Bordering on a Brawl
Regarding William Kristol's "Y is for Yahoo" (April 10): I resent the suggestion that Tom Tancredo is a "yahoo." Immigrants should learn English and use it as their primary language; they should get jobs and not abuse our generosity. But, as these conditions are generally not being met, I predict we will have a fence or other fortified border within 10 years.
Howard Hirsch
Dayton, Nev.
William Kristol's mischaracterization of the House "yahoos" as anti-immigrant equates them with Jim Crow advocates, rather than the patriots they truly are. Not one of them said that legal immigration should be reduced, reversed, or terminated.
John Tetzlaff
Chicago, Ill.
The Senate bill is a slap in the face to those who apply legally and wait outside of the country for years while those who come illegally get to stay in the country.
John S. Haworth
St. John, Ind.
Borders are the cause of much hatred, bloodshed, and suffering. We should remove them and allow people the right to live and work where they will. If we renounce our greed and share our plentiful resources with others we will have a better chance of reducing terrorism and better our chances for peace in the world.
Don Timmerman
Park Falls, Wis.
Those who might accuse William Kristol of rhetorical excess by his use of the term "yahoo" simply demonstrate a chillingly shortsighted view of a problem that will kill the GOP for many years to come. Many of the immigrant students I teach in a Dallas high school are pleasantly surprised when they hear that President Bush is on their side. I believe that assimilation occurs in an environment that precludes harsh tones and restrictive policies. The immigrants and those sympathetic to their plight will happily land politically wherever they feel welcome.
Jesse Blankenship
Dallas, Tex.
Europe on Fire
Gerard Alexander's excellent "Illib-eral Europe" (April 10) repeats a common error that goes to the heart of freedom of speech. In Schenck v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Like a great many recent commentators, Alexander leaves out the crucial word "falsely." If the theater really is on fire, one is at liberty, indeed has a duty, to point out that fact as loudly as necessary. Parts of the continent are now on fire in the most literal sense; forbidding people to say so is the most egregious aspect of European restrictions on free speech.
Christopher Clausen
State College, Pa.
Restoring Federalism
David Gelernter's excellent piece on federalism as a remedy for American polarization ("Back to Federalism," April 10) correctly identifies the Supreme Court's nationalization of morals and culture, particularly in Roe v. Wade, as a major cause of our culture war. Removing federal court jurisdiction over abortion is not, however, a practical solution (even if the Supreme Court accepted the removal, which is by no means a certainty).
Article VI of the Constitution requires state courts to apply the federal Constitution, and that jurisdiction cannot be removed by federal or state legislation. Some years ago, the conference of state supreme court justices unanimously adopted a resolution to continue applying federal precedent in any area where Congress removed federal jurisdiction. Many state courts, moreover, are every bit as activist as the U.S. Supreme Court, as Massachusetts demonstrated in creating a right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution. The only solution, aside from a very improbable constitutional amendment, is the appointment of justices who will overrule Roe, which was, as Gelernter says, a "corrupt ruling." The problem of state court disfigurement of their own constitutions should be left to the citizens of the various states.
Robert Bork
Washington, D.C.