2006

 

 

Makiko Kurosaki
Toronto Star, Canada
June 7, 2006

“U.S. Politician Plays Up Border Security Fears”

Article Summary: The article discussed the alleged terrorism in Canada and the response of
the US republican senate, stating the necessity of strict border control and a tighter immigration policy as a strategy for fighting terrorism.

Dear Editor:

The arrest of seventeen Canadian Muslims as suspects in an alledged terrorist plot in Ontario, Canada has triggered further discussion on cooperative U.S. and Canadian counter-terrorism efforts. Your June 5 article “U.S. politician plays up border security fears,” raises important questions and concerns about Canada’s policy towards immigration, border-control issues and counter-terrorism tactics.

Although many naively have believed Canada to be immune to terrorist attacks, including perhaps most Canadians, the myth has now been shattered, and as a result there will be surely an increase in rhetoric that will encourage additional U.S. and Canadian border control in order to fight terrorism spreading to the United States. However, concentrating on simple counter-terrorism tactics could distract us from the fundamental causes of acts of terrorism.

As the case of Canada demonstrates, the internet is today’s preferred means of communication between terrorists groups. Global communication technology is facilitating terrorist endeavors even if would-be terrorists are far removed from each other. Furthermore, as the expression “home grown terrorism” suggests, all of the arrested Canadian suspects were born and raised in Canada, demonstrating that recent immigration map could be not the immediate cause for terrorism, and thus protecting boarders could be irrelevant. What lacking is an articulate investigation and analysis of the motive of these suspects and the basis of these motives. General statements like “restriction on immigration” or “strict border control” may give people a false sense that a simple solution can solve the complex issue of terrorism and its religion with immigration. In fact, in order to confront the multiple problems brought on by the age of terrorism, we need to attack the core issues rather than agitate peripheral ones.

 

Laura Ross
Lexington Herald Leader, Kentucky
June 5, 2006

“In Response to Agents: Employers a Huge Part of the Problem”

Article Summary: The article was about immigration policy and how the US needs to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants. It also talked about how wonderful the concept of a giant wall across our southern border is.

Dear Editor:

Your article, “In Response to Agents: Employers a Huge Part of the Problem,” reports on the past failures of forging comprehensive U.S. immigration legislation. Yet it doesn’t cite the importance of an effective foreign policy in achieving this goal. Erecting physical barriers across our southern borders and punishing employees who hire illegal aliens will not forestall this country’s immigration problem. In fact, Washington must strive for a policy that will not only buttress Mexico’s long-term economic stability, but could pressure future generations to remain in their native land, thus eliminating many tensions with the U.S. and Mexico on immigration issues.

The Herald-Leader’s proposals to punish employers and erect barriers exemplify points that are necessary to consider in the immigration debate. However, Washington has both a personal and global responsibility to eradicate corruption, create economic stability and work for efficient legal and institutional frameworks in Mexico. The best way to attack illegal immigration is not by building walls, erecting electrical fences or creating vehicle barriers, but by conducting balanced trade, cleaning up corruption and strengthening Mexico’s economy so that it can become a stronger U.S. partner. Economic growth in Mexico will automatically result in less immigration to the U.S. and curb the strain on having to monitor the southern border for prospective terrorists. The United States should once again return to a vision of hemispheric vitality by jump starting Mexico’s economy. Such concessions include changes in U.S. farm policy that would lower barriers for food and fiber exports, cut subsidies to American agricultural producers, and significantly reduce tariffs and quotas. These changes would not only increase exports-imports between North and South, but could revive inclusive long-neglected negotiations towards achieving the proposed FTAA. Both the U.S. and Mexico could benefit from new sources of labor in Mexico. Increased employment in Mexico results in less immigration to the north.

 

Saul Cohen
The Washington Post, Washington D.C.

June 6, 2006

Article Summary: Letter was in response to an article that ignored Alan Garcia's role
in instigating Chavez's "meddling" in Peru's election that cost Humala
much of his support.

Dear Editor:

The Post’s article on last Sunday’s presidential runoff in Peru (“Former President García Appears Headed for Victory in Peru,” June 5) perpetuates the rumor that Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s irresponsible meddling in that country’s internal affairs gave Alan García his win. While it is a certainty that leftist opposition candidate Ollanta Humala was hurt by the perception of his close ties with Chávez, the issue was initiated and fueled by García’s – not Chávez’s – inflammatory comments.

