To the Editor:
Re “Justices Amplify President’s Clout Over Immigration” (front page, June 26):
The Supreme Court’s decision allowing the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians living in the United States is a blow to America’s standards for common decency and prestige.
How do more than 350,000 Haitians in the United States with protected status return to a nation engulfed in chaos and whose capital, Port-au-Prince, is controlled almost completely by dangerous gangs?
Even the State Department strongly advises Americans not to travel to Haiti because of the catastrophic violence and frequent kidnappings. The department is also backing a United Nations-authorized “gang suppression force” to respond to the precarious security situation.
Haitians in the United States were first granted T.P.S. after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti that killed an estimated 250,000 people, and again in 2021 during the unrest after the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse that destabilized the country.
Now is not the time to cruelly turn our backs on those who have fled unimaginable natural disasters and chronic insecurity.
Anthony Arnaud
Laguna Niguel, Calif.
To the Editor:
The Supreme Court decision on Thursday on ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians centered in significant part on whether President Trump’s immigration policy is racist.
To be certain that the policy is racist, one need look no further than the fact that only 4,499 refugees have been admitted by the Trump administration to the United States this year, and of those refugees only three are not white Afrikaners from South Africa.
Jon Landau
Philadelphia
The writer is a former immigration attorney.
To the Editor:
In April, when the Supreme Court case on Temporary Protected Status was being argued, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the term “nonwhite” is not a meaningful category.
Is there any evidence? Well, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which kept out or severely limited the numbers allowed into the country unless they came from Northern or Western Europe. Those barred included Jews murdered in the Holocaust after being denied entry into the United States and therefore unable to escape.
Among the main civil rights victories in the United States were the passage of the Voting Rights Act and new immigration laws that followed, opening the United States to the whole world. Now, President Trump has effectively reverted policy to the 1924 model, despite what the laws say. And the Supreme Court, in another example of judicial activism, is allowing it.
The court is essentially rewriting the law in front of our faces.
Jack M. Bloom
Gary, Ind.
The writer is the author of “Class, Race and the Civil Rights Movement.”
To the Editor:
This Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts — and in particular the Republican-appointed members of the court — will be remembered for their callous disregard for human rights and suffering.
Ingrid Furlong
New York
The Huntington’s Dilemma
To the Editor:
Re “Carrying On After Choosing Uncertainty” (Science Times, June 23):
This article eloquently describes why my sister, Nancy Wexler, and I decided in the past not to get a predictive genetic test that could reveal whether we would develop Huntington’s disease at some unknown future time.
In that era there were no promising clinical trials of treatments that might prevent, delay or slow the disease, only efforts to alleviate symptoms. Today the landscape is entirely different. Exciting clinical trials of disease-altering drugs are ongoing, and more are planned, though their progress depends largely upon continued federal funding of the National Institutes of Health.
Meanwhile, the quality of life for those living with Huntington’s, and for those who know they will develop it, depends upon access to good social support, counseling, medical care and nutrition, as well as services such as home health aides and physical and occupational therapy. These resources, already unequally distributed, are severely threatened by recent cuts in federal research funding and in safety net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.
My sister and I are incredibly fortunate that she has access to the best care available. Our greatest wish, besides a cure, is that everyone else have it too.
Alice R. Wexler
Santa Monica, Calif.
The writer is a historian and an author who has written and collaborated on books about Huntington’s disease.
Reflections on a Woman’s Age
To the Editor:
Re “If You Feel Invisible, I’ve Got Great News,” by Mireille Silcoff (Opinion guest essay, June 14):
Ms. Silcoff’s essay rings true. There’s no need to be judged by sinking jowls and expanding waistlines. We women have much to offer.
I went to graduate school when I started on Social Security and graduated the year I enrolled in Medicare. And to this day, I actively apply that education (a master’s in bioethics) to my work with people who are dying.
Approaching 80 this year is to be considered a gift. Cat calls and whistles? Not a chance! Our values change. To thrive, live without illness, contribute to society, travel, enjoy family and friends — these are all gifts. They supersede the past advantages of flowing locks and smoother skin.
Sue Dessayer Porter
Portland, Ore.
To the Editor:
Mireille Silcoff writes: “Recently, I canvassed a number of my middle-aged female friends and asked: If you could drink a potion and become 22 again today, would you do it? A few waffled, but after some thought, not one of them said yes.”
Well, I would. I just turned 79, and, unfashionable as it may be to admit it, I’d much rather be 29, or, better yet, 19. I’d look better, feel better, be exempt from ageism and, by far most important, I’d have more years ahead of me.
I felt the same way in my 50s. My old age has plenty of pleasures, and it definitely beats being dead. But I don’t consider myself “garlanded with years,” and yes, I’d rather be young again.
Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Providence, R.I.
Students, Cheating and A.I.
To the Editor:
Re “Thanks to A.I., Student Cheating With A.I. Is Harder to Detect” (front page, June 21):
Asking A.I. to write your school assignments is like asking a robot to lift weights. The job gets done, but you accrue none of the benefits.
Daniel J. Barrett
Asheville, N.C.
The writer is the author of 13 books about technology.
To the Editor:
I spent 40 years in secondary school classrooms and administration. Of course students are using the available technology to do their homework!
The whole concept of homework, except perhaps for reading assignments, is obsolete. Students need to do all written work in the classroom, with the teacher available for guidance. Yes, less material will be covered. But students will own their thoughts and expression.
Education in general clings to outmoded techniques, procedures and standards. It’s time for educators to move in ways that are thoughtful, innovative and practical.
Dennis Vellucci
Queens
