Sue Mexico over expense
Mexico and 11 other countries asked a federal court to declare Georgia law unconstitutional.
1. If in fed court, it may sit in equity as well as law.
2. Defense of "unclean hands" may repel such request.
3. Georgia may point out Mexico laws on immigration and non-citizenship restrictions of it.
4. Take judicial notice of Federal Reserve billions transferred by money order and check to Mexican banks. Senders violating minimum wage law probably paying no income tax.
5. Ten-month pregnant Mexican women crawling through barbed wire fence to hatch a baby then claiming free medical and can't send me home as mother of a citizen. Look how many years Obama's aunt has been in public housing and still here.
6. Unjust enrichment of Mexico by costs inflicted upon U.S. citizens.
7. California is broke and got four extra congressmen by counting illegal aliens as "population."
8. U.S. educates their children and feeds them at school.
9. Mexico stands by idly while Mexicans hide dope on railroad trains coming from Mexico to the U.S. We "guard borders," Mexico laughs.
10. Mexico, now having submitted to the jurisdiction of this court, should be countersued for all the above relief and costs.
W.D. MOON JR.
Replace immigrants with Americans
Regarding the Times Free Press story June 17 on "Companies drawing immigrants with high skills":
How about Americans with decades of experience and hard work, unemployed veterans who served years of their life to protect these so called "high-skilled" immigrants?
What an insult! Send them back and let qualified Americans work!
DANIEL J. TOMASZEWSKI
GOP debate shows Obama right choice
After watching the New Hampshire Republican debate and reading about it in your paper - I must say that I am proud that I voted for President Obama and will look forward to doing so again.
Bush qualifies as calamitous
In his column June 12, Walter Williams says, "I challenge anyone to show me a major calamity engineered by a stupid, inarticulate person."
My answer to his challenge would be to remind Mr. Williams of the George W. Bush Jr. administration, 2000-08. In my opinion, things just don't get more calamitous than that.
Move discretionary funds to budget
How can the county commissioners' $900,000 "slush fund" continue to be a "hush fund" that is never discussed during budget-cutting time?
Numerous articles have appeared in recent weeks surrounding the $100,000 discretionary fund that each Hamilton County commissioner receives every year to give away as he chooses.
As an example, facts have revealed this money is used in many cases to command loyalty among constituents at re-election time.
You are always reminded in campaign literature of their generosity to the community.
This $900,000 needs to be returned to the county budget fund and be used by the different committees' groups rather than allowing commissioners to hold their people in bondage as to who gets his $100,000.
Commissioners, do the job you were voted in to do. Passing out our money in this manner is not on your job description.
Give the $900,000 back and let the schools and county departments decide their needs.
Nonprofits hurt by 'fee' or 'tax'
In earlier times, it was easier to determine what was a tax and what was a fee. A tax was levied by a governing body to raise general revenue within its jurisdiction.
A fee, on the other hand, was a charge for a specific government service requested by the payee, such as a license of some sort. Now the two terms have been blurred in an attempt to boost general revenue without having to say "tax." The proposed Chattanooga storm water "fee" comes to mind, although nobody has asked to be provided with rain.
What remains clear, however, is that churches and other nonprofits are characterized by two important distinctions. They exert a positive impact on their communities, and they are privately supported by citizens who pool their after-tax dollars.
The scope of their operations is limited by the extent of their funding. For government at any level to pretend that a storm water "fee" is not a tax and will not reduce the community benefits of nonprofit missions is shamefully absurd.
Dare we hope that churches and other nonprofits be exempted for their distinctive circumstances and allowed to continue their current levels of service, or will destructive hardball prevail?