Only have a minute? Listen instead
In their commentary, “Texas does not understand power of immigrants” (July 28), Linda Corchado and Bob Sanborn state that immigrants are a positive in the U.S. because the “Immigrants annually contribute $119 billion to our Texas economy.”
I don’t doubt the fact that that legal immigrants can be a huge benefit to our country by contributing billions into our economy. However, let’s not mix up legal immigration with illegal immigration. Legal immigration — OK. Illegal immigration — not OK! Corchado and Sanborn should’ve distinguished between the two.
Their commentary should’ve been titled “Texas does not understand power of legal immigrants.” In the future, please let’s distinguish between the two. Please, do not conflate legal immigration with the massive illegal immigration that has been plaguing our borders ever since Joe Biden took over.
No, I do not understand or comprehend the power of illegal immigration. According to a 2017 National Economic editorial, of the $200 billion Texas 2017 budget, illegal immigrants cost Texas $12.36 billion per year. That’s almost 10% of the total state budget!
Providing for illegal immigrants isn’t cheap. Education for illegal immigrants costs Texas a massive $7.87 billion and health care for illegal immigrants cost an enormous $1.86 billion during that budget year.
Lately, you have been publishing editorials (July 27: “Wrong direction: Legal help for immigrants should be easier, not harder” and July 28: “Devil’s Rope: Razor wire maiming migrants, cruelty is the governor’s point”) concerning immigrants that are attempting to elicit sympathies for immigrants. Although I do have sympathy for the illegal immigrants’ plight, I have more sympathy for the exploited and dog-tired U.S. taxpayer who has to foot the bill.
Animal facility raises concern
I am deeply concerned about the feasibility study for a new Hidalgo County animal control center conducted by the B2Z engineering firm. I am sure B2Z is a reputable company, and one with which County Commissioner Eduardo Cantu is well-acquainted. They have participated in several improvement projects in his precinct already.
But I am curious about what an engineering firm would know about the national standards, evolving best practices, procedures, risks and pitfalls and network partners and agencies in the animal welfare world.
Why would the county want to undercut Palm Valley Animal Society, a reputable and accountable organization that has only continued to improve in recent years, partly from collaborations with some of the most credible organizations in animal welfare nationwide?
We know that PVAS costs have gone up, but their prices to partners have tracked not only with inflation but with the reality that it costs more to home and care for animals than it does to promptly euthanize them.
I note that the reportage on the county endeavor does not even refer to a new “shelter” or a “humane” or “adoption” facility but rather an “animal control center.”
Who will most benefit from the feasibility study and the possibility of a county animal control center? Is it the animals?
LETTERS — We welcome your letters and commentary. Submissions must include the writer’s full name, address and daytime telephone number for verification. Letters of 200 words or fewer will be given preference. Submissions may be edited for length, grammar and clarity. Letters may be mailed to P.O Box 3267, McAllen, Texas 78502-3267, or emailed to [email protected].