Amnesty plan would be unfair to legal immigrants, citizens
In his Aug. 24 column, "America's illegal immigration dilemma can't be deported," John Hughes concludes that because we cannot deport everyone, we must deport no one, but offer everyone amnesty in the form of a guest-worker program. The reality is that there is no need to deport every illegal alien or even most. Instead, the need is to focus on interior enforcement against employers, which would remove the magnet of jobs drawing and keeping illegal workers here.
I also find it interesting that he seems to ignore the injustice described in his article, whereby those who come here legally to work and respect our laws by going home on time are cast aside in favor of those here illegally. This characterizes nicely a major problem with illegal immigration: It is unfair to legal immigrants as well as to Americans.
I completely disagree with John Hughes's suggestions for dealing with immigration. It is only going to make matters worse. Our government's plan is, "Let's let more immigrants come over, but this time they'll pay dues." Crazy - what about their past dues? It is only getting worse for my father, who is a self-employed bricklayer. He has been in business for 30 years. The past five years have been the worst. Every job has been underbid by immigrants. I don't have a solution, but the one being submitted does not seem successful. It's not fair, especially to my dad.
The Aug. 25 article "Cricket makes a comeback in Britain" includes a highly misleading statement by a British cricket writer. The writer states that after England won the 2003 rugby World Cup, rugby was "supposed" to supplant soccer as the most popular sport in Britain. World Cup victory did provide a boost for rugby in Britain but rugby authorities in England never claimed their game would oust soccer as the major British sport. TV ratings and attendance figures at professional soccer matches confirm the sport's unrivaled popularity in Britain.
Shakespeare ... in Kabul
I read with greater than usual interest the Sept. 1 article, "Love's 'Labour's' not a lost cause in Kabul," on a new theater performance in Kabul, Afghanistan. I was a Fulbright professor in Kabul from 1972-1975 and among the 13 plays produced at the then-National Theater of Afghanistan, which I advised, was a translation of Shakespeare's "Othello," which offered great appeal to our actors (men and women) and audiences. Of particular interest in the first reading of the play with our troupe was the Moor's - read Muslim male's - tenuous relationship of trust with his wife.
We also performed other Western plays in translation, as well as several original Afghan works, including the wildly popular "Autefa," an adaptation of "Oliver Twist."
Our theater, Kabul Nandari, has since been bombed out, and the troupe scattered.
It is hard - but productive - to remember the "good years" in Kabul. In the early '70s, it was a peaceful city with a multiethnic Army, Air Force, and national police force and there were many young women in the streets without veils, much less full-length burqas. Tens of thousands of people attended our plays at the National Theater - men and women, with most of the women unveiled.
It is therefore most gratifying to see the theater tradition continued, and this, among many other things, gives hope for the future of Afghanistan.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Any letter accepted will appear in print and on our website, www.csmonitor.com.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to (617) 450-2317, or e-mail to Letters.