Immigration law demonized?
(In response to the April 21 editorial, “Arresting activism.”)
The liberal slant in the editorial section of this paper is disgusting, and I am especially sickened at the defense of illegal immigrants. The editors of this newspaper attempt to demonize those who are simply attempting to defend the laws of this country. This bill is meant to deter illegal [immigrants] from coming to Arizona, if you are here legally then this bill should be a non-issue because if you are here legally, you should be able to prove it at any given time. If I went to any other country I would always carry around my visa or green card, and so too should anyone that comes to the United States. You also failed to mention that illegal immigrants cost Arizona $1.3 billion annually — money that could be put to better use such as higher education. And as far as the protesters who were arrested, what do you suggest they do to someone who chains themselves to the doors to the Capitol? Should we give them an award? Everyone rails against racial profiling; how about you give a viable alternative instead? It’s easy to point out something is wrong; why don’t you give some of ideas of what would work? I think it’s funny how when there is a serial killer on the loose they tend to look for a white male between 25 and 35 [years old]. But oh wait, when there is a serial killer, the majority of the time that’s exactly who is doing it! Get over it. The cold hard truth of the situation is it isn’t white English speakers illegally crossing the border with Mexico. This bill sends a message to illegal [immigrants] that you are not welcome in Arizona and should be signed and become law.
Aaron Anglin Undergraduate Wrong idea?
(In response to Osman Salim’s April 16 column, “American violence hurts Middle East relations.”)
In Osman Salim’s column on American “violence” in the Middle East, the author is incorrect and misleading about what occurs in the infamous Wikileaks video that shows an American helicopter attacking Iraqis. First, the Reuters reporters were not helping to take children to a hospital and I don’t know where Mr. Salim got this absurd idea from. They were following around insurgents armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades without wearing anything to identify them as press while they were attacking American forces. The assertion that the reporters and Iraqis were killed in “cold-blood” is also unfair and derogatory toward the soldiers on the scene. The fact is that the helicopter crew didn’t just wake and say, “Well, we want to kill some Iraqis today,” they were in the air because American forces in the area were under attack. Most importantly, they were following a stringent set of ROEs set by commanders in Iraq. If Mr. Salim wants accuse Americans of killing in cold-blood, he better get his facts straight.
Daniel D. Caldwell Undergraduate Unanswered PIRG questions
(In response to the April 13 editorial, “Pushing PIRG.”)
I think we can agree that PIRG this year ran a well-executed and visible campaign in terms of reaching out to people. At least as good as one could hope for, given that it is a university campus election. This is at least my opinion as a student on the Polytechnic campus. I have to give PIRG credit for a very visible campaign, and I think the April 13 editorial is a true testament to that fact. On the Polytechnic campus, PIRG used a variety of informative campaign tactics like the blue signs, going class to class informing students, going room to room in the residential halls, calling everyone that signed the petition and finally setting up positions outside the polls on the election days. I think one student said it best to me: “They came to my door four times.”
The final question in this campaign: What could PIRG do to reach out to people better? I think the answer, or at least as a student at the Polytechnic campus, clearly is to better define a clear mission and also show a track record of success at the local campus level. I think, in terms of Polytechnic, the organization should have re-registered as a student organization, because the club didn’t re-register for the 2009-2010 year. The next step after re-registering the organization should have mobilized on the campus and then demonstrated what PIRG can do to improve the lives of students.
Again, questions were left unanswered this year and I think it played a huge part in this election.
Matthew E. McCoy ASASUP President
Political process
It was recently inquired of me as to why USG senators failed to remove a senator from office during impeachment proceedings. Truth be told, I don’t have an answer to that question.
A college council had requested that the senator be impeached for failure to perform her duties, a hearing was held at which time the senator admitted she had failed to perform her duties, [and] I even offered the senator an opportunity to resign rather than put the entire senate through this process (silly me). Come time for the vote [there was] no removal; the vote was 10-5-2.
This senator dodged a bullet that allowed her to run for vice president on an executive campaign ticket. Go figure!
My sincerest apologies to the college council involved, and my apologies to our constituents whose voices apparently mean nothing to my fellow senators.
Chuck Conley USG Senator