While there was certainly some anti-Chávez sentiment directed against Humala before the war of words began, the populist candidate clearly led the race in its initial stages in early April. The verbal spar began later that month, when Chávez announced that Venezuela would drop out of the Andean Community (CAN) trade bloc due to deals signed between the United States and CAN member states, including Peru. In a calculated move, García responded over national radio, calling Chávez an oil-rich hypocrite and emphasizing Humala’s ties to the Venezuelan president. While Humala attempted to distance himself from the issue and asked Chávez to ignore the provocation, García persisted, deftly utilizing popular fear of foreign influence by igniting Chávez’s famously fiery rhetoric. In May, García’s machinations paid off, and he forged ahead in the polls.

If García truly wanted Peru’s elections to be free from outside influence, he should have refrained from purposely needling Chávez as a device to turn attention away from his own nefarious past presidency. One can only hope that García will now reject the political opportunism he recently practiced in order to move Peru forward.

Marcela B.M. Gara
Seattle Post – Intelligence, Washington
June 5, 2006

Article Summary: The Seattle Post Intelligencer published an article describing the recent student protests that took over Santiago, Chile. It focused on the massive demonstrations in the capitol city, Santiago, but failed to acknowledge that the protests were wide spread and an emerging issue facing the entire country.

Dear Editor:

Your June 5th, 2006 article titled, “Students Clash with Police in Chile” failed to emphasize the grand scale of the growing student protests throughout Chile. Santiago has not been the only city to feel the mounting pressure; the government’s lack of initiative to meet the needs of its students has become a national issue. Students are gathering in record numbers to challenge the government to lessen the disgraceful educational gap between the quality of public and private Chilean schools. Recently, Valparaiso witnessed fifteen thousand high school and university students marching alongside professors in a massive demonstration on the Plaza Sotomayor in front of the Congressional building. Valparaiso students delivered a letter rejecting the government’s recent proposal for educational reforms, because they were insufficient. They demanded more schools, smaller classes, and the elimination of exam fees. In the past few days, protests of similar magnitude shook the cities of Antofagasta, Concepción, and Arica, from hundreds to thousands of demonstrators supporting the improvement of schools in each of their cities. The multitude of demonstrators spanning the nation suggests that public education is rapidly becoming the country’s leading domestic issue and President Bachelet’s first chance to prove her commitment to her reformist faith.

 

Katie Bolduc
New York Times, New York
June 6, 2006

Article Summary: Op-ed contributor BARRY R. CHISWICK argues that the U.S. has no real need for (illegal) immigrants and that if we do not want to support so many immigrants, we must simply lower our low-wage labor demand through modifying the behaviors that typically lead us to hire these people, suggesting that we might mow lawns and wash sheets less frequently and that we could import more foreign produce.

Dear Editor:

In his New York Times op-ed article (“The Worker Next Door”, June 3), Barry Chiswick suggests that the U.S. has no real need for low-skilled, low-wage foreign workers, contending that wages and markets would adjust appropriately should immigrants be eliminated from the labor supply, but he fatally leaves out of the equation the governmental subsidies that restrain some prices from rising to the levels they would in a truly competitive environment. It is not the immigrant labor supply, but government subsidies that keep prices low for many immigrant-made products, such as fruits and vegetables. Despite efforts by WTO negotiators and other pro-poor organizations to increase third-world producer access to world markets, persistent protective measures artificially depress domestic prices, rendering U.S. markets unprofitable to potential foreign producers, even in industries in which they have yawning comparative advantage. Until we eliminate protective measures and allow domestic prices to rise to unsubsidized levels, foreign producers will have little incentive to pay wages to produce and export these goods, so these overseas workers will be forced to continue seeking jobs in the U.S. in order to earn the wages they might otherwise receive in their home countries. If labor-abundant third world countries are unable to profitably export their products due to developed world subsidies and other trade barriers, labor forces in developing countries will have no choice but to export themselves.

 

Hilary Moise
Newsday, New York
June 5, 2006

“Going South”

Article Summary: Newsday published an editorial criticizing the growing trend of Latin American governments taking a turn to the left, focusing on populist ideologies and centralized economies, with Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales at the forefront of the movement.

