A Border Patrol officer stands on the beach on the U.S. side of the fence between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, on Monday. (Daniel Ochoa De Olza/AP)

Regarding the Dec. 23 op-ed by Newt Gingrich and Donald E. Graham, “Fund the wall, save the dreamers”: 

Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Graham suggested that Congress urge President Trump to restore the path to legalization and protection of the “dreamers” in exchange for funding the border wall that Mr. Trump demands. This is like supporting a school bully who took a toy and then promises to give it back if he gets a better toy. This is not a trade; this is more like bartering with stolen goods.   

Oscar Labiano, Fairfax

The proposal from Newt Gingrich and Donald E. Graham — that lawmakers capitulate to the president’s temper tantrum after a bipartisan agreement had been reached to keep government funded — was shortsighted and dangerous.

Our economy is in disarray, our foreign policy is unpredictable, claims of misfeasance abound, government is at a standstill, and the most knowledgeable and skilled advisers of the executive branch are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship that we are all on together. Those leaving this administration in protest are Republicans, but, more important, they are patriotic citizens who understand the importance of our great democracy. They said enough already.

Why further enable this president?

Richard A. Cook, Indianapolis

I am one of the 85 percent of Americans who believe that dreamers should be allowed to remain in the United States and be provided a path to citizenship. Newt Gingrich and Donald E. Graham proposed that Congress should appropriate $5 billion for the border wall in exchange for this humane objective and that it requires only bipartisan leadership. Mr. Gingrich is the individual who initiated the march to destroy bipartisanship in favor of power to the ruling party.

This compromise would be an attempt to appease a president who has repeatedly reneged on his statements and is embarked on a campaign to rid himself of any advisers who have shown any integrity or consideration for anything other than displaying the power of the presidency.

I vote no.

Gilbert M. Eisner, Chevy Chase

Near the end of the article by Newt Gingrich and Donald E. Graham arguing the merits of long-needed legislation to legitimate the status of the dreamers brought to this country as children, I encountered this stupefying suggestion: “Whether you support money to build the wall or regard it as a waste, everyone knows it is of central importance to the president, and he is proving he is prepared to fight for it. Why shouldn’t Congress take advantage of the best opportunity in years to give the dreamers the open door they deserve?” As someone who considers the wall wasteful (wasting money, wasting labor, laying waste to the environment along our southern border), I am astounded by the writers’ proposal that our legislators deliberately capitulate to one person’s stubborn demand in exchange for a policy that they admit is fair and just in its own right.

Florence Newman, Towson