary reason is to secure their loyalty for the Democratic Party. What a shame that an American president considers politics or future votes more important than American lives.

These undocumented millions can be a serious risk to America. Moreover, they are costing taxpayers billions.

The people of the United States must come together using the only tool we have. We must vote our Congress out and choose a president who will abide by the law and protect our nation as he has sworn to upon taking his oath of office.

Charles W. Wood


Ian Smith
Tha Daily Caller

Considering the routing Democrats took in last year’s anti-amnesty elections, it’s no surprise conservatives around the country are pushing for Tennessee congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, to jump into the race for House speaker. Ms. Blackburn has been earning the praise of pro-restrictionist Americans for years and her voting record on immigration policy is flawless. If speaker, not only will she inspire working-class voters in despair over the GOP’s weakness on immigration, she’ll have firmly cemented what’s becoming a truism in America: that the staunchest and most effective immigration patriots in the country are women.

Surveying NumbersUSA’s report card on House members between 1989 and this year, over half of all female House reps are well above the average grade with most having top-notch marks. Why immigration softies are disproportionately male (especially among House leadership) perhaps isn’t a mystery. Women (and especially married women) seem to instinctively know and understand issues like national security and job security; two areas that have been dissolving for years due to our open-borders policies. Women are also probably more likely to be honest and principled, putting the good of the country ahead of what’s good for the donor class.

In the face of big farming interests in her state, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer pushed through a mandatory e-Verify bill that made so many illegal aliens return to Mexico, the neighboring state of Sonora sent a delegation to Tucson asking her to rescind it. The governor didn’t back down. She stood up again to Mexico when that country’s chronically corrupted leadership decided to meddle in the lawsuit Obama launched against her after she passed legislation aimed at reigning in mass immigration’s budget-crushing effects which had been burdening her state for decades.

For political commentators, the list of pro-enforcement women is very long. West Coast menace to the open-borders lobby, Michelle Malkin, wrote the first book linking mass immigration with the threat of terrorism in 2002. She’s been fighting for American sovereignty ever since. Her latest book, Sold Out, is about the abuse of “skilled” guest-worker visas and is co-authored by my colleague at the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), John Miano.

Her fellow East Coast compatriot, Ann Coulter, came out as a “ one-issue girl” at CPAC in 2013 and she hasn’t looked back since. In the face of that conference’s near total ban on speakers against open borders, she eviscerated conservative supporters of the now-defeated Gang of Eight bill.

A just as staunch (and blond) defender of immigration limits, Laura Ingraham, is so persuasive on the issue, on her radio show she recently got the DREAM Act-supporting, presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, to say she not only thinks illegal immigration is a problem, but that legal immigration should be cut down as well.

When the act that would birth our current mass immigration system, the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, was debated, one of the strongest voices outside the intellectually passive crowd of congressmen who bought Ted Kennedy’s promises that America’s ethnic balance would not be upset was a woman named Myra Hacker. Representing her restrictionist organization, the New Jersey Coalition of Patriotic Societies, Ms. Hacker testified before the Kennedy’s immigration subcommittee saying regardless of the bill’s benevolent intent toward the Third World, it “fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.” Another patriotic voice at that time, Phyllis Schlafly, has been beating that same drum for 50 years.

The disastrous effects of the ‘65 act were routinely lamented in subsequent presidential commissions, such as the Rockefeller Commission of 1972, the Hesburgh Commission of 1978 and the Jordan Commission of 1993. The latter commission was the most effective leading to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and it was all down to the commission’s leader, famed civil rights activist, Barbara Jordan.

Two leading ladies of the restrictionist movement will be convening in Washington, D.C. this month to protest the immigration status quo. Maria Espinoza, a partner with IRLI, has been advocating for years against illegal alien crime. Her organization, The Remembrance Project, will be in town bringing attention to the Vitter-Flake Senate bill that will cut off substantial amounts of federal aid to sanctuary cities. Meanwhile, Leah Durant, leader of both the Black American Leadership Alliance and the Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR), will be holding her annual conference for PFIR activists.

Other honourable mentions include Michelle Bachman, Carol Swain, Robin Hvidston, the late Barbara Coe, Cynthia Kendoll of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, Jo Wideman of California for Population Stabilization, and Ms. Ezola Foster who became Pat Buchanan’s running mate after she was fired from her job as a L.A. school teacher for complaining about illegal immigration.

Whoever’s man enough to match Congresswoman Blackburn’s pro-enforcement stance will no doubt be given a warm welcome by the voting public going forward. The GOP males in House, however, particularly among leadership, have a long way to go.

Ian Smith is an attorney with the Immigration Reform Law Institute(IRLI).

Paul Nachman
East Oregonian

In his Oct. 9 opinion piece “Let’s retire illegal alien,” criticizing that helpfully descriptive term, Antonio Sierra quoted Atlantic Monthly writer Garrett Epps regarding “one of the earliest uses” of such language, in a Stanford Law Review article. Good find.