Dear John Mancini,

The winds of change are once again sweeping across Latin America, but the wave of strong, nationalist leaders shifting to the left is not the death knell of hemispheric stability as your recent editorial prophesies (“Going South,” May 28). Rather than an anti-American movement, recent economic and political shifts in Latin America should be seen as a natural reaction resulting from the birth of a desire for autonomous development and a release from the ghetto that is America's backyard. Much of Latin America is also calling for less US involvement in the region and more public ownership of segments of the economy.

Liberal political movements are gathering strength because the region is more effectively targeting common goals, such as poverty reduction and management of natural resources. These shared values have mobilized leaders to promote economic cooperation and mutually beneficial collaboration in contrast to the conservative ideologies and self-serving policies of the Washington Consensus. What newspaper editorials label as plunging into an “economic abyss” is actually a revival of a desire to advance one’s national interests and promote self-determination in countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, which have suffered from the insignificant economic returns from the neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s and 90s.

Common goals and ever-increasing oil prices have brought Latin American countries together to make use of their own resources, and not only to satisfy the needs of the rich advanced nations. Modern Latin America has not rejected free trade in the global market, rather, it has expanded its participation beyond the perimeters of US self-interest with a number of new economic partnerships that are more mutually beneficial. Development strategies of the 1990s failed to serve the needs of Latin Americans, and now their leaders are using growing political sophistication to forge a new path.

 

Katie Rondeau
Fort Worth Star Telegram, Texas

June 1, 2006

“Uribe’s re-election also a win for the U.S.”

Article Summary: The article covered Uribe’s victory in Colombia, stating it should be seen as a victory in the U.S. as well, the supposed successes Uribe has had during his previous term, and its relations with the U.S. can help its ties to the region.

Dear Editor:

Although crime and kidnapping rates have decreased significantly, Colombia’s President Uribe’s anti-drug efforts and attempts at disbanding the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebel group have proven to be ultimately unsuccessful, and thus his presidential win does not necessarily add up to be a victory for the U.S. (“Uribe's re-election also a win for U.S.,” May 31). Even the potential free trade agreement with the U.S. isn’t as good as it’s made it out to be, especially for Colombia’s poor agricultural class.

Colombia’s preferred method of coca crop elimination, aerial spraying at the behest of U.S. officials, has had adverse effects on the environment as well as contributed to serious health concerns. Coca farmers are replanting coca so fast that the government’s efforts are basically cancelled out; coca production has actually been increasing and becoming more dispersed. Despite Uribe’s efforts to neutralize the FARC by military action, much of the country is still controlled by the rebel group. Meanwhile, all attempts to demobilize the rightist paramilitary group, Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), have resulted in the formation of local gangs and drug-trafficking units, causing violent activity to remain ultimately unchanged.

The possible free trade agreement with the U.S. would most likely raise tariff revenues for both sides, but it could also potentially significantly damage Colombian farmers with the increased competition coming from imports, providing further incentive for local farmers to grow coca. In actuality, only about 42% of Colombians are supporters of the free trade agreement talks, and many more are pressuring Uribe to emphasize social reforms, as half of the population still remains in poverty.

 

Sarah Evans
The Detroit News, Michigan
June 2, 2006

"Venezuela, OPEC Split on Cutting Production"

Article Summary: The Venezuelan oil minister was proposing that OPEC decrease its supply of oil, but many individuals did not agree because of common supply and demand.

Dear Editor:

Despite recent international increases in gas prices, Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez calls for a world wide reduction in oil production (“Venezuela, OPEC Split on Cutting Production,” 5/30/06 ). This proposal would not only infuriate consumers, but it would also have a difficult time being accepted by other OPEC members, as well as being devastating to President Chavez’s image. In fact, the oil cartel decided that no action would be taken to reduce production. When the average price of OPEC crude oil still hovers at around a high $70 per barrel, how is it justifiable to decrease oil supply in order to drive prices higher? A decrease in inventory would have increased the price of petroleum which already is far above the $50-$60 per barrel mark, which the United Arab Emirates' oil minister, Mohamed al-Hamili, believes is a fair price.

The rise in oil prices inexorably would lead to a decrease in an average citizen’s real income because more money will have to be spent on fuel and petroleum products, leaving workers to demand higher wages, further stressing economies around the world.

