This complex amnesty bill isn't good for our nation

George F. Will, long a conservative intellectual force, recently suggested that by joining 31 of my Republican colleagues in voting against the Senate immigration bill, I have made a political choice that will damage the Republican Party in the future ("Calculating Immigration Politics," June 19). Frankly, based on his history, it surprises me that Mr. Will ascribes more weight to political considerations than to the enforcement of our laws and the financial viability of some of our most important governmental programs.

Problems abound within the bill the Senate passed just a few weeks ago. No one can predict the precise number by which this bill will increase illegal immigration, but it is certainly several times more than any of the bill's supporters suggest. It is terribly complex and will be nearly impossible for the current federal bureaucracy to administer. According to the Robert Rector study that Mr. Will himself cites, the cost to American taxpayers in federal dollars alone will be a stunning $19 billion every year. It will place a significant financial burden on Social Security, granting benefits to millions who have not spent a working lifetime paying into the system. And because of the tiered manner in which amnesty is granted, it will create a booming forgery industry in response to the vast incentives for illegal immigrants to prove they broke the law longer.

Much societal good stems from legal immigration. It benefits our culture, our economy and our relationship with the world, and it needs to be expanded.

I support a temporary worker program, as long as it truly is temporary. I support increasing the number of green cards we distribute, as long as they are distributed to those who follow our laws. But I cannot, in good conscience, support an amnesty proposal such as was included in the recent Senate bill.

U.S. SEN. RICK SANTORUM
Washington, D.C.

Sen. Santorum is a Republican from Pennsylvania.

---

Good landlords

The June 18 article that quotes someone who refers to Oakland as an "upscale ghetto" ("Oakland Living Can Be Under Par") does an injustice to those of us who own rental property in Oakland.

Although the handful of landlords mentioned may have issues that need to be addressed, I feel that the job of a journalist should be to investigate all sides of a story. To allow your readers to see a truly unbiased view of what Oakland college rentals are all about, I feel that you should talk to those of us who do care about our properties and our tenants.

Most landlords feel that all tenants have the right to live in a safe, clean and well-maintained home. Forfeiting those rights simply because your tenants are college students is not a rule that most landlords live by.

CORY A. BULGER
Rilane Properties LLC
Monroeville

---

Oakland's strengths

I am disappointed in the article "Oakland Living Can Be Under Par" (June 18). I have lived in many neighborhoods during my 16 years in Pittsburgh.

Oakland was the last neighborhood I ever wanted to live in because I heard stories like those contained in the article. However, I moved into Oakland almost four years ago and it is one of my favorite Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

I work with landlords every day as part of my job. I have met terrible ones and wonderful ones throughout Allegheny County. Often the lure of money overwhelms the commitment to safe, decent and affordable housing. (One of my most expensive and disgusting apartments was in the middle of Squirrel Hill.) However, there are also fantastic landlords in Oakland who value attractive, safe and affordable housing.

In Oakland, there are also a wide variety of community groups that value neighborhoods. They value the people and the places. It is a community that builds playgrounds, plants community gardens, cleans up its streets, works with local police to enhance resident safety and lobbies for good code enforcement.

I didn't see that Oakland presented in the article. That is the Oakland that I know and call home. I would strongly encourage the PG to come back to Oakland and represent our strengths as fairly as our problems.

ADRIENNE WALNOHA
Oakland

---

ACLU principles

When I read your June 23 editorial concerning the American Civil Liberties Union ("Keep It Free: The ACLU Needs to Allow Dissent Within Its Ranks"), I was very heartened to see that the Post-Gazette appreciates the American Civil Liberties Union's mission and its critical importance in today's climate. I applaud and agree with your statement that "Americans need the ACLU more than ever."

As Pennsylvania's representative to the national board, I attended and participated in the meeting your editorial references. I would like to reassure your readers that the board was not discussing "prohibitions against free speech."

What the board did was initiate a thoughtful discussion of the fiduciary and governance responsibilities of board members of an organization that is devoted to the defense of freedom of speech as well as of all civil liberties. I want to explain that the motion to strike the "offensive prohibitions" was premature because the board procedure is always to have general discussion before we vote so as to encourage and respect open debate.

Free speech, dissent and criticism are flourishing at the ACLU, and I am absolutely confident that the national board will never agree to violate such fundamental principles.

ROSLYN M. LITMAN
Litman Law Firm
Downtown

---

In jeopardy

Fellow Pittsburghers: Our neighborhoods are in danger, and only you can save them.

The new Pittsburgh City Planning Commission is trying to rezone residential land so commercial developers can invade our communities at will -- destroying our property values and quality of life.

It unveiled this policy when it agreed to let an out-of-town developer tear down a row of 100-year-old houses in the East End -- just to install a drive-through for a new Walgreens at the corner of Braddock and Penn.

Residents didn't object to the Walgreens itself; they just wanted to stop developers from pushing it over the existing commercial boundary into the residential neighborhood.

But, time and again, when citizens tried to defend their rights at the hearing, one of the new planning commissioners shouted them down.

If we let developers get away with this, no neighborhood in Pittsburgh will be safe.

So please call or write Mayor Bob O'Connor and your member of City Council, and tell them you are vehemently opposed to such flagrant abuse of zoning law. Then join your fellow Pittsburghers to protest this precedent-setting case in the City Council public hearing: 1:30 p.m. today, fifth floor, City-County Building, 414 Grant St., Downtown.

The neighborhood you save may be your own.

JIM HART
Park Place

---

Mr. Bush just doesn't care that people want to use rail transportation

Your June 21 editorial "Derailment: Amtrak Will Be Hobbled Further by Federal Cuts" states that "President Bush should be taking the lead in promoting travel that is environmentally friendly and energy-saving," as opposed to asking for federal subsidy cuts to Amtrak.

Yes, he ought to be, but it's obvious none of his cronies or backers have any interest in Amtrak. So, he could care less.

Earlier this year, Mr. Bush declared that America was addicted to oil. Words. Only words to appease a nation that is largely disgruntled, dismayed and disgusted with his leadership.

Amtrak's budget was already slashed in recent Bush administration years, enough that the Pennsylvanian route (Pittsburgh to New York) was cut to one scheduled run a day. It seems Mr. Bush and his cronies will not be satisfied until the schedules are cut to zero runs a day.

Each time I have traveled to and from New York over the past two years via Amtrak, the trains have been nearly sold out. There is a strong public interest in this form of transportation.

Unfortunately we do not have a leader in the White House who is willing to look at the long-term vision of restoring the rail infrastructure, such as double-tracking to avoid delays due to encounters with freight trains. No, instead he'll pour more into asphalt and oil, encouraging the continued use of polluting energy sources and congested highways.

It's clear where his interests lie. I hope more Americans are waking up to the shortsightedness of these interests.

MATT BARRY
Munhall

---