Should we be worried?
With a lieutenant governor who’s obsessed with bathrooms and a Legislature that’s about to meet in a special session, Texans should be at the very least worried and perhaps frightened. House Speaker Joe Straus could be the only thing standing between us and insanalusocracy, or rule by the crazies.
Gary West, Fort Worth
Prepare for costs of SB 4
I support Senate Bill 4. To say city police shouldn’t enforce federal laws — be careful what you wish for.
If the feds withhold funds in response, be prepared for additional local taxes with no reduction in federal taxes. The state and locals will be required to make up for lost revenue somehow.
All levels of law enforcement cooperate with each other. To not support federal immigration laws has many drawbacks, which cost us all, as the lady noted in her traffic accident (“Real costs of immigration,” July 13).
This also encourages more misbehavior. What do these folks have to fear if we are not going to enforce our immigration laws?
A nation ceases to exist if it doesn’t maintain its sovereignty.
Richard Lilly, Haltom City
FW, Arlington should join fight
To remain on the sidelines is to give the appearance of covert consensus to the divisive Senate Bill 4. (“Senate bill is wrong, but should cities sue?” June 22; “Tarrant cities should not sit out SB 4 fight,” July 1).
Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio and Austin are suing the state in their unified effort to declare SB 4 unconstitutional. All have large Hispanic populations. Arlington and Fort Worth are no exception.
SB 4, scheduled to become law on Sept. 1, will permit police to ask people they stop for their citizenship status. Though proponents argue that the targeted population of SB 4 is illegal immigrants, the Americans of Hispanic descent could be caught up in the mix.
It’s for this reason alone that Arlington and Fort Worth should join the legal fight against SB 4.
Luis C. Castillo, Arlington
Free speech: It’s not as easy as you think
The June 29 piece on free speech (“Do We Still Believe in Free Speech? Only Until We Disagree”) was an excellent reminder of how our most basic freedoms are being attacked. While most of the article was on target and exposed left-wing intolerance, some statements were troubling.
When actress Leslie Jones received a lot of negative response on Twitter, she left Twitter. The article implied she was being censored because of that response, just because she didn’t want to continue in the face of criticism.
The left has been promoting the Orwellian notion that when people make angry or hurtful statements about you, they are censoring you. Then they propose banning the negative comments. Negative comments are not censorship; banning them is. Violence and the threat of violence is censorship. Disagreement is not.
It’s ironic since leftists accuse everyone who disagrees with them as “hateful, bigots, racists, fascists or Nazis,” and it’s precisely their intent to silence their opponents rather than answer them.
Tom Glenn, Fort Worth