Consider new approach to immigration
A good idea: The U.S. spends billions of tax dollars a year to support illegal immigration. This is a huge problem. Instead of catching these people, putting them in Obama’s holding pens and supporting them for long periods of time, we could just catch the illegals coming into our country and put them back across the border through gates. This could be done in a short amount of time.
The current laws would need to be changed for this to happen, but the time and money saved could be used in a better way. When the word got out that there would be no more free assistance or rewards for coming here, the illegal problem would be less of a problem. With the money that was saved, it could go to better care for our veterans and our wounded warriors.
The savings could also go to help our country’s homeless. If there was any money left over, it could help reduce our country’s national debt. You will never hear this idea from our current congress.
William Howard
Sequim
Danger in popular theories
With reference to “Evidence for climate change is obvious” (Letters to the editor, Sequim Gazette, Nov. 20, page A-12):
I thank the writer for his Bertrand Russell quotation for it certainly applies to me as it applies to anyone who is eccentric and we who believe that the theory of “climate change” is unproven hogwash are certainly eccentric.
About 100 years ago there was another theory going around that was swallowed wholesale by the glitterati that included Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson. It was approved by Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis who ruled in its favor … other people who favored it included Alex Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford, H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, there are many others but I’m limited to 250 words.
Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Institutions … All major universities pushed the theory. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
The theory was “eugenics.” Its history is so dreadful that now it is rarely even mentioned. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen so that its horrors are never repeated.
“Climate change” is unproven theory based upon biased computer modeling … the output of one volcano throws the complete concept into a cocked hat.
Ethan Harris
Sequim
Costs of ‘retiring’ land
Did you ever notice that those politicians that are publicly wringing their hands over a lack of affordable housing are the same politicians whose actions created this lack in the first place?
And their creativity continues unabated with their very latest ploy called a “Conservations Futures Fund,” whereby they purchase land which is then forever classified as “farmland,” and which cannot ever be used for residential purposes. This action effectively “retires” the land and further exacerbates the housing shortage.
Furthermore, to add insult to injury, they then raise our taxes to obtain the necessary funding since, as we all know – or should know – politicians have no money save what they extort from us taxpayers,
They’re hitting us with a double whammy … they make houses more expensive and they use our money to do it. And we let them, for gosh sakes!
But this is nothing new as our politicians, through intent or ignorance, have been systematically raising housing costs for quite some time.
Yet another one of their favorites is “discovering” a slightly soggy area that in past was considered merely a large puddle left over from a rainstorm but is suddenly determined to be an official wetland – replete with boundaries and set-backs – and is now sacrosanct and forever placed in a non-developable status. Bingo, another “retirement.”
Obviously, these politician-driven “retirements” contribute to a scarcity of land and, consequently, housing. Since land “retirements” create these scarcities, maybe we should stop retiring land. Maybe, instead, we should retire some politicians.
Dick Pilling
Port Angeles
