To the Editor:
In “How to Fix America’s Immigration Crisis” (Opinion visitor essay, Jan. 14), Steven Rattner and Maureen White argue: “We have to come to a nationwide consensus on what number of immigrants we wish to settle for and the bases for figuring out who’s chosen. That features balancing the 2 principal targets of immigration coverage: to satisfy our authorized and ethical humanitarian obligations to persecuted people and to bolster our work pressure.”
These two targets need not be at odds. Pathways for displaced individuals who have abilities wanted by U.S. employers can profit displaced individuals, employers and the communities that welcome new neighbors. The US may undertake a program, modeled on Canada’s Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot, to deal with particular wants in states, cities and industries, whereas providing lasting refuge to displaced individuals.
In truth, the Biden administration could adopt many changes to facilitate displaced individuals’s entry to employment alternatives with out laws.
However a humanitarian employment program ought to be extra to, and should not exchange, techniques of asylum and resettlement. Human rights will not be a consideration to be balanced in opposition to financial concerns.
Betsy Fisher
Minneapolis
The author is the U.S. director at Expertise Past Boundaries.
To the Editor:
Steven Rattner and Maureen White acknowledge that lowering flows of migrants to our border requires enhancing situations in sending international locations. They lament reductions within the already paltry U.S. international support price range.
But they neglect to say U.S. punitive sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba — two vital sources of migrants — that exacerbated financial meltdowns and led individuals to flee. Nicaragua too is topic to much less in depth however nonetheless dire U.S. sanctions.
These U.S. measures not solely undermine materials well-being and hope, but in addition present cowl to authoritarian heads of state, who blame Washington moderately than themselves for his or her international locations’ dismal conditions.
Marc Edelman
Callicoon, N.Y.
To the Editor:
On this shortsighted essay, the authors suggest that “we should always require asylum seekers to use in Mexico or different international locations, together with their dwelling international locations.” As an immigration legal professional on the Capital Space Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, I can inform you that this concept could be laughable if it weren’t so frighteningly near turning into the legislation.
How would this work? Would the Afghans fleeing the Taliban merely line up on the U.S. embassy in Kabul? (Spoiler alert: There isn’t one.) Additionally, the Mexican asylum system isn’t any much less overwhelmed than our personal, having acquired a record number of applications in 2023.
Likewise, it is mindless to punish asylum seekers who enter the U.S. between ports of entry. Ready in Mexico for a border appointment has been a logistical nightmare and has uncovered asylum seekers to excessive violence from legal organizations. We should always not make it extra harmful for them for the sake of sustaining bureaucratic niceties.
We want elevated funding for the immigration system, and we should always widen different immigration avenues, comparable to work visas. However our leaders also needs to give attention to the basis causes that drive individuals from their houses — a scarcity of safety, coupled with an underdeveloped economic system (usually saddled by worldwide debt and/or draconian sanctions) — and attempt to discover long-term options that can allow us to welcome asylum seekers with dignity.
F. Evan Benz
Washington
To the Editor:
As a social democrat and registered Democrat, I agree with Steven Rattner and Maureen White. I’ve in-laws who migrated from El Salvador by way of authorized immigration. It took 15 years from begin to end. The paperwork, authorized charges and forms are onerous. If somebody qualifies below our legal guidelines, it ought to take no more than a yr to course of.
I additionally suppose the border must be secured, not with a bodily wall, however by utilizing expertise that’s higher suited to a big expanse. Closed-circuit tv, drones, infrared cameras and positively extra Customs and Border Safety officers are wanted to apprehend, course of and deport unlawful immigrants.
There ought to be a penalty for anybody, no matter asylum eligibility, who enters the nation illegally, which might be a begin in deterring individuals from making an attempt this. There is no such thing as a must deport individuals again to their nation of origin, simply again throughout the border over which they crossed, be it Canada or Mexico.
There ought to be a restrict on financial refugees admitted per yr, and it shouldn’t be based mostly on nation of origin, however on want. For this, we have to adequately workers our immigration and court docket techniques. I agree with the authors that one a part of the reform must be enough funding of those companies.
Not all progressives are of the identical thoughts. I do see a deep want for immigration reform, and it consists of concepts from severe Republicans, independents and Democrats alike.
Jeff Jumisko
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
A part of fixing the immigration disaster is to extra rapidly decide who requires asylum. A Occasions article last year highlighted the scarcity of judges, leading to a backlog of two million immigration circumstances, which take a median of 4 years to resolve.
I consider that the judicial system ought to comply with the instance of different professions, comparable to medication, dentistry and legislation, the place well being care associates, dental assistants and paralegals are in a position to make unbiased selections.
Equally, not all authorized conditions ought to require a decide. The judicial system may rent and prepare paralegals and assistants by the tens of 1000’s who could be targeted on immigration asylum circumstances.
They might be given authority to rapidly settle easy circumstances and refer indeterminate conditions to judges, simply because the well being care associates, dental assistants and paralegals now ship troublesome conditions to the skilled in cost.
Murray H. Seltzer
Boca Raton, Fla.
The author is a retired surgeon.
Withholding Assist for Ukraine
To the Editor:
Re “Johnson Digs In Against a Deal on Immigration” (entrance web page, Jan. 18):
Home Republicans’ intransigence on immigration is simple to grasp. It has lengthy been an efficient marketing campaign difficulty with their MAGA base.
Holding navy support for Ukraine hostage to immigration reform is more durable to clarify. Apart from the unspeakable horror and criminality of Russia’s assaults on its smaller neighbor, Vladimir Putin’s aggression instantly threatens U.S. NATO allies, and thus america itself.
The one credible rationalization for withholding support to Ukraine is Donald Trump’s affection for Mr. Putin, whom he has called “smart” and a “powerful man” with whom he “received alongside nice.” And he known as Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine “genius.”
If Home Republicans actually care about nationwide safety, they’ll stand as much as Mr. Trump and discover one other solution to clear up the immigration drawback.
Stephen Dycus
New York
Nikki Haley and the Accomplice Flag
To the Editor:
In “Tougher Than the Rest” (column, Jan. 14), David Brooks writes of Nikki Haley: “Mobilized by unhappiness and anger, she helped persuade greater than two-thirds of each homes of the legislature to take away the Accomplice flag from the State Capitol grounds, which was an astounding act of political craftsmanship and ethical fortitude that even her detractors admire.”
The one factor astounding about taking down the flag of a lethal treasonous insurgency is that it took 150 years and a murderous, racist hate crime to lastly get it eliminated. If Governor Haley had been really “mobilized by unhappiness and anger,” a extra significant demonstration of “political craftsmanship and ethical fortitude” would have been to enact sweeping gun security laws. That’s toughness.
Stephen Thiroux
Ashland, Ore.
I Tried Botox, however Wrinkles Are Badges of Honor
To the Editor:
Jessica Grose nailed it once more in “Botox Destroyed What I Liked About My Face” (Opinion, Jan. 13). I all the time look ahead to her essays, and this one spoke to me, a late 40s woman making an attempt to remain youthful mentally and bodily.
I, too, by no means thought I’d attempt Botox, however determined to present it a shot. I initially beloved my extremely easy brow and the decreased variety of strains round my eyes.
However I’ve come to comprehend that wrinkles are badges of honor and that I ought to embrace the souvenirs of 1000’s of smiles and surprises and even angst I’ve skilled all through a full life to this point.
Beth Porter
Bucerías, Mexico
