Mediaboss Marketing

To the Editor:

In How to Fix Americas Immigration Crisis (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 14), Steven Rattner and Maureen White argue: We need to come to a national consensus on how many immigrants we want to accept and the bases for determining who is chosen. That includes balancing the two principal objectives of immigration policy: to meet our legal and moral humanitarian obligations to persecuted individuals and to bolster our work force.

These two objectives need not be at odds. Pathways for displaced people who have skills needed by U.S. employers can benefit displaced people, employers and the communities that welcome new neighbors. The United States could adopt a program, modeled on Canadas Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot, to address specific needs in states, cities and industries, while offering lasting refuge to displaced people.

In fact, the Biden administration could adopt many changes to facilitate displaced peoples access to employment opportunities without legislation.

But a humanitarian employment program should be additional to, and must not replace, systems of asylum and resettlement. Human rights are not a consideration to be balanced against economic considerations.

Betsy Fisher Minneapolis The writer is the U.S. director at Talent Beyond Boundaries.

To the Editor:

Steven Rattner and Maureen White acknowledge that reducing flows of migrants to our border requires improving conditions in sending countries. They lament reductions in the already paltry U.S. foreign aid budget.

Yet they neglect to mention U.S. punitive sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba two significant sources of migrants that exacerbated economic meltdowns and led people to flee. Nicaragua too is subject to less extensive but still dire U.S. sanctions.

These U.S. measures not only undermine material well-being and hope, but also provide cover to authoritarian heads of state, who blame Washington rather than themselves for their countries dismal situations.

Marc Edelman Callicoon, N.Y.

To the Editor:

In this shortsighted essay, the authors propose that we should require asylum seekers to apply in Mexico or other countries, including their home countries. As an immigration attorney at the Capital Area Immigrants Rights Coalition, I can tell you that this idea would be laughable if it were not so frighteningly close to becoming the law.

How would this work? Would the Afghans fleeing the Taliban simply line up at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul? (Spoiler alert: There isnt one.) Also, the Mexican asylum system is no less overwhelmed than our own, having received a record number of applications in 2023.

Likewise, it makes no sense to punish asylum seekers who enter the U.S. between ports of entry. Waiting in Mexico for a border appointment has been a logistical nightmare and has exposed asylum seekers to extreme violence from criminal organizations. We should not make it more dangerous for them for the sake of maintaining bureaucratic niceties.

We need increased funding for the immigration system, and we should widen other immigration avenues, such as work visas. But our leaders should also focus on the root causes that drive people from their homes a lack of security, coupled with an underdeveloped economy (often saddled by international debt and/or draconian sanctions) and try to find long-term solutions that will enable 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 have in-laws who migrated from El Salvador through legal immigration. It took 15 years from start to finish. The paperwork, legal fees and bureaucracy are onerous. If someone qualifies under our laws, it should take not more than a year to process.

I also think the border needs to be secured, not with a physical wall, but by using technology that is better suited to a large expanse. Closed-circuit television, drones, infrared cameras and certainly more Customs and Border Protection officers are needed to apprehend, process and deport illegal immigrants.

There should be a penalty for anyone, regardless of asylum eligibility, who enters the country illegally, which would be a start in deterring people from attempting this. There is no need to deport people back to their country of origin, just back across the border over which they crossed, be it Canada or Mexico.

There should be a limit on economic refugees admitted per year, and it should not be based on country of origin, but on need. For this, we need to adequately staff our immigration and court systems. I agree with the authors that one part of the reform needs to be adequate funding of these agencies.

Not all progressives are of the same mind. I do see a deep need for immigration reform, and it includes ideas from serious Republicans, independents and Democrats alike.

Jeff Jumisko Los Angeles

To the Editor:

Part of fixing the immigration crisis is to more quickly determine who requires asylum. A Times article last year highlighted the shortage of judges, resulting in a backlog of two million immigration cases, which take an average of four years to resolve.

I believe that the judicial system should follow the example of other professions, such as medicine, dentistry and law, where health care associates, dental assistants and paralegals are able to make independent decisions.

Similarly, not all legal situations should require a judge. The judicial system could hire and train paralegals and assistants by the tens of thousands who would be focused on immigration asylum cases.

They would be given authority to quickly settle straightforward cases and refer indeterminate situations to judges, just as the health care associates, dental assistants and paralegals now send difficult situations to the professional in charge.

Murray H. Seltzer Boca Raton, Fla. The writer is a retired surgeon.

To the Editor:

Re Johnson Digs In Against a Deal on Immigration (front page, Jan. 18):

House Republicans intransigence on immigration is easy to understand. It has long been an effective campaign issue with their MAGA base.

Holding military aid for Ukraine hostage to immigration reform is harder to explain. Aside from the unspeakable horror and criminality of Russias attacks on its smaller neighbor, Vladimir Putins aggression directly threatens U.S. NATO allies, and thus the United States itself.

The only credible explanation for withholding aid to Ukraine is Donald Trumps affection for Mr. Putin, whom he has called smart and a tough guy with whom he got along great. And he called Mr. Putins invasion of Ukraine genius.

If House Republicans really care about national security, theyll stand up to Mr. Trump and find another way to solve the immigration problem.

Stephen Dycus New York

To the Editor:

In Tougher Than the Rest (column, Jan. 14), David Brooks writes of Nikki Haley: Mobilized by sadness and anger, she helped persuade more than two-thirds of both houses of the legislature to remove the Confederate flag from the State Capitol grounds, which was an astounding act of political craftsmanship and moral fortitude that even her detractors admire.

The only thing astounding about taking down the flag of a deadly treasonous insurgency is that it took 150 years and a murderous, racist hate crime to finally get it removed. If Governor Haley had been truly mobilized by sadness and anger, a more meaningful demonstration of political craftsmanship and moral fortitude would have been to enact sweeping gun safety legislation. Thats toughness.

Stephen Thiroux Ashland, Ore.

To the Editor:

Jessica Grose nailed it again in Botox Destroyed What I Liked About My Face (Opinion, Jan. 13). I always look forward to her essays, and this one spoke to me, a late 40s lady trying to stay youthful mentally and physically.

I, too, never thought I would try Botox, but decided to give it a shot. I initially loved my incredibly smooth forehead and the decreased number of lines around my eyes.

But Ive come to realize that wrinkles are badges of honor and that I should embrace the souvenirs of thousands of smiles and surprises and even angst Ive experienced throughout a full life so far.

Beth Porter Buceras, Mexico

Read more from the original source:
Opinion | Making Changes to U.S. Immigration Policy - The New York Times