THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor.
Letters will be edited for length and clarity.
*1* In his recent article on immigration, Fred Barnes suggests that the Republican party should not "emotionally" dwell "on the problem of illegal immigration" because, he fears, the GOP will end up "alienating Hispanic Americans, the fastest growing voting bloc in the country."
Barnes describes what he calls an "obsessive emphasis," on the "bashing [of]" illegal immigrants by Republicans.
Let's check the sum his political miscalculation. First, if Barnes is right, then the GOP must subordinate national security to the political concern of not upsetting Hispanic voters. Second, the GOP, according to Barnes, must insist that someone arrested for a felony can not be questioned about his legal status because Hispanic voters would be offended--even if the person was arrested for the rape of a five year-old child, which was the case of the illegal alien who allegedly murdered execution-style three Newark college student and critically wounded a forth.
Barnes accused former Speaker Newt Gingrich's position on "the war here at home" of reaching "rhetorical heights." But Gingrich believes that if a person is arrested for a felony, the minimum responsibility of the authorities is to know that person's legal status. If they are in the country illegally, they should be detained by the Federal Government throughout the criminal proceedings until a verdict is read. Had that been done in the Newark case, three college students might not be dead and a five year-old child might not have been raped. If this were the Federal law, as it should be, thousands of victims of violent crime would have been spared.
Does Barnes really believe that keeping illegal aliens accused of felonies in jail is "overkill," or that condemning an alleged child rapist and murderer who is in the United States illegally constitutes "immigrant bashing?"
The sum of the Barnes political calculation, had he calculated it, would have us open our borders to everyone including drug dealers, criminals, and terrorists. His advice would also have the GOP in support of allowing illegal felons to roam the streets at will to prey upon law abiding Americas.
He also seems to think, as the Republican establishment does, that in order to communicate with Latino voters, two-thirds of whom are of Mexican decent, we should have more Cuban Americans speaking for them. But Barnes's calculations don't add up. The burden of his position drawn to its absurd conclusion is that Hispanic voters support open borders and do not support keeping illegal felons off the street. He ignores the fact that all "voters," including "Hispanic voters," are American citizens. Americans, including Latino Americans, want their borders and their neighborhoods protected.
The reason "comprehensive" immigrations reform failed is because Americans, most of whom did not want the reforms the government was proposing--including amnesty for millions of illegal aliens--spoke up. They do not trust the government's ability to implement comprehensive reform because there is no evidence that the government is capable of it. Voters have been clear. Protect the border first and enforce the law. Once that is done, then we can design rational immigration reform, but not until then.
Missing from Barnes's advice for Republicans is that Americans, including Republican Americans, don't worry about their neighbors who are of Latino, Asian, European, African or other decent. They are their American neighbors. What most Americans worry about is an America where national security and the law take a back seat to misguided, politically correct calculations made for political purposes. America is a land of immigrants, but our nation was built upon the sturdy foundation of the rule of law, and that foundation must be protected. On that, a great majority of Americans, including "the fastest growing voting bloc in the country," can agree.
--Rick Tyler
Spokesperson for Newt Gingrich
*2* The problem with the Republican response, including that of Fred Barnes, to the immigration debate is that it fails to recognize that there are areas of broad agreement which, if addressed, would be for more damaging to the Democrats than Republicans. Even majorities of Latinos object to illegal immigration, but the Democratic strategy of blurring the distinction between illegal and legal immigrants works in their favor.
A Republican strategy that highlighted this difference would be a winner. One obvious example of this is on the issue of illegals convicted of felonies. A stand-alone bill to deny federal funding to those cities that refuse to inform the Federal Government as to the immigration status of criminals, and the enforcement of laws that mandate the immediate deportation of illegals who have been convicted of felonies, would both be extremely popular measures among all but the absolute fringes of the left, for whom any enforcement is unacceptable.
Forcing the Democratic party to discuss the deportation of criminals like the one who murdered three college kids in Newark forces it to choose between its extremists and its more moderate members.
Immigration is a wedge issue, but not against Republicans.
--Mike Harris
*3* As a former state and local level GOP operative in Pennsylvania, I can't tell you how many times I've been asked (my family is from Colombia): 'How do we get the Latin vote?'
After I pocketed the check, I'd tell them, there is no such thing as the Latin vote. There is the Cuban, Mexican, and Puerto Rican vote, but given the different histories, cultures, and voting patterns, Latin-speaking voters are not a monolith.
Bob Marley and Queen Elizabeth II both spoke/speak English. I doubt they would have voted in lockstep.
--David Kamioner
*4*
John Noonan's arguments against the Thayer System may have been valid 40 years ago, but as a graduate (class of 1979), a former professor at West Point (although a combat engineer, I taught history!), and a current professor at the U.S. Army War College, I can tell you that the USMA has a robust liberal arts program (including history, philosophy, international relations, economics, etc.) and requires more mandatory language education than almost any civlian institutions, including, dare I say, VMI. And cadets can major in these other disciplines.
At the same time, there is still a requirement for all cadets--whatever their major--to take so-called core courses in engineering and science. And why not given today's technologically advanced military.
The broad West Point education produces graduates who are intellectually prepared to face a wide variety of situations.
As a long-time subscriber, I would not expect the Weekly Standard to publish such an uninformed piece.
--Colonel Kevin J. Weddle
Professor and Deputy Dean of Academics
U.S. Army War College
*5*
John Noonan's article on the Thayer System is slightly off the mark. While the Academies may not offer a Bachelors of Art in International Relations or other liberal arts studies, they do offer a Bachelor of Science in various liberal arts subjects. I, myself, have a BS in History, while my wife has a BS in Law with a minor in Philosophy. Both of us graduated from the USAF Academy. Would I have liked more history classes instead of taking astro-engineering or mechanical engineering? Yes. But then again, those classes readied me for my Air Force career in ICBM operations, space control, and satellite ground systems. My history courses did not. It seems that Noonan assumes that the military will put cadets into jobs based on their course of study. With a degree in history I had a better academic background for intelligence and while intelligence was on my "wish list," it's not where I was placed--and my wife never became a lawyer. However, we both enjoyed successful careers in the Air Force, doing things that other students may have been better qualified to do based on their academic concentration.
The training that Noonan recommends should be taught after commissioning, after the cadets are new lieutenants. The Air Force has embarked on an Aerospace Basic Course (ABC) to teach new lieutenants the ropes of the Air Force. As I understand it, the other services already have something like this in place. But, this is something that should be taught to Academy cadets in their senior years. Instead of a course like this the military should establish the kinds of schools and courses that Mr Noonan has talked about, such as Arabic and Farsi.
--James Englehart, USAFA '96