To: The Editor

 Uncategorized
Jan 202004
 
Authors:

I agree that it can be argued that Bush is allowing “legal”

status for undocumented immigrants just as a cynical election-year

ploy to grab votes in a state with gobs of Electoral College clout.

Though you didn’t say so, I would also agree that it can be argued

that Bush is trying to implement a new policy which “reflects the

American dream.” But considering that the new policy only gives

undocumented workers “legal” status for three years, makes that

“legal” status dependent upon being employed — meaning that their

employers can revoke that status if the workers do anything at all

to fight their own exploitation — and doesn’t provide any new

paths to citizenship, I contend that one could also argue that

Bush’s new immigration policy is, in fact, a cynical plan to lower

wages for all Americans, exactly what the business interests who

finance him want. Considering Bush’s less-than-stellar record as a

champion of immigrant rights and worker protections, I’d say that

my argument probably warrants further consideration.

Eric J. Richardson

Senior, electrical and computer engineering

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

To the Editor

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Jan 202004
 
Authors:

I am appalled either by Ms. Baldwin’s apparent ignorance of the

Universal National Service Act or her deliberate attempt to deceive

her readers. Throughout her article Shannon implies that these

bills are the production of some ominous plot by the current

administration to employ more soldiers in their quest for global

domination. She even claims at her conclusion that Bush has some

hand in these bills, and will certainly not get them passed through

until after the election year. All of these implications could not

be farther from the truth.

The UNSA is actually called the Rangel/Conyers bill after its

major sponsors Charles Rangel (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI). Yes,

that’s a “D” next to their names. This legislation was proposed

well before the Iraq war, sponsored by six Democrat leaders as a

protest to the coming conflict. These congressmen hope that a draft

would keep America out of conflict, as citizens would be less

likely to send their own children into combat. This motivation is a

far cry from the “empire upkeep” suggestion that Ms. Baldwin

made.

Perhaps Ms. Baldwin should research her issues more or increase

her integrity as a journalist. Her warning of a vast conspiracy to

enlist soldiers in global takeover is the opposite goal of the

proposed bill. This is a Democrat sponsored bill that intends to

keep America out of conflict and ensure that there is no

socio-economic gap in the military ranks, no matter how Ms. Baldwin

distorts the truth.

Jacob Seybert

Senior, psychology

 Posted by at 5:00 pm