While Ramirez looks to the demand side of the equation, citing that geopolitical forces always play a large role in oil prices, he needs to consider the numerous other factors that must be taken into account when establishing a global market price. OPEC decided not to take Ramirez’s advice, which never should have been given in the first place.

 

Saul Cohen
Houston Chronicle, Texas
June 1, 2006

Article Summary: The article published by the Houston Chronicle discussed the benefits of Uribe's victory in the presidential election yet downplayed the rise of civil opposition.

Dear Editor:

While the Chronicle along with the rest of the U.S. Press accurately cited Alvaro Uribe’s landslide reelection victory in Colombia’s presidential elections on May 28, it failed to adequately recognize the growing opposition to his increasingly authoritarian presidency. The Bush administration, while accusing Venezuela’s leftist leader of consolidating his power, calculatedly turns a blind eye to Uribe’s far harsher policies. The White House may hope that Uribe’s election will mark the beginning of the recession of the recent “pink tide” of left-leaning South American governments opposed to U.S. regional power, but this may merely be wishful thinking.

While violent crime has declined under Uribe, repression has increased. Colombia’s intelligence agency, the Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad, has been accused to colluding with right-wing paramilitaries in the battle against the FARC leftist guerillas. Uribe has attempted to suppress media coverage of this and other issues. His government maintains a negative attitude towards human rights workers and sees them as quasi-terrorists, while granting impunity to notorious right-wing paramilitary leaders.

Though Uribe received 62 percent of the vote, there is a growing movement of opposition within Colombia, which will only expand as the citizens discover that Uribe only represents the country’s urban middle class. Evidence of this trend is already apparent with candidate Carlos Gavira receiving a record number of votes for Colombia’s left and also in the abnormally high rate of abstention in this election. With his well-established record of repression, Uribe – and the U.S. administration that endorses him – will face ever-increasing opposition.

 

David Smikle
Miami Herald, Florida
May 26, 2006

“Brazilians Protest Gang Violence”

Article Summary: The May 22 article in the Miami Herald, “Brazilians protest Gang violence,” covered the anti-corruption protesters in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro who demanded ethical governance. The editorial attempts to highlight the flagrant disparities in Brazil and challenges the leaders to tackle systematic social injustice.

Dear editor:

Your May 22 article “Brazilians protest Gang violence,” raises important issues in the affairs of South America’s most multi-ethnic society. Although the root cause for such rank violence might differ, the recent chaos in Sao Paulo eerily reminds us of the riots which shook French cities last year. The parallel events in both Brazil and France unearth the inauspicious issues of corruption, discrimination and race relations.

The magnitude of Brazil’s deplorable class and ethnic inequality is most glaring in Sao Paulo—the financial hub of the continent. The melee was sparked by the PCC; however, many normally law-abiding citizens joined with the formidable gang in an “us against them” state of mind as state police commenced what appears to be an indiscriminate reaction to the violence. This brief alliance between the poor and incarcerated was facilitated because of extra-judicial usage of force by officers and perhaps more saliently, the intense sense of disenfranchisement which many marginalized Brazilians share.

Brazilian President Lula da Silva struck the right chord when he suggests that the “problem of violence is cultural and needs a lot more than police” to combat country’s ills. The anti-corruption protests demands for ethical governance in Sao Paulo—and elsewhere—succinctly pinpoint Brazil’s woes. A closer look at the country reveals that despite the country’s middle-income status perpetual inequity exists and this seemingly is eroding the enviable potential of Brazilian society.

Sao Paulo is the symbol of Brazil’s suffocating social injustice where ostentatious luxury is juxtaposed against abject poverty. If the leadership of the country is genuinely interested in stemming Brazil’s mounting tensions, it is imperative that long term civic and economic reforms be implemented.

 

 

Craig Jeffries

Pravda, Russia
May 26, 2006

“Colombia's Uribe Favorite to become reelected next Sunday"

Article Summary: The article published in Pravada described all the candidates who were running in the Colombian elections. What it did not do was address the many ills of the Uribe Government.