But what Sierra omitted is that Epps had identified an even earlier appearance, writing “[T]he earliest use [of the term] I can find is in 1950, when a federal appeals court used it to describe a Polish-born Mexican citizen whom Immigration and Naturalization Service officers had arrested.”

Fancy that: A federal appeals court! Judges at that level generally are sticklers for precise language. So we shouldn’t be surprised that “illegal alien” appears in fundamental U.S. law. One example is Title 8, Section 1365 of the United States Code, entitled “Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals.” (The text of that section also employs the term.)

On the other hand, Sierra’s favored language, “undocumented immigrant,” is clearly intended to make it sound as if what’s at issue is a mere paperwork snafu of negligible importance, rather than the serious lawbreaking inherent in illegal immigration.

People who obscure what’s at stake by beating their drums for euphemisms like “undocumented immigrant” bring to mind George Orwell’s great essay, “Politics and the English Language.” A highlight: “Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Paul Nachman

Bozeman, Montana

Lyneil Vandermolen
East Oregonian

Staff writer Antonio Sierra exposed himself as an illegal immigration advocate who used intellectually dishonest rhetoric to manipulate Americans into accepting foreign lawlessness in our country. His rant against legal language, citizens and immigration law was meant to shame Americans into a paralysis of self-censorship, but he will fail if we understand the tactics he used.

To elevate illegal invasion to the status of normal immigration, Sierra first tried to commandeer our terminology by convoluting logic. By re-labeling illegal aliens as regular “immigrants,” and using the fact that regular immigrants become citizens, he argued that illegal aliens are also de facto future citizens. Sierra also tried to blur the distinction between legal and illegal entry by calling any reformist legislation “anti-immigrant.” Confused yet? He hopes so.

As with other illegal alien supporters, Sierra dismissed criticism of illegal immigration by stating “No human is illegal” — a slogan that appears at every illegal alien rally. No border enforcer ever claimed that humans were illegal, but that they were sneaking illegally into the U.S. File Sierra’s criticism under “Diversionary Tactics,” and if Sierra ever confronts a burglar in his house, I hope he remembers his own adage that because this human is legally alive, he couldn’t have broken any law.

Lawbreakers typically feel bad or embarrassed when they hear an accurate description of their behavior, but this shouldn’t stop citizens from calling it as it is. If we applied Sierra’s sanitized and manipulative language to other forms of subversion, then drug dealers would be “undocumented pharmacists” and human smugglers would be “irregular tour guides.” It’s bad enough that propagandists are called “journalists.”

Lyneil Vandermolen


Gordon Graham
East Oregonian

I could probably make a career out of trying to add some balance to the immigration views of the East Oregonian, but it’s probably not advisable since they purchase ink by the barrel. However, I have to say something about the Guest Column from Antonio Sierra on Saturday, October 10, 2015.

Antonio summarizes and supports the recent decision by the Associated Press to stop using the term “Illegal immigrant.” Mr. Sierra then extends that logic to the term “alien” or, more specifically, “illegal alien.” The proposed “acceptable” substitute term is “undocumented immigrant.” The AP style book change and every piece that has been written to support it are all attempts to blur the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, as if their presence here in relation to the U.S. immigration law shouldn’t matter at all.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “illegal” as “not according to authorized law” or “not sanctioned by official rules.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “illegal alien” as “an alien who enters a country at the wrong time or place, eludes an examination by officials, obtains entry by fraud, or enters into a sham marriage to evade immigration laws.” Doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination, does it?

By all means, if the term “alien” conjures up images of little green men or spaceships (or even Ray Walston for that matter) then let’s drop it from the definitions used to describe this population. Even though the current immigration statutes of the United States expressly define an “alien” as meaning “any person not a citizen or national of the United States” and there are hundreds of references to “alien” in the statutes, we might as well call them something entirely different simply because the “political correctness police” say that language may be inflammatory.

The point is that these are not terms that have “become increasingly antiquated” as Mr. Sierra contends. As a matter of fact, if we were going to follow the AP’s logic that “human beings can’t be deemed illegal, only the acts they commit” we would have to call that population “undocumented immigrants who are here illegally” in order to be fair to the rest of the population that is here legally. Rolls right off the tongue, doesn’t it? I’m sure the AP simply forgot to add that extension to the acceptable alternative description that they proposed for their style book.

Harper Reeves
The World

Tighten your wallets taxpayers, here comes two hundred thousand Muslim fanatics! How many will this really turn into, three hundred, four hundred thousand, half a million?

I just learned Obama, the worst president in American history and the biggest indebtor to the bankers, is bringing in 15,000 more Muslims from Somalia. What do you suppose that number will turn into? Do you really think that our Muslim president is going to have anyone counting heads?

We fought these nut jobs in Somalia, remember "Black Hawk Down," the book and movie? The only thing larger than the number of unwanted, un-needed, America-hating, third-worlders flooding America is the number of jobs flying out of America.

Have you noticed that the only requirement for mass immigration in to our country is that they be non-white and hateful towards whites and Christians? A word to the wise, get your guns and get your ammo, lots of it, you are being set up.

