Debate divides humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’

When you divide humanity into “us’’ and “them,’’ how do you decide where to draw the line? Steve Kropper from Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, opposes the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, saying that “the more illegals we have in this country, the less we have for our poor’’ (“Mass. leaders promise to aid immigrants,’’ Page A1, Sept. 6). So, according to Kropper, the young adult next door, who lived in the United States since he was brought without authorization by his parents as a baby, is not “our poor.’’ This young adult broke no law. He could hardly have known better as an infant. But to Kropper, he’s an “illegal’’ who should be deported to save our resources for us.

But who are we?

Ken Olum

Sharon

There are many who get ‘special treatment’ — Arpaio, for one

Richard Sherman (Letters, Sept. 7) says that the “dreamers’’ should not get special treatment because they broke the law. He understands, I assume, that they were brought here by their parents as children. The largest number arrived when they were 3 years old. Their parents may have broken the law, but I hope Sherman is not suggesting that 3-year-olds can break the law.

The former sheriff Joseph Arpaio, a law-enforcement officer who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, was found in contempt of court for breaking the law and violating the constitutional rights of the people he was pledged to protect. But he received a pardon. Yet the dreamers are punished for allowing themselves to be brought to this country by their parents when they were 3 or 4 years old.

Since most of the dreamers will probably be deported to Mexico, the only fair thing to do would be to deport Arpaio along with them.

James J. Foley

Hingham

Another case of Trump Derangement Syndrome

Re “Americans must save the dreamers’’ (Opinion, Sept. 6): The ‘D’ in DACA stands for deferred. President Obama recognized that immigration is a congressional responsibility, as defined by our Constitution. His executive order addressing the dreamers was to defer their reckoning with in-place immigration law until Congress addressed the issue anew. The timing of the order was to appeal to voters in time for his 2012 reelection effort. It is noteworthy that Democrats did not raise the issue when they controlled both the executive and legislative branches.

President Trump has stated that he will revisit the dreamers if Congress does not act within a certain time. The hysteria surrounding his action to return government to regular order is another manifestation of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Paul Bloustein

Cincinnati