Not so easy
A Feb. 1 letter commenting on South Carolina's discriminatory practice of denying Life scholarships to U.S. citizen college students solely based on their parent's immigration status erroneously claims that "it is an easy process" to become a U.S. citizen.
But the immigration laws have changed drastically since the 1920s, when the writer says his mother's family easily became citizens.
For its first 100 years, the U.S. had an open-door immigration policy, but since 1875 that door has been progressively closed (especially in the last 20 years) so that today immigration or legalization is simply not available for most.
The problem is not a lack of desire to legalize one's status, or to become a U.S. citizen (there is a difference), or "to obey the law."
The problem is that there is no legal way for the students' parents to "sign up to become citizens." If there was, I have no doubt they'd add their John Hancocks ASAP.
Robert A. Condy
Immigration Law Office, LLC
Wappoo Creek Drive
Industry should never be self-regulated. It does not matter if it is agri-business (i.e. potato farms) or tourism (i.e. cruise ships).
Everyone knows that there are people in this world who would choose to line their pockets with money rather than to protect the air and water that we all need to survive.
Every industry should be covered by laws that provide society with eyes to watch and prevent destruction of our natural resources.
An environmentally conscious CEO today can be replaced with a greedy CEO tomorrow.
The General Assembly should embrace any bill that protects our rivers and estuaries because industry should never be self-regulated.
Looking east through my 12-foot sliding glass door, I have lovely views of sunrises, albeit partially filtered through large oak trees, some on a neighbor's lot and others on the street.
Likewise, there are often spectacular sunsets in the west, again only partly visible.
Since I do not own the property beyond the perimeter of my lot, I have never felt any cause for complaint.
I've always considered that we could have built in the middle of a large field so that we could see in all directions.
Faulty word aim
One of the features I enjoy most in the Sunday paper is the outdoors coverage in the Sports section. Images of children with their latest trophies (usually fish) illustrate their delight at having caught their first fish or trophy.
While I am neither a fisherman nor hunter, I am somewhat envious of those who are. I am all for recreational fishing and hunting. The only birdies I seek are those on the golf course.
However, I am perplexed that a form of metaphorical political hunting correctness has crept into the hunting vernacular.
This is about the "harvesting" of deer and birds.
I am all too familiar with the need to thin out the herds of deer or feral pigs, and hunting the animals is justified. But surely they are hunted and killed, either by rifle, shotgun or arrows.
Using the word "harvesting" is misdirected, perhaps because the words "shoot" and "kill" are too harsh for our oversensitive ears and readers.
In general, harvesting applies to the collection of grains i.e. wheat, barley and corn. When describing a "harvest." I associate that with John Deere but not Remington, Colt or Browning.
I am surprised that the hunting and fishing community uses this verbiage to describe the ancient and well established art and skill of tracking and killing prey.
Would the word "cull" not be more appropriate and at the same time, not offend the oversensitive?
How about "to bag a deer or boar"?
Using the word "harvest" to describe the activity of hunting is disingenuous at best and a euphemism for a form of outdoor sport and survival that goes back to the beginning of recorded history.
I can only surmise that when this word crept into the hunting vocabulary, someone must have been thinking of the Grim Reaper and his own fatal harvest.
Walter Leventhal, M.D.
Maybe the National Security Agency could track down, monitor and intercept these annoying telemarketers.
Robert Bullwinkel Sr.
Campion Hall Road