To the editor: I couldn’t agree extra with visitor contributor David J. Bier that immigration, like many different issues within the nation, needs to be topic to the rule of legislation (“Voters wished immigration enforcement, however not like this,” June 5). Previous to the Trump period, the issue was that these answerable for figuring out immigration coverage couldn’t attain consensus on what the coverage and the legislation needs to be. Nicely, possibly they might have if Donald Trump hadn’t intervened to dam proposed bipartisan immigration laws, simply to maintain the difficulty alive for the 2024 presidential marketing campaign. In opposition to that backdrop, I’m baffled that Bier doesn’t level out that, for President Trump, the chaos and the cruelty are the purpose.
June Ailin Sewell, Marina del Rey
..
To the editor: The article raises an necessary level: Assist for border enforcement doesn’t justify excessive or dangerous insurance policies. Many citizens anticipated a extra considerate, humane method, not one which detains households or rushes deportations with out contemplating particular person circumstances. These strategies don’t replicate the values of equity and dignity most People nonetheless consider in.
Folks say that robust enforcement is about following the legislation, however with out compassion, the legislation does extra hurt than meant. Imposing immigration insurance policies ought to contain sensible case-by-case judgment and never punishment for everybody. A greater method would stability security with empathy and acknowledge that actual options come from true understanding, not worry.
Patricia Geronimo, Redondo Seaside
