A18 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.WEDNESDAY, JULY 31 , 2019
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR[email protected]LOCAL OPINIONSJoin the debate at washingtonpost.com/local-opinionsH
ERE’S WHAT the State Department recom-
mends for U.S. travelers to Guatemala: Do
not walk or drive at night. Request security
escorts. In the capital, Guatemala City, do
not hail taxis on the streets and avoid 10 specific
neighborhoods, including one around the airport.
Here’s what the Trump administration recom-
mends to non-U.S. travelers to Guatemala, namely
those from other Central American countries: Stay
there and apply for asylum. Don’t even think about
continuing north to the U.S. border.
The juxtaposition is absurd but no less so than the
agreement the administration struck last week with
Guatemala — that it be considered a “safe third
country” to which the United States will return
asylum seekers if they have not already sought refuge
there. If the administration’s contempt for Central
Americans fleeing violence, hardship and persecu-
tion was not already clear, this new policy clarified it.
The rule, set to take effect in the coming weeks if
U.S. or Guatemalan courts don’t block it, is mainly
aimed at migrants from El Salvador and Honduras.
They constitute the second- and third-largest cohortsof asylum seekers crossing the U.S. southwestern
border in recent months, and most of them traverse
Guatemala on their trek northward. (The largest
cohort is Guatemalans themselves, who accounted
for a majority of the more than 100,000 migrants
stopped at the border monthly this past spring.)
President Trump, irate at the migrant flow, has
used slander — “these are bad people,” he told report-
ers — and a grab bag of legally dubious deterrent
measures. He is right that Customs and Border
Protection and other agencies are struggling to han-
dle the tide, which resulted in nearly 700,000 appre-
hensions in the current fiscal year through June,
compared with scarcely 400,000 the entire previous
year. But it is morally indefensible to attack a migra-
tion problem by putting migrants themselves at risk.
That is precisely what the administration’s new move
would do.
The United States maintains a safe-third-country
agreement with Canada, meaning that asylum seek-
ers can be returned to that country to apply for refuge
if they crossed the border from there. That makes
sense because Canada is generally safe; Guatemala isanything but. And the retort of acting homeland
security secretary Kevin McAleenan, who noted that
parts of the United States are also unsafe, is risible.
Guatemala’s crime rate dwarfs that of the United
States; the homicide rate there is five times higher.
The probable result of the administration’s policy,
if it goes into effect, will be to transform legal asylum
seekers into undocumented immigrants. They are
unlikely to seek refuge in Guatemala, which has no
administrative mechanism to process thousands of
asylum applications — and which agreed to the deal
with the United States only after Mr. Trump threat-
ened severe sanctions. Instead, many will likely cross
illegally into the United States and live in the shad-
ows.
Mr. Trump’s response is to build his border wall,
which got a lift last week when the Supreme Court
said construction could proceed while challenges to
funding it continue in the courts. But walls can be
scaled, tunneled under and circumnavigated;
Mr. Trump’s wall would not stanch the flow of mi-
grants nor improve the conditions that drive them
from their countries.‘Safe,’ but sorry
A fiction underlies the president’s deal with Guatemala to deter migrants.
Sadhana Singh’s story, as told in the July 27
front-page article “A DACA recipient’s final choice:
Stay or go?,” is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking that
Ms. Singh has been forced to leave her parents and
the country she has called home since age 13. And it is
heartbreaking for our nation to lose bright, talented
and productive individuals such as Ms. Singh and
her husband. Like Ms. Singh, hundreds of thousands
of “dreamers,” those young undocumented immi-
grants largely brought to the United States as
children, have been living in an unacceptable politi-
cal and legal limbo.
When President Trump ended the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program in 2017, he called on
Congress to pass legislation to protect dreamers.The House did just that in June, approving a bill
providing a pathway to citizenship for DACA
recipients such as Ms. Singh, as well as immigrants
with temporary protected status, such as Ms. Singh’s
husband.
But the Senate has failed to follow suit. Perhaps
the Senate is waiting for the Supreme Court to rule
on DACA, which has been kept in place by lower
courts. But a high-court decision won’t come until
next year. How many more heartbreaking stories of
loss must we read before lawmakers do the right
thing?
