I am writing (once again) in response to the letter from Janet Miller that appeared in the July 19 edition. The first order of business is to say thank you to Janet for the show of support and her offer to help make public the facts of what the current policies of the governments are costing taxpayers. In turn, I would offer Janet my time and efforts to assist her in this endeavor if it becomes necessary.
I further appreciate the information presented in the editor's note with regard to the numbers of non-English speakers in our school system. Using those numbers and assuming an average class size of 35 to 40 students, it stands to reason then that the taxpayers of this community are funding the equivalent of somewhere between 25 and 29 classrooms, teachers, and educational materials for almost 1,000 children, some of whose legal residency may be questionable. By your own numbers, at least one-third were not even born in this country, although since you state no one can ask about the legal status of child or parent, one has to wonder how this information was derived?
To present a couple of further comments on the editor's note: I notice you prefer the politically correct version of "undocumented," which is in vogue by people in office who are afraid to say "illegal" for fear the voters might ask them why they have allowed illegal actions to take place and why they have not taken any corrective action to reduce the impact. Documented is inadequate! People with false papers can be documented and still be illegal. Let's call illegal what it is and drop the politically correct semantic games played to avoid acknowledging the fact that outsiders are mugging our country, with local, county, state and federal government approval.
I further find it baffling that anyone would cite the federal "No Child Left Behind Act" or any other federal act, law, or statute as an excuse for the current situation in our schools. Had equal zeal been displayed in the observance of the federal "Immigration Act," the problem might not exist and would certainly be of less magnitude. How can elected officials explain how one law is used to justify a problem that has been created due to their ignoring and failure to enforce another law? Who selects which laws are to be enforced?
I hope the editor's note is not the final response to my original letter which asked that a public accounting be made "showing the past two year's costs for all aspects related to supporting the illegal population among us." I also suggested that candidates for office be interviewed and their intended policies on these matters made clear.
Since January 2006, more than $34 billion have been exported to Mexico alone. Dollars earned in the U.S. that completely bypassed the local economies where earned, and where resident taxpayers are expected to finance a growing and seemingly endless list of benefits to illegal immigrants.
