• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Al Nieto of Denver writes:

Sanctuary the new “Anti-American” tactic being paid for by American donations to their church’s .
O.K. O’reilly get on your charger and lead America to setting up blockades in each city at each church location that practices ‘sanctuary’ for illegals.
We do that with countries that threaten us militarily, ie: Cuba and North Korea.
Cutting off their local services such as electricity, water, food shipments, fire and police protection etc., will soon make those ‘hippocrite’ men/women of the cloth either pray harder or re=think their positions.As an (Hispanic)American I say it is time to fight back for our country and it’s future. City leaders can do so much more, in this situation, than our “sell-out” politicians are doing.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

America is a nation of immigrants, Mr. Nieto. What part of our history don't you understand? Secondly, who appointed you arbiter of what is or isn't "American"? Did you get some special dispensation from a king maybe? Oh, wait, we don't have any of those here.

Anderson sounds the charge for illegal aliens!

The churches want to get involved in the political arena of illegal entry, then its high time their tax exempt status was taken away from them.

Anderson likes to lay make believe. The illegal immigrants are just the same as the waves before them, naturalizing themselves and otherwise being just plain good civilians. La Raza and La Reconquista are just propaganda, why worry about it?

I agree with QBT, if churches want to help illegal aliens break the law, than the church and its priest should also be held accountable for breaking the laws also. Taking their tax exempt status would be a start. For those government officials that wish to use their city as a sanctuary city, they should be doing jail time for breaking the law. Enforcing the laws that were set down by our own government should be adhered to, no exception. Al, I am with you as is millions of US Citizens that want our country back, that want our country protected from the onslaught of illegal aliens coming here through the back door. Secure the borders 1st and deal with what is left.

If I understand Nieto's post correctly I believe he is an American born Hispanic and against illegal immigration. I have MANY Hispanic friends and they are as disgusted with the illegals, as any concerned American should be.

Anderson, Mr Nieto's "special dispensation" comes from being a LEGAL American citizen.

Nieto is not a pimped out illegal Mexican forced out of his country and encouraged to work unlawfully in the U.S. in order to send money back to his greedy, corrupted John which is of course, Mexico.

I do not hate the Mexican race but, I hold a great deal of animosity for the ILLEGAL Mexican's. They break the law to be here, undercut the lesser skilled American's in the work place, and DEMAND that we give them an amnesty, which they DO NOT deserve!!

I do not speak for all American's as I am sure you will vigorously point out, but I personally will consider it a slap in the American people face if politicians provide them with "comprehensive reform" which is AMNESTY!!

The last insane amnesty has brought us to the dilemma we now face.

What part of history don't you understand Anderson????

A, you express great concern over people breaking our immigration laws, but show no concern that I can see about other laws being broken (and there are many). Hmm.There are more people who illegally use drugs in the state of Colorado (8.9%) than there are people who have illegally crossed the border (4-5%).

You tell me immigrants "demand" amnesty (a claim I've heard a thousand times) but those here illegally cannot vote and have little or no political power. Just how is it "they" are wielding these "demands"? I think we need immigration reform, which includes a path to citizenship, but you aren't going to make false and scurrilous claims about me (I'm white and I vote) or white people in general based on my view. Hmm.

You mention nothing about the forces that result in migration, including U.S. policies such as NAFTA. Whatever these things are and may be, you are content with focusing blame only on poor people who want to work. But they're Mexicans and they can't vote. Hmm.

You talk all about the problem, but make vague ("secure our borders first"), if any, suggestions about solutions. I wonder why.

Nieto would have us cut off water, electricity, medical care, etc. to people, to children. A civil society would never stand for such a policy but it's okay if they're Mexicans with the wrong status. Hmm.

Anderson is definately missing a point many people make. They are NOT against immigration or any specific group. They are however against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. That seems to be the point Anderson is missing. A civil society would also enforce the laws and expect all those in that society to do so as well. You can not have it both ways. As for the services you listed, why should those who obey the laws in all ways continously pay greater and greater expenses for those who don't obey the laws of a "Civil" society?

