The following letter was submitted by email to the Los Angeles Daily News on November 19, 2001. A copy was also emailed to Univision's Anchor, Maria Elena Salinas
===========================
NO DISTINCTION
Univision's Anchor, Maria Elena Salinas in her editorial ("Don't let terror ruin hopes for immigrants," Opinion, November 19, 2001), states that immigrants shouldn't have to pay the consequences for the horrific action of a small group of suicidal fundamentalists. It's hard to disagree with her on this point, but her credibility vanished by making little distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Ms. Salina should bear in mind that if the hundreds of illegal alien day laborers and vendors who we see daily on our boulevards can so easily cross our border without inspection, so can Islamic terrorists!
Hal Netkin
Van Nuys
===========================
Maria Elena Salinas answered my letter. I replied to her by email wih each point addressed with imbedded answeres. Her comment shown in blue, mine in red.
===========================
Mr. Netkin,
Thank you for your comments. I understand your concern but the problem is that both legal and undocumented immigrants are being affected.
In my comment to the L.A. Daily News, I agreed with you that the terrorist acts should not in general be taken out on immigrants. But fear of people (illegal aliens) who are in this country whose backgrounds have not been checked, is justified -- and those in this country who are here without permission ought [emphasis] to be intimidated. If the terrorists had been intimidated, maybe they couldn't have pulled off their mission with such precision.
I don't suggest that the U.S. not control it's borders, on the contrary I think there should be better and more humane control.
I don't know what better humane treatment illegal crossers could possibly have. When they are apprehended, they are treated well, not punished, and can opt to be heard in a court. Your concern (and mine) for the safety of those who choose to take the risk of crossing desserts and mountains is legitimate, but you do imply that once illegals make it past the border that they should then be home free. As history has shown, no amount of border control will ever be effective unless there are consequences if an illegal makes it to the interior. And legalizing them once they are here, is the wrong consequence.
I am just very dissapointed that the discrimination against all immigrants has increased because they are perceived as terrorists.
When you say "all immigrants," that's a rather sweeping statement. Where I live in Van Nuys, CA, there are tons of immigrants. They are for the most part, treated with dignity by most Americans. My wife immigrated from Mexico ten years ago. She has not experienced any discrimination, but says that if she did, she would blame it on our government for not enforcing its immigration laws. But I'm not really clear what you mean by discrimination. If you mean that the citizenry is more vigilant of the potential that the guy on the street corner selling chicharon might be an Islamic terrorist, they are justified. Sound absurd? If before 911, I would have predicted that some Islamic fanatics would skyjack airplanes and fly them into the WTCs, I would have been called crazy (ten years ago, I did predict that terrorists would take advantage of our lax immigration laws, albeit, nothing as bizarre as 911).
Also, President Bush's plan to legalize some undocumented workers and extend the number of visa's for temporary workers has been put aside. He has told President Fox of Mexico that the proposal still stands but with the way things are after 9/11 it does not look too good.
Granting legalization to only Mexicans would have illegal immigrants from other countries crying "fowl." Then we would have to open the doors to any one who entered the U.S. illegally including Middle Easterners. The message would soon go out to the world that you need only get past the border, get a job, stay a few years, and you will get your turn at amnesty (remember the promise in 1986 that amnesty would be a one time thing?). The message would be clear to future would-be illegal immigrants that the U.S. is not serious about its laws and that all you have to do to change them, is simply to break them.
By the way, most of the terrorists arrived here legally with a visa and some overstayed their visas. There are more undocumented people that arrive by plane and with a visa than the ones who cross the border.
I believe you're wrong. There is no way that the percentages of those who enter illegally without a visa can be officially measured., but simple observation shows that here in Southern California, the majority of illegals did not cross with a visa. But what percentage overstayed their visas is irrelevant to our discussion, unless you are trying to make the point that if we tighten Visa requirements without enforcing our interior immigration laws, that Islamic terrorists will give up. That would be naive. Terrorists will look for easy ways to get into the country. If they can't get a visa, they will cross illegally from Mexico to the U.S. the way hundreds are doing it at this very moment. By the way, six of the 19 suicide terrorists are suspected of entering illegally from Mexico. This should be no surprise since it was reported in the San Diego Tribune early this year that Mexico's National Security Adviser, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser made the sensational announcement that Islamic terrorist organizations have a presence along the U.S. border and may be making contacts with Mexican guerrilla groups.
I believe most Americans such as myself, like immigrants and want to continue traditional immigration. But polls have consistently shown that most Americans don't like America's immigration policies -- least of all rewarding those who broke our immigration laws. The president should base his decision on amnesty on what the American people want, not what special interest groups or Vicente Fox want.
Once again thanks for writting. I know there are a lot of people that think like you but all opinions need to be out there.
You are to be thanked also. It is a rare privilege to exchange opinions with someone as visible in the news media as you.
Best Regards,
Hal Netkin
