Letters To The Editor


October 10, 2005

A duty to uphold immigration laws

I support Rep. Tom Tancredo's stance on illegal immigration, and my views are shared by millions of patriotic Americans. I resent Cynthia Tucker referring to Mr. Tancredo, and others like him, as "demagogues"("Tough talk fans immigration fears," Opinion * Commentary, Oct. 3).

We are a nation at war, yet no agenda is in place to control the invasion happening here at home. Reasonable immigration when it is done legally is part of our heritage and is beneficial, but that's not today's reality.

I fail to comprehend the problem with foreigners who want to work in America being allowed to do so legally.

Other countries have established guest worker programs in which individuals provide a service for pay and then leave.

If there are jobs "Americans won't do," then business has a right to seek employees elsewhere. But why must it be a clandestine, criminal undertaking?

The United States was founded on European, mainly English, traditions, law and language. Overturning this heritage through massive, uncontrolled, criminal immigration is a road to anarchy.

Ms. Tucker condemns those who have the courage to speak out against lawlessness and disorder. I applaud them.

Americans have a duty to see that our laws are obeyed.

R. N. Ellis


One developer key to height dispute

One developer. The Mount Vernon height battle is all about one developer.

I don't even live in that neighborhood, but I've been tortured for more than a year reading about this debate in The Sun and worrying the whole time about the destruction of Baltimore's finest historical district. Now I find out it's about one property developer ("Building-height spat unresolved," Oct. 5)?

I can only imagine what the poor residents of Mount Vernon have gone through - no wonder everyone is so outraged.

How can this city even consider legislating for a single developer?

Oh wait, I forgot: Developers equal campaign contributions.

Steve Bowman


City must face down developer's demand

One out-of-town developer is holding the city hostage because he can't get his way and build skyscrapers next to 19th-century townhouses in Mount Vernon ("Building-height spat unresolved," Oct. 5)?

If this developer does not like height restrictions, selling his properties is always an option.

The last time I checked, no one could be forced to own property in this country.

But ruining an entire community and one of the most beloved neighborhoods to please this guy is not an option.

If Baltimore doesn't have the guts to say no to this one developer who owns a couple of minor parcels in the city, what hope does this city have?

Robert Beachy


Rejecting torture sustains our values

Thank you for the editorial "Saying no to torture" (Oct. 7) in support of Sen. John McCain's amendment to the defense spending bill outlawing the torture of prisoners.

The McCain amendment requires the military to follow the Army Field Manual for the humane treatment of prisoners.

It seems incredible that we have gone so far from our core values that we must return to a policy that rejects the torture of prisoners. But since this administration has abandoned that policy, it is necessary.

The fact that we are fighting an enemy that disregards human life does not mean that we should do the same.

Quite apart from the well documented fact that torture is not effective to gain reliable information, what does its use say about us?

Let us regain the moral high ground, and support our essential values of the worth of human life and dignity.

Suzanne H. O'Hatnick


Keep this president from packing court

The choice of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was a slap in the face to reasonable people. But many Senate Democrats just went along as usual with minimum fuss.

Now we are faced with Harriet Miers. This is too much. Her qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court are nonexistent ("Campaign for Miers targets Republicans," Oct. 6).

It is time to call a halt to this arrogant packing of the highest court by President Bush.

Henry Bosch


Rights of minorities aren't subject to vote

I disagree with Steve Chapman's conclusion that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was correct in vetoing a bill legislating same-sex marriage ("Gay marriage vs. democracy in California," Opinion * Commentary, Oct. 5).

Although he favors marriage for same-sex couples, Mr. Chapman's argument was flawed in stating that the state legislature had no business in going over the heads of voters who, in 2000, passed Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Mr. Chapman believes that only through a referendum can the "will of the people" be overturned. But if all issues were to be decided by the people and not legislatures, there would be no need for legislative bodies.

And the idea of putting minority rights up for a popular vote is troublesome, to say the least.

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.