EDITOR'S NOTE: Below is a selection of responses shared by readers of MDJOnline.com in reaction to recent MDJ stories ...

Commission should rethink 287(g) program on illegals

Rodney in Austell wrote - Like most Americans who can think: if the ACLU is against it, I am for it.

Roland wrote -Austell is over run with illegals who brag about being illegal! Can I please demand that I don't need a driver's license as a human right? The ACLU hates America. I am proud that the majority of posts here are for the American side.

Kerry wrote - I don't think 287(g) is best for Americans. It is not the best use of our limited law enforcement dollars. It is not good for our communities when Americans who are non-Anglo are afraid of being stopped by the police without cause. We do not benefit when our U.S. citizen children do not want to go to school because they are afraid their parents will not be there when they return.

Hogwash wrote -Yo, Kerry. I am an African American who welcomes 287 (g). You are doing a great job of following the instructions we got in the ACLU seminar (remember me?) on how to race-bait our way through resistance to local enforcement. The trouble is, everyone can see that it is nonsense. No one is being stopped without cause. Go back to the class and learn another silly point. REAL Americans think 287 (g) is saving lives!

ACLU -FREE wrote - Illegal immigration is a crime. This woman is trained to spout talking points until YOU vomit. Which I will no doubt do if I read this again. This is why I left California - the illegals and the ACLU-La Raza communists. There, we hear little English in many places. I now live in Cobb. The open borders socialists are everywhere now.

Gobblegook wrote - Please keep running letters from the ACLU! This is good stuff! I have been laughing for two days now. I knew they were far left, but not as vacant in the noodle. For the past 30 years, the American Civil Liberties Union has conducted a legal war on the Boy Scouts. Now it is borders and immigration laws. You can't fix stupid.

Darlene in Smyrna wrote - "Hijacking local resources to do the government's job just makes no sense." Geez, these people are totally out of it! We are the people. We are America! It is easy to see that the government is the enemy to the ACLU nuts. How insipid can these arguments get? I may go to an ACLU meeting instead of a movie soon. I am guessing it would be far more entertaining!

Lainy wrote - I am proud we are a country which demands equal protection and due process for persons and not only citizens. 287 is wrought with federal preemption problems, and it is a tragedy that its local enforcement has led to these inequities.

Emily wrote - Lainy, your statement "287 is wrought with federal preemption problems ..." may get you applause at the corner flag-burning Mao meeting, but please spare us the display of your lack of knowledge. You are fooling no one. If Section 287 G of the 1996 amendments to the Immigration & Nationality Act were really "wrought with federal preemption problems..." MALDEF, LA RAZA, ACLU and every immigration lawyer in the country would have been in court screaming for it to be overturned long ago. Stay away from the legalese. You need to stick to the mindless racial talk OK? You people are too funny. But neither "illegal" or "Hispanic" is a "race," dearie.

Strategic plan unveiled for schools

Tired Teacher wrote - It may seem like a low goal to reduce things like bullying by only a few numbers, but as a teacher this is very frustrating to us. We are discouraged from reporting bullying to the administration because they don't want our numbers to get too high. We are expected to handle them all by ourselves in the classroom. Wait! Are we supposed to be teaching or intervening in bullying issues? Lowering the "goal" number just makes it harder for us to do our jobs. I can tell you working 12-hour days and bringing home less than $3,000 a month does not make me want to have to deal with bullies as well. It's exhausting just thinking about it!

Worksmarternotharder wrote - Once again it just goes to show that my child is just another number in the system!

John Boys' Watcher wrote - These targets are minimal at best! I would like to suggest some additional targets. They are: 1. percentage of students absent 10 or more days, 2. The number of minorities in AP classes, 3. percentage of students taking the SAT/ACT, 4. percentage of students taking the PSAT, 5. teacher absenteeism, 6.percentage of students passing the graduation test at pass plus/exceeds level.

Dixie Enormous wrote -Wow, those are some aggressive reductions. Maybe we can shoot for dropouts to be reduced by one, too?

LRM216 wrote - Why in the world isn't the goal for bullying, drugs, gangs and weapons set as "0"? Geez, you are really looking to reduce it a lot by your numbers. Either a whole bunch of people aren't doing their jobs adequately, or someone was drinking when he/she set these "goal" figures.

Justsaying wrote - Cobb's 5th graders took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills last month. Setting a target score for this year is meaningless.

Anonymous wrote - Those don't sound like very high aspirations - but a very good place to start. I disagree with PTA involvement being counted. I disagree with the PTA's politics, that is why I do not belong. However, I am at the school once a week helping out and donate to the school foundation. When I give my money I don't want 1/2 going to the local, state and national organizations. I want it all used at my children's school. I pay taxes to give to everyone else.

Frank wrote - LRM216, while we're at it, let's set a goal for a 0 percent crime rate, 0 percent war involvement and 100 percent peace, love and understanding. It's not humanly possible for a school system as big as Cobb's to realistically have no problems with drugs, gangs or weapons.