The Fallout From the Immigration Ban

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/the-fallout-from-the-immigration-ban.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Fires Justice Chief Who Defied Him” (front page, Jan. 31):

Bravo to the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, and to those diplomats and career Civil Service employees who have taken a principled stand against President Trump’s ill-conceived, counterproductive and possibly unconstitutional immigration ban.

One can imagine that if there had been this howl of dissent from senior officials against F.D.R.’s executive order interning law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and their families during World War II, we might have avoided that black mark on our country’s claim to be a “beacon of liberty.”

DENNIS LEADER

Novato, Calif.

To the Editor:

I had some shopping to do this afternoon in my neighborhood. I bought light bulbs from the Pakistani immigrant who owns the hardware store; a mailer envelope from the Indian immigrant who owns the copy store; bagels from the Korean immigrant who owns the bagel store; strawberries from the Salvadoran immigrant who works in the grocery store; and postage from the Iranian immigrant who works at the post office.

The white Christian nativism of the current America First crowd is no different from the bigotry that the previous America Firsters incited to castigate my immigrant ancestors — who were Jews — as well as Italians, Irish, Poles, Greeks, Armenians, etc.

Those people immigrated here for the same reasons the recent immigrants did, not because it was easy but because the United States represented something special. Of all the toxicity the Trump administration will dump on the world, nothing will compare with its poisoning of the American ideal of immigration.

JON REINER

New York

To the Editor:

Re “Flip Side of Outrage: Some See a Promise Kept” (front page, Jan. 31):

I was struck by the inherent illogic expressed by Trump supporters who say they feel safer because of President Trump’s ban on entry to the United States by Muslims from selected countries.

Since 9/11, no one has been killed in the United States in a terrorist attack by a Muslim from these countries. In contrast, hundreds of mass shootings in the last 16 years have been committed by native-born citizens using automatic weapons: Orlando, Charleston, Newtown, Aurora, just to name a few.

Since we cannot ban native-born citizens, it seems that the logical thing to do to make everyone feel safer is to ban automatic weapons.

JACK HADLEY

Arlington, Va.

To the Editor:

I commend The Times for publishing a front-page article in which your reporter reached out to obtain the views of citizens in Staten Island, Wisconsin, even Seattle, who support President Trump’s new immigration policy.

Widening the circle of political views reported on your news pages to include those who want a new direction in American policy on immigration and protection from terrorists is exactly what was largely missing during your coverage of the campaign and why you missed the electoral earthquake about to hit.

Despite all the noise, all the outrage expressed in the news media and all the protests, a majority of American states voted for Mr. Trump to do exactly what he is now doing — limiting immigration from terror-torn nations to protect the homeland.

DENNIS L. BREO

New Smyrna Beach, Fla.

To the Editor:

Recent polls and anecdotal accounts demonstrate that President Trump’s ban on migrants enjoys widespread popular support. Defenders of the president cite that to support the draconian order. But our country’s core policy decisions should not be justified by the expedience of opinion polling, as if governing America is no different from picking winners on “American Idol” or “The Voice.”

GEORGE KOVAC

Miami