Ted Mitchell, Washington
The writer is president of the
American Council on Education.‘Dreamers’ will stay in limbo until the Senate acts
ABCDE
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
T
HE ECONOMIC fortunes of Northern Vir-
ginia and suburban Maryland are linked,
but nothing ensures that they march in
lockstep. An array of variables will translate
into unequal distributions of prosperity, prospects
and population going forward — not least the
divergent approaches the two have taken to their
most critical highways.
Northern Virginia is on its way toward comple-
tion of a nearly 100-mile network of tolled express
lanes on the Beltway, Interstates 66, 95 and 395 that
are already used daily by tens of thousands of
commuters and others. Most of it was financed,
built and managed by the private sector, which
keeps most of the revenue and spares taxpayers
most of the burden of a $1 billion investment.
By contrast, a proposal by Maryland’s Republican
governor, Larry Hogan, to add express toll lanes to
the Beltway through Montgomery and Prince
George’s counties, and to Interstate 270 heading
north to Frederick, faces uncertain prospects and
opposition from local officials, all Democrats.
In suburban Virginia, construction crews are
busy expanding the express-lane network, whichwill not end congestion for most drivers but will
keep it from getting unimaginably worse. In
suburban Maryland, politicians are taking potshots
at a plan that would position the region — and some
of the nation’s most congested roads — for the
future.
Make no mistake about what that future has in
store. The Washington region is on track to grow by
more than 1 million people by 2045, and car usage
nationally is expanding faster than the rate of
population growth. Transit is key to accommodat-
ing the region’s population boom, as well as to
slowing climate change, and elected officials, in-
cluding Mr. Hogan, have taken important steps
toward improving transit options. But transit alone
will not avert a future of pervasive gridlock.
In Maryland, critics of Mr. Hogan’s proposal are
right that more road-building will increase demand.
But given projected growth, it is folly to imagine
that the existing road network is adequate. The real
question is what degree of misery officials today will
inflict on commuters tomorrow.
The express lanes’ opponents warn that the
project will lose money, putting taxpayers at risk.The evidence suggests the opposite: Transurban,
the company that has built and operates most of the
toll lanes in Northern Virginia, says its profits are
healthy and long-term projections are robust. The
fact that the company is rapidly expanding the
network, extending the 95 Express Lanes to Freder-
icksburg, reflects its confidence in a simple fact:
There is plenty of driver demand.
Critics deride the network as “Lexus lanes” for the
rich; to be sure, toll prices, which fluctuate accord-
ing to demand to keep traffic moving swiftly, can get
expensive. But the existing lanes remain free —
they’d be even more congested without the express
lanes — and no one is forced to use the express
network, on which carpoolers and express buses
also travel without charge. Maryland would be wise
to adopt the same model.
Mr. Hogan’s plan comes with costs, including
several dozen houses that would likely be razed to
build the express lanes and hundreds more whose
backyards would be affected. Nonetheless, it is a
sensible response to a predictable crisis that
threatens to consign his state to perpetual also-ran
status in the regional economic sweepstakes.Virginia is in the fast lane. Maryland, not so much.
Ignoring the need for express toll lanes as the population grows will only make traffic worse.
C
HINA’S RULERS made it clear Monday that
they don’t have any new ideas about how to
respond to the protests shaking Hong Kong.
At a rare news conference in Beijing, officials
who deal with Hong Kong affairs defended the police
crackdown with clubs and tear gas, and referred to
the demonstrators as “radical elements” committing
“evil and criminal acts.” The China Daily, a Commu-
nist Party mouthpiece, denounced the protesters as
“colluding with external forces.” These words are
timeworn, stale — and false.
The powers in Beijing are hinting at the use of
People’s Liberation Army forces to put down the
protests, but so far have only hinted, and expressed
hope that Hong Kong’s compliant leader, Carrie Lam,
as well as local police, can keep a lid on the
demonstrations for now. But the tone of Monday’s
remarks was uncompromising and signaled that
Chinese President Xi Jinping sees this crisis as yet
another moment when expressions of dissent and
freedom must be snuffed out. Rather than accept
that Hong Kongers have a legitimate beef and a right
to say so, China’s authorities have painted the
demonstrators as illegitimate, being “carefully or-
chestrated” from outside, as the China Daily put it.
