News & Views » Letters


Preserve U.S. Sovereignty

"The New Latino South" (by Jesse James DeConto, July 6) supported a bogus land claim for Latin Americans. The article noted interesting history, no doubt. However, the fort that Capt. Juan Pardo established, and then was overrun, represented Spain and not our friends down south in Latin America. Why did Professor Stephens call Americans (US citizens) myopic? Because we want to defend US sovereignty?! I suppose we are all "the Americas" but there is a political distinction between the United States and El Salvador or other Central and South American nations. In response to Letty Cortes: Only US law, not God, will determine whether or not you are eligible to live here. We are a nation of laws, so "I'm here because God wants me here" is not proof of US citizenship.

Also, I'm tired of hearing how we (the gringos) stole the West. In all of human history, wars and subsequent treaties have determined borders all over the world. The American west is not unique. We defeated Mexico, so we get the land, and thank God! If Mexico defeated us, they would have pushed east and north as far as they could go. This argument for one America, stretching from Alaska down to the tip of South America, is a globalist fantasy of a multi-cultural empire (they support the idea because this America would be mostly Latino, not Anglo). Nation states with well defended borders keep the peace, a vast American empire with blurred borders will create strife.

Remember, many others are making claims to the US and the world. Most notably, militant Islamics, who believe the West must surrender to Islam. I don't mean to compare Hispanic immigrants to Islamists, but I just want to warn people that if we don't defend our republic, it will dissolve.

That is starting to happen, I'm afraid.

— Jeff Jones, Rock Hill, SC

Editor's Reply: We were wondering how long it would take for Mr. Jones' Hispanophobia to leap to Islam bashing.

Y Should Focus on its Mission

In response to Davis Kuykendall's Letter to the Editor ("Focus on Consistency," July 13), this is not a First Amendment issue, or about us being intolerant of opposing political or spiritual viewpoints. It is about whether the YMCA should take a position on divisive cultural issues and support a particular political party. When the Y puts James Dobson's literature in a prominent position next to its chapel, it leaves the impression that the Y supports Dobson's agenda. We think that is inappropriate. And it is inappropriate for the YMCA to use our membership dollars to do it. The Y should concentrate on its mission, "To put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all." There are many publications, Christian and otherwise, that can further that mission without alienating large portions of our community. Why don't we focus on doing that, instead?

— Page Lee, Kristin Rogentine-Lee, Charlotte

Add a comment