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 regulation (“Voters wanted immigration enforcement, but 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 regulation needs to be. Effectively, possibly they might have if Donald Trump hadn’t intervened to dam proposed bipartisan immigration laws, simply to maintain the problem alive for the 2024 presidential marketing campaign. Towards 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 essential level: Assist for border enforcement doesn’t justify excessive or dangerous insurance policies. Many citizens anticipated a extra considerate, humane strategy, 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 imagine in.
Individuals say that robust enforcement is about following the regulation, however with out compassion, the regulation does extra hurt than meant. Implementing immigration insurance policies ought to contain good case-by-case judgment and never punishment for everybody. A greater strategy would steadiness security with empathy and acknowledge that actual options come from true understanding, not concern.
Patricia Geronimo, Redondo Seaside
