The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

73° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat



    Letter fails to provide support for assertions

    I feel compelled to write a response to Gabriel Matthew’s letter yesterday regarding the alleged illegality of Halliburton recruiting on the UA campus. I write not out of any particular sympathy for Halliburton, but rather because, if Matthew’s letter is any indication, gossip and rumor are becoming acceptable for publication in lieu of facts. After all, memorizing talking points and sound bites from groups like Refuse and Resist is so much easier than actual research! How else do you explain gems such as: “”criminal organizations like Halliburton (…) willfully and knowingly carry out systematic murder and subjugation upon other nations throughout the world””? So, thank you, undeclared freshman! Were it not for you, I would never have known that Halliburton was going around killing and enslaving people.

    Here I thought they were doing things like putting out oil well fires and rebuilding pipelines. The real irony of his letter is that he starts his argument with the words “”In evidence of how Halliburton operates in the world,”” and subsequently fails to provide a single shred of actual evidence, instead opting for unfounded accusations (the burden of proof is on the accuser, a burden that Matthew has, for whatever reason, deliberately chosen to disregard). Seriously, kid, where’s the beef?

    And that’s what really gets to me about his argument (or lack thereof): There are plenty of things about Halliburton that a reasonable person could and perhaps should complain about, from possible violation of trade sanctions to allegations of fraud and bribery; there are so many legitimate complaints one could make. Yet Matthew here decides to dismiss the pursuit of truth in favor of accusing Halliburton of mass murder.

    Regardless of how you feel about the war, this type of argument is both lazy and irresponsible, and should have no place in what is, at least in theory, an institution of higher learning.

    Daniel Perezselsky
    senior majoring in Near Eastern studies and political science

    INS the problem for those seeking legal immigration

    I like to read my old college newspaper from time to time, and I’m a bit hurt reading what many students have to say on the issue of immigration. I came to this country legally in the late 1980s from Ireland, an English-speaking country. Do people really believe that non-English-speaking immigrants can come here legally without any trouble? I have never been treated so poorly as I was by INS officials before I got my U.S. citizenship. These officials must be trained to treat people like garbage, because the first thing that happens when you get your citizenship is this: The judge apologizes to you for the treatment you have received at the hands of the all-powerful INS. Apparently, it’s all a big joke how we treat immigrants in this country, and it’s supposedly a hazing ritual that immigrants are supposed to just forgive when we get the piece of paper. I was able to last the nine years it took me to become a citizen because I spoke English. I used to spend hours in the INS facilities watching poor and unfortunate people who didn’t speak English get called terrible names and basically be made to feel like they didn’t and could never belong here. It was a disgrace, so before people start complaining about illegal immigrants, maybe you should start complaining about the INS, a supposed line of national defense that leads immigrants to take the illegal route due to its incompetence, rudeness and time wasting. I have never been more ashamed to be an American than every time I go to an INS facility to help people go through the process and see the treatment they receive at the hands of the first Americans to welcome them to this great land of opportunity. Give me your tired and huddled masses, my butt. The INS is the problem, not illegal immigration, and this is coming from somebody who did it legally. So, to all the closet bigots out there, get a clue.

    Niall O’Connor
    UA alumnus

    Illegal immigration not a threat to national security

    Once again, the Arizona Daily Wildcat has exposed the stupidity of its own staff beautifully. Janne Perona, in her recent display of ignorance in her column yesterday, made the claim that all immigrants entering though Ellis Island and other legal ports of entry were themselves legal immigrants. It strikes me as ironic that a young woman with the last name of Perona would be totally unfamiliar with the term W.O.P. (no offense intended to all but those with a distaste for learning history). It seems the fashion in the world of journalism to spew one’s own personal bias without adequate research or even a modest attempt to know something of the issue being discussed. Frankly, this recent talk of immigration reform is our elected officials’ way of talking and getting nothing done. Nothing can change from the way it is now because the economic system we live in is dependent on cheap labor the immigrants provide; also, the companies making billions off of this illegal activity are not likely to give their cash cow up. The push to secure our borders from “”illegals”” is nothing more than rednecks flaunting their racist beliefs under the guise of national security interests. How many terrorists who have attacked the U.S. have entered the country stuffed into the upholstery of Chevy? None. Terrorists are well-funded and as a result fly to this country either on commercial aircraft or private aircraft. There have been other countries that scapegoat a particular class or ethnicity. It is true that in trying times it can bolster patriotism to have someone to point a finger at, someone we can blame for not having a good job, for our country’s dependence on drugs, for overcrowded schools. This is certainly easier than taking a look at ourselves and asking how we could change to improve things for ourselves and the world in general. As long as Americans believe that their problems are external to themselves and find others to blame, we will deserve the reputation we’ve earned around the world.

    Jeremy Wells
    UA alumnus

    Union does more than provide a place to eat

    While I would typically not write in, I did want to express my disappointment that the dialogue surrounding the union fee has been reduced to attacking students who have advocated for it. I feel like few students know the wide range of programs and services offered by the union, and how much money it takes to provide those services in addition to the $4.50 you pay for a Value Meal at McDonald’s. For students who say they don’t use the union, that simply isn’t true. If you’ve ever been to an ASUA or GPSC-sponsored event, you should know that they are housed in the union. If you have ever attended an event on the UA Mall, someone in the union had to schedule it. If you’ve ever been a part of a student organization, you received your recognition and a host of union-based benefits through the union. If you’ve ever grabbed an Eegee at a football game, picked up one of the 20,000 Off-Campus Housing Guides we distribute, or grabbed a snack in between classes, you have used the union. I don’t blame students for being ignorant about the union’s services because, prior to working in the union as a graduate student, I was largely unaware of how much it takes to run such a huge organization. Knowing what I know now, though, I would urge students to take the time to educate themselves and then to make their voices heard by simply voting yes or no. Do I personally want to pay $10 a semester? To be honest, not really; I don’t like paying for anything. But do I understand the necessity of doing so in order to keep these resources available for myself and other students? Absolutely.

    Mary Frances Miller
    graduate assistant, SUMC off-campus housing

    More to Discover
    Activate Search