LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Deportation, God, government and ‘King Donald’

I hesitate to take up space in what, at times, appears to be a personal diary of truth, but Ms. Hilton’s last column [“A few points to ponder moving forward,” Letters to the Editor, Nov. 17] was a trifle overwhelming.

First: Miss Liberty does not support mass deportation. The immigration question could easily and cheaply be solved by fast-tracking vetted people to citizenship and [having them] pay taxes. Many pay taxes in different ways now; Google “immigrants and taxes” and be surprised.

According to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, it is only children born on U.S. soil who are citizens — their parents are not, but then, does a child not need his/her parents? What to do? Tear the family apart and let the state raise the newborns? Again, it’s cheaper to keep the family together, fast-track it to citizenship and taxes. Those born on U.S. soil, children (citizens) of those non-citizens who have been here a long time, do serve in the military; Google that, too.

There was no right way our forefathers came here. In the beginning, grants of land never owned by European states were given and people came; heck, Georgia was a prison colony. Those who came between 1880 and the early 1900s were given a minimal health check and fast-tracked into big industry, not many questions asked, even little children who came alone and were sucked into the industrial engine.

For the most part, the number of immigrants in the recent discussion came over a period of many years: 12 million did not come at once, so, the word “mass” does not apply. Examples of true mass immigration would be the Irish driven by famine and the Syrians displaced by war. Mass deportation is not the flip side of mass immigration. Mass deportation is an overt act by a government, usually at gunpoint, to get rid of masses of people in a short period of time, like Hitler and the Holocaust. He deported them before he slaughtered them. It is something that should be beneath a civilized nation.

Second: Gender is not chosen; it is assigned by biology and chemistry. Is anyone aware that in the ’50s, children born with ambiguous sex organs were arbitrarily assigned a gender by the doctor before the parents were told the baby’s sex? Anyway, there are unisex bathrooms; lots of places have them. End of story.

Third: The prayers are the issue, not the saying of them: Just whose prayers are to be used in the public sphere, given the fact there are many interpretations of God. Since God is not mentioned in the Constitution and vaguely as a Creator in the Declaration, one would be hard-pressed to define the national mindset concerning religion at the time of the founding.

Add to that the provision in Article 6 that “ … no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” and you have to accept [that] the public sphere must be neutral. Check it out! On top of that, the First Amendment not only guarantees the freedom of religion, but also, the freedom from religion. “In God We Trust” on currency and “under God” in the pledge were added to each in the ’50s to counter godless Communism. The motto the Founders gave us was “E Pluribus Unum” — “From the many, one,” not “In God We Trust.” Google that one, too!

Government: All members of Congress already have term limits, every two years for representatives and every six for senators. It is up to the people to fire Congress as per the Constitution; because the same guys show up forever is a symptom of money’s influence, and thanks to the Roberts’ court and its Citizens United decision, we will never know who is buying and selling our representatives.

Fourth point, Ms. Hilton’s seventh: Unless you have walked a mile in a person’s shoes, addict or not, how can you know how disabled they are? Didn’t someone very important say once, “Judge Ye Not”” Gee, who might that have been?!

In conclusion, this brings me to the worship of King Donald. I have four questions, and for which I am sure Ms. Hilton has ready answers.

1) Why is it OK for him to not pay taxes just because his high-paid lawyers and accountants found every loophole they could, and probably, a few they manufactured? He essentially cheated those soldiers and policemen Ms. Hilton is so worried about, not to mention all of us other taxpayers.

2) Why do his supporters think a guy who sent his manufacturing jobs to China, married a woman who worked illegally while in possession of a visa, and doesn’t pay his workers by declaring bankruptcy, and has used their system over and over to make himself rich, cares one whit for them or will change a system that made him rich? Many people make a patriotic/moral effort to buy and manufacture locally. Heck, if he wanted sweatshop labor, I’m sure he could have found it in NYC.

Given all the buildings he has built, he could have rebuilt U.S. Steel by himself, but he did not. Could it mean he really owes the Bank of China $650 million? International trade and debt make for a true New World Order president.

3) Since we were told for months, ad nauseam, that the system was so broken and so terrible, was he lying to us? It worked, he was elected and he didn’t even win the popular vote. Was he lying?

4) Even more interesting, Hillary is now a good woman and his administration will not pursue charges for that most despicable of crooks. Which is it? Is she good or bad, or was he lying to us yet again?

As for me, better the crook I knew than the one who got elected.

Patricia Kaminsky
Lewes

You are encouraged to leave relevant comments but engaging in personal attacks, threats, online bullying or commercial spam will not be allowed. All comments should remain within the bounds of fair play and civility. (You can disagree with others courteously, without being disagreeable.) Feel free to express yourself but keep an open mind toward finding value in what others say. To report abuse or spam, click the X in the upper right corner of the comment box.