Readers write: Aug. 21

Online voting good for democracy

How is it that I can safely and securely bank with my phone, trade stocks and engage in any number of personal transactions but, as if I were still living in the 1800s, I have to physically go to a specific polling place to cast my ballot? We should be able to vote online, at public libraries or on our own electronic devices. Also, the voting date(s) should be expanded. Isn’t our government supposed to serve the public good? Isn’t it in the public interest for every qualified citizen to be engaged in electing our leaders? Unfortunately, it seems that far too often, our public officials appear to serve their own interests with gerrymandered districts and unlimited campaign funding. It’s time for some real democracy; it’s time for online voting.

DON MCADAM, SANDY SPRINGS

Trump wastes time on immigration

There is an economic concept I am sure Donald Trump knows well called “opportunity costs.” It assesses the impact of doing one thing when you could be doing something else. In Mr. Trump’s case, he is perverting the political discussion on immigration by introducing ideas that have no possibility of implementation. Removing 11 million undocumented individuals will never happen. It would wreck America’s economy. Building a wall along the entire Mexican border is not only impractical financially, it has been done before, unsuccessfully. The Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall in Great Britain and the Berlin Wall are lasting monuments to their ultimate ineffectiveness.

Perhaps his most unworkable notion is to rescind the right to citizenship of people born in America to noncitizens, a right established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. But Trump goes merrily along, leading his opponents to largely agree with him. In the process, he exacts a huge opportunity cost by obscuring serious debate on the pressing issue of immigration.

LLOYD E. FLEMING, DULUTH

Law ignore rights of unborn children

How did we get to the point in this country where the unintentional death of an 8-week-old fetus through a car accident is considered a crime, but the intentional death of the same-age fetus through abortion is permitted? The only difference appears to be the will of the mother. She is the one who solely determines the worth of the unborn child. The argument goes that the mother should have control of her body. But in reality, the baby is not a part of her body; it is a separate body, housed and protected within hers. It is not a tumor or cancer to be cut out, but a developing baby to be nurtured and treasured. When will we begin to deal with the hypocrisy of our laws?

MARGARET BEVILLE, BRASELTON

Support real journalism. Support local journalism. Subscribe to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today. See offers.

Your subscription to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution funds in-depth reporting and investigations that keep you informed. Thank you for supporting real journalism.