Thursday, June 28, 2007
What about the 'illegal' part of immigration?
Letters to the Editor
Recent letters to the editor
- Letters: A home-school mom pays taxes, too
- Pick of the day: Home-schoolers reject public schools
- Pick of the day: Passing the buck won't stop abuse
- Letters archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
What about the 'illegal' part of immigration?
Because the subject of illegal immigration has become such a hot topic, I read the commentary by professor Ed Lynch of Hollins University (June 18, "Believing in the American Dream--for all") very carefully.
As a proud Reagan conservative, Lynch, nevertheless, laments the change in attitude his own party has concerning the "American Dream"--his metaphor for an open-door policy on immigration -- and he scolds it for suddenly "taking the side of government against individuals."
Yet, he never once mentioned the word "illegal" in terms of the type of immigration Americans are concerned about.
Since I haven't yet formed an opinion on the immigration reform bill (while others who have, haven't actually read it), I was hoping his commentary would enlighten me on the subject of the illegal aspect of immigration.
Instead, his article was more than a slap on the wrist of conservatives; it was a calculated insult to liberals, who, he insinuates, do not believe in opportunity, have no family values and lack compassion. I hope his students know better than that.
Upon further deliberation
I suggest that (while certain members are out of town) city council hold a special meeting at 3 a.m. in the Roanoke Weiner Stand and implement the following ideas:
n To attract visitors to the art museum, do not finish the interior, but leave room to move the weinie stand and the farmer's stalls inside the museum building.
n Take the money saved on construction and buy really good art and hang it on the walls of parking garages.
n Put hot dog carts in the garages and folks won't mind paying $2 to park, see great works of art and have a hot dog.
Then folks could walk to the art museum to buy some produce or catch a shuttle (or maybe a lifeboat) down to the planned aqua-theater to watch the water rise when it rains. With the help of a consultant, these ideas could be finished in 12 to 15 years, give or take.
Council compounds its poor decisions
Outrageous decisions are continuing to be made by the majority of city council.
For instance, Roanoke City Manager Darlene Burcham explained at one of the sessions that the reason council at first voted against buying a home on Gilmer Avenue for the Oliver Hill Foundation for its planned civil rights center was because "you know what happens to vacant houses." This was a non-issue, as there were plans for the property.
The city finally decided to help buy the house, but by this time, the price had gone up twice as much.
Drastic changes to the Roanoke City Market are being proposed, including eliminating space from the farmer's market and moving the Roanoke Weiner Stand.
One reason Jim Sears gave is that such changes would keep our school children from having to stand on the sidewalk after a tour of Center in the Square while waiting for the bus. Why couldn't they stand inside to wait? In any case, Roanoke's sidewalks are not congested.
The citizens of Roanoke are not morons. We know what is best for our city. What is wrong with using common sense for a change? After all, it is the taxpayers' money, not city council's.
Council is wrong to build in a flood plain
Here we go again. First, we had the issues of the Weiner Stand and development on Mill Mountain. Now comes the proposed amphitheater.
Don't any of the city council members, besides Sherman Lea and Bev Fitzpatrick, remember what happened in November 1985? Victory Stadium looked like a river. Look what has happened several times since with heavy rains.
Fitzpatrick had it right when he said that the amphitheater should not be in the flood plain. We, the taxpayers, should not have to pay to have it dried out as we did with Victory Stadium.
Come on, city council, and do the right thing for the citizens. Build the amphitheater at Elmwood Park. Get all the council members together at one time and think of us, not of yourselves.
Judge and newspaper fail to understand Glebe
It stated in your June 9 news article "Glebe must pay its taxes to county" that the judge ruled that "the VBH's operation of The Glebe fails to satisfy the requirement of being exclusively for religious purposes because it is open to residents regardless of religious beliefs, and its employees are not expected to adhere to any specific religion."
These requirements are unlawful. If met, the Virginia Baptist Homes would be vilified for discrimination of the highest order. It is so far from the Christian principles that prevail here that it can be viewed as being totally ridiculous.
VBH had the wisdom to enroll, initially, financially secure residents. This gave assurance that The Glebe would be able to meet the responsibility of being benevolent as promised.
"But Irvine ruled that benevolence cannot be based on a future act."
Facilities of this magnitude require borrowed funds. Therefore, the benevolent act has to be in the future.
Failure to include the lowest fee of $120,000 was unfair. But when has your newspaper ever considered fairness?
There seems to be no benevolence but lots of greed in the hearts of Botetourt County officials -- grabbing dollars from seniors in their twilight years, some heavily dependent on Social Security.
A resident of The Glebe
The Times missed an important event
Because of a prior commitment, I was unable to attend the American Cancer Society Relay for Life fundraiser at Green Hill Park in Salem.
As a volunteer coordinator for the ACS Reach to Recovery program and a cancer survivor, I was very disappointed when I looked through my Sunday morning newspaper and found no coverage for an event involving more than 3,000 people, not to mention the hard work and long hours put in by volunteers and the ACS staff.
Unfortunately, cancer affects every family that subscribes to The Roanoke Times and, therefore, Relay for Life would interest everyone who reads your paper.
Please remember, it will be held the same time next year.
Bush protects CEOs, the only friends he has left
Last week President Bush betrayed investors, pressuring Solicitor General Paul Clement to steer clear of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case that could provide shareholders with the necessary tools to hold crooked CEOs accountable -- as is still needed for Enron investors defrauded only five years ago.
The case, Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta, asks whether investors can recover investment losses from investment banks, attorneys, accountants and other parties involved in fraudulent corporate collusion. The Supreme Court is expected to consider the case during its next term. The outcome could determine whether victims of the Enron scandal can proceed with a $40 billion lawsuit against investment banks that enabled Enron's massive fraud.
Even though the Securities and Exchange Commission urged the administration to file a brief in support of investors, the administration thumbed its nose at investors.
With Bush's approval rating hovering around 30 percent, his only remaining support comes from the CEOs of giant corporations. He's just playing to the last of his base, while showing small investors across America how little regard his administration has for our well-being.
