Voice of the people defeated border bill
Congratulations to the U.S. citizens who sent out, loud and clear, the message to their senators that they were opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens ("Senate routs immigration overhaul bill," June 29).
Congratulations also to those Republican and Democratic senators who listened to their constituents and voted to stop the progress of this bill.
Sadly, Maryland Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin, like President Bush, were either out of touch with the will of most legal citizens or simply choose to ignore it.
As Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina noted, many Americans just "don't have confidence" that our borders would have been tightened by this bill.
However, if our country can send more than 150,000 troops to Iraq along with tens of thousands of private security contractors at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, surely we can quickly secure our borders.
If Ms. Mikulski and Mr. Cardin are serious about stopping illegal immigration, they would proceed with a bill that would immediately fund such an effort and demand the enforcement of the immigration law passed in 1986.
Howard Dietz
Rosedale
Influx of millions is reason for concern
The Sun's charge of "resentment" by those who opposed the immigration bill is wrong ("Resentment wins, again," editorial, June 29).
Americans are rightly apprehensive about what's happening to the country.
When 12 million to 20 million foreigners live and work here in violation of our laws and are able to put down roots in our community and become a political force, why shouldn't many of us be concerned?
I'm tired of rhetoric such as "demagogic passions" and "flogged into a fury by talk-show agitators."
Such ad hominem attacks on patriotic Americans are despicable.
In 1986, we had an amnesty bill for immigrants. But it did nothing to stop illegal immigration to our country.
No one wants to see that happen again.
Rosalind Ellis
Baltimore
Name-calling adds nothing to debate
When The Sun's editorial writers advance their perspective through the opinion pages, it is an exercise in free speech. But when average citizens do the same thing through the Internet and talk radio, they apparently become, according to The Sun's editorial "Resentment wins, again" (June 29) "agitators" and "provocateurs."
I don't disagree with The Sun's editorial position on the failed immigration bill. But I do take exception to such ad hominem attacks on anyone engaged in public discourse. I expect more nuance and less name-calling from Maryland's leading editorial voice.
Kevin O'Keefe
Baltimore
Republicans will rue immigration stance
The Republican Party will pay dearly for leading the effort to kill the Senate immigration reform bill, as this will prompt millions of Hispanics to vote for the Democratic ticket in 2008 ("Senate routs immigration overhaul bill," June 29).
Immigration reform was not about rewarding border violators or opening the door for terrorists to come into this country, as some people claim.
It was about repairing a broken system by taking action on a moral basis.
Shame on all those who mischaracterized this sensitive issue.
Angel L. Nunez
Baltimore
Cars can be made more fuel-efficient
The letter from a General Motors official claiming that higher fuel efficiency comes only with uncomfortable trade-offs is just another example of denial by the American auto industry ("Consumers pay toll for fuel efficiency," June 27).
Various technologies are available that make fuel-economy levels of 40 miles per gallon possible, even for midsize cars. The problem is the reluctance of the auto industry to implement them.
Higher fuel-efficiency standards required by the government will ultimately benefit consumers.
James Bauernschmidt
Annapolis
The writer is a representative of a company working to develop more fuel-efficient internal combustion engines.
GOP takes narrow view of our security
I found The Sun's article "Environmental change: a security issue?" (June 24) both interesting and disturbing.
It's interesting that some politicians are trying to factor environmental issues into the national security agenda. But it's disturbing that some members of the GOP still fail to think in this way.
History is replete with examples of societal collapse as a result of environmental change or catastrophe.
And it often seems that the collapse is the result of the inability of the society in question to recognize and prepare for possible deleterious environmental outcomes.
Of course, history seems to be an understudied subject within the GOP.
Nevertheless, thinking that national security concerns are limited to potential terrorist threats and focusing our security efforts on only those concerns is naive, short-sighted and potentially very costly.
I hope we can steer politicians to a more forward-thinking mentality on issues of the environment, sustainability and national security.
Christopher J. Salice
Baltimore
One death not basis to stop 'step-outs'
We were recently and tragically reminded that there is a risk associated with being a police officer and with the law enforcement practice known as "stepping out" to stop speeders ("State police halt, review traffic 'step out,'" June 27).
It is right that such a tragedy should prompt the powers-that-be to temporarily suspend the practice, review it and make changes if they are needed to improve the practice and ensure reasonable officer safety.
But since the risk of death is a part of just about any law enforcement activity, those in upper management have the difficult and subjective task of determining not whether the practice subjects officers to risk but whether the practice subjects officers to a reasonable and acceptable risk when weighed against the benefit this kind of enforcement provides to society.
It not as simple as: Someone died, so let's stop doing it.
If a law enforcement practice were dropped every time and solely because it resulted in an officer's death, many beneficial and crucial practices that help protect us would be abolished.
One could argue that the fact that there has been just one death by an officer using this practice in many years proves the relative safety of the procedure - a procedure that is more effective than other tactics at slowing down speeders and therefore may be more effective at saving lives.
I'm sure officer deaths have resulted from "car-based" speeding enforcement. Should we stop that procedure too?
And if death or the potential for death were the sole criterion for deciding whether to abandon a practice, we would all be walking, not driving.
Scott Richardson
Westminster
The writer is a retired Maryland state trooper.