Overlooking ‘illegal’

Re “Over the line,” editorial, June 11

How can The Times just not understand facts? The editorial states, “Should the government cede so much ground to an anti-immigration mob that shows no signs of being appeasable?”

The proper term is “anti-illegal” immigration. The word “illegal” should mean a lot. I do not know one person who is against legal immigration, but most people I know are against illegal immigration. The Times’ continual deletion of the word “illegal” is very well calculated. You have an agenda. You continue to package all those who are “anti-immigration” as a crazy, ill-tempered mob.

Does The Times describe the people who attend the May Day pro-illegal-immigration rallies as mobs too?

Bruce Konschuh

Fullerton

--

If anything is “over the line,” it is the way we kowtow to illegal immigrants.

We provide free schooling and healthcare, and we board thousands of illegal immigrant prisoners. We are called racists when we cry “enough is enough.” I don’t care where they are from, I am just tired of footing the bill.

Most people in the world would see an improvement in their lifestyles if they came here. That doesn’t mean we can or should let them all in.

John Lieto

Newport Beach

--

In its editorial, The Times accuses people of thinking irrationally if they believe that our laws -- including immigration laws -- should be enforced. It calls those who believe in enforcing laws an “anti-immigration mob.” The Times’ use of invective to refer to those who disagree with it is indeed “over the line.”

Perhaps The Times might better contribute to a rational discussion of illegal immigration if it did not insult those with different views.

Craig Lancaster

Canyon Country

--

The Times states, “The anti-immigration furor is pushing us toward irrational policies.” Is it the position of The Times that enforcing our laws is irrational?

Donald Hirt

Paso Robles

--

Re “U.S.-born children feel effect of raids,” June 8

When the Rangels entered the United States illegally and then had not one but four children in this country, they had to have known the following: that they were never going to get caught and deported; that if they did get caught, having American children would work in their favor regarding deportation; and that if they got caught, they could play on the sympathy for their innocent children. What else could they have been thinking?

Entering the U.S. illegally is risky, and having children while here illegally compounds that risk. So who is to blame for the children’s undeniable heartache and stress? Were the American people involved in the Rangels’ decision to have four children under these circumstances?

Why wouldn’t The Times explore these issues?

Laura Kline

Valley Village