Updated 

Not so hard to get rid of 'birthright citizenship'


To the editor:

The feelings expressed by Frank Musaraca in his March 22 letter (“Modify 14th Amendment to exclude illegal immigrants”) are easy to understand, and I agree with many of his ideas. However, resolving the “anchor baby” issue is easier than amending the Constitution.

Because the 14th Amendment states that only those who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are granted birthright citizenship, even many who are here legally are not granted birthright citizenship — including vacationing noncitizens who give birth while here, foreign diplomats, etc.

Those who show disrespect for our country by ignoring our laws and our borders certainly don’t consider themselves subject to this country’s jurisdiction. So there is no good reason why our government should help them along by contorting the laws to allow birthright citizenship to those who are born to parents who are here illegally.

The key is to persuade our government to interpret the Constitution more reasonably, or elect those who will.

As far as “comprehensive” immigration reform is concerned, the only comprehensive solution around that will work to the benefit of this country is the Pat Buchanan solution: attrition through enforcement of current law.

Statements from the leaders of the movement to grant legal status to illegal migrants, about re-claiming what is theirs (see Review-Journal photo, May 2, 2012, Page 2B), are completely consistent with the 2002 findings of a Zogby Poll — 58 percent of Mexicans believe that this country belongs to them. They think it was unjustly taken from them, and they have formed a Reconquista Plan for Aztlan (what we call the southwestern United States), to “reconquer” the United States.

Granting legal status to those who are here illegally is one of the worst things that our government could do. It could destroy this country faster than almost anything else.

TOM TOWNSEND

LAS VEGAS

Stocking up

To the editor:

There are a couple of questions I’d like the White House occupier to answer:

1) Why such a push now to register guns while actively seeking to eliminate the Second Amendment of the Constitution?

2) Is it true that military members are being asked if they are willing to shoot and kill fellow Americans?

3) Why are there two well-funded, well-armed and well-staffed civilian militias in your Affordable Care Act?

4) Why are Cabinet-level departments like Homeland Security buying thousands of tanks and billions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition?

Is there something you’re not telling the American people?

MIKE NIEDERBERGER

LAS VEGAS

Strange priorities

To the editor:

The powers that be have decided to go ahead with the annual Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn, but they are still considering closing air traffic control towers. This seems to me a poor choice by the government on how to spend our money. When did enjoyment start superseding safety in this country?

JACK OLIVER

LAS VEGAS

That every man be armed

To the editor:

Why don’t we just add a block for “Firearms authorized, yes or no?” on driver’s licenses and state IDs and give people the option of completing that portion?

We check truck drivers before we authorize them to haul hazardous materials. Perhaps many of the same problems that would limit someone from having firearms should be considered before allowing them to operate a 4,000-pound weapon that’s statistically more likely to hurt someone than a firearm. Once they were cleared, we wouldn’t have to recheck every time they purchase a weapon, just like with the concealed weapons permit.

No one is against preventing criminals from having guns, but many of us think we should encourage as many law-abiding people as possible to be trained and have guns. It would make it more difficult for the criminals.

Why is it OK to require so much oversight of the right to bear arms, but not for the right to vote? Improper and uneducated voting is just as dangerous (long-term) to our country as improper or uneducated use of firearms.

JOSEPH M. MLADENIK JR.

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Blame game

To the editor:

In response to Nadia Romeo’s Thursday letter, responding to “The 10 Cannots,” it’s this type of thinking that’s causing many of the problems in our country. Instead of taking responsibility for our lives, many blame others or other things for their living conditions. Sure, some things are out of our control, but we must do the best we can under the circumstances.

In her letter, Ms. Romeo blames banks and big business for our lack of thrift. She blames the rich because they aren’t paying enough in taxes. She blames health care and college costs for our spending more than we make, and she blames Mitt Romney for inciting class hatred.

It reminds me of a story Jim Rohn told. When he was 25 and broke, his mentor asked him why he was broke, since he had been working since he was 21. Jim said that he had a list. He blamed the government, his job, his boss, his wife, his relatives and even the weather. His mentor said that there was only one thing wrong with his list: He wasn’t on it.

We all have catastrophes in our lives. However, if we give up and blame others, we will never succeed.

It’s the American Dream that a person can start with nothing and be a success. That dream is still obtainable. It may be more difficult now, but it is still there. We live in the greatest country in the world. It’s up to us to take advantage of the opportunities available. We must also protect our freedoms so that we continue to have those opportunities.

TOM JONES

LAS VEGAS

Cut their pay

To the editor:

I was just wondering, with all the salary cuts that our politicians seek for teachers, police and firefighters, how is it that no one in Washington or among local people running our country are ever asked to take a cut in their pay?

Would this not go a long way in showing the rest of the country how serious our situation is and make it easier for us to do what we have to, to help our economy?

TOM ZEILFELDER

LAS VEGAS