Immigration Officials
Serve Their Country I think that it is important to let the American public know that Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employees are deeply concerned about securing our national borders, ["Suspected Terrorists Got Post-9/11 Visas," HUMAN EVENTS, December 2, page 1] and protecting the American people. Border Patrol agents and immigration inspectors are not doing the job for the prestige, or the money. They make an affirmative decision to defend the United States, and its people, despite the difficulties they must endure. Many Border Patrol agents and Immigration Inspectors are veterans who wished to continue serving their country after they left the service. The work they perform is extremely important, and equally difficult under the best of conditions. Not only do these fine men and women take these jobs, they carry out their duties for less pay than their counterpart in both state and local law enforcement do. In fact, immigration inspectors, and Border Patrol agents are paid less than their federal counterparts in the U.S. Marshals Service, Secret Service, and other agencies. Immigration inspectors are still not considered law enforcement officers for pay and retirement purposes. Federal, state, and local agencies are hiring immigration inspectors and Border Patrol agents as rapidly as they become available. These officers are highly dedicated, have excelled under difficult conditions, have worked with diverse cultures, and speak one or more languages. The willingness of other agencies to hire INS officers shows the intrinsic value they bring to the Immigration Service. To train and equip a Border Patrol agent or immigration inspector costs the INS approximately five months of training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and $100,000 per officer. With a staggering attrition rate approaching 20% this year, no organization can continue to operate in this manner. The agents and inspectors who are leaving the INS are dedicated, professional, seasoned veterans. As these officers depart, they take with them valuable experience that is urgently needed on our borders. As immigration officers, we are fully committed to securing our nation’s borders, and protecting the American people. We are stakeholders in this task, and as always, remain committed to this mission. We hope that we will be involved in the formation of the Department of Homeland Security and that our skills, knowledge, and understanding of existing problems are to protect the American people. —Charles William Showalter III Vice-President at Large National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council Aliquippa, Pa. Rejects Malkin’s Views On
Immigration Reform I am writing in response to the interview "Malkin: No More Amnesties, Period" [HUMAN EVENTS, November 18, page 3]. I think that for all of the rhetoric and spin that is being played out in this interview, intelligent people will see that simply the title of the book Invasion is meant to relay the message that we are being invaded by Mexican immigrants. In the context of American history, Malkin represents the sad state and paradox of being an "immigrant in America." It’s like saying, "I am now here, so let’s close the door to immigrants." I am sure that Malkin would not object to Filipino immigration, legal or otherwise. I think that the immigration laws in this country are skewed and biased, but not for the same reasons that Malkin has in mind. She is obviously a Republican with an agenda. Most Mexicans have to wait well over five years to get a visa while Europeans are able to get visitors visas, student visas, and tourist visas almost overnight. It is obvious that the law is already biased against Mexicans, Central Americans, and other brown indigenous people. But then again, most laws always favor one group over another. I remember being in the U.S. Navy and serving with many, many Filipinos from the Philippines proper. Many had waited a year or two to sign up with the Navy. After a three-year stint, though, they were automatically given U.S. citizenship as a way to reward them for their service. I believe this is a "special arrangement" with the U.S. government. I, on the other hand, was not given citizenship, but an honorable discharge instead. The law, it seems, always favors one group over another. What about my citizenship? Although I was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time, I was allowed to serve in the U.S. Navy as an aircraft mechanic. Why are Mexicans not given automatic citizenship for serving in the U.S. Armed Forces? Why, because immigration laws always favor one group over another. —J. A. Hernandez Ph.D. Student University of Chicago Chicago, Ill. ‘School Choice’ Article
Strikes Right Chords Thanks for the article on the District of Columbia and school choice, ["D.C. Deserves School Choice," HUMAN EVENTS, December 9 coverbox]. I would make one additional observation. The liberals will argue that public dollars should not be given to private schools to educate students. (Of course, this is not what happens under a school choice plan, but that is what critics will say.) It is important to note that in the District of Columbia millions of dollars are given to the parents of special education students to allow those students to attend private schools. Why? Because for many years, the education establishment in the District of Columbia has been unable to provide the "free and appropriate" education that is required under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ’97). The questions that liberals are never able to answer are: (1) Aren’t all children special, and (2) don’t all students deserve an appropriate education? Fundamentally, the current law discriminates against children who do not have "special needs." Providing scholarships to allow parents and children to attend the school of their choice is the most equitable way to ensure that all children get a decent education. Keep up the good fight. —Gregory McGinity Los Angeles, Calif. Former legislative liaison, U.S. Department of Education, legislative staffer to Sen. Thad Cochran and Rep. Lindsey Graham, and senior education consultant, California State Board of Education Gore Correct to Recognize New ‘Transformed’ Families Why bother to slam Al and Tipper Gore ["All-New Al Gore More Left Than Before," HUMAN EVENTS, December 9, page 7] for seeing the truth of what is happening in American Society? The "traditional" family went out the window with the onset of a mobile society. Families that relied on support from each other cannot any longer do so on a regular basis with the physical distances between them. What more natural thing than that people form "family" where they find themselves and bond with others not related by blood? What counts is that those unrelated individuals are there for each other in the same ways that blood-related families used to be. We can’t go back, our way of life has changed. So let’s celebrate the fact that the "sense" of family is not dead and recognize it for the good influence it is on our modern society instead of castigating people for recognizing the truth. —Joeline R. Webber Sylmar, Calif.
