The IDs of immigrants

(STEVE ANSUL ILLUSTRATION)

IN ONE short editorial ("Not an answer on immigration," Nov. 2), you manage to tie your own argument into knots of contradiction. While you support New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's desire to grant licenses to people who have illegally entered the country, you criticize him for even attempting to comply with the national REAL ID law on the grounds that the law is "troubled." Funny, but I've never heard you suggest that citizens should delay paying the IRS when our tax laws can certainly be considered "troubled." You also write that licenses should be granted to illegal entrants "so that authorities know who they are." Yet you fret that Spitzer's third-tier license would be a "red flag." So which is it? Does it or does it not enhance the security, health, and stability of our nation for illegal entrants to be identified by authorities?

Ultimately, granting driver's licenses to illegal entrants accomplishes two things. It creates another incentive for such individuals - those who are well-intentioned as well as those with criminal plans - to enter the country. And it enables those with evil intentions to more effectively camouflage themselves and their plans.

I suspect that the Globe is trying to camouflage its own unpopular position, which is to oppose any efforts to make the country more secure. How else does one explain the newspaper's clear aversion to common sense?

GEOFF O'HARA
Dorchester

IN THE public debate on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, it doesn't seem to be acknowledged that the most visible proponent, Governor Spitzer, has already agreed with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff - the ACLU says he caved - that to comply with the federal Real ID law, licenses for illegal immigrants would have to look different.

If Chris Dodd wants to bring nuance to the debate about illegal immigrants ("Amid immigration rhetoric, Dodd strives for nuance," Page A8, Nov. 3), he might also point out that farmers' fears of high food prices resulting from untended fields don't acknowledge that the United States has a successful, well-regulated guest worker program for agriculture. The program has been used in Western Massachusetts for years. People from the Caribbean are housed and paid under federal rules, and they bring their money home. Maybe that costs a little more than hiring illegal immigrants.

That's not the only example of how enforcing the law is better for people on both sides of the border. Much has been written about how illegal immigration distorts the economy of Mexico.

MICHAEL HART
Greenfield

THE OFFENSIVE costume at the Immigration and Custom Enforcement Halloween party provided a window into ICE's true attitudes ("Homeland Security employee on leave over costume," Page A4, Nov. 7). When the head of ICE, Julie Myers, took a photo with a man in dreadlocks, darkened face, and prison stripes, and then voted it "most original" costume, she inadvertently showed the world what her agency thinks of immigrants. The reaction of the secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, focused on the racist nature of the costume, but what is truly "most original" here are the prison stripes, which reflect ICE's "lock them up" policy toward immigrants. The agency sees immigrants as threats to national security, and treats the most common immigration violators as dangerous criminals. Not surprisingly, the number of immigrants who are in detention waiting for their deportation cases to be heard has skyrocketed, hitting an all-time high of 30,000 two weeks ago.

In most cases, however, being in the United States without legal status is actually not a crime. But ICE's attitude is clear. Candid moments like the Halloween party shatter the agency's veneer of compassion.

NANCY RYAN
President
Board of Directors
ACLU of Massachusetts
Cambridge

THE REPORT in Sunday's paper on immigrants in New Hampshire illuminates an often overlooked fact about newcomers to America, both legal and illegal ("In N.H., a change in political dialogue," Page A1). If we listen to them we hear our story.

The man who states he is "in love" with Kennedy's "ask not" speech is actually part of a chorus, the refrain of those new to our home reminding us of the best of who and what we are.

ALAN M. PAMPANIN
Melrose