- The Washington Times - Saturday, August 14, 2004

Immigration issues

Maryland Delegate Victor R. Ramirez’s comments regarding the Spanish language in the United States (“Schaefer says illegals drain health system,” Page 1, Thursday) are yet another sad example of the push toward division.

Mr. Ramirez, a Prince George’s County Democrat, in decrying state Comptroller William Donald Schaefer’s suggestion that immigrants learn English, said, “You have had two languages that have been spoken in this country for a long time.” Two? In a nation that has been settled by the Dutch, French, Russians, Germans and dozens of others, singling out only Spanish is an affront to our history books. According to the Census Bureau, more than 300 languages are spoken at home in our nation, many of them with pedigrees equally as illustrious as Spanish.

Mr. Ramirez cites the dictionary as an example of Spanish influence on our language, including the words Arizona, Colorado and Nevada. However, the Spanish influence on English is near zero. More than a quarter of our words derive from French, an equal amount from Latin, and another quarter from Old English, Old Norse and Dutch. Outside of Greek, all other languages contribute to less than 1 percent of our unifying tongue.

Our dictionary, like our nation, is the unified product of different languages. The histories of Canada, Belgium and Sri Lanka provide ample evidence of what occurs when language is allowed to drive a wedge between people. The history of the United States, however, provides a blueprint for keeping the most diverse country in the world the most united nation in the world.

Eighty-two percent of Americans want to make English our official language. That’s a fact our politicians should be heeding.

MAURO E. MUJICA

Chairman

U.S. English Inc.

Washington

Those of us with no health insurance and a long history of paying high taxes to the state have wondered how long it would take for someone in power to agree that using our money for the free treatment of illegal aliens is an extreme abuse of that power.

Delegate Pat McDonough’s bill to give us an estimate of the cost of illegal immigration, not only for health care, but for education and attempts at crime control, was defeated in the Maryland General Assembly. Where does it say that what we have worked for, we owe to someone else?

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican; Mr. Schaefer, a Democrat who has a long history of fearlessly stating the obvious; and Mr. McDonough, a Republican, are on the side of the residents of Maryland. These three men are a blessing to their state and are worth more than their weight in insurance premiums.

ELIZABETH NOTTRODT

Baltimore

Mr. Schaefer should be commended for having the courage to tell the truth about what illegal immigration is costing Maryland. Other states, such as California, Texas and Florida, also are struggling with the multibillion-dollar aggregate price tag associated with the health-care costs and “emergency” social services provided to illegal immigrants and their families.

The situation will probably get worse before it gets better because the two main presidential contenders this election year don’t see an illegal immigrant through the eyes of a typical American taxpayer. The taxpayer is worried about the cost of health care, rising taxes and the availability of social services for U.S. citizens. He sees the illegal immigrant and his or her supporters as potential voters.

This reality is not lost on illegal aliens and their American ethnic compatriots, and so the costs — both monetary and cultural — will continue to accrue unless the dwindling majority of Americans who support a crackdown on illegal immigration and back truly secure borders demand real political change in Washington.

The above are the reasons why this Republican and thousands of others will either stay home or write in a candidate for president on election day.

STEVEN BUITRON

Baldwinsville, N.Y.

No place in the schools

Deborah Simmons, in “Sex and the American schoolhouse” (Op-Ed, Friday), is right. Our children are being badly victimized by pansexual (“anything goes”) and homosexual pseudo-victims.

There are such things as “unintended consequences,” but when the consequences continue for decades, one can no longer call them “unintended.” Homosexual advocates know perfectly well what they are promoting. The sexualizing of our children via the public-school system has been a very carefully planned project of the “sex revolution” crowd (especially the homosexual branch), never mind that neither the pansexual revolution in general nor the homosexual revolution in particular ever had a teaspoon of honest science to support it.

Just a few decades ago, the sexualizing program, run today in our schools under protection of law, would have been called criminal sexual abuse of children. We can thank the trash science of Alfred Kinsey for much of this nonsense. Honest science and godly sexual norms are at one with each other.

The aim of homosexual-rights advocates has nothing to do with honest love; it is the public justification and total acceptance of homosexual behavior. If possible, they will coerce this acceptance by so-called hate-crime laws.

But they have sold the public a pig in a poke because they (very understandably) do not want the public to see what it is buying. There has never been a candid, mutually respectful public discussion of the real issue, homosexual behavior, because homosexual advocates cannot afford to discuss such self-destructive behavior in public, and conservatives almost universally are too timid or too prudish to do so. So the bizarre situation of immoral and self-destructive behavior being publicly promoted to children without effective resistance continues.

When that discussion finally happens, as it will, the jig will be up for public acceptance of homosexuality. In the long run, the winning strategy is always to gracefully force an honest confrontation of ideas and policies. As St. Paul recommends, “Speak the truth in love.”

EARLE FOX

Alexandria

The bishops and abortion

The misinformation that the staff of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will present in the form of presidential candidate responses to its questionnaire, which is heavily weighted to favor John Kerry even though he advocates extreme pro-abortion positions, may be of little import (“Catholic survey criticized as partisan,” Nation, Wednesday).

At their June meeting, the bishops opted to continue the sacrilege of giving the Eucharist to unrepentant pro-abortion politicians. This action continues to teach people of all religions that abortion is not an important issue to the bishops, which is evident in the USCCB presidential candidate questionnaire.

The effect of the bishops’ action regarding the Eucharist dwarfs any effect their candidate questionnaire may have.

JAMES FRITZ

Great Cacapon W.Va.

Bill Ryan, deputy director of communications for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), told us in effect that a balance was placed on the altar of truth. On one side of the balance was placed the right to life, the integrity of the teaching of the Catholic Church and the well-being of our civilization. On the other side was the tax-exempt status of the church, and it weighed more heavily.

The money the church receives in tax-exempt contributions is more valuable to the USCCB lay staff than the blood of more than 40 million unborn human beings and tens of millions of women abused and injured during abortion.

Mr. Ryan claims the church’s tax-exempt status requires that the USCCB produce a questionnaire that lets pro-death candidates pretend to be pro-life. This is nonsense. The tax-exempt status does not require the church to produce any candidate questionnaire (which unfortunately is funded by mostly pro-life Catholics). It is the work of church bureaucrats.

The scandal of the bishops letting pro-choice bureaucrats promote pro-death political candidates is a larger scandal than the recent sex-abuse scandal they facilitated.

NANCY WELLS

Potomac

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide