Los Angeles Times - 13.08.2019

A8 TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION

OPINION

EDITORIALS

---

LETTERS

---

HOW TO WRITE TO US

Please send letters to

[email protected]. For

submission guidelines, see

latimes.com/letters or call

1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

T

he Trump administration is
moving — again — to make it
more difficult for even legal im-
migrants to get a foothold in the
United States.
Beginning in October, a new rule will
make immigrants who use certain govern-
ment safety-net programs ineligiblefor per-
manent residency, blocking their path to
naturalized citizenship. The move, which is
likely to be challenged in court, meshes with
the administration’s other efforts to funda-
mentally change the nature of U.S. immigra-
tion from a focus on family reunification to
one based on English proficiency, educa-
tional level and work experience.
Barring legal status to immigrants be-
cause they might need a little short-term as-
sist is hardhearted, but also in stride for an
administration that sees nothing wrong
with incarcerating children who arrive at
the border asking for help. Yet research
shows that even those who do need some fi-
nancial help over time learn or improve
skills that move them into higher-income
brackets and help the overall economy.
The new rule would make legal immi-
grants ineligible for green cards if they use
or are deemed likely by the government to
use some public benefits for more than 12
months within a 36-month period. That
means legal immigrants — say, people here
on student or temporary work visas — who
are entitled by law and regulation to turn to
public benefit programs, such as Medicaid
or food stamps, may jeopardize their future
legal status just by accepting help to which
Congress has said they are entitled.
Immigrant rights advocatesare right-
fully up in arms, arguing that the new rule
punishes the poor and violates immigration
law. They also warn that, because of the
rule’s complexity, people will avoid seeking
medical help or other benefits for fear of in-
advertently jeopardizing their eligibility to
become permanent residents.
The Department of Homeland Security
first proposedthe restriction in October,
eliciting more than 266,000 public com-
ments, triple the average for most of the
agency’s proposed rules. The government
subsequently amended the proposal, and
the version to be published Wednesday does
not apply to women who receive public as-

sistance during pregnancy or within 60 days

after giving birth. It also does not penalize

low-income immigrants whose premiums

for Medicare Part D are subsidized by tax-

payers, children up to age 21, or recipients of

emergency medical assistance, aid from

school lunch programs and food pantries,

subsidized student loans and mortgages,

temporary housing, or disaster relief, as the

Associated Press reported. But the govern-

ment said the changes could still affect

about 382,000 immigrants a year, an esti-

mate advocates say is too low.

We are already seeing the effects. After

the rule first surfaced late last summer, im-

migration advocates say, they noted a drop-

off in the number of people seeking assist-

ance, most of them fearful that receiving

short-term help could keep them from re-

maining in the country or becoming a citi-

zen. That would not reduce immigration

levels, just make the intervening years more

difficult for the immigrants.

As it is, the government has a long his-

tory of rejecting visa requests and green

card applications from people who are likely

to become dependent on the government

for subsistence. That has reasonably been

interpreted to mean people who rely on cash

support or people who would require insti-

tutional care. Major social service programs

also are out of reach for most legal immi-

grants until they’ve been here for five years.

And laws already bar those living here with-

out permission from nearly all public sup-

port programs.

There is a serious discussion to be had

about what our national priorities are for

determining who is eligible to immigrate.

For generations the focus has been on family

reunification, with parents and children of

U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents

getting preference. The Trump administra-

tion wants to limit admission to those who

already speak English, have definable skills

and an education, and who will be ready to

add to the economy upon arrival.

Other nations, such as Canada and Aus-

tralia, have tried similar systems with vary-

ing results. But historically, immigrants

from all over the world, including those who

arrived not speaking the language and with

little more than pocket change, have added

to the American stew pot and helped fuel

our prosperity.

The nation will in the coming years need

more immigrants with varying levels of

skills, especially as birthrates decline and

our overall population ages. Policies such as

the new public charge rule erect yet another

wall in their way.

A miserly rule on green cards

The Trump administration moves

to deny permanent legal status to

immigrants who use the safety net.

T

he Trump administration an-
nounced reckless and poten-
tially devastating new rules
Monday that will weaken the En-
dangered Species Act, which
currently bestows a mantle of protection
over 1,663 species of animals and plants. Of
those, 1,275 are considered endangered and
close to extinction. Another 388 are listed as
threatened — the polar bear is one — and at
risk of becoming endangered.
In the 46 years since it was signed into
law by President Nixon, the Endangered
Species Act has protected imperiled wildlife
and brought many species back from the
brink of extinction. The law is credited with
saving such species as the bald eagle (which
recovered sufficiently to be delisted), as well
as the California condor and the grizzly
bear, both of which are still considered en-
dangered. So are the right whale, the San
Joaquin kit fox, and the rusty patched
bumblebee.
California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra and
his counterpart in Massachusetts an-
nounced Monday they were considering fil-
ing a lawsuit to challenge the new rules. We
certainly hope they will.
These irresponsible and short-sighted
changes will lead to further extinctions,
damage the ecosystem and set back the na-
tion’s efforts to protect wildlife — all as a gift
to industry, which finds the law costly and
burdensome. The new rules will no doubt
clear the way for building, mining, and oil
and gas drilling in sensitive areas.
The new rules follow a report from the
United Nations this year that more than 1
million plants and animals around the
world face extinction, some within decades,
owing to human development, climate
change and other threats.
Since it became law in 1973, the act has
required that the decision to list an endan-
gered or threatened species must be made

