LETTERS: Mexico’s unhappiness not our concern
To the editor:
I just finished reading the front-page article on immigration (“White House to suspend plans on immigration,” Feb. 18 Review-Journal). The article was fairly interesting, though I learned nothing that I didn’t already know. It said Republicans would shoulder the blame if the Department of Homeland Security shuts down.
House Republicans passed a bill to fund everything in the DHS except President Barack Obama’s unilateral executive immigration order. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid filibustered the bill and wouldn’t allow it to come to the floor for a vote. Republicans could change Senate rules and pass the bill through reconciliation, just as Democrats passed Obamacare, but for some reason, they won’t do what Sen. Reid did when he was majority leader.
But that isn’t even the part of the article that bothered me. Why did the report tell us that the Mexican government was unhappy with the Texas federal court’s decision to block the president’s executive action? Mexico’s No. 1 export is its people. I have read that 10 percent of its population now resides in the U.S., and polls have shown the majority of Mexican citizens would leave for the U.S. if given the chance.
As an American citizen, I couldn’t care less what the Mexican government thinks about our laws. However, I do wonder what the Mexican officials would think if we changed our immigration laws to mirror theirs. I bet they would be screaming at the top of their lungs.
ROBERT GARDNER
HENDERSON
Goodmans’ stadium pursuit
To the editor:
After reading letters opposing a downtown soccer stadium at a ratio of 10-1, it should be blindingly apparent to Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman and her husband, former Mayor Oscar Goodman, that the stadium idea is a bird without wings. It ain’t gonna fly.
If the Goodmans want that stadium so bad, they can pay for it themselves. Mr. and Mrs. Goodman will never be big-town mayors, and their mini-dynasty will fade out in the next election.
JIM armbrust
LA VONNE ARMBRUST
LAS VEGAS
Voter ID bill
To the editor:
I have an answer to Bob Fulkerson’s question, “Why would we want to make voting more difficult for people?” (“Photo ID would be required under voter bill introduced in state Senate,” Feb. 18 Review-Journal.) Low voter participation means your vote has greater influence on the outcome. Voter fraud is magnified in lower-turnout elections. But I suspect this answer won’t stanch Mr. Fulkerson’s desire to deconstruct our republic.
ROBERT BASS
LAS VEGAS
Road rage and guns
To the editor:
Road rage, two guns and a dead mother of four (“New details revealed in slaying,” Feb. 18 Review-Journal). To all of you Second Amendment supporters, is this what you want?
MICHAEL HENDERSON
LAS VEGAS
Changing the Constitution
To the editor:
Patricia Fruge’s letter provides the argument against her own view, stating she would like the chance to outrun an assailant who does not have a gun (“Constitution changes with the times,” Feb. 16 Review-Journal). Two assumptions are implied: criminals will give up their guns, and she will be able to outrun anyone. A criminal who is intent on doing you harm will certainly eliminate your ability to escape.
Ms. Fruge says we need to change the Constitution. We have a Congress today that is not concerned with the will of the people, and a president who ignores the Constitution whenever it fits his agenda. These are the individuals in charge of starting the process to revise the Constitution.
We have laws that put people away for life when guns are used to commit crime. Criminals will not abide by any law restricting them. Passing laws restricting law-abiding citizens will cause these same law-abiding citizens to break that law.
CHARLES YCHON
LAS VEGAS
Protecting wildlife
To the editor:
Recently, President Barack Obama announced new protections for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell released a comprehensive conservation plan that includes a formal recommendation to designate more than 12 million acres, as wilderness — the highest level of protection for public lands. The designation recommendation includes the coastal plain, which is the biological heart of the refuge and one of the last places on earth undisturbed by humans.
There simply is no place left on the planet where enormous herds of Arctic caribou roam free, or where musk oxen, polar bears, wolves and grizzly bears can still thrive. Only Congress can officially designate these areas as wilderness. Now, Congress should take the right step and designate these areas as wilderness once and for all. We owe it to our children and their children to protect this invaluable natural resource for the future.
FRANCINE SCOTT
LAS VEGAS
