Tuesday, July 22,;
100 or less (price must
iffering personal possess* |
arge. If item doesn’t sell,
end to qualify for the 5
j is cancelled early,
ROOMMATES
$275/mo +bills. 4/2 house,!*
om TAMU, 731-1461.
3 duplex, non-smoking, det
le August 6th, $317/mo +1/31*
254-718-8715.
ommate wanted, Haivey ta-
2/1.5 $350/mo +1/2 utilities. E
le, S462/mo„ all bills paid in
n bus route. Kim 774-5168.
a. 2/1 Apartment. 1-yr. leas
o. +1/2bills, W/D, behind N»
all ASAP! 220-0195.
2/1 house. College $»
TAMU. $270/mo.+1/2bills.
3120.
sap. 3/2 house, $225/me •
ny, 694-7921.
noking f-roommate needed
w house, starting asap. M
ry nice size bedroom, large*:
$350/mo +1/3bills. 324-9360
and new 3/3/2 brick tas
., $375/deposit. 832-642-TO
a roommates needed, 3M&
Furnished on bus-route, nopes
, +deposit, +1/3utilities.
non-smoking, quiet roommie
3bdmV2ba duplex. SOTte
es. W/D, parking, shuttle rai
8/15. 2403 Brittain Court. M
-4054.
loking female roommates wartl
new 3bdrm/2bth townhome.te
ive-in, year lease, $375iit
minutes from campus. (36P
ates needed. Own bdrmtet
+ 1/4bills. 680-8747.
moking roommates needed to
iba starting 8/15/03, Nice,spi
r. old home close to campd
ully furnished, except bedroom
Cindy® 694-7647; 469#
8/1 or earlier, non-sm*';
s for 4/3 new home, 904 Bi-
w/d, $400/mo. +1/4utilities.£il
12-396-0766.
ate needed, 3bdrml2bti«
gins 8/15/03, $400/mo„ol»
shuttle. Call Nikki at 281-M-
ommate needed, $475 al Bt
210-215-6072.
ommate needed. For
mobile home, $275/mo, tt;3-
n 696-2119,
anted for 3/3 townhouse w»
larking, blocks from TAMO,
+ 1/3util. 979-694-0952,512'
ir 1 -2 female roommates ii
3bdrm house in Bryan. Cal
14.
mate needed, nice 3f. od
re. 3bd/2ba, fenced yard
■1/3utilities, available Augustl
1-5166.
oommate to share brand iw
house w/garage in C.S. a»l
214-957-7712.
ornate ASAP. 4bdmV3i»
s, big house, nice neighbor-
at roommates. $4O0/M
281-684-7620; 696-7817.
mates for a house in Bryat
t tub, pool table, on bus rook
>7.
SERVICES
Defensive Driving. Lots-ol-
i-lotl! Ticket dismissaWnsur
unt. M-T(6pm-9pm), W'
'), Fri.&Sat.- Fri(6pm-8pri!
!:30pm), Sat(8am-2:30pr«l
rofAmerica. Walk-ins t 1 '
ash. Lowest price allowed tf
liv. Dr„ Ste.217. 8456117
min. early.
CLEANING. HousekeepW
1-775-3355. Move in/out, b
ithly. Affordable rates,
Opinion
The Battalion
Paee 5 *
-y+'
The cost of illegal immigration
Illegal immigrants buy into 'illusion of hope’ and only cripple U.S. economy
S omewhere in the arid
American Southwest is an
imaginary line - clearly evi-
| dent on a map, but obscure and
I indistinguishable among the dirt
[ and rocks of the New Mexico or
I Arizona desert. However vague or
lucid the line is, across it straddle two distinct
cultures. In the United States, there are freedom
and prosperity, which must seem tempting and
taunting compared to the despair and desolation
found to the south in Mexico. But as thousands
of illegal Mexican immigrants slip across the
line and venture north, they fail to realize the
consequences of unlawfully living and working
in the United States — consequences harmful to
| immigrants and the U.S. economy.
