Germany shuns "foreign" families
BY ALLISON LINN AND AYLA JEAN YACKLEY
(01/06/00)

I am an Australian citizen, and a permanent legal resident of the United States, thanks to my American wife, and I have three American children. I have lived here for seven years. I pay taxes like everyone else, however I am not eligible for most of the benefits that citizens are provided. I am not eligible for student loans, I am not eligible for Social Security, even though I have it taken out of my paycheck every month. I am not eligible for unemployment benefits even though my company pays unemployment insurance for me. The list of programs I am not eligible for is long.

Germany's policy by comparison is wonderful. They allow their legal residents all the same programs as their citizens, except for this one program. I could lose my job and be on the street with my American family tomorrow because I am not eligible for most assistance. This all happened when Congress passed the Personal Responsibility Act a number of years ago. That was publicized as solving illegal immigrant problems, however it also affected legal immigrants in many ways.

When we write an article that condemns another country for a supposed double standard, we need to look at ourselves first to ensure we are not a greater offender.

-- Scott Martin

Your recent article "Germany shuns 'foreign' families" was one-sided and weak on the facts.

You claim that all child subsidy benefits are denied to foreigners in Baden-Wuerttemburg, which is false. All parents are entitled to a federal child subsidy of about $130/month until the age of 18, and if one parent stays home, $300/month for two years. This includes anybody who lives in Germany, German or foreign. The subsidy in question was an additional $200 (not $315) for low-income German families who are long-term permanent residents of the state of Baden-Wuerttenburg. While I can't defend the exclusion of foreigners, the vast majority of Germans are also ineligible, since they don't live in Baden-Wuerttemburg.

The lavish level of federal and state support for children and parents in Germany is unheard of in America. It includes not only direct payments but also subsidies for child care programs and family leave and vacation laws that would blow most Americans' minds.

Germany has recently changed its centuries-old "Ius Sanguinis" citizenship law, granting children born of legal residents German citizenship and significantly liberalizing the naturalization requirements for adults. However, dual citizenship past the age of 23 is not allowed (it's 18 in the U.S.).

This isn't enough for many Turkish groups who demand dual citizenship for adults as well. Germans say that people wanting to enjoy the undeniably generous monetary benefits of life in Germany should be willing to assimilate into German society, learn the German language and democratic system of government and break formal ties with their country of origin. The United States demands the same, and most Germans feel it is reasonable.

Seeing as the current German law is among the more liberal in the first world, it is irresponsible to imply that it's racist and xenophobic.

-- Jonathan E. Snow
Max-Planck Institut f|r Chemie, Abt. Geochemie
Mainz, Germany

I am a German living in New Mexico. I was born and raised in former East Germany. While most information in the article is correct, the information that is left out unfortunately gives it an unjustified bias.

Germany so far does not allow dual citizenship. Ethnically Turkish children and their parents can obtain German citizenship, but do not want to give up their Turkish citizenship. (The same rule prevents me from ever getting U.S. citizenship without losing my German passport.) The article, however gives the impression that German government agencies have an ethnic bias. I believe this to be untrue.

Germany has an asylum/immigration policy that is fundamentally different from that of the United States. Germany in the aftermath of WWII instituted the most generous asylum policy in the developed world. During the war in Bosnia, Germany housed more than 1 million Yugoslav refugees at taxpayer cost. On a per-capita-basis in the U.S. this would compare to at least 4 million refugees. When did the U.S. last commit so much for refugees?

The family described has, as admitted, access to extra welfare payments, but out of shame does not use them. This is regrettable, but cannot be compared with the situation that immigrants in the U.S. face. If I (a graduate student living here since 1992) cannot prove that I have ample funds to support myself and my family, then I will simply be deported. I do not have the right to work to support myself.

-- Peter Dorn

What happened to the exclusive Club Mac?
BY DONNA LADD
(01/21/00)

I was confused by Donna Ladd's article. First she takes Apple to task -- sorta -- for opening wide the doors to new customers, and then takes them to task for proprietary practices on their Web site. These sound like two different issues, neither of which are anything to get riled up about.

To complain that Apple is making itself too accessible to customers with its new designs and software is like William Tell shooting his son in the head instead of the apple. Do we really want to go back to the days of Amelio, slumping market share, confusing product lines and uninspired boxes? As a Mac lover since 1984, I certainly don't. With its (probably) perpetual niche market share, Apple needs as many customers as it can get, and to stand out, it will have to innovate, something that can't be said in any meaningful way for any PC manufacturer.

Secondly, there's nothing forcing Macheads to use Apple's new site. Unlike PCs, Macs are easily customizable and simple to set to a new home page. It's infinitely easier for newbies to change to Yahoo or Microsoft or whatever than if they were on a Dell or -- God forbid -- a Compaq.

