To the Editor:
Re “Chaos and Confusion Reign as U.S. Cuts Off Aid to Millions Globally” (news article, Feb. 12):
It can take an obituary to get to know someone — though often too late.
Most Americans hadn’t known much about the United States Agency for International Development. Some may have seen its “helping hand” logo when a famine was in the news and U.S.A.I.D.-supplied bags of wheat, marked with the logo, appeared briefly on our screens. But that was it.
It has taken the callous dismantling of U.S.A.I.D., the mindless amputation of America’s helping hand, for people to get to know the agency and the value of foreign aid. Many are learning for the first time about the good work done during its nearly 64 years.
I was in Washington during the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. I thought then, and still think, that the only way to prevent another such catastrophic event and protect the long-term security and prosperity of our beloved homeland is for America to be an exemplary global citizen, for us to maintain mutually respectful relationships with as many countries as possible, and for us to win hearts and minds with our decency and generosity. That was U.S.A.I.D.
Perhaps the public’s post-mortem appreciation of U.S.A.I.D. will lead to a resurrection of America’s helping hand. Let us hope and pray.
Gary Newton
Georgetown, Maine
To the Editor:
Re “One Very Real Problem Lost in the Politics of Aid Cuts: Child Malnutrition,” by Nicholas Kristof (The Point, Opinion, nytimes.com, Feb. 10):
As one of the world’s richest and most powerful nations, America has historically responded to the cries of hunger from abroad. We simply can’t turn our back now when children are starving in Sudan, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti and many other impoverished areas.
U.S.A.I.D. should be reopened and the Food for Peace program, which was started by President Dwight Eisenhower, must get a funding increase. Food for Peace supports lifesaving programs including nutrition for infants.
With hunger emergencies escalating worldwide because of war and drought, we need to be taking action. This is no time for petty politics. The foreign aid freeze and dismantling of U.S.A.I.D. must end. We must continue our tradition of helping those in need.
It was the United States that saved millions of lives from famine caused by World War I. After World War II, we again responded to the hunger crisis, when our food aid allowed the Marshall Plan of reconstruction in Europe to succeed. Later, our Food for Peace program saved South Korea, India and other nations from severe hunger during the Cold War.
Today, our food aid programs are no less important. A world where children starve to death is a world in chaos. We cannot have that happen.
William Lambers
Cincinnati
The writer partnered with the United Nations World Food Program on the book “Ending World Hunger.”
The 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship,” by Randy E. Barnett and Ilan Wurman (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Feb. 15):
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Professors Barnett and Wurman argue that only people who have pledged their “allegiance” to the United States are subject to its jurisdiction. Nonsense.
If that were the case, then people who entered the United States illegally would not be deportable because the United States would lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of their presence in the country.
Similarly, criminal defendants could escape prosecution by simply stating that they have not pledged their allegiance to the United States and are therefore beyond the jurisdiction of its courts. Jurisdiction does not require “allegiance.”
Daniel Holt
New York
The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
The 14th Amendment gives citizenship to all those born in the United States if they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It does not say “whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” A newborn baby knows nothing of the social contract nor of his or her parents’ immigration status, and does not violate any law by being born.
Randy E. Barnett and Ilan Wurman make a careful argument that persons who cross the border without permission are not entitled to the rights of citizenship because they did not “come in amity” and do not have “allegiance” to the U.S. But their children do not bear the guilt of their parents’ transgression, and are as likely to love this country as anyone else who was born here.
It is telling to see that when parents are forcibly deported to countries where they may be in danger, they often choose to leave their U.S. citizen children here in the care of other family members. What more convincing act of allegiance could be asked for?
Chris Keavney
Garibaldi, Ore.
To the Editor:
The authors of “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship” pin their case on a supposed lack of allegiance to the United States. After all, they argue, what kind of allegiance is it to come here illegally?
The flaw in this reasoning is that those coming here illegally are only too eager to show their allegiance. Indeed, they are searching for a place where the rule of law prevails. And so to suggest that they have contempt for the social compact is wrong; it is precisely that compact they seek to be part of.
Mark W. Sherman
Takoma Park, Md.
Opposing Trump’s Transgender Policies
To the Editor:
Re “Pain Is the Point of Trump’s Transgender Policy,” by Jennifer Finney Boylan (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 18):
I applaud Ms. Finney Boylan, who refuses to be isolated and marginalized by the cruelty of the Trump policies that deny the humanity of transgender women and men.
Her courage and determination to reject this madness with “a sense of auspiciousness and wonder and joy” should tell all of us who oppose these policies and the Trump agenda that would reshape the world as a monocultural wilderness to begin each day with the sensibilities she displays.
Opposition to the dangers we face begins not only with righteous anger but also with acknowledgment of the wonders of the world and what must be done to preserve them.
Peter Schmidt
Phillipsburg, N.J.
Ready to March Again
To the Editor:
In 1963, my husband and I participated in the March on Washington. My husband died three years ago, but at 93, I am still alive and eager to participate in another march on Washington.
I want to march because I believe that we the people must do everything in our power to remind Donald Trump that he was not elected to be a dictator. He is the president of the United States of America, a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people.
Monique Begg
Moorestown, N.J.