Thank you for these well done, stirring stories. The one about smiling being verbotten in the Terminal was especially affecting and I've been thinking about it all week. Hurrah for the human spirit that persists even despite such insidious, such cold indignities. Wonderful, enlightening program.

A poem by Richard Tillinghast on a similar subject, 'What is Not Allowed,' appeared in The Irish Times on June 5th.

I was shocked today at the story about the Palestinians crossing into Israel for the biased pro-Palestinian way in which the subject was presented. The Palestinian woman interviewed spoke about an incident where a man smiled and an Israeli soldier told him not to. The man argued with the soldier and was removed from the line. She then assumed that he would be beaten or jailed.
The reasons for the checkpoint were never stated, only the inconvenience to the Palestinians highlighted. The woman was never questioned about her assumptions about what happened to the man, nor about why she thought there were checkpoints, let alone any political ideas or affiliations she might have. This was a very poor piece of reporting, where the interviewer (Jonathan Mayer?) commiserated with the interviewee, rather than questioning her, or presenting any context for the situation.
What was not stated was that Israel was forced to institute such checkpoints because of four years of terrorist attacks within Israel that intentionally killed and maimed innocent civilians, including children. This second Intifada did not end until the Israelis monitored who could enter Israel via these checkpoints.
The Palestinians of the West Bank are allowed into Israel to work, once they have demonstrated that they are only going to work and not to commit criminal acts within Israel. Why they believe that they are entitled to enter Israel to work without such screening is mind-boggling. They obviously find it worth it to go through the checkpoints for the better work and educational opportunities in Israel. Would they prefer that they did not have this right at all? To me, the checkpoints are not a gratuitous humiliation or repression, but rather an attempt to allow them opportunities. It might be easier for Israel to seal off the West Bank and not allow the population to work or go to school or for medical care in Israel.
Where is the recognition that though dealing with a hostile population, Israel bends over backwards to allow this? How many other countries in the same situation would do so?
Where is the questioning of the woman in this piece about the contribution of the Palestinians to this state of affairs? Have they no responsibility for their own actions or those of their elected leaders (including the election of Hamas?)
Once again, NPR has allowed itself to be a tool of Palestinian propaganda by giving a Palestinian free rein to tell her side of the story without context or questioning.
Ellen Heyman, Ph.D.

Why is the US singled out for it's immigration policies regarding Mexico? Mexico has the same "closed border" policy in the southern part of Mexico, to prevent other even more poor Latin Americans from illegally entering Mexico. Talk about hypocrisy!!!!

And what would the Dutch people do if a poor, non-Dutch-speaking country like, for example, Albania, offered citizens of Albania 3 EUR for every 1 EUR Albanians sent from the Netherlands to Albania? That is what the Mexican Federal government offers Mexican villages who send people illegally to the US to work. It's a travesty.

I advocate a rational policy to pick a date, have amnesty for anyone in the country prior to that date with a path to citizenship where the illegals are sent to the end of the immigration line behind everyone immigrating legally, and anyone who tries to enter after is immediately deported upon discovery - just as ANY country would do to illegal immigrants. This would improve wages for migrant workers by bringing them formally into the system, while not 'rewarding' illegal immigrants for their behavior, when thousands of legal immigrants have followed all the proper procedures.

This program infuriates me, and I am usually arguing on behalf of immigrants to my family and friends, since I lived in southern California and I know the work they do. But your attitude that somehow illegal immigrants from Mexico have a RIGHT to come to the US, where, by the way we do not impose anything like the Netherlands "Wet inburgering" forced assimilation law, is just so hypocritical, I can't stand it!

I love your program usually, but this time you've gone so far beyond the pale, I can't fathom what your producers were thinking. Unlike prior ethnic immigration waves -which were LEGAL immigrants, by the way - when people forced their children to learn English and assimilate within a generation, the Latino immigrants feel no such compulsion, which makes it harder for their families to climb out of poverty long-term.

And if we did impose a Dutch kind of assimilation law, the US would be tarred with even WORSE of an anti-immigrant brush - likely be Europeans who don't have to deal with the volume of illegal immigrants the US does. When the Netherlands is facing a tide of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people trying to illegally enter the country, and MILLIONS more who would try if the border weren't so difficult to break through, you will understand why I have zero sympathy for the difficulty the migrants face getting here.

If we didn't have so many illegal immigrants, wages would rise, machines would do more of the backbreaking labor that we're criticized for allowing them to do. Ironically, by coming here illegally and being willing to work in intolerable conditions, they are perpetuating their own circumstances. Americans need to learn what is the real cost of food and labor, but that won't happen so long as there is a huge and willing pool of illegal immigrants artificially supressing the cost of production.