Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants?

A follow-up on our segment on “DaySide” today about the deadly H2N2 flu virus (search) accidentally being shipped to labs worldwide: As you know, the CDC claims it has no reports of any lab employees with symptoms of this flu, but they are urgently asking them to destroy all samples of this virus ASAP. But after the show, I got this e-mail from a viewer:

There is a hospital named St. Raphael's either in the Boston area or Connecticut that was forced to close & stop all surgical procedures due to the fact that 35 of their workers are ill with flu-like symptoms... I wonder if the labs [that received the virus] are in some of our hospitals...
—Lu Vail

Good question. We'll check on it. In the meantime, here are some of the things we're planning for Thursday. First, we'll do the "red ink" controversy I mentioned in Wednesday's blog. Thanks for all of your e-mails — I'll definitely use them on the air. We're also finally doing that segment on pharmacists refusing to sell the morning-after pill to some customers who ask to buy it. Is it an act of conscience or discrimination? We'll have both sides, fair and balanced.

Congressman Tom Tancredo (search) (R-CO) will be on the show as well, talking about the continuing immigration problem. He'll be talking about a few different things: The Minutemen (search), with whom he's been spending time on the Arizona border; and the proposed "amnesty" for illegal immigrants that is included in a Senate emergency spending bill. (This measure would let any agricultural worker who is in the U.S. illegally and who has worked 100 days out of a year — between mid-2003 and 2005 — to gain legal status.)

What do you think about this proposal? E-mail me at Rep. Tancredo is also going to address a bill in North Carolina to let illegal immigrants pay lower (in-state) tuition rates at public universities and community colleges in North Carolina. How does that sit with you?

One more thing — feedback on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search) reversing a murder conviction because the victim's family wore his photo on little buttons during two days of trial.

It's not right that the [court] reversed the decision... [Tom Studer] is the victim and since he couldn't be there for obvious reasons, I see nothing wrong with him being represented in this way.
—Kristina Lade, Bradenton, Florida

The news that the 9th Circuit Court [has overturned] a conviction because of a button just shows how much we need to have a changing of the guard in our judicial system here in California.
—James H. Shelton, San Diego, California

See you all Thursday.


Watch "DaySide with Linda Vester" weekdays at 1 p.m. ET

Send your comments to