According to the University of Texas, more
I than 40 percent of Mexicans make $2 a day in
Mexico; in the United States, they can make 20
times that. For thousands, the potential sacrifice
in braving the desert is worth it. The Houston
Chronicle reports that each year, Mexican
immigrants send back half their earnings - an
estimated $200 million - to their families in
Mexico. This is money pumped right out of the
U.S. economy, and while this money may keep
immigrants’ families alive, it it comes with dis
astrous fiscal repercussions.
The consequences of illegal immigration
have distinctive economic overtones detrimental
to the United States. The health care system of
Los Angeles County, for example, provides
medical services for the poor. According to the
Los Angeles Times, 32 percent of its patients
are illegal immigrants from Mexico. Millions of
U.S. tax dollars are spent each year to take care
of adults and children who are not supposed to
be in the United States to begin with. This is the
price of illegal immigration. The county is
strapped for money, yet according to the Times,
an immigrant with less than a high school edu
cation - this being the majority of these immi
grants - drains the economy of $13,000 during
his lifetime. There are an estimated 1.1 million
illegal immigrants in L.A. county alone.
What lies at the heart of illegal immigration,
however, is the philosophy of the immigrant.
MICHAEL WARD
Unlike legal immigrants who
come to the United States each
year, illegal immigrants want little
part of U.S. culture. The fact is,
illegal immigrants want to work in
the United States so their families
in Mexico can live. They simply
exploit the U.S. job market.
There is a sharply divergent mindset between
legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants
who come to the United States from all over the
world (including Mexico), come with one thing
in mind - to become a U.S. citizen. In the late
19th and early 20th centuries, America saw a
great rise of legal immigration. Whole families
boarded steamboats to forge new lives as U.S.
citizens. They did not shrug off their culture or
individuality; rather, they sought to mold a new
identity, mingling their home country with the
new one. This is not the case with the thou
sands of illegals who venture into the United
States each week simply for profit.
Today, instead of the massive influx of
Italians and Irish, the United States sees an
increasing number of Mexicans who do the
equivalent of what their aforementioned
European counterparts did near the turn of the
century. The difference, however, is that the
Irish and Italians built upon their generations -
enabling their families to move up the social
and economic hierarchy. They did so out of a
desire to incorporate themselves with U.S. cul
ture. Right or wrong, many ille
gal immigrants from Mexico
are failing to mimic this pat
tern. They only want a paying
job and the United States offers this.
While this time bomb of illegal immigration
ticks evermore obnoxiously, little political
action is taken. Both political parties covet the
Hispanic vote. The Democratic Party has no
reason to decrease the fervor with which it sup
ports immigration, illegal or otherwise, when it
is coupled with a potential increase in
Democratic voters. Similarly, the Republican
Party seems to believe that its support is grow
ing among Hispanic voters and any move
against “their people” would have political
ramifications.
Sadly, illegal immigration perpetually
cycles itself. The dependence of the families
in Mexico on those in America is crippling.
Not only is the family unit broken, but when
their labor in the north is exploited to the
point of exhaustion, they return home with no
savings and no means with which to support
themselves.
The imaginary line in the American
Southwest presents the illusion of hope. The
shining cars in the magazines and the bright
lights that can be seen from their town all
scream opportunity. And for those who come
legally with the desire to start a new life, it pro
vides an opportunity that is unrivaled by any
other nation. However, for the illegal, the
desert, with its rocks and dirt, offers a mirage
on the horizon and little real future.
Michael Ward is a senior
history major.
Graphic by Seth Freeman
Keeping beer away from the homeless
Beer for the Homeless charity mocks real social problem, exploits homelessness
w
LINDSYE FORSON
U TJ J'hy I ie? I need beer,”
reads the cardboard
sign. The man hold
ing the sign on the Beer for the
Homeless Web site’s snapshot is
obviously homeless, and thanks to
the benevolence of the “charity”
organization, he has been lifted from obscurity to pronounce his
disenchanted message from the pulpit of the World Wide Web.
