Los Angeles Times Opinion•June 21, 2020
DACA recipients and their supporters rally outside the Supreme Court on Thursday in Washington. (Getty Images)
To the editor: Our ill-conceived and poorly executed immigration laws epitomize our political divisiveness. That successive presidential administrations have failed to bring the parties together on this issue highlights the government's inability to solve major problems. ("With its DACA decision, the Supreme Court makes it clear Congress must fix this," editorial, June 18)
Because of our failure to enact a viable policy and legally admit necessary workers, we have millions of people who came illegally and provided necessary labor but were denied wage and benefit protections. During the pandemic they have been on the front lines in hospitals and the food industry.
They and the young children they brought here do not deserve to live in constant fear and underprivilege. We need to provide a path for legalization and citizenship.
On the other hand, our borders have been too porous for decades. We need to better define our laws and provide an adequate system of speedy adjudication.
I legally immigrated as a child with my parents. We waited five years to get our visas. For people living with the yoke of illegality, the opportunities that my parents and I enjoyed are far more dream than reality. We can solve this if we only try.
Michael Telerant, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court has spoken. California can continue to "not help" federal immigration officers. That, however, does not mean the federal government has to stop enforcing immigration law. It will just be harder and therefore more costly.
By making enforcement more costly, other states will help bear the increased cost of apprehension and deportation. That is not fair.
The federal government should seek to recover this increased cost from California and other states. Since a separate tax is not feasible, the most fair way is to reduce federal money going to local law enforcement.
California and other sanctuary governments should put forth a statement on what type of immigration policy they would support. Do they favor open borders? Unless they do, some enforcement is necessary.
Rich Malone, Rancho Cucamonga
..
To the editor: The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board has become very forthright in calling out President Trump's illogic and inhumanity. It should do the same for Congress.
The Times says that Congress' failure to enact immigration reform "is a testament to its dysfunction." On the contrary, Republicans in Congress have been quite successful in achieving many of their goals, including enacting huge tax breaks for the wealthy and filling the judiciary with staunch conservatives.
They are also very effective at obstruction, and the failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform is a prime example.
It should be made more plain that it's the Democrats in Congress who are fighting to save the U.S. Postal Service and fending off cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats are no saints, but there is a distinct difference between the two parties, and they should not be painted with the same brush.
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
To the editor: Our ill-conceived and poorly executed immigration laws epitomize our political divisiveness. That successive presidential administrations have failed to bring the parties together on this issue highlights the government's inability to solve major problems. ("With its DACA decision, the Supreme Court makes it clear Congress must fix this," editorial, June 18)
Because of our failure to enact a viable policy and legally admit necessary workers, we have millions of people who came illegally and provided necessary labor but were denied wage and benefit protections. During the pandemic they have been on the front lines in hospitals and the food industry.
They and the young children they brought here do not deserve to live in constant fear and underprivilege. We need to provide a path for legalization and citizenship.
On the other hand, our borders have been too porous for decades. We need to better define our laws and provide an adequate system of speedy adjudication.
I legally immigrated as a child with my parents. We waited five years to get our visas. For people living with the yoke of illegality, the opportunities that my parents and I enjoyed are far more dream than reality. We can solve this if we only try.
Michael Telerant, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court has spoken. California can continue to "not help" federal immigration officers. That, however, does not mean the federal government has to stop enforcing immigration law. It will just be harder and therefore more costly.
By making enforcement more costly, other states will help bear the increased cost of apprehension and deportation. That is not fair.
The federal government should seek to recover this increased cost from California and other states. Since a separate tax is not feasible, the most fair way is to reduce federal money going to local law enforcement.
California and other sanctuary governments should put forth a statement on what type of immigration policy they would support. Do they favor open borders? Unless they do, some enforcement is necessary.
Rich Malone, Rancho Cucamonga
..
To the editor: The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board has become very forthright in calling out President Trump's illogic and inhumanity. It should do the same for Congress.
The Times says that Congress' failure to enact immigration reform "is a testament to its dysfunction." On the contrary, Republicans in Congress have been quite successful in achieving many of their goals, including enacting huge tax breaks for the wealthy and filling the judiciary with staunch conservatives.
They are also very effective at obstruction, and the failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform is a prime example.
It should be made more plain that it's the Democrats in Congress who are fighting to save the U.S. Postal Service and fending off cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats are no saints, but there is a distinct difference between the two parties, and they should not be painted with the same brush.
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
No comments:
Post a Comment