After reading Mr. Ryals and Mr. Beckley’s opinions a number of times in your Aug. 6 paper, I find I’m a little disquieted about your paper’s printed opinions. I don’t consider myself an angry white guy as Mr. Ryals refers to, or a loud mouth, or someone totally ignorant of government or history, as Mr. Beckley refers to other Americans with different ideals and views than his. I would hope my ideals fall somewhere between your opinion writers and the people they criticize.

Mr. Ryals wrote about the Lyndon LaRouche supporters. He wrote, “The goal of persuasion is to help people understand your perspective. You can best achieve that by acknowledging and understanding their perspective first, and only then explain your opinion and how you arrived at your conclusion.” Yet in his immigration article he writes, “I don’t buy that analogy” of what his readers had sent him as their perspective to his article in e-mails. So much for “acknowledging and understanding their perspective first.”

Mr. Ryals wrote that, “Let’s ignore some of the concerns about terrorists” to help further his view point (none of which I find invalid). My dictionary stated – ignore: to choose to not be aware, to choose to be ignorant. From my writing classes a long time ago I was taught to give all the facts pro and con so that the reader can see the logic of your reasoning, and give credit to your opinion. To be ignorant of all the facts makes for a poor opinion. The fact that no one was killed in Times Square bombing doesn’t belittle the fact that someone tried to kill. The fact that a plot in Norway to bomb New York subways was just uncovered and stopped, is that an issue that should be ignored too, since they haven’t killed anybody yet? Should we really make it easier for these people to get here to do these deeds?

Mr. Ryals believes this is an issue of economics, as do I. (Along with a few other issues.)

Here are some economic facts that should have been in his article, but I doubt would have helped his cause. The Federation for American Immigration Reform released this information on Arizona’s illegal population. It cost 1.6 billion a year to cover costs. In their education system, 694 million; in health care services, 339 million; in law enforcement and court costs, 85 million; in welfare and general costs, 155 million. Even though these numbers are from a few states away, the numbers are real. That is about 700 dollars for each working taxpaying family in the state to pay. If you don’t agree with FAIR’s numbers, there are a number of places to check. If this had been Washington state, I doubt if 140,000 illegal consumers would make up the difference in these costs. Not to mention, say, the sixty hospitals that California claims had to close for the same reason that there wasn’t enough money to support the costs for free medical care.

Mr. Ryal’s also stated, “from a selfish standpoint we could get things cheaper and isn’t that how free market should work?” I myself would correlate getting something by selfishness is little more than plain greed. I don’t believe most American’s would stoop to those ideals. I don’t believe going outside of the law in any way is “free trade”. If it is, then we need to apologize to the mafia and a number of underworld groups. I understand Mr. Ryal believes the laws are arbitrary as he stated, but till they are changed they still remain the law. The last comment of the article stated, “we like to believe that our mostly free market system is the greatest in the world, so let’s put it to the test.” Test: an honest and fair competition of knowledge or ability. How do you have a “test” when twelve million people cheat on the rules?

I have read Mr. Ryals’ articles since his writings came out in print. His local articles have been insightful and well balanced as well as informative to me. There is some truth to the thought that if you talk or write long enough no matter how much people like what you say, pretty soon you’ll say something someone doesn’t totally agree with. Such would be the case today.

As for Mr. Beckley’s hateful rhetoric and his high opinion of his opinion, I would suggest he take Mr. Ryals advice on “the goal of persuasion.” And no, I don’t believe getting rid of the 17th Amendment is one of the Tea Party’s better ideas.

Tom Fuller

Maple Valley