The protests, the news outlet said, are “of the same
hue as the color revolutions that were instigated in
the Middle East and North Africa,” an image of the
Arab Spring that terrifies China’s ruling party-state.
Hong Kong police have faced off against demon-
strators with tear gas and rubber bullets, saying some
protesters have hurled bricks. The protesters are
showing up at different locations and long into the
night, disregarding calls by police to disband. Re-
cently, some protesters were attacked by thugs while
the police stood by. If the leaders in Beijing were
smart, they would see that the protests that began in
June are morphing into something more desperate
than before, and they would be responsive to the
demands. Instead, they dismiss the protests outright.The demonstrations were first sparked by opposi-
tion to legislation allowing extradition of suspects —
including dissidents — from Hong Kong to the
mainland, where they could be subject to Commu-
nist Party whims. Ms. Lam has said the legislation is
shelved, but she has not outright canceled it and
stood fast against any other concessions. Meanwhile,
the protesters have broadened their demands to
include an investigation of police brutality, and Ms.
Lam’s resignation.
The 1997 handover of Hong Kong promised “onecountry, two systems” in which the territory could
preserve its autonomy and freedoms for 50 more
years. By chipping away at those freedoms and by
using strong-arm tactics to suppress the protests,
China’s leaders are revealing their true intent, which
is one country, one system — to coerce Hong Kong
into the mainland’s grip. This month’s protests
showed that Hong Kong’s people will not march
silently to this fate. China is making a large and
potentially costly mistake by failing to understand
the protests and the reasons behind them.China’s mistake
in Hong Kong
The leadership is relying on old
thinking about the demonstrations.ABCDE
FREDERICK J. RYAN JR., Publisher and Chief Executive Officer
News pages: Editorial and opinion pages:
MARTIN BARON FRED HIATT
Executive Editor Editorial Page Editor
CAMERON BARR JACKSON DIEHL
Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor
EMILIO GARCIA-RUIZ RUTH MARCUS
Managing Editor Deputy Editorial Page Editor
TRACY GRANT JO-ANN ARMAO
Managing Editor Associate Editorial Page Editor
SCOTT VANCE
Deputy Managing Editor
BARBARA VOBEJDA
Deputy Managing Editor
Vice Presidents:
JAMES W. COLEY JR. ..................................................................................... Production
L. WAYNE CONNELL..........................................................................Human Resources
KATE M. DAVEY .................................................................................. Revenue Strategy
ELIZABETH H. DIAZ ................................................. Audience Development & Insights
GREGG J. FERNANDES........................................................Customer Care & Logistics
STEPHEN P. GIBSON...................................................................Finance & Operations
SCOT GILLESPIE .......................................................................................... Engineering
KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY...................................................Communications & Events
JOHN B. KENNEDY.................................................................General Counsel & Labor
MIKI TOLIVER KING........................................................................................Marketing
SHAILESH PRAKASH...............................Digital Product Development & Engineering
JOY ROBINS ........................................................................................... Client Solutions
The Washington Post
1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-I was very saddened to read the July 28 front-page
article “Trump steps up divisive rhetoric” and the
op-ed “We refuse to sit idly by” by Clarence J. Fluker,
C. Kinder, Jesse Moore and Khalilah M. Harris. What
do these articles say about our society if the Trump
camp feels that racist tropes will not only motivate
his base but also will not necessarily turn off more
moderate voters? The op-ed clearly illustrated that
many people were and are still angry about the
Obama presidency, first and foremost on racial
grounds.
I’m sorry if President Trump’s white-nationalist
base is upset that Trump supporters are too quickly
labeled “racists.” But what else can you call people
who chant “send her back!” about a congresswoman
who is a U.S. citizen? How can you justify
Mr. Trump’s attack on the other three congresswom-
en in the “Squad,” as well as on Rep. Elijah
E. Cummings (D-Md.)? It’s not just a coincidence
that all five are people of color. It would seem that, to
the Trump camp, only white people are “patriots.”
