Robert Condy has written a number of letters to the editors of the Charleston Post and Courier.
Here are some of the letters:
-
September 16, 2009 - 'Border Crossers'
To answer the Sept. 6 letter writer's question as to why illegal border crossers in North Korea get 12 years of hard labor, but in the United States they get a driver's license, Social Security card, Social Security benefits without paying into the system, food stamps and free health care: They don't!
Illegal border crossers here cannot get driver's licenses, Social Security benefits or food stamps. If caught, they are put in jail by immigration authorities for violating civil statutes and deported.
Additionally, depending on the circumstances, illegal crossers are regularly prosecuted for violating the criminal statutes and usually receive a prison sentence of about six months. To geta driver's license you must prove you are here legally. To receive a Social Security card you must prove you are here legally and prove you are legally authorized to work. Social Security benefits are only received by those who pay into the system. In fact, illegal immigrants who will never receive a dime in benefits usually pay into the system about $7 billion annually. By the way, do you really think it's a good idea to emulate North Korean policies?
-
May 3, 2010 - 'Illegal Legislators'
Re Cal Thomas commentary on the Arizona illegal immigration law; If legislators pass a law that violates the Constitution of the United States ("the supreme Law of the Land"), it is illegal. Should we from then on refer to the legislators who enacted the illegal law as "illegal legislators?"
-
August, 4 2010 - 'Doctor Kudos'
I read the excellent series on the outstanding work of Dr.DilanEllegala. Whata remarkable illustration of the innumerable benefits immigrants bring to this country. Kudos to Dr.Ellegala, his family, colleagues, students and MUSC.
- p<>November, 22 2011 - 'Offensive Term'
Your use of the term "illegals" to refer to persons suspected of having violated our nations immigration laws is very offensive. It's a code word, which, exhibits bias and signals sympathy for nativist, anti-immigrant extremists. Even the AP Stylebook, which has been the target of much criticism for approving the use of "illegal immigrant," recommends use of the term "illegal" by itself "only to mean a violation of the law."
You don't refer to the speeding commuters passing me in the morning on 1-26 as "illegal drivers" or "illegals," even though they arrived at their destination by illegal means. No person's existence is illegal. And if you think other-wise, I suggest you take it up with their creator, and keep it out of your paper.
-
June 30, 2012 - '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 ilegal 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.
-
February 11, 2013 - 'Admit the Student'
In your Feb. article Trident Technical College leaders said they were "abiding by state law" in denying admission to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) beneficiaries. Which law?
"They point to the states Illegal Immigration Reform Act," yet this law does not support their position, or that of the Commission on Higher Education. The relevant section (codified at § 59-101-430 of the SC Code of Laws) solely bars people who are "unlawfully present" in the U.S. from attending public institutions of higher learning, and it requires that the federal government, not "institution personnel," determine who is lawfully present.
At first there was some ambiguity as to whether DACA beneficiaries were in fact lawfully present. However, last month the federal government through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) clarified the issue: DACA beneficiaries are "considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period deferred action is in effect." Being lawfully present, DACA beneficiaries are therefore, under the S.C. law, eligible to attend public institutions of higher learning. The language of the state law
The language of the state law (and of the statement of the DHS) is unambiguous.
-
May 18, 2014 - 'Misguided Theory'
In a May 10 letter, the writer expresses his frustration and disappointment with the in adequate health care provided to veterans in the U.S. I join him in his disappointment, but strongly object to his transference of his frustration to immigrants. He tries to connect a lack of funding for VA hospitals to monies spent to educate and provide healthcare and social services to non-citizens. He then speculates that these non-citizens will avoid military service when our country needs them.
He could not be more wrong; Putting aside the fact that nearly all legitimate studies have found immigrants to have a net positive economic effect, the facts clearly show that immigrants, today and throughout history, have readily answered our country's call.
According to the Depart ment of Defense, since 2002 more than 92,742 immigrants have become citizens while in the U.S. military, and as of May 2013, 31,128 non-citizens were serving in the military. In 2012, 608,000 veterans were foreign born, and over 700 of the Medal of Honor recipients have been immigrants. And these numbers would be even higher if barriers to entry for certain immiigrants were dropped.
-
December 14, 2015 - 'Trump's Bigotry'
I stand with our Muslim friends and neighbors against the bigoted ranting of Donald Trump. I hope that his hateful comments backfire and that instead of instilling fear and discomfort in the hearts of folks, they inspire gestures of welcome, support and acceptance.
Yearly, I assist scores of Muslims who immigrate to the U.S. and witness their assimilation into American culture. It goes without saying that they are no different than any other immigrant or citizen. They wish a better life for themselves and their families and work incredibly hard to achieve it, all along making great contributions to the country.