Advertisement

Opinion: May 27 buzz: Obama’s to do list -- fix E-Verify, bring home our troops, learn to synch mouth with thoughts

Share

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Most viewed: Obama’s fast brain vs. slow mouth

Meghan’s Daum’s column about the way President Obama addresses an audience has tongues wagging again Friday.

Advertisement

Most commented: You can’t rely on E-Verify

E-Verify has too many flaws, writes the editorial board, in response the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold an Arizona law that relies on the technology.

The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court’s conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn’t ready for prime time. […] At the very least, the court’s ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department’s special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.

Here’s what a few readers are saying on the discussion board. No one has referred to us as LA Raza Times yet, which is usually such a treat.

The argument that E-Verify should be abandoned because it has flaws is so flawed that it borders on bogus. All states should follow the lead of Arizona and demand the compliance of employers. Using illegal aliens to drive down the cost of labor is a direct attack on American workers. --4LadyJesus Wow, using this logic we should abolish the IRS because it misses some tax cheats and institute comprehensive tax code reform. --Anonymous. As I understand this editorial, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times opposes e-verify because it is not perfect. More particularly, it will incorrectly flag legal workers. In addition, they point to the fact that it may be possible that workers here illegally can game the system. Fair enough. Their remedy to this problem is what they call comprehensive immigration reform. Again fair enough. I have another proposal. I want a national biometric ID card. You need this card to get a job, open a bank account, get a library card, and so forth. If you do not have this card you cannot get any of these services. Then you impose draconian penalties on anyone who hires someone without the national ID card. Problem solved. Illegal immigrants would not be able to function in this country without the ID and they would have no choice but leave. Will the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times support my proposal? No. Will special interest groups of all sorts support my proposal? No. Why? They will not be honest and say that they want the legalization or all illegal immigrants and hide their true intentions behind the phrase comprehensive immigration reform. -- jeff1947 ‘...the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona...passed...their own immigration laws because the current system isn’t working...’ No L.A. Times editorial on illegal immigration would be complete without the obligatory call for amnesty, using the code words ‘comprehensive immigration reform’. This means only deporting those who have been convicted of serious, violent crimes, while legalizing the rest. Amnesty also travels under the pseudonym ‘a path to citizenship’. Amnesty was tried in the 1980’s. It did not achieve the desired effect. Trying it again while referring to it by a different name will not change the result. As we all know, there ALREADY IS a path to citizenship. It’s called LEGAL IMMIGRATION, though the editorial staff never deigns to acknowledge its existence. Their unwavering position rests on the assumption that once a foreign national is here, they’re untouchable as long as they don’t get convicted of a violent crime--since deportation based on immigration status alone is unkind and even racist, depending on the nationality of the illegal alien in question. Long on lament and short on solutions, this ordinary and predictable piece pays lip service to immigration law enforcement while providing no real alternative E-verify--merely the royal proclamation that it ‘isn’t working’. --GregMaragos

*Spelling errors were corrected for clarity.

Most shared: For the U.S., it’s time to get out of Afghanistan

Advertisement

Here’s Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on setting an end date for the U.S. deployment in Afghanistan:

As quickly as can be safely accomplished, American forces should be drawn down to a point where they are sufficient only to conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations, train Afghan security forces and protect American and coalition personnel. Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has suggested that 10,000 to 25,000 troops would be adequate to fulfill this mission and that this level could be safely reached within 12 to 18 months. […] The United States has spent more years fighting in Afghanistan than it has in any other war in the nation’s history. We have made progress on our core objective: crippling Al Qaeda. Now is the time for us to focus on that goal and finish the job. We can do this while dramatically reducing the number of our troops serving in harm’s way and reducing the burden on our taxpayers. We owe that much to our troops, and to the American people.

ALSO TRENDING:

Obama’s so smart, he sounds dumb?

The best solution for the Mississippi River

Drilling for oil on our turf

Advertisement

S.F.’s anti-circumcision proposition

America’s changing morality

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Advertisement