ShareThis Page

Mistick & immigration I

| Friday, May 3, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is undoubtedly a bright man. As a lawyer, he must, of necessity, have an excellent memory. His column “Boston bombing no excuse for stalling immigration reform” (April 28 and has a fatal flaw.

He stated Luigi Sabino arrived from Italy in about 1900 and made his way to Braddock, looking for work. Likely, he landed at Ellis Island and was documented as he entered the United States. Equally likely, he became a naturalized citizen, because that is what immigrants did in those days.

Mr. Mistick stated that “a path to citizenship for millions of good people” should not be “slowed because of the acts of two cowards in Boston.” My quarrel with him is not about slowing the path to citizenship, per se; rather, I am shocked that he believes that millions of people, most of whom entered the U.S. illegally, are good people. Like so many on the left, he has conveniently forgotten or dismissed the fact that these “good” people have broken our laws.

Maybe his memory is not faulty. Perhaps the lure of millions of new Democrat voters clouds his judgment. Luigi Sabino did it right, these “good” people did not, yet he wants to reward them with a path to citizenship — and sooner rather than later.

David Maniago

Ligonier Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.