Where's the harm in trying to find legitimate work?
I praise Mr. Garcia and the rest of Glendale's day laborers who
each day seek to make life just a bit easier for the families they've
left behind in Mexico and elsewhere. I frown upon the fact that it is
illegal to solicit work on the streets.
Why should it be a crime to try to make something better of
yourself in that way? True, these day laborers are not hurting
anyone, and I commend them for standing up for what they believe is a
just cause to be standing on a corner on a hot day in the middle of
summer. The Glendale Police Department should deal with the people
who aren't making something of themselves and give our day laborers a
chance.
The child of immigrant parents, I've often heard that a
comfortable life in the United States for someone who can barely
understand a bus stop sign is achieved through hard work and
education. Allow them to continue their hard work and allow them to
learn about American culture so that one day they may be able to
enjoy the quality of life the rest of us enjoy -- perhaps one day
enjoy it with their families.
Finally, consider hiring a day laborer. These men will do the job
faster, cheaper and more efficiently than anyone in the Yellow Pages
might. And they'll probably be more honest about it, too.
MICHAEL J. ARVIZU
Sunland
Court's convoluted decision not in anyone's best interests
Re: "Law gives parents without custody stronger rights," by
attorney Charles J. Unger (Aug. 6).
It's really amazing how Unger and other attorneys and
psychologists miss obvious contradictions in their emotional-social
meanderings about divorce, children and what they decide is best for
them.
Take this current case. The court takes jurisdiction for which
parent has the sway of rights in maintaining the residential status
of the children and opposing parent when either of the divorced
parents with custody wants to move from the current area taking the
children.
Now, the court, from the contradicting studies of different,
so-called competent psychologists, according to Unger, has divined
from their presentations what it presents as an equitable decision.
It ruled that both parents are important in the children's lives, so
if one wants to move, he or she can't unless the custodial moving
parent gives up custody of the children to the other parent still in
the area.
Now, explain to me how this is any better than before, when the
custody parent could move with the children?
