Letters to the editor

Now we know
Thanks to Mount Pleasant Mayor Billy Swails for providing the names of the council members who support his “open for business” philosophy. (Post and Courier Commentary page, June 22). I now know who to vote against in the next Town Council election.

No more pesky regulations to worry about now, just leave it to the Town Council to approve things on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, there must be “input from the community,” but the council can do as it pleases.

To the concerned citizens who attend meetings supposedly designed to get public input, I would say, “Don’t bother. Save your energy for the next election. You cannot possibly compete with a developer who can devote his entire working day to convincing politicians that his project is a really good deal for the city.”

Are we creating an environment where a future developer might contribute to a council member for his or her re-election campaign in exchange for “consideration” of a zoning variance? No, of course not. That could never happen in South Carolina.

Perhaps a better motto would be “Mount Pleasant — open for business, rapidly deteriorating in livability.”

A.D. Heathcock
Palisades Drive

Mount Pleasant
Federal authority

After reading your June 26 editorial about the U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the Arizona immigration law violates the Constitution, I must implore you to return to the world of facts.

You needn’t worry that Gov. Nikki Haley will be left alone in the factless universe; the foolish legislators who promoted and passed the South Carolina version of the Arizona law will, I am sure, continue to reside here.

Regardless of how hard you and supporters of Arizona-type laws try to spin the Supreme Court decision, the fact is that the court reaffirmed the federal government’s “undoubted” exclusive power over immigration.

So to answer your front-page news-story headline question: No, the decision is not a good sign for the South Carolina immigration law; it is its death knell. The S.C. law clearly violated the “supreme law of the land” and was based on an untrue premise that your paper keeps promoting — that the federal government is not enforcing immigration laws.

The facts are that the number of border agents has increased from 10,000 in 2004 to 21,444 today; that according to the FBI, violent crimes in Southwest border states dropped by 40 percent in the last two decades; that Congress recently allocated $600 million to border enforcement; and that under the Obama administration deportations are at record numbers (1.5 million the last four years). And this aggressive enforcement has been effective. Apprehensions (considered the best measure of illegal immigration) at the border have fallen 53 percent since 2008.

Contrary to your claims, these facts prove that illegal immigration has fallen precipitously, and that enforcement is at an all-time high.

Robert A. Condy
Attorney-at-Law

Immigration Law Office, LLC
East Bay Street

Charleston
Blatant sham
Finally The Post and Courier has revealed that our state government is a fraud.

The insurance agency not only doesn’t regulate insurance, it is run by former insurance executives for the benefit of insurance companies, not homeowners.

The consumer protection agency has been decimated. There is no protection for the consumer in this state.

Real estate interests control the Legislature (see Jim Merrill) to the detriment of school funding and other government services. The governor will not even sign a bill so that info on the HPV vaccine can be distributed.

And when the governor talks about jobs she is really talking about tax breaks for businesses.

She is anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-public school funding and against anything that helps common citizens of this state.

It is time people rise up and try to take back our rights to a government that is concerned with all citizens and not just those who own businesses and have money to buy influence.

Ellen Felton
Pleasant Hill Drive

Charleston
Hard questions
I am going to take a very unpopular stance. Young Marley Lion, 17, was drinking underage and driving under the influence when he pulled into a strip mall to hide and sleep it off.

What happened to Marley was horrendous and should never have happened. However, Marley must share the responsiblility. Where was he drinking? Who supplied the alcohol? Who allowed him to get behind the wheel? Why did Marley not call someone to drive him home?

I have no doubt that his parents had taught Marley responsibility. By all accounts he was an exemplary young man.

Let’s have Marley’s life and death help teach other teenagers that they are not invincible. Their actions have consequences.

There are a lot of “if onlys” here. Please hold your children close and make sure that they can call you any time, no questions asked.

Jane Floyd
Brant Road
Charleston