Mailbag

O’Sullivan Needs to Do More Research Before Writing

I was thoroughly embarrassed for Catherine O’Sullivan while reading
her opinion about legalizing pot (April 2).

She states that when you ask a pothead, “What time is it?” the
response is that time has no meaning because of some physics on Star
Trek. First off, nobody watches Star Trek anymore. The
people who do watch it are too busy going to the next Dork-Con to get
high. Second, no pothead actually says that. Catherine’s opinion of
marijuana and those who use it seems to come from watching Bill and
Ted’s Excellent Adventure and not from actually knowing anybody who
uses any drug except for Claritin.

She reminds me of a relative who “knows” exactly how drugs affect
people, yet has never been around drugs or the people who use them.
This relative of mine has been too busy with academia and judging
people.

I do not use marijuana simply because I do not like the effect. I do
enjoy talking about the existence or nonexistence of time. I agree with
legalization simply because the facts are overwhelming that show
the positive effects of legalization.

I suggest that in the future, O’Sullivan researches a subject before
espousing an opinion.

Ken Hedrick

Solve the Border-Trash Problem by Allowing Migrants In

As Leo W. Banks’ “Trashing Arizona” (April 2) correctly asserts, the
tons of waste migrants leave behind while trying to circumvent the
ever-more-formidable U.S. enforcement apparatus in the borderlands is
very worrisome.

While the trash pickups that Banks champions would undoubtedly be of
some help in limiting damage to a delicate and vital ecosystem, there
is a much easier and more effective solution: If the federal government
were simply to allow the migrants to come into the United States
through ports of entry, there would be no need for them to trek through
the desert. Allowing such freedom of movement would not only eliminate
migrant trash in the borderlands; it would also permit us to get rid of
the enforcement infrastructure—walls, fences, roads—which
bring about far greater levels of environmental destruction. Moreover,
we would save many billions of dollars now spent on enforcement
annually and prevent countless migrant deaths in the process.

Joseph Nevins

Author, Dying to Live: A Story of U.S. Immigration in an Age
of Global Apartheid

U.S. Policies Have Polluted Mexico, Displaced Farmers

In “Trashing Arizona,” Mr. Banks is quick to condemn migrants for
destroying the desert environment without acknowledging that our own
government and business executives are trashing Mexico in ways so
severe that a pile of water bottles and backpacks pales in comparison.
Additionally, U.S. destruction of Mexico’s environment has been a
leading cause of migration, and U.S. border policy pushes crossers out
into the desert wilderness. It’s time we examined why that trash is
there instead of further scapegoating and dehumanizing the
migrants.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, hundreds of U.S.
corporations have set up factories just across the border, where they
can avoid pesky environmental regulations and pollute to their hearts’
content. Because of this, many border cities have contaminated air,
water and soil, endangering the health of those on both sides of the
wall. These companies have also displaced more than 2 million Mexican
farmers, spurring the migration coming through the desert.

There’s also the environmental devastation caused by the border wall
itself, which violates environmental laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean
Water Act.

Before any American can claim the environmental high road, we must
question our own culpability in the destruction of our planet.

Alice Ollstein

Banks’ Screed Is Un-Alternative, Hateful Scapegoating

Leo W. Banks’ latest screed would seem to be an attempt to paint
illegal-immigrant bashing green. This might be cute if it weren’t so,
um, hateful. The many false notes he hits in attempting to preach to
those not already in his choir are pretty hilarious. The ominous chord
we’re supposed to hear at a line like “the call was to Libya” only
resonates in the right-wing echo chamber where folklore like this
thrives.

Perhaps Banks’ biggest bid for enviro-credibility is citing
conservationist Gary Nabhan. So what does Nabhan think is the biggest
environmental threat to Arizona? Poor illegal immigrants? No. It’s
Metropolitan Phoenix—its consumption of land and water, its waste
and its pollution. A product, Nabhan stresses, of legal
immigration.

Of course, the problem with using border trash to whip up
anti-immigrant feeling is that it’s a tactic that gives ammunition to
the other side. The problem could be most easily, and cheaply, obviated
not by “get-tough” measures, but by letting in many more Mexican
immigrants legally, eliminating their need to shed clothes and
backpacks in the middle of the desert, not to mention coyotes and “rape
trees.”

It’s too bad the Tucson Weekly can’t get a heavyweight like
Nabhan or Charles Bowden to weigh in on the immigration issue in a
feature. The Weekly effectively speaks in one xenophobic voice
on the issue, a voice echoed daily, ad nauseam, by Lou Dobbs and dozens
of pundits in the mainstream media. And where does that leave the “alt”
in “alt-weekly”?

John Cafiero

Sierra Club Should Worry About Breeding, Not the Border
Wall

The Sierra Club is proposing that the border wall will damage
habitat. Perhaps, but the illegal migrants damage habitat for thousands
of miles inland.

My proposal is to speed up the construction and make the wall a foot
higher. For the wildlife, there can be manned openings every 20 miles
or so.

If Sierra Club wants to protect the Earth, they should start
educating people to stop breeding. Support birth control and abortion.
Expose the pope for what he is: a money- and power-hungry monger.

Jerry Kubias

Banks Is Spreading the Diseases of Sensationalism,
Xenophobia

In Leo W. Banks’ tireless attempt to blame society’s ills upon the
poor and downtrodden, it would be prudent of the author to refrain from
such a sensational characterization of the Arizona border region and
the immigration phenomenon taking place within it.

I congratulate Mr. Banks for his effort to bring attention to the
all-too-easily ignored issue of informal border crossings. Also, good
job, Mr. Banks, at rewriting your previous articles from the last
couple of years. You did a much better job this time at sticking it to
the migrants.

As a Southern Arizona native, I’ve watched the “illegal” immigration
situation evolve over the past few decades. In fact, I grew up not far
from Diablo Mountain on the eastern slopes of the Tumacacori Mountains,
and I considered those hills my personal backyard as a youth. While
it’s frustrating to see so much refuse left out in the open, blaming
the migrants for the situation is a feeble attempt to ignore the more
fundamental issues at hand.

The author’s concern for a pristine, buffelgrass-free desert is
admirable, but the soft spot in his heart for ranching exudes a degree
of hypocrisy. Ranching is not necessarily the best friend of pristine
desert.

I would agree that there may be communicable diseases present in the
Arizona borderlands. These diseases go by the names of sensationalism
and xenophobia.

Prescott Vandervoet

This article appears in Apr 23-29, 2009.