Sharon Ramirez's letter of Sept. 21 states that since 2000 there has been 33 cases of alleged voter fraud and one of an ineligible alien voting. Sharon, you have proved my point, can any thinking person believe that only one case of illegal alien voting has occurred in the last 15 years? This shows absolutely nothing is being done about this problem and nothing will be done until we have a Republican governor and a Republican controlled state government.

"You know comrades", says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is important is this — who will count the votes and how." Memoirs of Stalin's former secretary, pub. 1992.

Karen Heuberger
Statesman Journal

The Statesman Journal has neither corrected nor apologized for the Aug. 28 thumbs down it gave Donald Trump for the Jorge Ramos exchange.

Ramos didn’t ask a question at the Aug. 25 question-and-answer event. He leapt to his feet without being called on and began pontificating with the left’s favorite mantra: “You can’t deport 11 million people.” No question, just declarations from Ramos.

I think the entire exchange was a metaphor for illegal immigration: Ramos broke the rules (like illegals), cut the line/pushed to the head of the line while others waited to be called on and he jumped up and began shouting (expected special treatment). Trump had Ramos (the rule-breaker) removed.

Jerry Ritter
The Register Guard

Crowded classrooms. Traffic gridlock. Loss of farmland. Increasingly severe water shortages in the West.

Failing social networks. Bridges and roads in disrepair. Stagnant wages. Decreasing numbers of family-wage jobs.

That’s with the current U.S. population of approximately 321 million. The U.S. Census Bureau now projects that another 103 million immigrants will come to our country over the next 50 years.

That presumably includes the 100,000 Syrian refugees the Obama administration wants to relocate here, among whom will almost certainly be some Islamic State members and/or Islamic State sympathizers.

Will somebody in the “open our borders” crowd please explain to me how that’s going to be good for America?

Keith Sime
The Bulletin

With the exception of the Native Americans who preceded us, we are a nation of immigrants.

From the first permanent English settlement in North America, founded on the banks of the James River on May 14, 1607, the country grew to 13 colonies that won a revolutionary war against all odds. Our Constitution was adopted in 1789, and the Bill of Rights was added in 1791.

There was little immigration from 1770 to 1830, but legal immigrants swelled to more than 2 million between 1830 and 1850. Between 1850 and 1930, a wave of nearly 25 million legal European immigrants made the long trip to the U.S. Congress changed the nation’s basic policy about immigration in the 1920s, not only limiting the number but also assigning slots according to quotas based on national origins. However, the legislation excluded the Western Hemisphere from the quota system and allowed immigrants to move freely from Mexico, the Caribbean and other parts of Central and South America.

Legal immigration from 1930 was limited so the earlier wave of immigrants and those limited numbers coming thereafter could be adequately assimilated by the country. In 1952, further legislation affirmed the national-origins quota system and limited total annual legal immigration to a little more than 175,000 per year, according to Wikipedia.

While efforts to limit legal immigration were being implemented, the primary labor source for much of the agricultural industry in the United States was coming from Mexico, both legally through the bracero program and illegally. Between 1944 and 1954, the number of people entering the country illegally coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. Efforts to return the people living in the country illegally had limited success because of questions surrounding the ethics and sometimes mistreatment used to force their return, and the program was abandoned, according to Wikipedia.

By the 1980s, concern for the number of people entering the country illegally spurred Ronald Reagan and Congress to pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This act was sold as a crackdown. It gave amnesty to those who had been here since 1982 (estimated to be 5 million), imposed penalties on employers who hire people living in the country illegally and was intended to tighten the border. However, the employer penalties were effectively gutted, and Congress didn’t provide the money for border security. As a result, the act was largely a failure other than to legalize several million people who should not have been here in the first place.

In the succeeding years, neither Congress nor any of the presidents have seen fit to address themselves to the increasing problem of people entering the country illegally and the looming problems they bring.

President Barack Obama, through his overt efforts to fundamentally change the USA, in many cases unconstitutionally, has exacerbated the problem with his recent executive order (blocked by the court but proceeded anyway) shielding those in the country illegally from deportation (upward of 4 million), lack of control of the borders (per Sen. John McCain, 4 million in 2002 alone coming from 75 countries and 120,000 children alone this year), release of people in the country illegally who have criminal convictions (36,007 in 2013 alone) and lack of action against “sanctuary cities” (276 local jurisdictions in 43 states and the District of Columbia have adopted sanctuary policies).

The seeds of our destruction are being sown. Continued uncontrolled immigration is no less than an invasion that will overwhelm our ability to assimilate immigrants and expose us to infiltration by terrorists. Congress has abrogated its responsibility for addressing itself to the immigration problem for far too long.

Democrats haven’t because it seems they are looking for more voters regardless of where they get them, and more recently, Republican leaders, particularly the House Leadership, seem to be more interested in marginalizing their conservative members than taking any effective actions. It has taken a controversial billionaire businessman presidential candidate to bring the issue to the fore. Hopefully his attention to this issue will force appropriate actions to be taken sooner rather than later.