There is a country in which the following immigration laws are in effect:

Foreigners will be banned if they “upset the equilibrium of the national demographics.”

If they do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy” they are not welcome.

They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking citizenship in the country under discussion must prove economic independence and provide their own health care.

Illegal entry is a felony punishable by two years imprisonment.

They may be kicked out of the country without due process.

The National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. Citizens of the country must carry a citizen’s identity card through which the National Population Registry can track them.

Pro-illegal-alien speech by outsiders is prohibited. To take the point a bit further — noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

My source? Mexico’s Ley General de Poblacion — that nation’s “General Law Of The Population.”

Terence McManus

New Sharon

My grandfather was an immigrant from Canada and my wife came here from Finland.

When public officials take office, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It appears as though some high officials who are against the new Arizona immigration law are not upholding the Constitution as required in their oath. They must uphold the Constitution if they are to remain in office.

The borders have not been sealed. Millions of illegal immigrants are flooding into the country every day, causing much crime and damage.

Where are the U.S. troops to defend our borders?

Tom Heels

Scarborough

I just watched CNN’s short version of President Obama’s criticism speech of Arizona’s new immigration law on the Internet. Of course he is against it, because he wants the United States totally taken over by other countries so that when the illegals become the majority instead of the minority, then the United States will no longer be our country as we know it!

Lindley Deering

Raymond

Are women marchers right or wrong to go shirtless?

 

What is it about women’s breasts that frightens Michael Heath so badly? They don’t look that scary to me. Is it because men might enjoy looking at them? What about legs? I like looking at womens legs; oh, and how about tummies?

Probably the most titillating thing about women is their faces. When you see a woman’s face suffused with joy and happiness, doesn’t that just make you tingle all over? What is the solution, burkas? Heath is going to have trouble selling that one.

I mean, isn’t a pinched disapproving expression that radiates hatred for people with differing ideas about the ugliest thing you can think of? But no one is asking him to wear a paper bag over his head.

There is nothing inherently evil about breasts. If you don’t teach your kids that breasts are evil, it will never occur to them that there is anything wrong with breasts. If you go to a society in the tropics where women traditionally don’t wear tops and you ask some kid if he is ashamed of the way his mother dresses, which do you think will be his most likely response? 1) “Yes, from my earliest memories I’ve been embarrassed by the way my mother exposes her breasts,” or 2) “What?”

If we don’t have legal and moral prohibitions against women going topless, women won’t have to wear clothing that men can eschew when it gets too warm, and men will be able to see another aspect of women that they might find to be beautiful. This seems like a win-win situation to me.

Bob Arledge

West Bath

I read with deep disappointment the April 28 article about the march planned on the 30th at the University of Maine at Farmington. (“Heath weighs in against planned topless march”). My concerns have noting to do with Mr. Heath’s position, or whether he should even interject himself into the event.

In fact, I thought of all that was said, his participation is of no relevance. Rather I despair over the apparent state of affairs in women’s rights.

Miss Andrea Simoneau, the march organizer, states that the march “has to do with women’s rights and equality rights” and “not barring women from going shirtless on a hot day.” If one had to list the issues facing women today, I don’t believe going topless would top the list.

We still don’t get equal pay for equal work. We still are not equitably represented as corporate executives or in elected office. Women comprise a minority in our county jail and so are treated the same as the men. (Now there’s equality!)

What about the disadvantages young girls experience by their learning differences with boys? What about the need for affordable day care?

Apparently these issues are not sexy enough. One must be provocative. Women’s politics has now become so politically specialized that only provocation gets attention. It is focused on abortion or something like this. It was only in today’s comic strips that the glass ceiling is mentioned. Remember the glass ceiling?

Miss Simoneau has organized an event that divides women, not one that supports women. The counter-demonstration is organized by women. This is not a timely issue, but it does divide us.

Has the women’s movement really turned into only so much noise?

Valerie Kazarian

Portland

I read with interest the April 11 article regarding Ty MacDowell and the topless march held recently in downtown Portland.

