To the Editor:
“A Big Idea to Solve America’s Immigration Mess” (editorial, Jan. 12) was a thoughtful and comprehensive discussion of most of the difficult issues that arise when trying to deal with our broken immigration system.
Both supporters and opponents of immigration believe that the government has the responsibility to keep track of who is in the United States and to prevent those we do not want from staying here.
There is only one way to ensure that the government can keep track of everyone within our borders: a national identification card that cannot be counterfeited and without which no one can work, travel, open bank and credit card accounts, obtain a driver’s license or interact lawfully with the government.
Every person within or entering the U.S. should be given an ID card that is very specific about what the holder can do and how long they can stay. Those without a card should be immediately deported.
Strict enforcement would prevent many of the evils that opponents of immigration want to stop. Not least of these evils are employers who hire those without proper work authorizations and abuse their workers, thus taking for themselves an economic advantage over those employers who obey the law.
Russell A. Simpson
Laredo, Texas
The writer is a retired attorney and a former assistant dean at Harvard Law School.
To the Editor:
My family immigrated to the United States legally from Communist Poland in 1960, and I became a naturalized U.S. citizen as a minor along with my parents.
I’ve long thought there’s something of a middle ground between the left and the right on this issue; the choices do not have to be limited to “a path to citizenship” and “deport them all.”
I know Dreamers and I know their hard-working families who remind me of my own parents, who worked and saved so my brothers and I could live the American dream. So here’s another proposal that I wish our politicians would consider:
1. Anyone who was brought here as a child receives full legal residency and a path to citizenship. They did not have a choice in the matter, and for many the United States is the only home they know. They have been educated here, and we should want them to achieve their fullest potential in our society.
2. Any adult who has been here illegally for a specified period or longer (Congress can decide that) and has no criminal record receives legal residency (and the right to work legally) but no path to becoming a U.S. citizen. Congress could also consider a fine to cover the cost of issuing their green cards. They violated our laws by crossing the border illegally or overstaying their visas; denying them citizenship (and the right to vote for the people who make our laws) is, in my view, an appropriate price to pay.
This seems logical, fair and humane. It would require both Democrats and Republicans to move away from their hard-line stances to actually solve a problem. And it would free up a lot of bandwidth in Congress to tackle the other difficult things in our immigration system that need an overhaul, like border security, asylum and enforcement.
Alice Andors
Arlington, Va.
To the Editor:
Your editorial has some good ideas about immigration, but its premise — that “America needs more people” and needs to grow the economy — is outdated. That is an 18th-century idea; we are now in the 21st century.
The planet is overpopulated and cannot sustain unlimited economic and population growth. The evidence is everywhere: housing shortages; wildfires and other natural disasters exacerbated by global warming; water shortages; food shortages caused by bird flu; plastic and chemicals in everything, including our bodies.
It is time to replace the old “growth” paradigm with one called “sustainability.” We can and must figure out a way to live in harmony with nature. Our lives and future depend on it.
Lindy Rice
Rio Linda, Calif.
The Benefits of Virtual Therapy
To the Editor:
Re “Virtual Appointments Made Me a Better Doctor,” by Helen Ouyang (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 1):
I’m a child psychiatrist. Since March 2020, I have worked strictly from home, and I don’t feel any need to return to my office.
I did enjoy my in-office work. My office was filled with toys and puzzles, and after their first visit (who really likes to go to the doctor?) most kids returned willingly. But I have found it much easier to maintain relationships working remotely.
The “doctor will see you now” aspect, with its deep separation and power differential, has changed. I’m now a guest in your home, and I get significantly more information about home life and family relationships.
The majority of my work relates to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. A substantial percentage of the people I work with are high school and college students, and new entries to the work force who need their medication to stay focused and be successful.
However, organization is not a strong suit of people with A.D.H.D., so I spend a fair amount of time tracking people down to keep their appointments and manage their medication. In the office, they would just be a “no show” — receiving no care but being charged for missing the appointment.
I’m 72 and nearing retirement. But working remotely extended my career. I can throw a load of laundry in and see some patients, then start cooking and see some more. I’m working only three days a week now, and with the shortage of skilled child psychiatrists I know I’m providing a much-needed service.
There is a movement by insurers to limit remote care. This is ill conceived. We don’t need fewer modes of care; we need more.
Steve Auster
Holliston, Mass.
In Praise of Solitude
To the Editor:
Re “Embracing the Joys of Solitude,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, Jan. 3):
As a medical epidemiologist, I cannot agree more with Ms. Grose on her comments about the so-called loneliness epidemic. Notwithstanding its potential adverse health effects, loneliness is a normal and an inevitable experience of our existence.
Labeling loneliness as an epidemic does an injustice to its profound benefits in fostering our resilience, resourcefulness, emotional fortitude, independence and creativity. As the poet Sara Teasdale sagely put it: “Only the lonely are free.”
Guohua Li
Montebello, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Jessica Grose makes some excellent points. As a longtime practitioner of solitude myself (I’m 75 years old), I’d like to add the following praise to the life lived in solitude:
It’s the best way to get to know oneself — the inner, spiritual world we all possess — and understand the universe in a way we would not otherwise. Too many people live in too much distraction.
Can you imagine a deep philosopher who is constantly surrounded by family and other company?
Celik Kayalar
Berkeley, Calif.
To the Editor:
Our Warming Planet
To the Editor:
To witness the machinations of leaders we’ve either chosen or acquiesced in while our planet warms is to accept the aptness of the adage “fiddling while Rome burns” and the fact that we are all Romans.
David Hill
Mill Valley, Calif.
