President Donald Trump’s efforts to protect American citizens from the chaos that is currently sweeping Europe are identified as “illegal targeting and discrimination” (“Chin right to fight Trump’s travel ban,” Star-Advertiser, Letters, March 16).

This is a textbook example of emotional manipulation versus rational examination of facts. The words themselves are invoked to inflame. But taken at face value, they imply that there is an anti-Muslim animus borne by Trump in his temporary ban on immigration from a list of six “countries of origin” harboring elements that pose a threat to national security. A list, by the way, compiled by the Obama administration.

It is specious at best to argue that this order was issued, as the ruling says, with “the purpose to disfavor a particular religion.” If this were the case, would it not stand to reason to suggest that Trump was a wee bit wide of the mark in his “targeting,” having overlooked many other countries with majority-Muslim populations?

Stephen Hinton

Waialua

—

Targeting Muslims is unconstitutional

A recent letter to the editor ignores both logic and reality (“Trump’s travel ban just common sense,” Star-Advertiser, March 9).

I agree we need to respect all cultures and religions in the U.S. This is exactly why the travel ban targeting Muslims runs counter to our best nature. Just like the first unconstitutional ban, the follow-up attempt is a smear against Muslims. President Donald Trump’s own comments (as well as from sycophants like Rudy Giuliani) referred to developing a “legal Muslim ban.” Fifteen of the 17 9/11 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia. Why isn’t that country included in the ban? Simple: Trump has business interests there.

Trying to deter criminals by banning members of a religion is like trying to weed a garden with a bulldozer. The vetting is already “extreme.” Hordes of people don’t just jump on a plane and arrive at an American airport. The process of obtaining a visa already is a lengthy, complicated process.

Trump is just trying to appease that minority of Americans who voted for him.

Craig Stevaux

Kaneohe

—

Support efforts to fight evictions

A recent commentary discussed the success of the Coordinated Statewide Homeless Initiative (CSHI), being operated by Aloha United Way (“Homeless strategy includes prevention,” Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, Feb, 19).

As a participating agency in the program, U.S.VETS strongly supports the current efforts to secure continuation funding. In 10 months, U.S.VETS was able to house or sustain more than 140 people, including 66 children through the CSHI program. The ability to help people facing eviction is an important component of our homeless effort. This program works and should be continued.

Darryl J. Vincent

Chief operating officer, U.S.VETS

—

New Hampshire rejected ‘aid in dying’

I am a former three-term state representative in New Hampshire. I was alarmed to see that the Hawaii Legislature is considering a bill to legalize “aid in dying,” a traditional euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Three years ago, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted down a similar bill. The vote was an overwhelming 3-to-1 defeat, 210 to 66.

At that time, the House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats. Many representatives who initially thought that they were for the law became uncomfortable when they studied it further.

Contrary to promoting “choice” for older people, assisted-suicide laws are a prescription for abuse. They empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives. This is especially an issue when the older person has money. There is no assisted-suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem.

Do not be deceived.

Nancy Elliott

Merrimack, N.H.

—

Cheaper to let feds keep rail money

City Councilmembers Ron Menor and Ikaika Anderson said, “We regret the situation in which we and our state colleagues find ourselves” (“FTA rail meeting yields somber options,” Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, March 12).

Leave the state out of it. It is the mayor and City Council that are pushing rail to Ala Moana despite not knowing what the final cost will be, so we don’t lose federal funds.

It seems we are at least $3 billion in the hole and probably more before the rail project is completed sometimes before 2030, one hopes. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to end at Middle Street and give up the $1.55 billion rather than add another $3 billion-plus?

This black hole of rail is sucking up city funds that could be used to fix our roads, among other things.

Peter Chisteckoff

Mililani Mauka