Editor:

Regarding "Who Are You Calling Vulnerable?" (Mailbox, March 23), in which a series of questions were posed by the author, pertaining to the "liberal progressive" notion of immigrant inclusion. In his letter, Mr. Damon specifically chose to focus on philosophically irredeemable immigrants who are (1) engaged in crimes that threaten American lives, (2) repeat criminal offenders and (3) gang members. Does this criminal element represent the totality of the American immigrant population in Mr. Damon's mind?

Apparently so, as his take on vulnerability is centered on the Karen Steinle tragedy and "American families who need protection." The letter mentions DUI, robbery, rape, murder and gang membership as if these represent the immigrant norm, while altogether ignoring a plethora of readily available examples of non-threatening immigrants (i.e. mother/child immigrants, refugees, individuals who simply cannot afford the $465 US immigration process).

This one-sidedness is an intellectually dishonest mindset that's often paired with the high costs of cultural ignorance and ethnocentric insensitivity, as ability to pay immigration fees will obviously be skewed in favor of the nations with the best currency rate. By Mr. Damon's logic, the large volume of overt police brutality accounts should certainly validate the eradication of the police force ... right?

The letter goes on to lament the status of citizens who are "long-term unemployed and want to work." While I do agree that the chronically unemployed are obviously in a vulnerable state, comparing unemployment to the act of physically escaping human rights abuses or a lack of clean water is like comparing apples and atomic bombs. It also bears mentioning that one would have to be blind, in a sociopolitical sense, to not see U.S. involvement in the creation of the modern immigrant (via militaristic intervention abroad, exploitative hiring practices, etc.) which has been extensively researched and documented. So, the question, Mr. Damon is: Do you get the picture?

Ken Hill, McKinleyville