Today's Editorials: How the U.S. Encourages Illegal Immigration
USA Today ... argues that the United States's immigration system, "a Byzantine world of bureaucratic bungling and unconscionable waits for those who try to play by the rules," encourages would-be U.S. immigrants to break the law. "As Congress tries to fix the immigration mess, it needs to remember that any system of legal immigration as onerous and time-consuming as the current one is doomed to undermine respect for the law and encourage even greater levels of illegal immigration," the editors write.
LAT ... urges Congress to determine whether the CIA is doing "the United States more harm than good by interrogating suspected terrorists in secret prisons overseas." The editors argue that if "the administration persists in defining torture down, Congress should push back -- by using the power of the purse" ... notes that former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former political affairs director Sara Taylor have been subpoenaed by the Senate over the U.S. attorney firings scandal, and urges President Bush to accept an offer presented to him by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) two months ago: that he allow Karl "Rove, Miers et al testify for the record, but privately, without swearing an oath," and later, "if necessary, the witnesses could testify in public."
NYT ... encourages Congress and other national legislatures to commit more funds to the global fight against AIDS: Congress should "set the nation -- and by its example, the world -- on course toward universal access to AIDS treatment by 2010" ... urges Congress to approve legislation that would clarify guidelines about which streams and wetlands are subject to federal jurisdiction, and to "make sure that federal jurisdiction applied to all waters, large and small, permanent or ephemeral" ... worries about the influence special interest groups are wielding over local judicial elections, and urges states to "either adopt public financing and strict fund-raising rules for judicial elections or switch to a nonelective merit selection system."
WaPo ... worries that coal-to-liquid fuel won't do much to help America overcome its dependence of foreign fuel, despite what many supporters of the technology in the Senate are saying. "[L]arge-scale and premature subsidies for this untested and environmentally risky technology may amount to nothing more than a big giveaway to Big Coal," the editors argue ... notes that far too many children from the District of Columbia are placed in foster care even if they have responsible relatives who are willing to care for them, and urges area lawmakers to fix the situation ... applauds the bipartisan effort in Congress last week that passed a law "making it harder for someone who is dangerously mentally ill to buy a gun."
WSJ ... attacks those who are using the case of diabetes drug Avandia, specifically Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), to call for increased regulation of "Big Pharma." The editors argue that the FDA "already does too much onerous bottlenecking of new drugs. Those who think otherwise ought to make an honest case -- not rely on political sensationalism" ... argues that Bill and Hillary Clinton's decision to sell off all of their stock holdings to avoid the "appearance of a conflict of interest" was an unneeded precaution: "For our money," the editors write, "having a candidate's fortunes tied to the success of the stock market and the economy is a conflict of the best possible sort" ... criticizes two consumer-advocate organizations that are suing Kellogg Co. and Nickelodeon "for marketing junk foods to children, or what is alleged to be 'multimedia brainwashing.'"
By Rob Anderson |
June 18, 2007; 9:35 AM ET
Previous: Cross Country: When the U.S. Leaves Iraq |
Next: Today's Columns: The Case Against Increasing the U.S. Military
Posted by: SCSOCAL | June 18, 2007 01:57 PM
Very simply-ENFORCE the laws we have now, then debate the rest once all American laws that are in place are actually working. Why reinvent the wheel, use what we have in place now. Then we can start letting LEGAL immigrants in from ALL over the world as we need them in our society. Just because illeals come here do not mean we owe them anything as a country, they were aware they wre breaking the law. There aremillions of people all over this world who would come here to pick crops or do any type of work we as anation needed. Illegals shoud not receive anything for coming here regardlee of the reasons.
Posted by: Elouise | June 18, 2007 03:58 PM
Very simply-ENFORCE the laws we have now, then debate the rest once all American laws that are in place are actually working. Why reinvent the wheel, use what we have in place now. Then we can start letting LEGAL immigrants in from ALL over the world as we need them in our society. Just because illeals come here do not mean we owe them anything as a country, they were aware they wre breaking the law. There aremillions of people all over this world who would come here to pick crops or do any type of work we as anation needed. Illegals shoud not receive anything for coming here regardlee of the reasons.
Posted by: Elouise | June 18, 2007 03:58 PM
No two individuals think alike. Flooding a nation with peoples from all over the world for one reason or the other: legal or illegal will hurt any nation in the long run.Conflicts of faith, civilizations, languages and races would follow. America must not import anything but goods. Humans are normally ungrateful. They forget the good done to them quite soon but will remember a small blemish for ever. I feel U.S should go for more stringent immigration laws and their sincere implimentation.
Posted by: Rettavayal S Krishnaswamy | June 19, 2007 02:16 AM
I must say that I am shocked to read these blog posts. Each and every American citizen was at one point or another an immigrant. We are a country composed of a variety of different cultures and ethnicities. For that reason I strongly disagree with Rettavayal, in her claims that 'America must not import anything but goods.'
If that were the case ethnocentric beliefs and racial purity will run the manner in which our country is led.
Yet, there is much debate over immigration. I understand that there is some need for regulation in order to safeguard our tax payers ect. However, before we end immigration or deport individuals we have to realize that America has had a strong impact in promoting immigration. NAFTA enabled US companies to venture across the border and to build industries in Mexico. While it seems that we were helping Mexico, we were actually hurting them. We have violated the majority of American pollution standards and minimum wage. We have created an economic inbalance within Mexico that drives immigration.
The only means of fixing immigration is to mend the mistakes we have already made. We must strive to help poor nations develop into growing countries. If we do not help them illegal immigration will never end. Ultimately, people will do what they must (illegally enter a country) in order to survive.
Luckily the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals already address this issue. We simply need our government to provide more support.
Posted by: End Poverty | June 19, 2007 02:43 PM
I have given so many feedbacks on this issue about immigration in previous interactions. The main reason why there are so many illegals in the US is because the government tend to be over protective of the number of people coming in as represented by the small number of visas available for family based petitions. The Decades of waiting for the visa to come has encourage more people to join their families in the US in the illegal manner because they can not wait for so many years to be able to get in legally. The best thing that the US can do is to review their numbers, these is all a numbers game in the very beginning, The quotas that are being provided for the family based immigrant petitions is so small that it resulted to years of painful separation with families. It has already become big business for the government to accept applications for petitioning family members and have raked in billions of dollars from these applications. Yet the visas that are available for approved applications is not commensurate to the numbers needed to fill the gap. The Supply is short of the Demand. This is the reason why the wait being experienced by those who patiently fall in line never improves. It continuously slides back therefore the huge backlog of availability of visas. Imagine waiting for 20 years!!!! By the time you get your immigrant visa, you are no longer productive, you now become a burden for the American taxpayers. The best that the government should do is provide the equivalent visas for those who have been screened and approved by the USCIS. Let them go the the US and become good citizens. For all we know, the immediate impact of these people coming in is a shot to the ailing housing industry. They can help the economy with all the investments that they bring with them.
Finally, Give a chance to those who have religiously followed the rules. That is only fair before you welcome the illegals!
Posted by: Stareast | June 22, 2007 04:01 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Non-enforcement of current immigration by
government is the reason we have so many
illegals in the U.S. right now not because
they are frustrated with the time it takes
to get in legally!! If that were the case we wouldn't have so many illegals (12 million plus) from Mexico!! These people
are lawbreakers and should be treated as
such!! If employers don't hire them they will have to self deport!!
No one is representing American voters and taxpayers on this issue!!