The May 22, 2006 article entitled, “Colombia’s Uribe favorite to become re-elected next Sunday” fails to address President Uribe’s unwavering commitment toward Washington’s failed drug policy and his hard-line approach with the FARC, Latin America’s longest running armed guerrilla unit. President Uribe’s FARC strategy is severely flawed and is destined to turn his country into a more violent place. This pre-election article omits the fact that the Uribe Government receives an enormous amount of aid from Washington. For example, Colombia received $643 million from the United States in 2005 and these funds are primarily to finance an ineffective “War on Drugs” and further militarize Colombia amidst the nation’s seemingly never-ending civil-war. Astoundingly, 83 percent of all U.S. aid to the country is allocated to these two initiatives, which sadly leaves little room for humanitarian assistance.

The piece should have also noted that President Uribe’s main platform, the suppression of the FARC, has generated a very strong right-wing counterpart in the United Self-Defense Force (AUC). Uribe’s support for the AUC, and his absolute loathing of the FARC, could in turn lead his country towards a bloodier future if both of these armed groups take steps that would escalate their currently sporadic spat. The majority of Colombians support Uribe’s hard-line approach in combating the FARC, yet he loses more of his constituents’ approval as his actions are influenced by Washington. A much closer examination of Uribe is needed, one that shines a spotlight on his cozy relationship with the Bush Administration and support for the “War on Drugs.” If Uribe is elected this Sunday, uncertainty amongst whether his policy will be guided by his citizens desires or Washington’ demands will still remain.

 

Alex Sanchez
El Pais, Spain
May 21, 2006

“ El Mercosur se la juega”

Article Summary: La crisis entre Argentina y Uruguay sobre la construcción de dos fábricas de pasta de celulosa ha puesto en duda el futuro de MERCOSUR, despertando discusiones acerca de su futuro y una posible re-estructuración.

Su artículo del Mayo 21, “El Mercosur se la juega” discute la incertidumbre del futuro de esta organización Sud-americana. Mientras que Latino America intenta lograr un mayor nivel de integración, los líderes regionales deberían ver como una opción el acercarse a España por direcciones, debido a la vasta, y varias veces turbulenta, presencia española en el hemisferio occidental. Otra razón es que España es la sede de la Secretaria General Ibero-Americana. También es importante mencionar que José Luis Zapatero ha impulsado agresivamente su política exterior, que incluye incrementas las relaciones con Latino América, incluyendo a Cuba. Por ende, Zapatero debería usar la influencia diplomática española en Latino América para intentar resolver la disputa entre Argentina y Uruguay sobre la construcción de unos molinos – un hecho al que se le debe agregar el date que la compañia española Ence esta envuelta en el conflicto. Como su articulo correctamente menciona, MERCOSUR no parece estar capacitado para pacificar la disputa Argentino-Uruguaya, Zapatero debería usar este evento como una oportunidad para incrementar la presencia española en la región. Ayuda constructiva en este conflicto demostraría la relevancia de Madrid en el continente Americano.

 

Anna Anderson
Star-Telegram,Texas
May 26, 2006

"While critical of U.S. efforts, Mexico limits foreigners more"

Article Summary: Foreign born citizens are prohibited from holding certain public offices in Mexico, and the Mexican government urges the U.S. government to have looser immigration laws.

Dear Editor:

While simultaneously pushing for lenient immigration policy in the U.S., for its own cities, Mexico excludes 0.5 percent of its own foreign-born, now legal citizens from Mexican government positions (“While critical of U.S. efforts, Mexico limits foreigners more,” May 22). If Mexico expects the United States to be more forthcoming, it should stop being hypocritical and change how it reacts to its own foreign-born citizens. Why should Washington respect leniency requests if they have no ethical consistency behind them?
Foreign-born individuals living in Mexico are banned from thousands of its public offices. In the United States, however, only the President and Vice-President are required to be native-born. Though it excludes foreign-born Mexican citizens from a variety of government positions, the Mexican government allows its very large Mestizo population to run for public office and hold thousands of other jobs. As a Mestizo, an individual must have at least one non-indigenous ancestor, i.e. they can be foreign-born. The only way the Mexican government distinguishes these two types of ‘foreign-born’ citizens is how far their foreign born ancestor is removed.
While adopting the Center for Security Policy’s J. Michael Waller’s suggestion that U.S. policy should use the Mexican constitution as the basis for its own immigration policy, is hardly a solution, it will at least have a point where one needs to be made.

 

Leona Say

AP, Las Vegas Sun, Nevada
May 19, 2006

Article Summary: The article discussed a meeting between Evo Morales & Lula about Bolivia's nationalization.

