Anything but fair on immigration
In his Oct. 1 Congress Blog post “Important role Pope Francis can play in addressing immigration” published by The Hill, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) President Dan Stein writes about Francis’s concern for immigrants and people around the world struggling to survive. Mr. Stein argues that the best way to help those in poverty is to severely restrict immigration to the U.S. while working to improve economic conditions in migrants’ home countries. This argument, coming from Mr. Stein, is disingenuous at best.
FAIR is a widely recognized hate group because of its virulent and false attacks on non-white immigrants. FAIR’s current work builds on its long history of advancing deeply racist, and sometimes unconstitutional, immigration enforcement legislation that maligns immigrant and native-born communities of color. Mr. Stein’s views do not appear to be an exception to FAIR’s deeply racist principles. He has stated, “Immigrants don’t come all church-loving, freedom-loving, God-fearing. … Many of them hate America, hate everything that the United States stands for. Talk to some of these Central Americans.”
{mosads}Mr. Stein is also wrong on the facts. There is scant evidence that immigrants lower wages of even low-income native-born workers. In fact, research shows that immigrants drive economic growth.
Of course, the U.S. absolutely has a moral duty to address poverty and violence around the world. That obligation begins by taking responsibility for U.S. actions that have helped create violence and instability, particularly in Central America. But it does not stop there.
The deeply flawed U.S. immigration system keeps children and mothers locked up, turns away people fleeing for their lives, deports fathers away from their families and contributes to hundreds of deaths at the border. If we are morally obligated to work for freedom and justice around the world, then we are certainly bound to do so for those directly harmed by the anti-immigrant policies of our own government.
From Lindsay Schubiner, Center for New Community, Washington, D.C.
2016 Republicans need to refocus
The Republican presidential candidates must accept two fundamental truths: The Democratic nominee is their opposition in the 2016 election and, mathematically, this Democrat has a 50 percent chance of winning the election. From the answers in the most recent GOP debate, however, it is clear that the Republican contenders have not accepted these maxims.
First, the candidates spent very little time discussing either the potential consequences of another Democratic presidency or the results of the past seven years of a Democratic presidency. For example, the national debt doubled in the past seven years under the guidance of a Democratic president, but the candidates barely discussed this topic. Second, they spent a large portion of the debate discussing Donald Trump even though he is a fellow Republican and will not be the opposition in the general election. The Republican candidates need to focus on the results of Democratic policies and convince voters why it is better for the country to have a Republican as president.
Additionally, the Republican National Committee (RNC) must negotiate with debate organizers so that debate questions focus on key issues and not on Trump (in the second debate, 44 percent of the questions referenced him). If the networks do not acquiesce, the RNC should cancel the debates.
The RNC has a duty to protect the eventual Republican nominee and ensure that he or she has the best chance possible to win the general election.
From Michael Abramson, Atlanta
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