On its Web site, www.beerforthehomeless.com, BFTH pur
ports to be “dedicated to the thousands of men and women in
America who have been relegated to the status of children,
regardless of their age, by the do-gooders of society who believe
that merely because a person has no home, he should not be
allowed to drink beer.” Furthermore, BFTH claims its noble
endeavor “strikes a blow for equality and human rights.” Its entire
existence was apparently brought about by other charity organiza
tions’ refusal to serve homeless people beer. The group is a
shameless mockery of a true charity organization and does more
to encourage homelessness than to remedy it.
Recently, the Salvation Army of Sydney criticized BFTH,
saying it “added fuel to the fire,” according to the Sydney
Morning Herald. Gerard Byrne, social program secretary of
recovery services with the Salvation Army in Sydney, said of
BFTH, “Since drugs and alcohol are a prominent factor in
homelessness, providing them with alcohol is morally and ethi
cally questionable.” Byrne is right, and hopefully others will not
take BFTH seriously.
According to the Web site, BFTH even recruits “beer babes”
to help with the delivery. In fact, the entire passage evokes bizarre
mental images of scantily clad beer girls scouring the streets for
panhandlers in want of a drink. Do homeless people have the
right to drink beer on someone else’s dime, and if so, are they
entitled to be serviced by beer babes? The answer should be a
resounding no.
As one reads the organization's description of itself and its
goals, he cannot help but wonder if it is spoken in earnest. It is
ludicrous to believe that because someone cannot afford to buy
beer they are being deprived of their basic human liberties. Beer,
liquor, cigarettes and the like are recognized by the government
as luxury items and are taxed as such. Does BFTH honestly
believe that every citizen is entitled to beer in the same way one
is entitled to food and water?
As it is, the would-be charity’s true motives go beyond provid
ing every citizen with the right to become intoxicated. Where
there’s free beer, there’s always a catch. On its FAQ Web site
page, BFTH concedes that “there is a lot of satire in the presenta
tion of the site, but that’s half of the fun.”
Apparently, BFTH was founded by two talk radio hosts from
Chattanooga, Tenn. In essence, the entire BFTH venture appears
to be a publicity stunt for the advancement of a radio show. By
their own admission, “half the fun” is mocking a group of people
who are easily exploitable and making light of a grievous social
problem.
In the least, BFTH is in appallingly bad taste. Tawdry publicity
grabs seem to be the modus operandi of radio shows that cannot
get media attention any other way. Like the “Opie and Anthony”
radio show which spurred a couple to have sex in a New York
cathedral in 2002, BFTH is trading moral decency for a fleeting
spot in the limelight and a good laugh at someone else’s expense.
But that is its right, just as it is the right of consumers to tune
their radios elsewhere. If its transgression stopped at tasteless
ness, BFTH would be in the company of myriads of other adver
tisers who use shock value as a sales tactic.
Exacerbating a problem that has already spiraled out of con
trol, however, crosses the line. According to a study done by the
Mental Health Coordinating Council, alcoholism is the mosi
prevalent problem of homeless people. The Salvation Army and
other charities that aim to help the homeless have legitimate rea
sons for denying their clients alcohol. By giving free alcohol to
alcoholics, BFTH undermines other organizations’ sincere
attempts at rehabilitation.
BFTH’s attitude flies in the face of groups that actually feel
the burden of social responsibility for the homeless. Instead of
working to remedy the problem, BFTH has chosen to adopt an
attitude of irreverent complacency for those who want to drink
not because it is an exercise in human rights but because they
have a chemical addiction to alcohol. In many cases, alcoholism
has driven people onto the streets. BFTH apparently wants to
keep them there.
Lindsye Forson is a junior
journalism major.
gBCS@CS.com
MAIL CALL
snance. Mow, edge ^
5 and up. Free estimates
indon.
KRESS
Y
eek long study with an
ent of genital warts.