My husband is a naturalized citizen. I was born in
the United States. Our children were born abroad
but are citizens. Their children, who were also born
abroad, are citizens. My granddaughters are of
mixed race and live in Africa. To Mr. Trump and his
supporters, are they are less American than I am?
I really don’t want to know the answer, because it
would probably make me sadder about the condi-
tion of our country than I already am.
Carol Bouville, BethesdaPresident Trump again used lies to create
turmoil and distraction, this time in an attack on the
district of the congressman who chairs a committee
responsible for oversight of this administration. The
lie: “Rat and rodent infested” is not even close to
describing Rep. Elijah E. Cummings’s (D-Md.) dis-
trict, which has a median income of about
$60,000 and a percentage of college-educated peo-
ple that is greater than the national average. I guess
geography was not a part of the “super genius stuff ”
Mr. Trump claims he learned at the Wharton School.
The distraction: An objective reading of the
Mueller report or a review of the testimony in any of
the multiple trials, lawsuits and convictions against
Mr. Trump and his cronies could result only in one
concluding that he has not drained the swamp but
rather has repopulated it.
Stirring up racial animus is Mr. Trump’s standard
procedure for shifting the focus of the media.
The people of the United States need better from
our leaders.
Richard W. Thoms, DickersonRep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who has
been attacked as a “bully” representing a rodent-
infested district by the president, possesses intelli-
gence, eloquence and dignity that offer stark
contrast to the demeanor and character of his
detractor.
Mr. Cummings’s congressional district also hap-
pens to have the second-highest median income of
any majority-African American congressional dis-
trict in the country.
It is further interesting to observe that, while the
self-styled “very stable genius” occupying the White
House has threatened the college from which he
graduated with a lawsuit should it ever reveal his
academic record, Mr. Cummings was inducted into
Phi Beta Kappa, the most prestigious organization
recognizing academic excellence in the United
States.
Hal Burdett, AnnapolisMr. Trump’s divisive attacks
In her July 28 op-ed, “A medal of honor for
Mueller,” Kathleen Parker faulted Republicans for
their brutal verbal attacks on former special coun-
sel Robert S. Mueller III as he testified last
week. But Ms. Parker compared it to the Democratic
questioning of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett
M. Kavanaugh. A cursory review of the Kavanaugh
performance revealed that it was Mr. Kavanaugh
who asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) whether
she had ever blacked out from drinking. It was
Mr. Kavanaugh whose language and emotional
stability were clearly wanting.
Opinion, if it is to be persuasive, must be based in
fact. Otherwise, it is propaganda.
Joan Salemi, West SpringfieldApples-and-oranges testimony
The July 29 front-page article “Coats to resign as
spy chief” stated that intelligence directors have “not
been such vocal political supporters of a president.”
Well, President Ronald Reagan’s intelligence direc-
tor was William J. Casey, who was a campaign
manager for Reagan in 1980 and a zealous supporter
of the president. As CIA director, Casey was respon-
sible for the cherry-picking of intelligence on the
Soviet Union that exaggerated the power and influ-
ence of Moscow and missed the decline and ultimate
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The Casey example is an important reminder of
the danger of appointing a loyalist such as Rep. John
Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) to be director of national intelli-
gence.
Melvin A. Goodman, Bethesda
The writer was a CIA analyst from 1966 to 1990.Politics is a danger to intelligence
EDITORIALSTOM TOLESI was disturbed to read in the opening sentence of
the ninth paragraph of the July 28 front-page article
“Whispers of concern on Mueller’s sharpness” the
assertion “that rumors were allowed to chase Muel-
ler is something of his own doing.” What would you
have had him do? Issue regular statements to the
media and speak in public?
A good prosecutor in the middle of an ongoing
criminal investigation should say nothing publicly
about the investigation other than “no comment.”
What entitlement do the media or the public have to
expect more than that? In the competitive enterprise
of increasing a customer base, the news media
nonetheless are bound to their obligation of fair
reporting. That does not include circulating rumors.
Facts matter. The same patience required of pros-
ecutors before publicly revealing investigative facts
should be practiced by the media.
Richard Roberts, WashingtonMedia can learn from prosecutors
Letters and Local Opinions: [email protected]
Op-eds: [email protected]