Dear Editor:

Although both President Evo Morales of Venezuela and President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil declared their meeting last Saturday a success in mending their relationship, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim’s remarks reveal a somewhat less-than-cordial atmosphere over Bolivia’s nationalization of its natural gas industry. While Lula is busy trying to safeguard the $1.5 billion in investments made by Brazil’s Petrobas in Bolivia’s hydrocarbon industry he has perhaps neglected to see his own hemispheric standing slipping away. Morales seems to have turned his eye to Caracas, where Hugo Chávez readily offers cash for development programs and a chance to participate in a proposed new natural gas pipeline that would transit several Latin American countries. Being linked to Venezuela and Argentina is a lucrative prospect for a poor country like Bolivia which, although endowed with huge natural gas reserves, has yet to effectively exploit the commodity and deliver the benefits to the populous. Given the involvement of seven countries in the pipeline program, political quarreling will inevitably lengthen the planning process. Chávez has been the catalyst in the pipeline program, forging a consensus among the countries’ leaders, and Morales’ decision to give priority to his alliance with Chávez over that of Lula could prove a wise strategic decision. As he is no longer being recognized as the continent’s clear leader, Lula could well learn a lesson on inspired leadership from Morales.

 

Adrienne Nothnagel

Akron Beacon Journal, Ohio
May 17, 2006

Article Summary: The Akron Beacon Journal published an article detailing President Bush’s Plan to tighten security at the southern boarder of the U.S.

Dear Editor:

President Bush sending 6,000 Guard troops to the Mexican boarder to gain “control” will not provide the long-term solutions our nation needs for the controversial issue of immigration. The president is using our troops like a band-aid over a gushing wound and expects a long-term fix to complex, dynamic issues. The Bush administration should focus less on controlling people by force and establish mutual compromise and collaborative efforts with Mexico. The State Department needs to work closely with the Mexican government to eliminate Mexico’s internal conflicts such as authority corruption and extreme inequality of wealth. These factors, along with low government wealth redistribution due to NAFTA neo-liberal reforms and the vast black market, provide incentive for immigrants to smuggle themselves across the border. The Bush administration can create the fundamental changes required for a progressive Mexico through communication, guidance and effort. The US should adopt a farsighted policy instead of its current tunnel vision for a temporary, timely-efficient solution. Having guns and using Americans as shields on the border will not reduce the number of immigrants leaving their homeland for a better life.

 

Ashley Dalman

Washington Post, Washington D.C.
May 17, 2006

“Venezuela Limits on Church Concerns Pope”

Article Summary: On May 11, the Washington Post published an article on Chavez's visit with the Pope, detailing their discussion which revolved around the role of the Church in Venezuela and Chavez's social policies.

Dear Editor:

Nicole Winfield’s May 11 article “Venezuela Limits on Church Concerns Pope” perhaps unintentionally illustrates Hugo Chavez’s political savvy. The meeting was arranged to allay any fears of the Pontiff over President Chavez’s efforts to secularize public education and legalize abortion. Yet the question here is basically about separation of Church and State, as the Venezuelan leader has been reluctant to relinquish the traditional veto power held by Venezuela presidents over the appointment of bishops. Chavez has cunningly used both sides of the religious card in his favor: in order to avoid losing backing from his primarily dissenting Catholic constituents who have been put off by the church’s sometimes infuriating policies, he defies the Vatican, while simultaneously utilizing Christian rhetoric and symbols to profess himself as a God-fearing Catholic penitent. It is this political and strategic mastery that helps explain the rise of South America’s latest hero and the extraordinary skill that he has developed which allows him to neutralize one sectoral foe after another.

 

Derek Drayer

Chicago Tribune, Illinois
May 17, 2006

“South of the Border, Some Worried by Plan to use Guard”

Article Summary: The article discussed fears in Mexico over the new border proposals by President Bush.

Dear Editor:

The May 16 article, “South of the border, some worried by plan to use Guard,” ignores some pressing factors associated with the border. Though many Mexicans view the addition of National Guard units and increased technology as a menace which must be opposed, they fail to adequately assess the dangers already encountered there. The Mexican-American border is one of the most hazardous in the world, with more deaths occurring there each year than were recorded during all the years of the Berlin Wall. Although President Bush is trying to win back his conservative base by an archly political move, he, perhaps inadvertently, has done something constructive to protect the lives of immigrants trying to reach the United States. Increased monitoring, if applied equally and responsibly across the entire border along with it being clearly explained, may prevent lives from being needlessly lost. Although the presence of the National Guard may be a worrisome symbol to some in Mexico, their mission is not a violent one, and could ultimately play a distinctive humanitarian purpose, leading to fewer deaths in the sun soaked deserts of the Southwest.

