Letters To The Editor


January 29, 2004

Correct to call some residents `illegal aliens'

After reading the article "2 GOP delegates target illegal immigrants" (Jan. 25), am I to understand that The Sun has blessed itself as the official source of what terms are and are not politically correct?

The article notes that Dels. Richard K. Impallaria and Patrick L. McDonough insist on using the "politically incorrect" term "illegal aliens" to describe people who have entered our country without following the rules and laws of our government. Apparently The Sun wants to gloss over the fact that these people are breaking the law by defining them as "undocumented immigrants."

What will be next? Will aggressive drivers be "manner-challenged motor vehicle operators"? Will murderers be "life-curtailing persons"? Will rapists be "permission-denied sexual activists"?

Whether The Sun likes it or not, "illegal aliens" are just that, no matter what their ethnic origin, country of origin, race or religion.

Every year, thousands of people come to this country to try to find a better life. They follow the rules, obey every immigration law, and study and work extremely hard to pass a citizenship test that many native-born citizens would fail.

Elected officials who try to enact laws to protect and enhance the activities of illegal aliens are belittling every person who worked hard to become a citizen by following the rules and obeying the immigration laws.

Steven P. Strohmier


I noticed in the article "2 GOP delegates target illegal immigrants" (Jan. 25) that writer Michael Dresser slips in his own beliefs when he says the term "illegal aliens" is "politically incorrect."

Since when? It accurately describes the case here - "illegal" because these persons flouted our laws to get into this country, and "aliens" because they are not citizens of this country.

Certainly, illegal immigrant advocacy groups don't like the sound of the phrase, because of its supposedly harsh description of the situation. But "illegal aliens" is a very accurate phrase and is not "politically incorrect."

D. Keith Henderson

Perry Hall

Iraq deaths deserve place on front page

Last Saturday, five U.S. soldiers died in Iraq. The Sunday Sun reported this story on Page 18A ("Latest attacks in Iraq kill 5 U.S. soldiers," Jan. 25). Meanwhile, on the front page, I got to read about salmon farming in Scotland ("Scotland's fish farms fight back," Jan. 25).

Sunday, three soldiers died in a tragic helicopter crash. The Sun reported this Monday on Page 6A ("3 missing as U.S. copter crashes in Iraq," Jan. 26), while I got to read about U.S. chicken exports to Russia on the front page ("Imports of U.S. chicken have Russians stewing," Jan. 26).

How many soldiers have to die in Iraq to make the front page of The Sun?

Kevin O'Reilly


Burying the story of missing weapons

Please explain something to me: David Kay, the man hand-picked by the Bush White House to lead the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, leaves his job after a futile eight-month search ("Iraq had no cache of weapons, says ex-chief inspector," Jan 24). In leaving, he says he now believes that Saddam Hussein did not have any stockpiles of WMD before the war, that he had gotten rid of them during the 1990s.

Mr. Kay thus disproves the claims made repeatedly by Mr. Bush to justify his unnecessary war - which has cost us more than $100 billion, killed more than 500 American soldiers, and maimed thousands more.

And The Sun buries the story on Page 9A?

Thomas Paul Boyle


Iraq lacks conditions for insurgents to win

Steve Chapman's column "Precedents provide no reason for optimism on Iraq" (Opinion * Commentary, Jan. 23) asserts that the fact the French were defeated by the FLN in Algeria, the United States withdrew from South Vietnam and the Israelis failed to defeat terrorists in southern Lebanon does not bode well for our efforts in Iraq.

But a discerning examination of the nature and context of these precedents indicates that none of them resembles the situation in Iraq.

Unlike Algeria, South Vietnam and Lebanon, Iraq has just been liberated from a tyrannical dictator, and the average Iraqi knows he or she is far better off because of this fact.

Insurgencies succeed against occupying forces only when the guerrillas can move from isolated attacks to gaining the support of the populace as a whole and then providing a viable political alternative to the status quo.

The fact that neither of these things is occurring in Iraq at this time is certainly reason for optimism.

Brooks D. Tucker


Costly way to end sanctions on Iraq

The Sun's editorial "The price of deceit" (Jan. 21) missed an argument in favor of the war in Iraq that, while I don't find it ultimately convincing, is certainly credible and legitimate: The war can be justified on humanitarian grounds as a way to remove the need for United Nations-imposed sanctions on Iraq.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.