Immigration Distinction

To the Editor:

The various writers of letters in the Oct. 17 edition of the Record all jump up and down about “immigration” and try to use examples of all of us being descendants from “immigrants.” My own great-great grandfather from the Slovak region of Eastern Europe lost an arm and a leg fighting in the Prussian Army. Not wanting his sons to get drafted into service, he immigrated with the entire family to America - arriving through New York City. The key difference - and a fact that was omitted by Eric Green, Marie Watts and Bob Heath in their “Letters to the Editor” - is a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

In those early years of settlement of the U.S., it was truly helpful and economically beneficial to have an influx of immigrants to settle the western lands and to provide a labor force for a growing industrial economy. Guess what folks? That has been accomplished.

Every country in the world has the right to control their borders. The majority of those countries have far more stringent immigration policies than the U.S. has ever considered. There are laws and a process that must be followed and there is no justification or moral position that one could take that would qualify that. The Liberals all cry “But who will mow our lawns ... or clean our homes ... or build our homes?” But in essence they are saying “We want a slave-labor force that is beholden to us to allow them to live among us ... as long as they know their place and don’t move next door.”

If you are going to try to postulate on the moral dilemma surrounding immigration, at least have the intellectual honesty to fully understand the complete picture. The U.S. currently has a viable immigration policy and if someone’s presence in the country starts with a breaking of the laws in place, how can you expect they will respect any other laws we have?

Kevin Hromas Fayetteville