Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
I am a first-generation American. My father came to America as a young boy the right way and did everything he needed to do to become a citizen, the right way, the legal way.
He received nothing special because he was a legal immigrant who became a citizen. He worked hard for everything he got from this country and was willing to lay down his life for it during the Korean War.
How about teaching immigrants that when they complain that America is not giving them enough [“DMV Suspensions Drive Heated Debate,” Daniella Gerson, August 20, 2004]?
If the law requires you to have a Social Security card to hold a specific place in this country, well, then, that’s the law. It’s as simple as that. I don’t have a license to practice medicine, therefore I cannot be a doctor. That is the law. It is as simple as that.
Also, have the September 11 terrorist attacks not taught us about being more careful and how important it is to increase national security? Has it been forgotten that 3,000 people died because men posing as legal immigrants were allowed to buy documentation stating they were invited to be in this country? National security was compromised that day to the highest degree one could ever imagine.
I oppose any abuses of human beings and animals alike, but legal immigrants are guests in this country and they are ex- to act like
ANN MARIE MOOTZ
Staten Island
‘No Defense’
Steven Menashi’s article about a war crimes trial of President Bush held in Manhattan revealed the dried-out slogans of the weary left and displayed its inability to project any solution to their waning power [“No Defense,” Opinion, August 27, 2004].
When the same nonsensical slogans rang out in the 1930s, there was an excuse; the failure of their collectivist notions had not yet been so openly demonstrated to the world. Now these slogans and antics ring hollow. They know, but will not admit, where this road ends.
What they are fighting so hard to ignore is the nature of the system that makes it possible for them to communicate freely, revel in an abundance of goods and services, and even be protected from the threat of terrorist fanatics.
A war crimes tribunal is appropriate when leaders have committed atrocities. Freeing a country from the atrocities of a dictator and his henchmen doesn’t even come close. Attacking a country that is harboring unknown threats and that has a leader who is unwilling to present evidence of his innocence also does not qualify.
The activists who condemn Mr. Bush proclaim they hate war but ignore its cause. They pretend they are on a moral crusade, but they are unaware that they are merely practicing the tribal antics that have been the hindrance to the progress men of achievement have provided to them.
They do not question, they believe. They do not admire, they bow. They do not live, they subsist to hinder and reproach those who stand up to drag them forward in spite of their scorn.
The justice of their tribunals is evident in their refusal to hear both sides.
The verdict for those who are bent on destroying the human values of individual freedom, the rule of law, and a secular society where one religion cannot dominate is condemnation at the polls.
DALE NETHERTON
Farmington, Iowa
‘Blaine in Florida’
Paul Blair is no one’s shill [“Blaine in Florida,” Letters, September 1,2004].As is obvious from his many letters, he is an independent thinker and a staunch defender of individual rights. Edwin D. Schindler should apologize for his ad hominem attack on Mr. Blair [Letters, August 26].
However, Mr. Blair is simply flat-out wrong about vouchers. And Mr. Schindler is essentially correct.
Mr. Blair asserts that under vouchers “teachers unions would dominate private schools” and “vouchers effectively turn private schools into public schools [socializing them],” assertions that are not born out by existing voucher systems.
Characterizing vouchers as “state subsidies” is also false. Actually, vouchers are generally funded at the local level.
Vouchers simply give parents the option of removing their children from government schools and placing them in private schools.
They merely take their existing subsidy through taxpayer-funded schools, not a new one, and use it elsewhere.
Vouchers, in effect, partially privatize government-run school systems by turning over to the private sector, presumably with better results, that which had been performed by government.
Since they are typically issued at a steep discount to the cost of government education, all taxpayers benefit from lower taxes.
Parents benefit from the restoration of their right to choose the schools to which they send their children. Children benefit from better education.
The private sector benefits from an expansion of business opportunities. Americans benefit since vouchers represent a partial shift from socialism to capitalism, from government controls to free trade, from collectivism to individual freedom.
Staunch defenders of individual rights should praise and support vouchers.
EDWIN R. THOMPSON
Manhattan
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.
