Immigrant deaths consequence of indecision

We live in a changing world. We drive to school in Japanese cars, fill them up at the local gas station with a mixture of Canadian, Mexican and Saudi oil, listen to music on our Chinese MP3 players and end the day with a nice dinner handpicked (and sometimes prepared) by primarily immigrant hands.

It is rather unfair to define the cause of death of undocumented immigrants crossing the border as their own fault because they “”willingly attempted to illegally travel into the U.S. through rough, dry land,”” as Daniel Greenberg so sensitively pointed out in yesterday’s mailbag.

It is more appropriate to define the deaths as a direct consequence of an as-of-yet undefined immigration policy of an indecisive country that is in the process of realizing the economic benefit of low-cost homeland labor versus the self-righteousness of an ungrateful population with a provincial understanding the world around them. Just to make it clear, I am not arguing that paying undocumented immigrants a lower amount than minimum wage is principled on any level. I am simply making the point that this country is giving these hardworking people a reason to come here in the first place.

Armando Lopez
journalism senior

Criminal comparison faulty

In Daniel Greenberg’s letter, “”Immigrants broke the law; death is their own fault,”” he seems to forget that although these immigrants were crossing the border illegally, they are still human beings. To write off their deaths by saying that the border patrol simply prevented them from breaking the law is heartless and appalling.

Furthermore, he compares these undocumented immigrants to rapists. Rape and illegally crossing the border are not comparable in any way. In fact, crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, punishable only by deportation and not criminal prosecution. Rape is a Class 2 felony and in Arizona is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Perhaps in the future Mr. Greenberg will be more careful and accurate with the comparisons he makes.

Will Gaona
business junior

Corn inefficient energy for humans and cars

I agree with yesterday’s article about corn and high fructose corn syrup (“”The U.S. Obsession with Corn””). I know about Iowa myself. Not only it is smack-dab in the Corn Belt, it is also the arch-enemy of University of Nebraska, as I myself am a Cornhusker fan.

I just want to put down the scientific facts about high-fructose corn syrup. First, it is a major product in many American foods. Fructose is hard to metabolize in animal (including human) cells, whereas glucose, found in cane sugar, is not. Also, if ethanol is to be used as a fuel source, we are better off using wine, as the corn syrup yields less energy after it ferments than fermented grapes.

It is better for corn to be used as a food source for the world than a source of both automobile and biological fuel. If we Americans want to lose weight and reduce pollution, we should stop hoarding our ears and trade them for healthier food and cleaner fuel.

That and Go Huskers, Go Wildcats, Beat Hawkeyes!

Sarah Claasen
chemistry and vetrinary sciences junior