Letter from an American Border Patrol board member to the editor of the Arizona Daily Star (Kim Kiser)
(Not intended for publication, and not published as of 11/30/02. The Star has published misleading articles about American Border Patrol, such as the November 21, 2002 editorial headlined "Dangerous patriot games", which stated, "The Southern Poverty Law Center, however, has identified the American Border Patrol and Ranch Rescue as hate groups". Neither one of the groups has been labeled as such by the SPLC. ABP is not affiliated with Ranch Rescue.)

11/29/02

Mr. Kiser:

Thank you for taking the time to listen to some of my opinions and for giving me your insights into the matter of illegal immigration. Also, thank you for printing the correction for your use of the term "hate group" when referring to the American Border Patrol in your editorial, "Investigate vigilantes".

However, it is obvious that, in spite of the correction, your use of the term was quite deliberate, as the editorial contained the word "hate" four different times.

The goal of the American Border Patrol, Ranch Rescue and Simcox's Tombstone Militia is, as I understand it, to see that illegal immigration is stopped. Our U.S. Border Patrol has the same mission, so it must follow that it is also a "hate group."

It was amusing that your editorial stated that "militia groups are boiling over in southern Arizona." I know of only two "militia" groups (The American Border Patrol doesn't even come close to being a militia), and one of them is still in a formative stage. You call this "boiling over"?

What is boiling over is the flood of tens of thousands of illegal aliens that is pouring across our border every month, with no serious effort being made by our law enforcement agencies to stop it.

Also, your present style of editorializing would be more responsible if you would stop attaching your own emotional meaning to various words and start paying attention to how they are defined in Webster's dictionary, to wit, "militia" and "vigilante."

Neither of these two words carry the slightest hint of anything odious, unlawful, or undesirable, but you would certainly have your readers believe otherwise. In line with this, your refusal to use the term "illegal alien" in your editorial just points out an even greater bias.

"Illegal alien" is the exact term found in the legal documents and definitions of our immigration laws. You may not like that, but it's a fact. To insist on using the term "immigrant" (which they are not), or "entrant" or "migrant" or "undocumented worker" simply shows that you have chosen to let emotion win out over reality.

I find it difficult (impossible, actually) to accept the fact that you, as you stated in our phone conversation, are not aware (don't believe) that illegal immigration is harming our nation.When I mentioned the great harm it has done - and is doing - to our public school system and our health-care facilities, you said that you did not agree with me, that you don't believe illegal immigration is doing harm in those areas.

Mr. Kiser, don't you read the papers? Publications more professional than yours abound with statistics (documented facts, not liberal speculation) proving that illegal immigration is the main cause of the deplorable academic results of our public schools and is resulting in the financial ruin of health-care facilities all across our nation, especially here in southern Arizona and California. All children deserve an education, but should the United States be responsible, at taxpayers' expense, for educating all the world's children?

Our "leaders" have let this country become the HMO for third-world countries and have sent out the message that America has the responsibility to let the entire world feed at her breast.

You told me that the illegals (your "entrants") are helping the U.S. financially as a result of all the taxes they are paying, and you seemed quite surprised when I pointed out that most of them are being paid "under the table," which results in no withholding tax, no income tax, nor any social security tax being applicable to them.

They did, however, send 23.5 billion dollars back into Mexico this year, much of which was used to pay "coyotes" to smuggle in even more illegals and buy narcotics. Almost all of this money ended up in the pockets of Mexico's elite.

Is it any wonder that Mexico doesn't want to stop illegal immigration, and that Presidente Fox calls the illegals his "heroes"?

I am surprised that you didn't ask me, "Who would do all of our menial labor if we didn't have these millions of illegals here?"

The answer to that is, "A great many American citizens, if they were paid a decent wage, that's who."

In closing, the "Star" has been running a poll for several weeks, asking whether or not one is for or against the Tombstone Militia. As of this morning (11/30/02), your poll showed that more than 6,200 of your readers had responded to the poll, and that 94% of them favored the creation and existence of such a militia.

Why don't you put that information on your front page?

Don't you think that your readers would find it interesting that, on the one hand, the "Star's" policy is against such a vigilante group, yet the vast majority of your readers who responded to your poll support such a group? It seems to me that would be real news!

Richard Humphries
Elfrida, AZ

|  | | |