No, Nick you are missing the point. You can talk all you want about just being concerned about "illegal" immigration but I know better.

As for your services comment, it's false to claim that illegal immigration is a financial burden on society. First, they benefit the overall economy (i.e., add dollars); second, their taxes fund social services just yours and mine do; third, immigrants use fewer services than citizens--where they are entitled to any; finally, the only significant financial burden from immigration is K-12 education--and that is a product of age (immigrants tend to be younger). Of course, that doesn't take into account the "costs" of an uneducated populace. And let's not talk about how we're going to meet the financial costs of our rapidly aging citizenry.

Anderson=Brick wall!!

Let me clarify my point to Nick: there's more, much more, to the picture than simply illegal v. legal, and if you insist, I say you're only fooling yourself.

A doesn't want to get too much into facts but at least he made some cogent arguments earlier (brickwall not being one of them).

Let me clarify my point to Nick: there's more, much more, to the picture than simply illegal v. legal, and if you insist, I say you're only fooling yourself.

A doesn't want to get too much into facts but at least he made some cogent arguments earlier (brickwall not being one of them).

I have come to the conclusion that Anderson is Tina Griego's husband as he supports illegal aliens with all the same crapola one finds in a Griego column.

Anderson:

Since you are so into the "facts". How about you back up your assertion that Illegals benefit the overall economy ("ie add tax dollars").

I read recently that the Heritage Foundation has dispelled that assertion. Essentially that "they" (yes, Anderson, I am publicly saying "they") take roughly $18,000 annually in services over and above their "contribution". Insert Shock and horror over my use of the word "they" oh my!!!!

Please spare me your typical and tired attacks of racism. It simply does not work anymore for those of us that have been on these boards a while.

Did I say anything about racism, Sam? Not directly. But your comment tells me something about you. When someone tells me that racism doesn't color the immigration debate, I figure I'm talking either a racist or an idiot. It's really, really kind of a *duh* moment.

Here's some facts. But I doubt you will give them even a passing glance:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1851

http://www.thebell.org/issues/img/briefs.php

As far as the Heritage foundation "dispelling" any notion, such issues are seldom black and white, but I have yet to read an economist say that immigration was a detriment to our economy. They typically say just the opposite. I'm talking about economists here, not some hack writer for the Heritage foundation. See above.

I remind Anderson that civility means respecting the other person's opinion and not putting so much value in yours that you would roast men and women on account of it.

Americans are fond of seeking a disability pension i.e. SS and if millions of illegals become Americans: Is that something to be concerned about? Years of stoop labor is a back cruncher, huh!

You got me, Richard. But you know, respect begets respect, and a lack thereof unfortunately often results in the same in return.

As for Social Security disability, let's set out some facts first, so that no one is misled: first, undocumented immigrants *cannot* collect any Social Security, retirement or disability. Second, disability is pretty difficult to establish. People who are not seriously hurt or who think it's a way to early retirement will strike out every time.

Richard, I believe, is suggesting that if we have a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, that we will have more disabled workers in the future. Yes, I'm sure that's true. Will it be a significant cost? I have no reason to think so. Immigrants are largely filling jobs that are shrinking population of younger people do not fill. Arguably they are supporting Social Security. There's a huge pot of unclaimed money sitting up there right now, from undocumented workers who paid in, but cannot claim any benefits.

"Respect begets respect"? How can any good red blooded American worker "respect"
people of one ethnic group who sneaks into the country and causes economic chaos???

Yo Anderson: It is many ethnic groups that are sneaking into America; however, like America is not a Christian nation, she is a nation dominated by Christians and the sneaks are dominated by one ethnic group. Civility means respecting poster's opinion in this forum and not lashing out because they lack respect thus permitting them to control your conduct. I am in accord with Trancredo; however, his the earth is flat about the size of Denver that was created by Intelligent Design is too Bushlike.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly