Susan McKown, Roseville
“Why we don’t need a wall” (sacbee.com, Jan. 8) As someone whose mother was an immigrant from Haiti, I strongly agree with McCabe’s views on the border wall. Yes, border security is still (and will always be) important, but as stated by the writer, “When we are at our best, we don’t spend billions of dollars building monuments of paranoia.” Ignoring the financial and technical aspects, America would be destroying one of the things it is best at: Being open to those in need, and giving people a future to look up to. If America walls itself off, then the country is no better than when it remained neutral during the early stages of the second world war. No matter what issue the country has to tackle, it should always be taken on boldly; not with fear and isolation.
Lucas Holeman, Los Gatos
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Sacramento Bee
“If you want a wall, make an argument, but leave a cop killing out of it” (sacbee.com, Jan. 9): I totally agree with Breton and his opinion about Trump and the wall. He writes that supporters of the wall “are less interested in governing and more interested in vendettas against people who frighten and anger them.” In my opinion, this is blatant racism that has become exposed with the help of Trump’s fear mongering lies. I experienced this sick racism in South Africa, when I lived there, when the white minority government caused divisiveness to the extreme apartheid and extolled the mantra that black lives did not matter. They spewed lies about blacks being rapists, killers, drug dealers, etc.
Laraine Silberstein, Sacramento
“‘We’re stuck.’ McConnell’s appearance and Graham’s maneuvers meet a wall” (sacbee.com, Jan. 10): We are three weeks into the government shutdown, over the demand for $5.7 billion for a wall and Democrats refusal to authorize anything for a physical barrier. The salary for the 380,000 furloughed workers for a month is maybe $2.4 billion. The need for a wall might be debatable, it might stem illegal immigration in some sections. Instead of each side demanding a win at the expense of the American people, a compromise allowing both sides to “win” is possible. The House could approve a bill of $5 Billion, on condition that no further appropriations for a barrier be requested before 2021. President Trump could claim his win. If President Trump loses or the Senate is flipped in 2020, Democrats have no worry over money for the wall. The legislative and executive branches need to quit being “tough” and do their jobs.
Bill Schmidt, Wilton
“Democrats were for a wall it before they were against it” (sacbee.com, Jan. 10): Pelosi was previously lauded in The Bee for her obstinate and insulate treatment of Trump in a December televised meeting with him to discuss the border wall. Her petulance attitude, displayed she had no intention of carrying on a reasoned conversation, but was there strictly for the TV exposure. Now, an article in The Bee reported Pelosi’s actions in a January followup meeting she agreed to with Trump, wherein she just adamantly refused to discuss it, calling it an “immorality”, although during the Obama administration she arranged a bill providing for a border barrier of the same extent Trump now proposes. It’s obvious that Pelosi’s refusal to discuss is to personally spite Trump, causing the government shutdown, and all its suffering. Shouldn’t she be doing the people’s work, not polishing her own ego?
Bill Jurkovich, Citrus Heights
“Trump could divert money from Folsom Dam to fund a border wall; Democrats vow a fight” (sacbee.com, Jan. 11): From the beginning of his 2016 campaign, the president talked about the need for a wall on our southern border. I’m truly puzzled by one question. Why, if there has been a need for a wall, wasn’t the money allocated and construction begun during the two years, 2017 and 2018, when the Republican Party had majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate? If the president has believed that the need for a wall is so serious that it is a crisis, why didn’t he just ask his party leaders in the House and Senate to allocate the funds and begin construction?
Douglas Stark, Lincoln
“Sheriff Scott Jones levels new claim against ousted inspector general Rick Braziel” (sacbee.com, Jan. 10): When does Sheriff Jones believe it is the time to move on? His actions against former inspector general Rick Braziel seam to keep coming no matter what was resolved a few months back. The Board of Supervisors voted for changes for the people who rely for the fair, just service from the sheriff’s office. For any leader in any organization who feels he is above the law cannot operate while having someone tell him what is wrong. The leader has to absorb the advice, good and bad, and seek to find avenues to rectify the matter. To continue on the path of bullying or outrageous actions, elected officials need to be cautioned that their actions are not appropriate to the support for the general public. If they cannot understand that, it is time to step down and leave public service.
Ray Blasquez, Lincoln
“Latest: California governor urges end to LA teacher strike” (sacbee.com, Jan. 14): Regarding educational budgets, I prefer pointing out self-reinforcing positive practices. Good can squeeze out bad, great can levitate to prominence and predominance. However, sharpshooters serve a purpose. Of the dollars per pupil spent in California, a pittance is budgeted for classroom supplies. In my years teaching, I averaged $8 per pupil. This outrage drove me to a life of haunting thrift stores and spending lots of my salary on adaptable equipment and consumables. Meanwhile, multiple layers at state, county, district and site of non-teaching staff were contributed to the idea that we just do not have that money budgeted.
Harry Hickman, Auburn