Style says ‘illegal immigrants’ are no more

To the editor:

I’m so glad The Associated Press finally removed the term “illegal immigrant” from its official AP Stylebook.

For many years, several Hispanic advocacy organizations have been demanding that this term be removed from the stylebook and that media organizations stop using this term. Besides being offensive to not only people who are undocumented, it’s also offensive to citizen Hispanics like myself.

However, no matter how you feel about the immigration debate, the terms “illegal immigrant” or “illegal” are just not accurate. “Illegal” is an act, not a person.

Now that The AP finally made it official, I hope to see media organizations following suit. There’s no reason for people to use this offensive term. Instead, people can say someone is living in the country illegally or without legal permission.

MICHELLE BOOTH

LAS VEGAS

Licensing marriage

To the editor:

Once marriage was the exclusive province of religion, but now it’s regulated by civil authorities for many purposes.

Now marriage is a situation between two people who desire a commitment to live together as a family unit. I totally agree with that view and commend those who enter into that arrangement, whether straight, gay or lesbian. I believe the equal protection concept is determinative and that people in a continuing, committed relationship should be allowed those aspects that the term “marriage” allows, including power of attorney and marital tax benefits.

However, I see no reason to limit this commitment to man-woman, gay or lesbian relationships. Why can’t two women or two men, who are straight, live together in a committed relationship and be eligible for those same benefits?

EARLE MALKIN

LAS VEGAS

GOP stupidity

To the editor:

Republicans are currently pushing for more voter ID laws across the country. Why? They just went through a horrendous national election, an election where it was clear the voting public had seen through the GOP position that voter ID was needed to prevent fraud.

Have the Republicans really forgotten the long and bitter history in this country of women, black Americans and other minorities persevering against un-American attempts to prevent the exercise of their most beloved right? Apparently.

So here they are again, simply on the wrong side of history, attempting to swim upstream and, yes, they’ll fail. Republicans, you’d better get on the side of the majority in at least a few of your issues, or you will fade. Believe it or not, stupidity is not a plus in the fight for survival.

RICHARD L. STRICKLAND

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Defending gun rights

To the editor:

It would be foolish to believe the new commercials about gun control measures. The areas with the strictest controls have the highest crime rates, and criminals pick the easiest and safest target. None of the proposals would’ve prevented even one of the mass murders, and none had been judged as mentally impaired.

Most were weapons bought after background checks or illegally off the street. Multiple guns, taped in pairs, could’ve just as easily replaced the large magazines. The few seconds required to change a magazine wouldn’t have allowed unarmed children to attack in self-defense. The background checks need to have restrictions against anyone or any agency compiling a list of who has what weapons, as was done in Germany in the ’30s to facilitate confiscation.

These checks don’t prevent purchase by another friend or family member, but if a person is ruled mentally dangerous, will the other members of the family living with them also be placed on a prohibited list? How can you control a situation where a person passes the test and develops mental issues later?

Most murders are with handguns and not the so-called semiautomatic weapons. More than 100,000,000 weapons haven’t killed anyone, so why not have mandatory weapons safety training at an early age? After all, our forefathers approved individuals to have the most deadly weapon known at the time. This wasn’t for hunting purposes, but to protect us from a possible future tyrannical government.

Is this another unconstitutional forfeiture of our rights?

TX VOGLER

LAS VEGAS

Blaming guns?

To the editor:

Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, defending his AB 234, said, “I want to stress this bill is not intended to punish responsible, law-abiding gun owners. It is a message from gun owners to the community that we are willing to do our part to help” (Thursday Review-Journal). The bill would levy a tax of $25 per gun and 2 cents per round of ammo.

Apparently Assemblyman Horne is one of us, an active shooting hobbyist. The revenue generated by this onerous tax is to be used for mental health programs and victims of violence. Are our legislators telling us that firearms are the cause for stress, mental health issues and violence? If so, maybe we should also tax knives, bats, frying pans and anything else that can be used as a weapon.

I think lawyers, legislators and government in general are a larger cause of stress and mental health issues.

FRED KOSHMERL

LAS VEGAS