To the Editor:
As promised, this follow up letter sets forth factors that justify my proposal that Congress should enact a law to grant every undocumented alien residing within the United States on July 4, 2018, permanent resident status on the condition that the person (1) is not a person who has been convicted of committing a felony in his or her place of origin or the united states and (2) who registers as a permanent resident on or before December 31, 2018.
Why “every undocumented alien’?
It has been estimated that there are 15 million people living in the U.S. in violation of current laws applicable to legal immigration. Do any of these people “deserve” to remain? In point of fact most of the U.S. population gained the right to remain here simply because we were born here. At the moment we gained that right, we had done nothing more to earn or deserve the right to stay here. I would suggest that the focus should be on the issue of whether these persons should be “disqualified” from the opportunity to stay rather than whether they “deserve” to stay.
I would propose that the fact of being here illegally should not disqualify a person from staying so long as the person is not a person who my prior conduct has demonstrated himself to be a danger to our society. If only being here “illegally” is to be a disqualifying factor, what have the “Dreamers” done to “re-qualify” themselves? continued
To the Editor:
Sometimes, big issues cannot be solved because the noise of partisan positions drowns out quiet discussion of the interests of persons who are affected by the issue or any proposed resolution.
A process often characterized as MAPS (mutually agreeable problem solving) has been effective when employed by a group of people whose purpose is to actually seek a reasonable solution to a problem. In simple terms, in this process, a proposal is made. Others involved in the discussion to not reject that proposal but, offer a different proposal - totally opposite or a modification or the earlier proposal(s). The process moves forward to one or more possible solutions without having to overcome a terminal comment on any proposal offered in the process. Several rounds of comment are not unusual.
I thought I would try MAPS on the issue of immigration in the Opinions section of BZ. Immigration, although complex, is a problem that is within the power of the people of the U.S. to fix by themselves. My intent is to give my rationale for each aspect of this initial proposal in subsequent letters to the Editor. I invite all other solution-minded persons to participate in this exercise
Congress shall enact laws that
A. Grant every undocumented alien residing within the united states on July 4, 2018, permanent resident status on the condition that the person
(1) is not a person who has been convicted of committing a felony in his or her place of origin or the united states and
(2) who registers as a permanent resident on or before December 31, 2018.
B. Provide that
(1) A person's status as a permanent resident shall be forfeited if that person is convicted of a felony that is committed on or prior to December 31, 2025; continued
To the Editor of Litchfield.bz:
Dennie Williams should have a bit more faith in our beloved grifter-in-chief, whom we hail. Of course.
Given that Donald J. Trump and Kim Jong-un are both immature, unstable, narcissistic autocrats, should the momentously ill-advised meeting ever come to pass, perhaps the two spoiled brats would be able to communicate at a level of absurdity known only to the fantastic few but unimaginable to rational grown-ups. Thus they might well have a constructive dialogue of the sort Caroline Wilcox Ugurlu and Sarah Worden are obsequiously seeking between Litchfield’s finance and school boards.
But we should always beware of feigned deference. And constructive dialogue in the self-serving parents’ case clearly is code for getting the finance board to cave and throw more money at the school board. Anything else simply wouldn’t be constructive, would it?
Paul Mordecai Rosenberg
North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un played a clever one asking to meet President Donald Trump for negotiations over the threatened potential of his continued nuclear bombing nearer and nearer to U.S. targets. He obviously knows President Trump is under a powerful impeachment investigation threatening his future.
That means Mr. Trump, an attention getter, needs to look like he is attempting to solve the crucial threats of nuclear war. And, even better for Kim, it makes himself look like he is being influential for a crucial peace agreement.
So if the offer begins to work and negotiations initiate, whatever direction they move in, Kim looks internationally powerful. But even more important than soothing his and Trump's egotism. Kim has little risk of a negotiations loss.
Kim can feint toward reducing or eliminating his bombing without giving up anything at all. Why? He knows the chances are large that he can delay the conclusion until Trump's potential impeachment is close to or actually underway. Then, Kim can back off what he started on peace negotiations by using the increased threat or actuality of Trump's impeachment to withdraw whatever peace deal is underway. And, even if nothing at all gets underway, Kim can create an impression that he made his best peace effort negated only by Donald Trump's potential fate.
Whatever happens, Trump never should have initiated his own personal face-to-face with talks with the weak potential for his future status. Peace negotiations need to be in the hands of professionals within his administration who are likely to be around for negotiations even if Trump's presidential status weakens or ends.