Letters to the Editor
Karrie Melendrez
Published Letters: 2
-
You are no feminist
[Read the article: A case for parental notification]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me definitively inform you that you are neither a feminist nor pro-choice. Anyone who supports parental notification laws adheres to the idea that women and children are nothing more than the property of men.
You say you see no good reason to make an exception for parental notification in the case of minors who become pregnant? Perhaps this is because you don’t come from an abusive or incestuous family? Is it inconceivable to you that some little girls are impregnated by their own fathers? What makes you think that a man capable of raping his own daughter would want the best for her future? Maybe he just wants a steady stream of helpless victims?
Yes, there are situations in which a court can permit a minor to have an abortion without parental notification. But imagine reality beyond your safe little bubble for a moment. Ask yourself how easy is it would be for a pregnant 12-year-old with no money or transportation to negotiate legal intervention? The idea that parents “have known and cared for their teenager for far longer” is a dangerous and naive assumption. Is it your opinion that all mothers and fathers love and care for their children? Sorry, but this is proven false on a daily basis in emergency rooms everywhere.
You think we need to vigilantly protect pregnant girls from facing a lifetime of regret over an abortion? This is nothing compared to the lifetime of economic and emotional hell that is most often the result of a child’s pregnancy.
-
Shapiro's analysis severly lacking in reality and facts
[Read the article: Hitting a wall on immigration]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Walter Shapiro’s article, “Hitting a Wall on Immigration” posits President Bush’s immigration bill as a charitable “path to legality and eventual citizenship for the estimated 12 million immigrants residing in the United States illegally”. But Shapiro’s analysis is severely lacking in reality and facts.
Under President Bush's plan, undocumented immigrants can apply for three-year work visas, dubbed "Z" visas, which will be renewable indefinitely but cost $3,500 each time. These undocumented workers will have legal status with the visas, but to become legal permanent residents with a green card, they'll have to return to their home country, apply at a U.S. embassy or consulate and pay a $10,000 fine.
Even after doing this there is no guarantee that they will be able to return, nor how long it will take applicants to apply for and receive their visa at foreign U.S. embassies. There is also the provision that any immigrant who has used a false Social Security number will be ineligible for citizenship or the guest worker program. This counts out just about every undocumented worker currently in the U.S..
In the end, this proposed “immigration reform” will force undocumented immigrants to continue to choose "illegal" ways to enter and stay in this country, because it is too costly and difficult to do so "legal" way.
Furthermore, the Bush plan calls for spending billions of dollars to build a so-called a "high-tech" border fence along U.S.-Mexico border, which will force migrants to go though an even more dangerous journey. This legislation will create more border deaths and serve only to fatten the pockets of migrant smugglers. This is unarguably a racist wall because it only targets the Mexican border and not Canada.
There is nothing inspiring or salvageable about Bush’s designs on undocumented immigrants. Bush’s proposal is not an attempt at “liberal social legislation” but rather an attempt to ensure a rotating underclass of foreign workers.