Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Our Constitution protects the rights of more than just citizens

To The Daily Sun,

Herr Trumpenfuhrer's administration (what a yuugenjoke) and the courts are now battling over his Muslim ban but Jim McCoole once again steps in it while we wait. As most of the courts shoot down Baron Von Gropenfuhrer's imperial decree, McCoole is going to present "the entire story truthfully or fairly." He implores us to, "Get use to this important fact of life, ... The U.S. is a nation of immigrants, legal immigrants. Immigrants to this country have no constitutional rights to come here until they become U.S. citizen."

Firstly his sentence is word salad because how could they become U.S. citizens in order to come here? What McCoole probably meant was that unless one is a citizen, one is not covered by the protections of the Constitution. Wrong, again! While there is no constitutional right to immigrate here, the courts have ruled once a person is within our borders no matter their status, they have the protections of the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment. Allow me to educate Mr McCoole who doesn't belong on the school board due to his lack of knowledge

In 1886, a case involving Chinese immigrants came before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the court ruled the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality." In 1896, another Chinese immigrant case reached the Supreme Court. In Wong Wing v. U.S., the court cited Yick Wo v. Hopkins and applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating, ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

In 1903 the high court ruled in a case, Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, it is not "competent for any executive officer at any time within the year limited by the statute, to arbitrarily cause an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although illegally here, to be arrested and deported without giving such alien an opportunity, appropriate to the case, to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States." While Yamataya lost her case and was deported, the case altered the process of deportation and established an appeals process that could be put under judicial review of due process for those facing deportation. An immigrant subject to deportation procedures could now challenge the constitutional legitimacy of the those deportation hearings which meant such hearings had to meet that standards of due process found in the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the 14th Amendment's due process clause applied to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."

In a 1982 case, Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that prohibited the enrollment of undocumented children in public schools. The court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a person in any ordinary sense of that term... The undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the state affords other residents." The court ruled, "[U]se of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a state, and reaches into every corner of a state's territory."

In this case, the court used the statements below by Senator Jacob Howard who was the floor manager of the 14th Amendment in the Senate and a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen that drafted the amendment:

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a state from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. ... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

More recently, in 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas held in Grocers Supply Inc. v. Cabello that federal immigration laws do not preclude illegal workers from recovering damages, including lost wages, for Texas tort claims. In this case, three undocumented aliens won their case against Grocers Supply for injuries they sustained in a collision with one its trucks.

So, McCoole, it will certainly be interesting to see which parts of Herr TrumpenFuhrer's imperial decrees get scrapped by the courts. Your glorious leader has been sued, as of Tuesday, 41 times since inauguration day. The ACLU received $24.1 million in online donations during that weekend which is astonishing since they average $4 million a year in online donations. Isn't this going to be fun, Donnie?

James Veverka


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 499

Naziism was a totalitarian evil that is mirrored by Shariah law

To The Daily Sun,

My, my, I have been taken to the wood shed well and proper by Mr. Frank M. Weeks, in The Sun, for my impolite response to the guests at the MLK Day on multiculturalism.

Okay, maybe my focus was more pointed then the intended program, so first off let me give credit where credit is due. Mr. Campbell's brief introduction of the meaning of the event I felt was well presented and the video of Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech was as powerful and moving as the day he recited it on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Dr. King called on the American people, the American nation to stand up and reject injustice, racism, intolerance and to make America truly the home of liberty and freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. died for that cause but his words call out over the years and ages to inspire all righteous men and women to follow that dream, to stand up, be counted, and reject the darkness of oppression and subjugation.

Mr. Weeks feels that my impolite focus on the Muslim guests was inappropriate. However, I must disagree because as Muslims they can only recognize and obey one law which is Shariah law. That law is diametrically opposite everything Dr. King believed in and died for.

Shariah represents a totalitarian theocracy devoid of liberty, justice and individual rights. This being so, why should I not stand up in the shadow of MLK and decry a clear evil encroaching on our people, black and white, men and women, gay and straight?

Mr. Weeks brings up the 20th Century of murder of thousands of blacks, the 19th Century of the injustices to native Americans and why stop there why not go back to the Spanish Inquisition or further? Or we could pretend we actually live in the 21 Century where the Constitution on the United States of America puts human rights freedom and equal justice under the law front and center.

Bringing up Hitler and the Holocaust does nothing to advance his argument for he is speaking of a totalitarian evil that is a mirror of Shariah's subjection. Here, today we strive and struggle to uphold the principles and ideals our founders advocated for us trying always for that "more perfect union" and "domestic tranquility." But always there are those who seek, for their own purposes, to draw us back into the shadows.

I am an old man who has seen too much of hate and evil. I have seen the failures of pacifist, go-along-to-get-along, don't-rock-the-boat philosophy. So instead of Mr. Weeks recommending my attending the worlds religions program he might consider a self-evaluation of just what does he stand for? Is he willing to stand up and defend his avowed liberal principles by challenging the totalitarian Shariah and risk the disapproval of the politically correct?

Islam is moving to destroy freedom and liberty. Will you stand against them to guarantee the liberty in our Constitution, or will you stand aside and watch the struggle in mute safety?

Steve Earle


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 441