S FOOT STUDY
17 and older, with athlete's
participate In a researcii
ivestigatlonal topical med-
elated office visits, testing
cation are provided at no
e volunteers will receive
sation for partldpation,
more Information.
Groundbreaking will help
bring closure to families
My in-laws headed to College
Station for the groundbreaking of the
Bonfire Memorial. It's given me cause
to reflect on how our lives have
changed since Nov. 18, 1999. My hus
band's little brother, Lucas Kimmel,
was killed that morning.
Lucas' death was the first loss of a
close loved one I had experienced.
The depth and complete darkness of
the grief surprised me. I had never
imagined how very lonely grief is, or
how it persists. I resent the way it still
burdens our family. I wish it would dry
up and blow away, but it doesn't. I
think the best a person can hope for is
to learn to shift it emotionally from the
enemy it is initially to a neutral
acquaintance. Grief will always be
With me, but it will never be my friend.
I'm not in the immediate circle of
the "Bonfire Families," but my hus
band and I are close enough to keep
up on the important events and to
hear much of what's said. I was a stu
dent at TAMU for four years and it
hurts me to think that any kind of gen
eral animosity toward the University
might have developed. I believe that
the University, as an institution, also
suffered a great loss that deserves our
consideration.
I'm so ready to move on, and I think
the completion of the Bonfire
Memorial will be a big step in that
direction. I'm ready for our loss to be
more personal, and less about that
campus five hours away. I'm ready to
stop having the wounds reopened
every time there's another activity in
College Station. I'm ready for appro
priate final amends to be made and
for our family to be able to see a pro
gression of healing without any more
setbacks.
My husband and I have many joys in
our lives. We'd like to focus on them
and put the sorrow of the Bonfire
Collapse behind us for good. Lucas
isn't ever coming back, but we've
worked to be at peace with that fact.
That's what I'm hoping the completion
of the Bonfire Memorial will bring to
all of us — peace.
Terri Kimmel
Class of 1993
Column on Planned
Parenthood inaccurate
In response to Sara Foley's July 17
column:
Staff, volunteers and supporters of
Planned Parenthood read with displeas
ure an opinion article written by Sara
Foley and published in The Battalion on
July 17, 2003.
It is not that the article was clearly
anti-abortion and anti-Planned
Parenthood in motivation that was trou
bling. We were disturbed at the number
of inaccuracies provided by Ms. Foley,
and printed by what is reputed to be a
professional publication. And the state
ment that The Battalion contacted our
Bryan-College Station clinic and
received a "no comment" is simply
untrue. Planned Parenthood was not
offered the opportunity to respond or to
provide our own opinion piece.
The legislation Ms. Foley refers to in
her article ultimately seeks to outlaw
abortion, which its co-sponsor Tommy
Williams (R-The Woodlands) has
admitted publicly. Yet a majority (84
percent) of Texans support a woman's
right to choose abortion and 76 per
cent of Texans agree that Planned
Parenthood should continue to receive
public funding to provide family plan
ning services to low-income women
(Scripps Howard Texas Poll, 2002).
In Texas, abortion procedures are not
paid for with tax dollars. Abortion coun
seling is not paid for with tax dollars.
Fees for those services are paid for by
the client or through private donations.
Emergency contraception prevents unin
tended pregnancy; it does not terminate
an existing pregnancy.
The bottom line is this: Women have a
constitutionally guaranteed right to
make private decisions about abortion.
Legislation that infringes on a women's
right to make those decisions is uncon
stitutional - just as it is unconstitutional
to infringe on a person's right to speak
freely, practice religion or bear arms.
We are also disappointed that The
Battalion ran an opinion piece that
offered such inaccurate information.
Peter J. Durkin, President & CEO,
Planned Parenthood
Debbie McCall, Community Services
Director
Dyann Santos, Bryan Clinic Director
Editor's note: Planned Parenthood did
not return several phone calls to The
Battalion before the column was written.