“If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”
The purpose of this challenge was to paint Democrats as unpatriotic and in favor of “open borders” for immigrants who want to enter the country.
My question is, why can’t we as a nation do both—protect U.S. citizens and also welcome immigrants who are fleeing horrific violence, economic ruin, and political instability in their homelands? Historically, the United States has prided itself on being a nation of immigrants, and our economic strength today in many sectors relies on immigrants’ work ethic and traditional values.
Over the last year in particular the national conversation has focused entirely on aggressive immigration enforcement; however, the other side of the argument also includes immigration reform along with enforcement. Congress was on a path to initiate an immigration reform policy in 2024 until then candidate Donald Trump directed Republicans to block the legislation because he wanted to use immigration as a campaign issue.
For immigrants to enter the country legally, Congress needs to enact legislative reforms such as providing more work visas for unskilled workers, streamlining the decades-long waiting periods for individuals from certain countries, establishing the infrastructure to keep accurate accounts on who is here and where, providing permanent solutions for individuals in the category of Temporary Protected status, and restoring the refugee/asylum program.
Of course there needs to be thorough vetting of immigrants to spot potentially dangerous individuals; but national crime statistics consistently show that most immigrants are much less likely than the general population to commit crimes because they do not want to jeopardize their status here.
Admittedly, it is not likely that Congress will act to reform the immigration system because it is such a politically charged issue, and therefore useful to certain candidates for office. But I hope we are not at the point where someday soon we will see the Statue of Liberty for sale on Ebay.
Barbara Loach
Cedarville
Call DeWine with your opposition to SB 63
Your reps don’t care about your voice, and you should be concerned about it.
Despite heavy opposition (72 opponents versus 5 proponents), SB 63, a bill designed to stymie the implementation of ranked choice voting (RCV), was passed by the House General Committee and its being voted on by the House.
If signed by Governor DeWine, this bill would give the state of Ohio the right to withhold funding from any municipality choosing to implement RCV. SB 63 is in direct conflict with Ohio’s Home Rule, which allows municipalities and qualified townships to develop their own rules of self-governance.
Another previous court ruling, Village of Newburgh Heights v. Ohio, also contradicts SB 63. In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state of Ohio could reduce local government funds, not withhold them. Why is our state government so afraid of ranked choice voting? It’s a nonpartisan issue. It’s not for the Democrats. It’s not for the Republicans. It’s for the voters.
Why are we allowing those in power to strip away our right to have more representation in our own cities?
Every Ohioan should pick up the phone today and let Governor DeWine know that we’re not going to be silent and complacent while our reps attempt to pass an unconstitutional bill.
Elizabeth Schumacher-Berger
West Carrollton