on the basis of scientific criteria without ref-

erence to the decision’s possible economic

effects. The administration’s new rule re-

moves that language, clearing the way for

cost-benefit analysis to be considered. Al-

though some officials suggested that econo-

mic impacts would be considered only for

informational purposes, it is nevertheless a

giant concession to industries that have

long complained about having to make ex-

cessive accommodations because of the law.

Also, the act has always protected

species designated as endangered from be-

ing “taken,” meaning that they can’t be

killed or maimed or harassed. A threatened

species got the same protection, except in

the case of a special rule specifying other-

wise. The new rules remove that automatic

protection for threatened species, unless

there is a specific rule written. (So the pre-

sumption has been reversed; the exception

has become the rule.)

But a key purpose of the law has been to

keep threatened species from becoming en-

dangered species. Wildlife advocates,

rightly, fear that rolling back automatic pro-

tections and requiring special action from

the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect an

endangered species will be a time-consum-

ing process and will leave the service vulner-

able to political pressure from developers.

The new rules include language that ad-

vocates fear will make it harder to protect

the habitats of species that are designated

as threatened or endangered, and to put re-

strictions on land use there.

And where the law has required that a

proposed project’s impact on a species take

into account the effects for the “foreseeable

future,” the new rules have added a defini-

tion of that term that limits how far into the

future “foreseeable” is. That’s an obvious ef-

fort to lessen the connection to climate

change in these determinations.

It’s unconscionable — and dangerous —

to be removing protections at a time when

scientists warn that a million species could

become extinct. The new rules should be le-

gally challenged and overturned. They

undermine a progressive and far-sighted,

environmentally conscious law that has

worked well for nearly half a century.

Endangering the endangered

Trump’s weakening of Endangered

Species Act protections are a gift

to industry but a blow to nature.

Wow! Eighty-nine more

registered Democrats than

Republicans in Orange

County.

Does that margin really

deserve a big splash on

your front page? I would

think that the Los Angeles

Times would report this

big deal when that number

was really meaningful.

But then again, I’m not

surprised given the direc-

tion your paper has gone in

recent years.

Dick Shooshan

San Marino

What Trump’s

taxes may reveal

Re “Trump can’t be com-

pelled to release his tax

returns,” Aug. 9

Law professors John

Yoo and Robert Delahunty

are on solid constitutional

ground in arguing that

states cannot create new

qualifications for federal

office, such as California’s

new law requiring presi-

dential candidates to dis-

close five years of tax re-

turns to appear on the

primary ballot. This law

seems to target a recalci-

trant President Trump.

But they go on to say,

“Democrats have long

sought to force the disclo-

sure of his tax returns, and

Democrats in the House

are suing the IRS to com-

pel their release.”

Yes and rightly so, as

the federal tax code states

that upon the written

request of the chairman of

the House Ways and

Means committee, the IRS

shall deliver the tax re-

turns of any person. Our

system of separation of

powers gives Congress the

oversight authority and

duty to investigate malfea-

sance in the office of the

president.

The president’s tax

returns would be an inte-

gral element of such an

investigation.

Nate Tucker

Costa Mesa

::

I tend to agree with Yoo

and Delahunty when they

state that California’s new

tax-return law will likely

fail in the courts. However,

the case is valuable in

exposing a flaw in our

Constitution.

The Constitution’s

now-widely known Emolu-

ments Clause cannot be

enforced until we the peo-

ple have access to the

president’s financial re-

cords. Yoo and Delahunty

criticize California’s law as

partisan, but the reality is

that the opposition to it is

equally partisan, and a

Republican-run Senate

will never enforce the

Emoluments Clause.

This raises the ques-

tion: If the federal govern-

ment will not uphold the

Constitution, can the

states take action? Noth-

ing in the California law

states that only Republi-

cans must release their tax

returns, so in the long run,

we the people benefit from

increased transparency.

Ideally, the U.S.

Supreme Court will strike

down California’s law, but

only if a federal law re-

places it and makes tax-

return disclosure consis-

tent for the whole country.

Bill Gervasi

Ladera Ranch

::

To my former law school

professor Yoo, I ask: Why

isn’t the entire primary

system unconstitutional?

What authority did the

state of California have 110

years ago to mandate that

political parties choose

their nominees through

the ballot box rather than

through caucus, conven-

tion or whatever other

means such party should

choose?

If the state has the

authority to override a

private club’s ability to

choose its nominees, then

it would seem to me that a

tax return disclosure re-

quirement hardly “dis-

rupts Republicans’ asso-

ciational rights” any more

than the primary system

itself does.

