Letters to the Editor 7/26/12
Immigration, civil rights and water usages
The article in your July 19 issue, “Show Me Your Papers,” by Bruce Rushton, rekindles discussions regarding immigration and immigration reform. Since prior to the inception of this country waves of immigrants have come to these shores looking to participate in “the American dream.”
Why should we not welcome immigrants from all parts of the world to our experiment in progress with open arms? They, like countless others in the past, come seeking a new life and a future. They are willing to work hard, taking on jobs others in this country shun. Day laborers, dishwashers, migrant workers, housemaids, etc…; and some, filling those professional positions that we have shortages of, such as those in the fields of medicine, engineering, education and industry.
Immigration reform is necessary. We should have a policy that allows all who wish to come to this country and work to do so. As part of this permission, they should be given the tools with which to contribute to the tax base of our country. Give them green cards, give them Social Security numbers, let them work, and require them to abide by our laws, pay into Social Security, buy health insurance, have automobile insurance if they wish to drive, learn English, and abide by our laws as a prerequisite. Once they are required to contribute and participate in our system, we will be able to ensure equitable and fair treatment for all those living in our country.
Enrique J. Unanue
Encarta has this to say about civil rights; “rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law. These rights as conceived in U.S. law are set forth in the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in some congressional acts.” You see that fourth word, right? “Citizens,” not “illegal aliens.” [See “Show me your papers: Protecting the nation by deporting Springfield dishwashers,” by Bruce Rushton, July 19.]
No I guess not, in fact you missed that “illegal” word too didn’t you? You focus more on the officers trying to do a job (whatever that may be and whoever is telling them to do it) rather than the real problem which is these people are breaking the law.
I love the line by “Professor” Stevens who says that a large portion of the people of the people ICE considers criminals are guilty of nothing more than illegally re-entering the United States or possessing small amounts of marijuana. But they “are guilty” of “illegally re-entering the United States” and “possessing small amounts of marijuana.”
If you don’t like the law, then fight to change it; don’t bash those who’ve sworn to uphold it.
AFRAID OF WATER
If I were a resident of Chatham, Riverton, New Berlin, Mechanicsburg or Dawson, I would be leery of this report and ask my elected officials to analyze it in detail [see “Water, water everywhere,” by Bruce Rushton, July 19]. If I were involved in city governments of any of these communities, I would get my hands on the study and prepare to protect my constituents.
I would look to see what basic assumptions of water supply were included in the study. Things like industrial uses of water as far upstream as Decatur, for example. I would look at projections of water use over time by ADM, Tate and Lyle, and others and the effects on the water discharges from Decatur into the Sangamon River.
I would look into projected water usages from proposed industrial projects, like the proposed Taylorville Energy Center proposed by Tenaska. The current plan includes removing 2-3 million gallons a day of water from Decatur sanitary district discharge, thus removing it from the Sangamon River watershed. The plant is planning for zero discharge... meaning none of this water would be returned to the Sangamon River.
The Sangamon River water gets filtered through rock and earth, and becomes the Sangamon aquifer, which is the source of the water in the rock quarry.
I would certainly read the report and see if water usage and discharge projections of communities upstream from these gravel pits were included.
Because if not, the report may not be worth the paper it is written on and the smaller communities who rely on the Sangamon aquifer would be at the mercy of industry and Springfield users. Who would have priority in a drought year?