I am the mother of a 12-year-old girl and am trying to figure out how to answer her question of why people, male or female, would want to walk through a downtown area without their shirts on, exposing their bare chests to the world.

Much time is spent in schools, and in our home, discussing private areas of the body and who has the right to touch and, yes, see, our bodies. Ms. MacDowell expressed concern that one woman who happened to view the march with her niece “covered the young girl’s eyes” as the marchers walked past.

Ms. MacDowell also expressed shock at the number of people, mainly young men, who watched the marchers and took pictures and did not show what she considered proper respect to the marchers.

Ms. MacDowell said, “It felt to me like those men felt like they had the privilege, the right, to do that.”

Well, Ms. MacDowell gave them the privilege and the right to view her body when she exposed herself for viewing purposes. What is shocking to me, and my 12-year-old, is that a 20-year-old young adult woman is shocked by the behavior of young men who react when given permission to view female bodies in a public place.

Did she expect them to hide their eyes when she was displaying herself so obviously for public consumption? She was given respect by the woman who covered her young niece’s eyes, but that action seemed to offend her.

I would rather see a front-page article telling me of a 20-year-old young woman who led a march to bring attention to the many homeless of our state or one who created a new product to help senior citizens or wrote an article with ideas on how to improve our public schools.

Since she has so much obvious passion, she should please consider dedicating herself to a cause that matters.

Lori Crawford

Brunswick

Rep. Pingree seen differently by a critic and a supporter

 

Disappointment and disillusionment. That aptly describe my thoughts about Rep. Chellie Pingree.

Since July 2009 I sent the same letter four times and had it hand-delivered to her office once. I waited patiently at first and then with growing impatience and frustration at being so deliberately ignored.

The questions I asked were not difficult. I asked if members of Congress pay into the Social Security fund; and if after members of Congress leave office, they are still covered by the health insurance that covers them while in office.

I asked her to tell me the difference between taxing “the wealthiest Americans” to pay for health care for those unable to afford it and the Marxist slogan, “from each according to his abilit,y to each according to his need.”

I asked if she supports taxpayer-funded medical care and/or other benefits for illegal immigrants.

Lastly, I asked if she has read the Constitution and if she has, with which parts does she disagree. If not, or if there are parts with which she disagrees, how could she have honestly taken her oath of office?

I waited for 268 days from the time of my first letter and 25 days after I sent my first letter to the editor regarding this issue to receive a response.

Even then, she only partially responded. I am still waiting for a complete response.

I am disappointed and disillusioned. And, oh yes, disgusted to be treated this way by an elected official. It’s hardly what a taxpayer expects.

In addition, I called her Washington office to politely ask that she not support the health care bill. As I outlined my reasons, the young lady on the phone kept repeating in a very bored, condescending manner, “Uh-huh, uh-huh.” Hardly respectful! I guess it’s behavior learned from one’s employer.

Carole S. Graves

Brunswick

Rep. Chellie Pingree is to be congratulated for her courageous vote in favor of comprehensive health care reform.

Her vote has helped to create strong protections for all Americans: an end to insurance company denials of coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, an end to annual and lifetime caps on the amount of coverage patients can receive, and an end to insurance companies being allowed to drop a patient’s coverage just because that person got sick.

The small business that will receive tax credits to provide for employee insurance coverage, and the young people who will elect to remain on their parents’ health plans, all have Rep. Pingree to thank.

Health care reform will save millions of lives, and keep millions of Americans out of bankruptcy. The president is to be commended for his steadfast dedication to the issue.

Health care reform is a campaign promise he has honored, and our country is better for it. But more than that, the president and our representatives in Congress have given Americans reason to believe in the power of government as an agent for social change.

The Democratic Party has given us reason to dream that our country can in fact be great again. Rep. Pingree’s vote was one essential step towards realizing our nation’s potential. Her constituents thank her.

Wellington Lyons

North Yarmouth