Mike Heath

Venice

::

Yoo and Delahunty

argue that the California

law requiring disclosure of

five years of tax returns to

qualify for the primary

ballot is unconstitutional

because, among other

things, it establishes an

additional requirement to

run for the presidency.

I’m not convinced. For

one thing, some states for

years have had the require-

ment of a filing fee; isn’t

that “additional”?

For another, the law

doesn’t preclude a candi-

date from running as a

write-in candidate.

Rick Dunn

San Diego

Recycling bins

won’t save us

Re “The plastic bottle ban

at SFO,” editorial, Aug. 9

Thank you for the edito-

rial on the single-use plas-

tic bottle ban at San Fran-

cisco International Airport

and the innovative mea-

sures designed to reduce

inconvenience to travelers.

But therein lies the root

cause, as you identified:

our desire for convenience

that too often overrides all

other factors. At least

water bottles can be recy-

cled, though too few are.

Consumers need to

understand that plastic

items such as straws and

utensils are rarely recycled

because they are too small

or fragile for recycling

processing equipment, or

of little or no value. Recy-

cling bins cannot resolve

our consumption excesses.

Even more problematic

are delivery food contain-

ers. Most paper versions

have grease-resistant

coatings that studies have

linked to health problems.

Paper beverage cups are

not 100% paper — they’re

lined with polyethylene.

When discarded in a land-

fill, the container’s paper

portion, which is an orga-

nic material, generates the

greenhouse gas methane

when it decomposes.

The the only solution is

to abandon our single-use

disposable ethic. Cali-

fornia’s recently enacted

AB 619 allows customers to

bring their own food con-

tainers, so encourage your

favorite eatery to offer a

discount when you arrive

with bowl or plate in hand.

Jennifer Pinkerton

Glendale

::

I lived the first 50 years

of my life without the avail-

ability of bottled water.

When I went camping I

brought a canteen. When

my family went on a picnic

we brought a jug.

Now, a generation that

is supposedly more con-

scious of the environment

is dropping tons of plastic

on the world, apparently

because they can’t go an

hour without a sip.

If we must pamper the

public with plastic, let’s tax

the heck out of it to pay for

its complete removal from

the face of the Earth.

Don Tonty

Los Angeles

Renting a car vs.

renting a scooter

Re “Scooter safety,” letter,

Aug. 9

In his letter to the ed-

itor, the executive director

of the Micromobility Coali-

tion tries to ward off regu-

lations on electric scooter

operators by comparing

the renting of these scoot-

ers to car rentals.

This comparison is

false. To rent an electric

scooter, all that is needed is

an app and credit card. To

rent a car a valid driver’s

license is required, along

with the completion of a

lengthy form of one’s per-

sonal information, and a

credit card. This informa-

tion-heavy process of rent-

ing a car allows authorities

to track down the driver if

one breaks the law.

The minimal require-

ments to rent an electric

scooter, touted as one of its

benefits, makes it difficult

to track down a rider who

breaks the law.

Matthew Hetz

Los Angeles

::

The writer wonders if

people who want electric

scooter companies to be

fined for the misuse of their

products believe rental car

companies should be held

responsible for their il-

legally parked vehicles.

If Hertz or Avis rolled

out their services by en-

croaching on public space

and disrespecting the

community and ignoring

safety concerns; if they left

cars randomly and illegally

parked anywhere near the

frequency that scooter

riders do; if the number

and placement of illegally

parked rental cars were

such that they could bur-

den or harm an elderly, a

disabled or a blind person;

and if Hertz or Avis did not

supply authorities with the

identity of a violating op-

erator, then yes, Hertz or

Avis should be fined.

These foreseeable prob-

lems are of the scooter

companies’ own making

and are theirs to solve. If

penalties do not motivate

them, then a complete ban

should be considered.

Chris Fay

Venice

Emoji-less

Re “Code pink,” letter, Aug.

11

Leave the murals de-

picting history alone. If any

piece needs to be painted

over, it is the bubble-gum-

pink-with-emojis display in

Manhattan Beach. It

serves no useful purpose,

artistic or otherwise.

Karen Scott Browdy

Fillmore

Orange, the new blue

Re “Going blue in Orange County,” Aug. 8

Blue has always been my favorite color, but growing

up in Santa Ana during the 1950s and 1960s, behind the

reliable “Orange Curtain,” it never extended to politics

until now, just as the number of registered Democrats

has started to outnumber that of Republicans.

The GOP is wrong to attribute its decline in

registration and influence to anything but the wrong

message and the wrong messengers for our time. My

representation in Congress and the state Assembly

flipped in 2018 for the first time in memory. The rise in

constituent services since has been dramatic.

The Republicans are dreaming if they think they can

prevail with more cardboard conservatives, more

partisan warriors and more obstructionists at all levels.

Tim Geddes

Huntington Beach

Allen J. SchabenLos Angeles Times

VOLUNTEERS with the Laguna Beach Demo-

cratic Party at the Orange County Fair last week.

EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong

EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine

MANAGINGEDITOR

Scott Kraft

SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR

Kimi Yoshino

DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS

Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,

Julia Turner

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS

Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich,

Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez

Opinion

Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES

F OUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR