To the Editor:
“A Big Idea to Solve America’s Immigration Mess” (editorial, Jan. 12) was a considerate and complete dialogue of many of the troublesome points that come up when attempting to cope with our damaged immigration system.
Each supporters and opponents of immigration consider that the federal government has the duty to maintain observe of who’s in america and to stop these we are not looking for from staying right here.
There is just one approach to make sure that the federal government can preserve observe of everybody inside our borders: a nationwide identification card that can not be counterfeited and with out which nobody can work, journey, open financial institution and bank card accounts, get hold of a driver’s license or work together lawfully with the federal government.
Each particular person inside or coming into the U.S. needs to be given an ID card that could be very particular about what the holder can do and the way lengthy they will keep. These with no card needs to be instantly deported.
Strict enforcement would stop most of the evils that opponents of immigration wish to cease. Not least of those evils are employers who rent these with out correct work authorizations and abuse their staff, thus taking for themselves an financial benefit over these employers who obey the regulation.
Russell A. Simpson
Laredo, Texas
The author is a retired lawyer and a former assistant dean at Harvard Legislation College.
To the Editor:
My household immigrated to america legally from Communist Poland in 1960, and I grew to become a naturalized U.S. citizen as a minor together with my mother and father.
I’ve lengthy thought there’s one thing of a center floor between the left and the fitting on this subject; the alternatives should not have to be restricted to “a path to citizenship” and “deport all of them.”
I do know Dreamers and I do know their hard-working households who remind me of my very own mother and father, who labored and saved so my brothers and I might reside the American dream. So right here’s one other proposal that I want our legislators would take into account:
1. Anybody who was introduced right here as a toddler receives full authorized residency and a path to citizenship. They didn’t have a alternative within the matter, and for a lot of america is the one dwelling they know. They’ve been educated right here, and we should always need them to realize their fullest potential in our society.
2. Any grownup who has been right here illegally for a specified interval or longer (Congress can determine that) and has no prison document receives authorized residency (and the fitting to work legally) however no path to changing into a U.S. citizen. Congress might additionally take into account a superb to cowl the price of issuing their inexperienced playing cards. They violated our legal guidelines by crossing the border illegally or overstaying their visas; denying them citizenship (and the fitting to vote for the individuals who make our legal guidelines) is, in my opinion, an acceptable value to pay.
This appears logical, truthful and humane. It might require each Democrats and Republicans to maneuver away from their hard-line stances to really resolve an issue. And it could release a whole lot of bandwidth in Congress to sort out the opposite troublesome issues in our immigration system that want an overhaul, like border safety, asylum and enforcement.
Alice Andors
Arlington, Va.
To the Editor:
Your editorial has some good concepts about immigration, however its premise — that “America wants extra individuals” and must develop the financial system — is outdated. That’s an 18th-century thought; we at the moment are within the twenty first century.
The planet is overpopulated and can’t maintain limitless financial and inhabitants development. The proof is in all places: housing shortages; wildfires and different pure disasters exacerbated by world warming; water shortages; meals shortages attributable to fowl flu; plastic and chemical compounds in every part, together with our our bodies.
It’s time to exchange the outdated “development” paradigm with one referred to as “sustainability.” We are able to and should work out a method to reside in concord with nature. Our lives and future rely upon it.
Lindy Rice
Rio Linda, Calif.
The Advantages of Digital Remedy
To the Editor:
Re “Virtual Appointments Made Me a Better Doctor,” by Helen Ouyang (Opinion visitor essay, Jan. 1):
I’m a toddler psychiatrist. Since March 2020, I’ve labored strictly from dwelling, and I don’t really feel any must return to my workplace.
I did get pleasure from my in-office work. My workplace was full of toys and puzzles, and after their first go to (who actually likes to go to the physician?) most children returned willingly. However I’ve discovered it a lot simpler to take care of relationships working remotely.
The “physician will see you now” side, with its deep separation and energy differential, has modified. I’m now a visitor in your house, and I get considerably extra details about dwelling life and household relationships.
Nearly all of my work pertains to consideration deficit hyperactivity dysfunction. A considerable proportion of the individuals I work with are highschool and school college students, and new entries to the work power who want their treatment to remain targeted and achieve success.
Nevertheless, group shouldn’t be a robust swimsuit of individuals with A.D.H.D., so I spend a good period of time monitoring individuals all the way down to preserve their appointments and handle their treatment. Within the workplace, they might simply be a “no present” — receiving no care however being charged for lacking the appointment.
I’m 72 and nearing retirement. However working remotely prolonged my profession. I can throw a load of laundry in and see some sufferers, then begin cooking and see some extra. I’m working solely three days per week now, and with the scarcity of expert baby psychiatrists I do know I’m offering a much-needed service.
There’s a motion by insurers to restrict distant care. That is sick conceived. We don’t want fewer modes of care; we’d like extra.
Steve Auster
Holliston, Mass.
In Reward of Solitude
To the Editor:
Re “Embracing the Joys of Solitude,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, Jan. 3):
As a medical epidemiologist, I can not agree extra with Ms. Grose on her feedback concerning the so-called loneliness epidemic. However its potential adversarial well being results, loneliness is a standard and an inevitable expertise of our existence.
Labeling loneliness as an epidemic does an injustice to its profound advantages in fostering our resilience, resourcefulness, emotional fortitude, independence and creativity. Because the poet Sara Teasdale sagely put it: “Only the lonely are free.”
Guohua Li
Montebello, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Jessica Grose makes some wonderful factors. As a longtime practitioner of solitude myself (I’m 75 years outdated), I’d like so as to add the next reward to the life lived in solitude:
It’s one of the simplest ways to get to know oneself — the internal, religious world all of us possess — and perceive the universe in a approach we’d not in any other case. Too many individuals reside in an excessive amount of distraction.
Are you able to think about a deep thinker who is consistently surrounded by household and different firm?
Celik Kayalar
Berkeley, Calif.
To the Editor:
Our Warming Planet
To the Editor:
To witness the machinations of leaders we’ve both chosen or acquiesced in whereas our planet warms is to simply accept the aptness of the adage “fiddling whereas Rome burns” and the truth that we’re all Romans.
David Hill
Mill Valley, Calif.