The Tribune again demonstrates its left-wing bias and hypocrisy by using a loaded racist term that has connotations of Nazism to describe me and another candidate in its editorial of May 7 (“Support of profiling law outrageous”). The term “über conservative” is both offensive and incendiary, used only to inflame public passions about the immigration issue. They are “fighting words.” As a newspaper, you know the vocabulary.
The Tribune has lied repeatedly about the new Arizona law in a brazen attempt to distort public debate about the issue and create a phony “straw man.” Nowhere in the Arizona law are local law enforcement officers empowered to detain innocent people who don’t “look or sound or dress quite ‘legal’ enough.”
Not only is this a juvenile caricature of the law, it is nonsensical on its face and shows that The Tribune’s “editorials” should not be taken seriously by anyone. Please explain what “dressing” or “sounding legal” is and indicate where in the Arizona law, which explicitly bans racial profiling, is there any reference (to) that?
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Tribune
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I demand a public retraction of the over-the-line racist terminology you used in your recent editorial in trying to link me incorrectly with racism. Matt Kokkonen
San Luis Obispo
So The Tribune and its writers don’t like Arizona’s new immigration law.
Well here’s a news flash. Phoenix has become the nation’s kidnap-for-ransom capital. Arizona’s narcotics prosecutions have risen more than 200 percent in the last 16 months. And the U.S. Justice Department tells us that Mexican drug cartels are the biggest organized crime threat to the United States. The federal government won’t act to secure its borders so what would you expect Arizona to do?
According to an IBD/TIPP poll, 60 percent of the country supports this new law. We understand that illegals are breaking our laws and overloading our systems. We understand that this law does not give police unchecked power to randomly stop anyone. It in fact gives police the freedom to enforce existing laws.
I, for one, am getting sick and tired of being lectured to by a bunch of unserious thinkers who apparently believe that smoking in public is a more severe problem than having our borders overrun. You project your fears of profiling as fact. You attack people because they disagree with you. You refuse to acknowledge and address actual illegal immigration facts. Until you get serious, why should we listen to you?
James L. Killian
San Luis Obispo
On the fence
The new law in Arizona is very debatable. Many people oppose this law, but many are for it. I am on the fence with this whole thing. I do agree we should be able to take suspected illegal immigrants into custody if they don’t have a green card, but not pull them over because of their ethnicity.
We need a stronger security force on the border to prevent illegal immigrants from getting into our country. Just try and think what it would be like to have to carry your own birth certificate.
Student, Arroyo Grande High School
Give it a chance
Julie Lynem has stood true to her liberal Democratic values (“Arizona’s immigration law is degrading,” May 9). She tears down an attempt to solve a problem without presenting a solution of her own.
Kudos to Arizona for at least attempting to curb illegal immigration (and an IBD/TIPP poll shows that 60 percent of Americans support you).
Why not try it and see how it works out; isn’t that the Democrats’ theory concerning health care? To quote Nancy Pelosi: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Let’s give the Arizona law the same chance to succeed or fail. At least it isn’t costing us billions of dollars.
In reference to your opinion page on May 7 about Arizona’s immigration law (“Support of profiling law outrageous”).
You disgust me. Your opinion is typical of the left wing-biased press in that you distort the facts and insult the intelligence of your readers. There is nothing in the bill that goes beyond what is already federal law.
Your statement that police will be able to randomly stop anyone only to check their immigration status is a complete distortion of the facts. Police can question anyone about their legal status only after another law is broken and being investigated.
It is the federal government failing to enforce existing laws that has brought about the states’ action.
Why don’t you be honest with your readers? Stop pushing a political agenda and just tell the truth.
A good start
Joe Tarica doesn’t seem to have any sympathy for the poor legal residents of Arizona that weren’t getting any help from the police or government (“Support for Arizona law disgusting,” May 8). What would you do if you were a citizen and a land owner but didn’t dare go out in your yard at night for fear of who might be there?
Don’t we have “the right to be secure in our persons and houses” in the United States? We have laws that aren’t being enforced, so we have to get tough.
We all have to show our driver’s license, give our Social Security numbers, etc. all the time.
We aren’t supposed to drive without our driver’s license. Why is that asking too much of Hispanic visitors that are doing something suspicious?
If we want to solve a problem we have to do something, and the Arizona law is a good start. Those of us that don’t live with that problem have no right to make judgment. It’s not as if we can go into Mexico and do the things they are doing here. Why should they get away with it?