To the Editor:

I am completely mystified by a recent letter writer’s response to my letter questioning the legitimacy of requiring English proficiency for legal immigration to the U.S. How do most of his arguments relate to the topic he claims to comment on?

As to being among the 50 percent (and I do wonder how he came upon this specific figure) of those who do not currently pay income tax, yes I am a retiree. I have paid income taxes for the 50 plus years of my working life. Is the letter writer saying that this counts for nothing? So retirees are not to have a say in government policies because our working life is over? So are we now considered irrelevant and of no value?

To imply that I am somehow against the acquisition of English after residency has been established is again another erroneous assumption on the part of this letter writer. As a matter of fact, I have volunteered tutoring English to nonnative speakers while I was a wage earner. I am currently volunteering my time and money, (although I am on a fixed income) to establish an ESL program here in Macon County. I wonder what percentage of their time other useless retirees spend in volunteer activities?

I grant the letter writer that perhaps other terminology would more aptly describe English speakers supporting this prerequisite. However, to assume that the terms “selfish “and “ethnocentric” have racist overtones against white people or to imply that I consider them “evil” is dead wrong. Incidentally, I do happen to be white, although my race should be of no concern to anyone.

Lastly, how do the merits of capitalism relate to English proficiency as a requirement for legal immigration to the U.S.?

Judy Stockinger

Franklin