To the editor: DACA is no rotten deal

Entry requirements into the United States should be applied universally, at all points of entry.


Wed, 04 Dec 2019 05:00:00 GMT

link -- with images

In the Ruben Navarrette, Jr., column Nov. 22 (“Don’t save DACA”), the writer identifies the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as a “rotten deal.” His primary objection is that “dreamers” would have to provide fingerprints, mugshots, home addresses, and names of parents and siblings.

He characterizes the transfer of these details as applicants “turning themselves in” to law enforcement. The author is adamant that this requirement is punitive, and does not constitute “amnesty” for anyone who has entered the United States by illegally crossing the Mexican border.

For an immigrant from anywhere in the world, excluding Mexico and South America, acceptance into the United States as a green card holder involves a protracted process, which invariably takes years to complete.

This includes verification of sponsorship, the supply of personal and family details, previous address details, employment record, finger print or crime record, blood tests, vaccinations, etc.

In certain circumstances, regarding initial employment, it may be necessary to prove that the applicant is not displacing an American-born citizen.

The author is correct in his assessment that DACA is deficient. Entry requirements into the United States should be applied universally, at all points of entry, without preferential treatment for those who chose not to follow well-established immigration rules.

JOSEPH CAFFREY

Lambertville

Submit a letter to the editor

 

Enable transplant

I’m only a guy, so I should probably just stay out of it, but here’s my understanding of the abortion controversy as covered by The Blade Columbus bureau chief Jim Provance, the Associated Press, and Leslie Jan, a letter writer from Bowling Green (“Restricting abortion,” Nov. 10):

Women somehow got the idea that they should be in control of whether to use their bodies to develop a zygote into an embryo, a fetus and, at birth, a baby — especially if a pregnancy began with rape, incest, or molestation.

Anti-choice zealots, on the other hand, think that their ability to quote ad nauseam from a Bronze Age collection of fables, fibs, and fairy tales gives them the right to dictate to women what they’ll do with their bodies.

I think I have a compromise, although I’ve never heard or read anyone else suggest such a thing. We should develop surgical and psychosocial methodologies to allow doctors to transplant an unwanted fetus into someone else’s uterus or into an incubator.

The fetus lives. The woman’s free.

Research funding should come from anti-choice conservative evangelicals and Roman Catholicism.

Put up or shut up.

ERIC PETERS

Columbus

 

Pi not just 3

In 1897, the Indiana General Assembly tried to pass a bill that legally set the value of Pi at 3.2. It passed the House but not the Senate. In the Bible, I Kings, Chapter 7, Verse 23, sets the value of Pi at 3. Some will try to use Verse 26 to fudge the Bible’s value to 3.1395, but I read 23 as Pi equals 3.

It has been proven that the value of the irrational number Pi is 3.14159265…, going on forever. Thus, if I were still teaching and a student said that Pi is 3 because of his religion, I would be willing to mark it wrong and go to jail, hoping that this student did not build that jail.

RAYMOND HEITGER

West Toledo

link