To the Editor:
“A Big Idea to Solve America’s Immigration Mess” (editorial, Jan. 12) was a considerate and complete dialogue of many of the tough points that come up when making an attempt to take care of our damaged immigration system.
Each supporters and opponents of immigration imagine that the federal government has the duty to maintain monitor of who’s in the US and to stop these we don’t need from staying right here.
There is just one means to make sure that the federal government can maintain monitor of everybody inside our borders: a nationwide identification card that can not be counterfeited and with out which nobody can work, journey, open financial institution and bank card accounts, receive a driver’s license or work together lawfully with the federal government.
Each particular person inside or coming into the U.S. needs to be given an ID card that could be very particular about what the holder can do and the way lengthy they’ll keep. These with out a card needs to be instantly deported.
Strict enforcement would stop most of the evils that opponents of immigration need to cease. Not least of those evils are employers who rent these with out correct work authorizations and abuse their staff, thus taking for themselves an financial benefit over these employers who obey the regulation.
Russell A. Simpson
Laredo, Texas
The author is a retired lawyer and a former assistant dean at Harvard Legislation College.
To the Editor:
My household immigrated to the US legally from Communist Poland in 1960, and I turned a naturalized U.S. citizen as a minor together with my dad and mom.
I’ve lengthy thought there’s one thing of a center floor between the left and the proper on this subject; the alternatives don’t have to be restricted to “a path to citizenship” and “deport all of them.”
I do know Dreamers and I do know their hard-working households who remind me of my very own dad and mom, who labored and saved so my brothers and I might dwell the American dream. So right here’s one other proposal that I want our legislators would think about:
1. Anybody who was introduced right here as a baby receives full authorized residency and a path to citizenship. They didn’t have a selection within the matter, and for a lot of the US is the one house they know. They’ve been educated right here, and we must always need them to attain their fullest potential in our society.
2. Any grownup who has been right here illegally for a specified interval or longer (Congress can resolve that) and has no prison report receives authorized residency (and the proper to work legally) however no path to changing into a U.S. citizen. Congress might additionally think about a superb to cowl the price of issuing their inexperienced playing cards. They violated our legal guidelines by crossing the border illegally or overstaying their visas; denying them citizenship (and the proper to vote for the individuals who make our legal guidelines) is, for my part, an applicable worth to pay.
This appears logical, truthful and humane. It might require each Democrats and Republicans to maneuver away from their hard-line stances to truly resolve an issue. And it will liberate numerous bandwidth in Congress to sort out the opposite tough issues in our immigration system that want an overhaul, like border safety, asylum and enforcement.
Alice Andors
Arlington, Va.
To the Editor:
Your editorial has some good concepts about immigration, however its premise — that “America wants extra individuals” and must develop the economic system — is outdated. That’s an 18th-century thought; we at the moment are within the twenty first century.
The planet is overpopulated and can’t maintain limitless financial and inhabitants development. The proof is in all places: housing shortages; wildfires and different pure disasters exacerbated by world warming; water shortages; meals shortages brought on by chook flu; plastic and chemical substances in every little thing, together with our our bodies.
It’s time to exchange the outdated “development” paradigm with one known as “sustainability.” We will and should determine a method to dwell in concord with nature. Our lives and future depend upon it.
Lindy Rice
Rio Linda, Calif.
The Advantages of Digital Remedy
To the Editor:
Re “Virtual Appointments Made Me a Better Doctor,” by Helen Ouyang (Opinion visitor essay, Jan. 1):
I’m a baby psychiatrist. Since March 2020, I’ve labored strictly from house, and I don’t really feel any have to return to my workplace.
I did take pleasure in my in-office work. My workplace was stuffed with toys and puzzles, and after their first go to (who actually likes to go to the physician?) most children returned willingly. However I’ve discovered it a lot simpler to take care of relationships working remotely.
The “physician will see you now” side, with its deep separation and energy differential, has modified. I’m now a visitor in your house, and I get considerably extra details about house life and household relationships.
The vast majority of my work pertains to consideration deficit hyperactivity dysfunction. A considerable share of the individuals I work with are highschool and school college students, and new entries to the work pressure who want their medicine to remain centered and achieve success.
Nonetheless, group shouldn’t be a powerful swimsuit of individuals with A.D.H.D., so I spend a good period of time monitoring individuals all the way down to maintain their appointments and handle their medicine. Within the workplace, they’d simply be a “no present” — receiving no care however being charged for lacking the appointment.
I’m 72 and nearing retirement. However working remotely prolonged my profession. I can throw a load of laundry in and see some sufferers, then begin cooking and see some extra. I’m working solely three days per week now, and with the scarcity of expert youngster psychiatrists I do know I’m offering a much-needed service.
There’s a motion by insurers to restrict distant care. That is unwell conceived. We don’t want fewer modes of care; we want extra.
Steve Auster
Holliston, Mass.
In Reward of Solitude
To the Editor:
Re “Embracing the Joys of Solitude,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, Jan. 3):
As a medical epidemiologist, I can not agree extra with Ms. Grose on her feedback concerning the so-called loneliness epidemic. However its potential hostile well being results, loneliness is a traditional and an inevitable expertise of our existence.
Labeling loneliness as an epidemic does an injustice to its profound advantages in fostering our resilience, resourcefulness, emotional fortitude, independence and creativity. Because the poet Sara Teasdale sagely put it: “Only the lonely are free.”
Guohua Li
Montebello, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Jessica Grose makes some glorious factors. As a longtime practitioner of solitude myself (I’m 75 years outdated), I’d like so as to add the next reward to the life lived in solitude:
It’s one of the simplest ways to get to know oneself — the inside, non secular world all of us possess — and perceive the universe in a means we might not in any other case. Too many individuals dwell in an excessive amount of distraction.
Are you able to think about a deep thinker who is consistently surrounded by household and different firm?
Celik Kayalar
Berkeley, Calif.
To the Editor:
Our Warming Planet
To the Editor:
To witness the machinations of leaders we’ve both chosen or acquiesced in whereas our planet warms is to just accept the aptness of the adage “fiddling whereas Rome burns” and the truth that we’re all Romans.
David Hill
Mill Valley, Calif.
