Governor’s highway plan too timid

To the editor:

The governor’s plan to divert money from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority to the highway fund is an excellent idea. Its only fault is that it doesn’t go far enough.

A government agency should not have an unfair tax advantage when it competes with private companies for convention business. Government should not be in the advertising and promotion business, either. The private resort and convention businesses are perfectly capable of advertising and promoting themselves.

I cannot see any reason for the existence of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. It should be completely eliminated, its assets sold off and all the funds put in the road fund.

The highway fund would be brimming with money and we could complete all the highway projects in short order.

Larry Whyte

LAS VEGAS

Troubled culture

To the editor:

Kudos to the Sunday column by Vin Suprynowicz in which the “real” illegal immigration story surfaced. And shame on Rene Cantu’s letter to the editor on the next page. He called the Review-Journal racist in a feeble and deplorable attempt to exonerate illegal aliens from the responsibilities that they must assume to live in this country.

And I might remind him that people from any foreign country who are here illegally have no constitutional “rights” — just as U.S. citizens have no “rights” in Mexico or any other country.

I submit that the legal residents of the United States are not wrong in demanding relief from paying the education and health care costs for millions of law-breaking illegals. These are benefits for which illegal aliens thank this country by marching around with foreign flags above that of their benefactors and screaming for justice while throwing bottles at Los Angeles police officers. And I can’t imagine why anyone would choose to go to a country illegally, knowing full well that if they were caught it would tear their family apart.

Granted, the majority of illegals are hard-working and are here only to send financial support back to other family members, bolstering the economy of their home country. But that does not exempt them from becoming legal residents of America. They left their own country because their own culture was depressed, harsh and not acceptable in their attempt to create a good life for themselves. But the really hard part for most Americans to swallow is that the majority of illegals are not here to become Americans by adopting and contributing to our culture. Instead, they want to bring their troubled culture here with them.

I agree with Mr. Suprynowicz’s comments that illegals would gain more respect if they left their flags and their language at home and attempted to live here legally, contributing to our society by assuming their fair share of the costs of their medical care and the education of their children.

In other words, come here as our ancestors did, stop taking advantage of our antiquated birthright laws and our liberal welfare programs, and become Americans — with all the responsibilities and culture that go with it.

Frank Musaraca

HENDERSON

American born

To the editor:

In his Sunday column, Vin Suprynowicz cites the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment in an obvious attempt to avoid further discussion of one of the more serious issues involving illegal aliens. A major concern is the treatment of children born in this country whose parents are illegal. Mr. Suprynowicz implies that they are not automatically citizens because the 14th Amendment has the qualifier that they are citizens of the United States only if they “are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Does Mr. Suprynowicz have any basis for believing that aliens and their children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are in this country?

It is widely known by those conversant with the Constitution that the “jurisdiction” requirement in the 14th Amendment is there to exclude children of foreign diplomats and children born of alien enemies in the event of a hostile takeover of our country. Although citizenship may be voluntarily relinquished, Congress may grant citizenship (as it did with the American Indians who were originally excluded) but it cannot take it away.

So the children born in this country are U.S. citizens, regardless of the legal status of their parents. Now, Mr. Suprynowicz, I’m waiting to hear your suggestions for dealing with these young U.S. citizens who have done nothing illegal. Shall we deport them with their parents, or perhaps take them away from their parents and have them adopted by a “real” American family?

Or, as a third alternative, shall we accept the children and their parents and allow them to assimilate within a generation, as have other cultures newly arrived in this country?

Mel Lipman

LAS VEGAS