Front Page > Editorials/Op-Ed Page

Page 2 of 2 « back | Email | Print | Subscribe

Add To Insider Newsclips
Send Your Letter To The Editor | Click-2-Listen

advertisement

Letters to the Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
May 13, 2007

    Mayor Adrian Fenty credits these gun laws with decreasing gun violence in the District. Where does he get his statistics? The article points out that the FBI shows 32.8 homicides per 100,000 residents in 1975 before the gun ban and 35.4 homicides in 2005. Where is the decrease?
    Council member Phil Mendelson is quoted as saying "By saying 500,000 more people can have guns in their homes, there could be 500,000 more guns in the District of Columbia." This statement indicates he is concerned that given the chance the people of the District would avail themselves of the opportunity to defend themselves. I ask: What is wrong with that? (Aside from a loss of control on the part of the democrats, which is actually a good thing.)
    A previous editorial points out we can look forward to the anti-gun democrats wringing hands, gnashing teeth and wailing about the onslaught of guns in the District ("Fenty, firearms and the future," Thursday). I point out that the floodgates have already opened and it ain't guns coming through.
    
    ROBERT E. BRAND
    Frederick
    
    
    
    That sounds logical
    Six radical Islamists were arrested on charges of plotting to kill a large number of soldiers in an attack on Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey with AK-47 machine guns and semiautomatic M-16s ("6 held in plot to hit Fort Dix," Page 1, Wednesday). The critically strategic question now is: What type of timetable should our president use for pulling all of our troops out of Fort Dix?
    
    ARMOND SIMMONS
    Pell City, Ala.
    
    
    
    Now that would be radical
    As The Times reported ("Immigration deal called sellout," Nation, Thursday), Cecelia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, said she's worried about the current immigration negotiations between Senate Democrats (like Harry Reid of Nevada and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts) and Senate Republicans, led by Jon Kyl of Arizona, in which proposals are being considered to modify the law's current family reunification provisions to emphasize instead the immigrant's skills over his family connections, as "not having been considered in this debate before," adding that "some of them are pretty radical."
    She's half right. Most have not been part of the debate (although they should have been, and are long overdue), because Ms. Munoz has only lived with the results of the ill-considered 1965 Immigration Act (sponsored by her friend, Mr. Kennedy), under which an immigrant's education and skills were ignored in favor of a system allowing virtually unlimited immigration based on family relationships with immigrants already here rather than on the skills needed by the country.
    This policy is out of line with those of virtually every developed nation. The 1965 act also allowed for "chain migration" in which immigrants could "sponsor" what amounted to an unlimited number of relatives, each of whom could in turn sponsor additional relatives, again irrespective of whether these immigrants could to contribute to the economy and society.
    What is truly "radical," then as now, is the 1965 immigration law, not the proposals currently offered by responsible lawmakers such as Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, who suggests that U.S. immigration policy should consider whether an immigrant has skills needed in our economy and not just the folks to whom the would-be immigrant is related. Mr. Sessions' proposal would provide a needed dose of reality to an irrationally based immigration policy that has lasted more than 40 years. If enacted, this truly would be "radical."
    
    ROBERT BERRY
    Montgomery Village
    
    
    
    Separate and apart
    The article "National parks to raise fees," (Nation, Monday) erroneously included Colonial Williamsburg as one of a list of 11 national parks due to raise entrance fees.
    Colonial Williamsburg is not part of the National Park Service. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation is a private, not-for-profit educational institution. The funds necessary for preserving and maintaining the Historic Area and presenting the educational programs of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation are derived from ticket purchases; sales of craft items and educational materials; income from hotels, restaurants and merchandising operations; and tax-deductible contributions for support.
    
    THOMAS R. SHROUT
    Director of public affairs
    Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
    Williamsburg, Va.
    

Page 2 of 2 « back | Email | Print | Subscribe

Add To Insider Newsclips
Send Your Letter To The Editor | Click-2-Listen

Front Page > Editorials/Op-Ed Page

Want to use this article? Click here for options! Copyright 2007 The Washington Times