 

Emily Kirksey

El Paso Times, Texas
May 17, 2006

“Mexico’s Fox Valls Bush over Border Plan”

Article Summary: The article published in the El Paso Times concerned the United States and Mexico border, and the Bush administration's decision to use National Guard Troops to reinforce the area.

Dear Editor:

Mexico’s President Vincente Fox reached out to President Bush Sunday, urging him to reconsider militarizing the U.S.-Mexico border (“Mexico’ Fox Calls Bush over Border Plan,” May 14). The initial decision to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border is a transparent and desperate attempt to bolster President Bush’s job approval ratings that are now in free fall. The Bush administration’s half-hearted sortie to win back deserting conservatives will do little to secure border areas and further sour relations with our southern neighbor. The Rio Grande must not be seen as a war zone. Sending troops to stand guard against Mexico will undermine Mexican efforts to solve bona fide border issues through cooperation. Also, sending in the troops without a clear operation mandate is a disastrous recipe. President Bush needs to resolve muddled U.S. immigration policy on the drawing board before he further extends our already over-worked armed forces. Our borders need a plan not more muscle or mindless gooblegook.

 

Ashley Dalman

Holland Sentenial, Michigan
May 7, 2006

“Legal and Illegal”

Article Summary: On May 7, the Holland Sentinel published an opinion article by Cal Thomas, in which he argued in favor of the deportation of illegal immigrants, in order for them to improve their individual countries rather than take away U.S. jobs.

To the Editor:
Your May 7 Cal Thomas column, “Legal and Illegal,” predictably makes the ill-informed argument that illegal immigrants should return to their own countries and work to improve the situation there. Such a deceptively facile thesis fails to see an obvious point: if it were possible for those who chose to illegally immigrate to improve their lives at home, presumably they would have done so. The decision to leave their family and homeland is never an easy one; rather, it is a decision driven by desperation. If the ultimate policy goal is to reduce levels of illegal migration, Washington must choose a variety of constructive programs to promote meaningful development in Mexico, not only the interests of White House connected corporations seeking cheap labor. Thomas also got it wrong as to which political party is pandering to the illegals. Bush and part of his GOP faction fear that the Republicans will become a permanent minority if they cannot make inroads into the potential Latino votes.

A path to citizenship would reduce the incentives to hire illegal migrants by ensuring they are paid minimum wage; unfortunately, deportation will not return jobs to American workers. Employers will continue to outsource to the cheapest labor provider, and with the rise of technology and a globalized economy, employment is no longer limited by national borders.

 

2005

Submitted To	Title	Author
Baltimore Sun September 8, 2005	Colombia on the Brink	Luis Morales
Waltham Daily News Tribune July 21, 2005	Ramirez Precedent Could be Alarming	Kaitlyn Powles
Miami Herald July 8, 2005	CAFTA's Downside	Oceane Jasor
Sun Herald June 27, 2005	CAFTA Pits a Fire Hose Against a Water Pistol	Alicia Asper
Daily Press June 26, 2005	Expand World News	Stephanie Luckam
Washington Examiner June 23, 2005	Anger Over Cuban Policy Is Misdirected	Sara Evans
La Opinión June 22, 2005	Colombia	Julia Browne
Washington Times June 21, 2005	Pros and Cons of CAFTA	Joesph Taves
Caribbean Net News June 16, 2005	Moving out of the U.S. Shadow	Oceane Jasor
Durham Herald-Sun June 13, 2005	Making Learning Relevant	Mary Donohue
Miami Herald June 6, 2005	Cuba Policy Fails	Stephanie Luckam
Christian Science Monitor June 2, 2005	Saving Peru's Machu Picchu	Joseph Taves
Financial Times May 18, 2005	How Mesa Can Survive Bolivia's Crisis	Hampden Macbeth
International Relations and Security Network March 1, 2005	Congratulations, Canada	Alex Sanchez

2004