For a full disclosure of immigration costs and scope, one might consult the sources columnist Ruben Navarrette cites ("Immigration reform's hidden factor," LJS, June 9): the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Two things concern me about unchecked immigration. First, cheap labor undercuts the wages and working conditions of the working poor in this country. Social costs ("externalities") are put on the taxpayers without prior knowledge or agreement. Higher-income people largely reap the economic benefits at the checkout counter and in their stock portfolios.

Second, the Census Bureau says we will increase our population from about 300 million to 459 million by mid-century - 50 percent more people than now! This is largely because of massive immigration. While some of us are trying to bring resource use down to sustainable levels, a growing population of this size will make that difficult, if not impossible. The environmental impact should be considered in this debate but is not. Even environmental groups will not address it.

Restricting both legal and illegal immigration is an answer (along with worldwide birth control). Tom Tancredo, decried as "racist," says limit legal immigration to 300,000 a year. Barbara Jordan, an African-American and not a racist, put the number at 550,000. Is there a magic non-racist number in between?

One minister told me that borders are racist. Nationalism can be despotic, but nations can and do provide some real protection for their citizens, minorities and the environment, which we should not casually dismiss. As in orthodox economics, immigration proponents assume the value of individual preferences and rights over immigrant impact on existing communities and the environment. It is idealistic and cavalier to sacrifice existing national communities and national economics for a cosmopolitan world community that exists only in the imagination.

David McCreary, Lincoln

Affordability of care

The cost of medical care is increasing at an unsustainable two and a half times the rate of inflation. Every family is potentially one pink slip away from endorsing some form of national health care. Why shouldn't our children and grandchildren be entitled to the same quality of care that senior citizens and members of Congress receive?

The issue is affordability (cost containment) for the patient. This has affected our national and state budgets. It has increased costs on business and industry. Almost no attention is given to the cost of health care born by the patient squeezed by higher deductibles and co-payments.

Cost containment requires a single-payer, single-risk pool with all 300 million Americans in and nobody out. A single-payer system does not mean you cannot select your own doctor. The more simplicity and transparency in the system, the less bureaucracy.

For those who point to the fraud, waste and inefficiency of unnecessary medical procedures, it is ironic that private health providers are the culprits. The drug companies game the system with patent extensions. Private insurance uses pre-conditions to shift all high-risk patients to government-paid programs and retains the low-risk people. Our government also covers the military, the elderly and the poor.

Remember the 1994 Harry and Louise political ads to defeat health care reform. They were designed to feed the fears of Americans about the evils of single-payer health care, and they worked.

Under the budget reconciliation procedure, health care reform will occur because it requires only a filibuster-proof 51 votes. Every health care provider wants a seat at the table because no one wants to be on the menu. The only question is: Will it be written to benefit special interests or the people?

Roger L. Green, Scottsbluff

Make whose day?

We're home most of the time. We have little to do. Now the state of Nebraska has given us an outlet for our time and energy that doesn't involve quilting, water exercises or knitting baby booties for the church bazaar.

Half of the six people interviewed regarding their approval or disapproval of this law ("Does Nebraska need a 'make my day' law that would allow homeowners to shoot intruders without fear of criminal prosecution or civil penalty?" photo question, June 15) were all for it.

If anyone they don't recognize sets foot on their property, they would have the right, by law, to shoot him/her. The other three said the law would be dangerous, so I assume that "make my day" has a pretty even chance of being passed.

I live on a corner where a lot of people pass to go to a grade school, a public pool and a shopping center. That means that those coming down the street in front of my house often choose to cut across my yard to shorten their walk down the other street that borders my house.

So I can sit on my front porch with my mail-order shotgun (all legal, folks) and pick off men, women and children as they invade my property. Kids on bikes will be a challenge, but with time, my aim should improve (especially after I have my cataracts removed).

But seriously, folks, what a stupid idea - to take a line in a Clint Eastwood movie and make it into a dangerous law! Do we really want to chance shooting an innocent human being who is just looking for his dog or trying to find an address? Would that "make our day"?

Betty Jochmans-O'Connell, Lincoln

Cost of the monsters

When last crossing Iowa, I was disturbed by those awful monsters popping up on every hilltop. I took consolation in knowing they were doing a small part to rescue us from our dependence on fossil fuels.

Wanting to know how costly that consolation is, I contacted Lincoln Electric System. It provided me with relative numbers on its two shining examples of what the environmental movement can accomplish.

The windmills' share of LES energy cost is 10.7 cents per kilowatt hour, while coal costs between 2.7 cents and 2.9 cents.

Preposterous. How could free (wind) energy cost so much? Apparently those giants are not only ugly but expensive to build and maintain. Ignoring the huge costs of backup and electric storage, if we were to go entirely wind and use electricity only when it blows, that $100 monthly electric bill would be multiplied by more than three.

What on earth is Obama thinking, forcing us to build more of these monsters?

Robert Fiedler, Pleasant Dale

Traffic safety

I regularly pass through the intersection of 27th Street and Sheridan Boulevard, both in my car and on foot, and I can count on one hand the number of times that I do when there ISN'T a car that goes through on a yellow or red light.

Some are speeding, others just going the speed limit, and many have drivers with phones glued to their heads.

Is it going to take someone getting killed at this intersection, and many others in Lincoln, before people begin to obey the traffic lights?

Jane Stuart, Lincoln