So I don't see the reason for the concern. Apple's resurgence should be celebrated, not something over which to fret.

-- Chris Allbritton

What are these bozos talking about? As I hear constantly from the Mac faithful, the whole point of a Mac was to make it easy for anyone to use a computer. Or as they would put it, "Get the computer out of the way and let me work." Now they are complaining about the hand-holding that has made me avoid the Mac since it came out? Gotta wonder who it is that has been "thinking different" all these years.

-- Jim Roberts-Miller

I refuse to use any list of "best" sites generated by any of the big portals, or by Apple and probably soon Microsoft too, and for two reasons. First, who are they to tell me what's best? The Net is one of the most subjective creations ever made. As writer Donna Ladd said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Second, and more important, is the corruption factor. How long does anyone think it will last before we start finding out that money has to change hands before a site is considered "best"? Just like a certain search engine with "go" in its name, these lists will become nothing more than advertisements for preferred clients.

Apple is already starting this trend with the OS9 requirement mentioned in Ladd's article. There's only one direction this can go, and it's a direction I'd rather not follow.

-- Andrew Ray

Down the up staircase
BY JOE CONASON
(01/21/00)

The recent attacks on John McCain and his record are mostly rooted in half-truths and misinformation. Your article contains the same. John McCain is attacking the pervasive influence of "soft-money," millions of unregulated dollars being poured into the coffers of the DNC and RNC. The monies that you criticize him for are "hard-money" donations. The letters he wrote "on behalf" of his contributors asked for no specific ruling, only for a speedy end to a process long delayed by the FCC. That is a matter of record. It escapes me why the text of these letters which absolves McCain of these charges is never published. Additionally, in the article "Buying the President 2000," the author refers to McCain's contributions over his entire political career. Are these the "enormous contributions" you speak of? Why not include some actual facts in your reporting? Then we would be able to decide if there is actually a story here.

-- Jeremy Aldridge

Newt's makeover
BY DAVID CORN
(01/20/00)

Newt Gingrich seeks to distinguish himself from President Clinton on the basis that Gingrich never lied under oath. (He grudgingly concedes adultery, although he refuses to call it that, during his second marriage; he still denies adultery during his first marriage, although his wife No. 2 was one of his various girlfriends during marriage No. 1.)

Gosh Newt, didn't you take an oath during both marriage ceremonies (you know, in church, in front of God) to "forsake all others" until "death do us part"? Clinton lied before an earthly grand jury (and did his own lying in front of a minister, too, but after all, he is not a good Christian like you), but you lied twice before God. Why is adultery OK for Republican Christians?

-- John K. Cotter

Gingrich took over as speaker of the House when long-term interest rates were rising, Alice Rivlin said the deficit would hit $400 billion by fiscal year 2000, welfare reform was bogged down, economic growth had slipped to 1.7 percent, and Somalia and Haiti were messy U.S. foreign ventures. At the end of his tenure, without any tax increases, what has been accomplished? Eight million people off welfare and working; the economy growing at average 3.7 percent since; the budget balanced; from fiscal years 1995-2000 projected deficits of close to $2 trillion have been turned around where the current five-year projections are for $500 billion non-Social Security surplus. And this was all during a period when taxes on American families and investors have been reduced.

All Corn can do is obsess about the speaker's sex life. Just as we should not care about Clinton's affairs, nor should we about the former speaker's.

-- Peter Rosenstock Huessy

Your story on Newt Gingrich's address on the future was read with eager delight by this less than fascinated observer of his actions over the years. In my mind, Gingrich was a pompous self-aggrandizer with highly questionable personal morals. Unfortunately he left a trail of pain for many in his years as majority leader of the House.

-- Cy Shaun

Rear Window
BY CHARLES TAYLOR
(01/21/00)

Charles Taylor's examination of the voyeuristic aspects of "Rear Window" ignores a few key moments of the film which further complicate the issue at hand. Hitchcock not only avoids condemnation of peeping, he implicates the peeped in their desire to be peeped upon.

Early in the film, we are introduced to a married couple that sleeps on their fire escape. The most intimate aspect of their marriage (aside from actual copulation) is willfully displayed for the entire courtyard to see. They have surrendered their privacy. Moreover, Miss Lonelyheart's phantom date not only shows her solitude, it illustrates her desire to treat her own life as an exercise in role-playing. As Hitchcock strongly establishes the connection between real-life voyeurism and the act of watching a film, so too is there a connection between performing and living one's life. As playing a role satisfies, to a point, one's desire to live, so does being watched.

-- Chad Levinson