Originally published by LA Times
To the editor: There has been little mention of the fact that prior to the demonization of "chain migration," generations of families came to this country this way. ("Trump wants to kill two immigration programs, but doesn't seem to know how they work," Jan. 17, and "Trump's immigration plan draws harsh reviews from left and right, and some conservatives label him 'Amnesty Don.'" Jan. 25)
First, Dad, Grandpa, or Uncle Hans saved enough to be the first to emigrate. They arrived at a port of entry, worked hard, learned English, lived in tenements, saved their money and sent for their wives and children.
They sent their children to school and their wives went to work and night school to learn English. They contributed to their communities and loved their new country. Their children grew up, went to college or learned a trade and became important members of our society.
This is a history to be valued and appreciated, not vilified. Shame on those whose own families probably used this path and would now deny it to today's immigrants, many of whom are fleeing unspeakable conditions in their home countries.
Judith Shenkman, Huntington Beach
To the editor: As a Bernie Sanders liberal, I am hardly a knee-jerk opponent of immigration.
I think the time has come for those politicians opposing President Trump on immigration to explicitly state the scope of their desire. They seem to mention the limitations they are against, but not those they are for. Without that it is impossible to know if one should favor the Democratic proposal (whatever that may be).
Frankly, Trump's proposal on immigration is a very reasonable starting point. He has offered to increase the number of people who would be placed on a path to citizenship to 1.8 million. In return, he has asked for some limits to immigration and for added border protection.
One can negotiate on these points and come to a compromise. Still, it appears that many liberals are taking the childish position that if they can't get everything they want, they will not play.
This is not how legislating works. If Democrats want to improve their chances in November, they need to show moderate Republicans who voted for Trump that they understand the legislative process and recognize that compromise is almost always necessary.
Joel Drum, Van Nuys
To the editor: I am dismayed, disheartened and disgusted by the actions of U.S. Border Patrol to destroy water supplies for people at risk of dying from thirst. ("The Border Patrol chooses a new target: a volunteer helping migrants," Jan. 25)
There are significant and legitimate law enforcement issues for Border Patrol agents to address, among them cartel drug smuggling and human sex trafficking. But what can possibly justify the destruction of water jugs left for the poor souls desperate to cross at remote desert locations?
How is the arrest and harassment of humanitarian workers, and the destruction of life-saving water supplies, making America better or stronger? Have we truly become a nation without mercy?
Mona Kuczenski, San Diego