'Readiness' not required
In his letter “Early learning pays” (Sept. 13 and TribLIVE.com), retired Army Lt. Gen. Dennis L. Benchoff ends his argument for increased government funding of early education by stating it would “better ensure that our next generation is citizen-ready.”
I'm guessing at what he meant by “citizen-ready,” but please remember: Anyone born in this country comes into the world already a citizen of the United States of America.
Every “child of immigrants” should be offended at the suggestion that anyone (regardless of age) born in the United States needs to meet “readiness” requirements to be recognized as a citizen. My grandparents met such requirements to become naturalized citizens.
I was born in a naval hospital to a first-generation American citizen, a Marine during World War II. My fraternal grandfather, a naturalized citizen, buried his fallen soldier son at Arlington National Cemetery shortly after D-Day.
My grandparents' heroic sacrifices made it possible for descendants to be recognized upon birth as citizens. My family realizes and appreciates this privilege.
We also realize our responsibility to defend this privilege from individuals who suggest we need to meet “readiness” requirements — educational, ethical or physical — to be called a “citizen” of the United States of America.
Suzanne E. Miller
The writer is professor emeritus in Point Park University's Education Department.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.
- Terrorism & immigration
- Seek ‘post-combustion future’
- View from Florida
- Hazardous ride
- Beyond wacky
- Bad politics, poor judgment