Facts, Not Emotion

WHAT happened to the concept of “law abiding citizen?” Has a new type of citizen been created in this immigration debate called “the unlawful abiding citizen with equal status as the legalized citizen?”

In the August 16-22 issue, Mary, a letter writer, who is “an unlawful abiding citizen,” asks the U.S. government to change its immigration law so that she can go home because of tragedy in her family.

Can you imagine the audacity of this unlawful abiding citizen asking the government to change the law to accommodate her particularized individual circumstance?

Leaving aside the audacity of this illegal resident, the U.S. government or any other can never set its immigration laws to accommodate particularized sadnesses of individuals.

This kind of emotional argument demeans the immigration issue. The fight should focus exclusively on re-establishing the quotas for the Irish which were taken away in the 1960s by the liberal leaning Kennedy politicians who the Irish love so much.

Illegal residents should keep quiet because they have no legal status and only evoke nativist feelings which harm the cause. Reason and facts which are on the Irish side in this effort are what is needed, not emotional appeals.

John Rogers
Voorhees, New Jersey

Church Fury

HERE’S to the Roman Catholic Church!

The Irish Voice reported last week that the Archdiocese of New York had a wrecking crew smash the stained glass windows of the beautiful St. Brigid’s church that predated 1846. If this is the truth, then I can honestly say I want to smash the arrogant, ignorant, high level priest (bishop or cardinal) who made this decision.

Surely, they can be held accountable for the loss our architectural and artistic inheritance? Please, Irish Voice, obtain for my fellow readers as much information as you can on this scandal.

We want the names involved that could and would allow this to happen. And I want to know what the New York City Historical Society did to prevent this atrocity.

That these stained glass windows held the names of Irish immigrants — hopefully their names were honored at a memorial Mass honoring their generosity and sacrifice. Why do I doubt that they were?

Please use my name. I submit it with outrage and fury!

Kathleen Kelly Farrell
Sea Girt, New Jersey

Bloomy for President

I WOULD like to applaud New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his appearance in Co. Sligo last week, where he came out for the rights of the Irish undocumented community.

The mayor didn’t have to do this, but he obviously understands the problems the community faces and took the opportunity to address the issue in the perfect way. Maybe the Irish people at home who think the undocumented don’t have it so bad paid close attention to his words.

I hope Mayor Bloomberg runs for president. He’s a politician who knows how to get things done, and he’s not afraid to speak his mind.

He’s got my vote for the White House!

Karen Driscoll
White Plains, New York

Baroness’ False Treaty

A BIT of royalty was in town recently camping in Senator Bill Frist’s office to urge the U.S. Senate to ratify a “modernized” extradition treaty with the United Kingdom.

Lobbying and legislator buttonholing appears unseemly work for someone who goes by the handle Baroness Patricia Scotland. The baroness was on a mission to kick some butt in the Senate over an extradition treaty that has been languishing there since it was inked by Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2003.

The treaty governs the removal of individuals from either country in the event one of the governments wants to arrest a person in the other’s jurisdiction for questioning or for a crime.

Now, why should a baroness be hustling such a trifle as the ratification of a treaty? Well, there is the little matter of British revenge for events in Northern Ireland and, of course, the legacy of one of their more fabled prime ministers, Margaret Thatcher.

Legal novelties unknown in America up until now were perfected by Thatcher. They included instructing a jury that they could infer guilt from the silence of the accused; juryless courts; special rules for the testimony of paid informers and the political police; arrest without charge; immunity certificates for government killers

The baroness defended this record even though many believe even in England that the measures merely perpetuated the conflict.

This is the road the baroness would now have Americans travel. America, she argues, needs this treaty to fight terrorism!

She claimed in a letter to Senator Richard Lugar that fears of Irish Americans are “…entirely groundless.” It is of little consequence to her, of course, if it removes judicial review from extradition proceedings and denies Americans their right to a trial that is free of the anomalies perfected during the political prosecutions of the Thatcher era.

The swift adoption of this treaty would assure England’s revenge by giving British justice to troublesome Americans, the Irish here who escaped garrison Ulster and would intimidate those who would speak out on the conflict in Ireland.

Now as to the British legacy. In the decade since the Thatcher era there has been much publicity to promote her view of the world, her relationship with President Reagan and how she made Britain “great” again.

Virtually nothing is revealed about the Irish conflict and the policies and actions she adopted. This was her main problem.

It was a conflict which Britain did little to resolve and much to inflame during the Thatcher years. Even the useless Anglo-Irish Treaty would not likely to have come to past were it not for U. S. Speaker Tip O’Neill belching that England was making a political football of the Irish issue.

From the day the Blair administration took office it has been faced with one demand after another to investigate government responsibility for numerous killings of civilians in Northern Ireland during the Thatcher years. These have included the murders of lawyers Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane, the cover up of the British Army role in the largest atrocity of the conflict, the Dublin-Monaghan bombings which killed 33 civilians, British agents’ collusion with police and paramilitary death squads to intimidate, injure or kill fellow subjects of the Crown whose principal crime was being Catholic and/or a Nationalist.

In her missive to the senators, Baroness Scotland suggested that “our trusted partnership” would falter if the treaty fails. The baroness even had the temerity to tell U.S. senators that the perception of the British people is at stake.

Few Americans will know of or see this treaty drama unfold. That suits both the baroness and Senator Frist just fine. He is anxious that the vote for the treaty be viewed as standing up to terrorists as opposed to a compromise of American rights and liberties.

The record of the Senate is devoid of any principled stand on the conflict in Ireland or British misrule, and most senators feel now is not the time for a dose of courage.

As for the dowager baroness, she will relish her mockery of our elective democracy, and gleefully toast the “special relationship.”

Michael J. Cummings

Albany, New York

Looking for McNultys

I AM interested in finding any information regarding the musical performers the McNulty Family – Ma, Peter and Eileen. We recently obtained a tape of their songs and it started us thinking about what became of them.

I remember seeing them in Rockaway when I was very young and thoroughly enjoyed their music. Please respond to Pck0611@aol.com

Pat Keane
New York, New York