Why should historians use more than one source of information?

two pieces of information are simply always better than one.
one document can give us more than enough information.
a second source might be faulty.
two sources of historical information can give more information than just one.

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.

a yes vote means: the legislature, with a two-thirds vote, could change daylight saving time if the change is allowed by the federal government. absent any legislative change, california would maintain its current daylight saving time period