Los Angeles Times - 01.08.2019

A12 THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION

OPINION

EDITORIALS

---

LETTERS

---

HOW TO WRITE TO US

Please send letters to

[email protected]. For

submission guidelines, see

latimes.com/lettersor call

1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

T

he federal governmenthas
continued to separate migrant
childrenfrom their parents at
the U.S.-Mexico border despite a
court order that sought to se-
verely curtail the practice. Over the course
of a year, 911 more children were taken, the
American Civil Liberties Union charged in a
court filing Tuesday. And where did the
ACLU get those details? From the govern-
ment itself.
U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw in
San Diego had ordered the governmentin
June 2018 to end family separations — a pol-
icy concocted to deter migration from Cen-
tral America — and to reunitemore than
2,000 families. But that ruling also allowed
the government to continue to separate
families under what was supposed to be a
narrow set of circumstances — a determina-
tion that “the parent is unfit or presents a
danger to the child.”
On the face of it, that sounds reasonable.
The government clearly has an interest, and
a responsibility, to ensure that children it
apprehends at the border are safe and se-
cure. As Sabraw recognized, that can on
rare occasions require taking custody of a
child from her parent if there is clear evi-
dence that the child’s welfare is endangered.
But the records cited by the ACLU show
that the government’s arguments for sepa-
rating families are often weak and its rea-
soning spurious. In many cases, the govern-
ment justifies it by citing past acts that
seem to have no bearing on someone’s fit-
ness as a parent: decade-old convictions for
minor criminal acts here in the U.S., for in-
stance, or unsupported allegations of crimi-
nal activity or gang affiliations in home
countries, or crimes that, on closer exami-
nation, turn out to be traffic infractions. Or,
worse, mere allegations with no convictions.
But an ancient conviction for a minor
crime or traffic infraction is not evidence of
a current threat. A bad driving record does
not make one a bad parent. An unchanged
diaper is not evidence of abuse, but the gov-
ernment cited it in separating one family.
(The father decided not to awaken an ailing
child to change her wet diaper; a govern-
ment agent interpreted that as abuse and
took the child away.) In one case, a child was
separated from a parent who had been ac-
cused of damaging property valued at $5.
Common sense says these are not rea-
sons to inflict psychological pain on minors,
or to inflict heart-wrenching agony on par-
ents. According to the ACLU’s analysis, the
average age of the separated children is 9
years old; 20% of the children are under age

5. Two 1-year-old infants were taken away

and not reunited with their parents for five

months.

The statistics cited by the ACLU only be-

gin to tell the story of the government’s er-

rant acts, because the information the gov-

ernment has provided is incomplete. In half

the cases involving alleged criminal history,

for example, there are no supporting details

about whether the parent was ultimately

convicted. The ACLU is seeking fuller re-

ports from the government, which the ad-

ministration ought to be providing to the

public anyway without being ordered to do

so by a judge. This is an area that demands

transparency.

And frankly, the Trump administration’s

animus toward immigrants and its inhu-

mane border policies have eroded any right

it might have had to the benefit of the doubt.

At the very least, the government must rec-

ognize parents’ right to due process, and it

must follow established norms and pro-

cedures for determining when custody must

be suspended.

Far too often, this administration has

acted against the best interests of migrant

children, whether it’s warehousing them in

ill-maintained detention centers in defiance

of the 1997 Flores agreement, which requires

minors be held in the least restrictive condi-

tions possible for no longer than 20 days, or

these heartless decisions to take them away

from their parents.

Underlying all of this is that these are

mostly asylum seekers — families fleeing

dangerous neighborhoods or life-threat-

ening poverty and hoping to find sanctuary

here in the U.S. Whether they receive that

help is a matter for the immigration courts,

but in the meantime, the government

should not be treating them as criminals,

and it certainly should not be abusing chil-

dren psychologically by spiriting them away

without a damned good and well-justified

reason to do so.

They’re still dividing families

Border agents continue to separate

children from their parents, a cruel

practice with little justification.

U.S. BORDER PATROL agents take a

father and son from Honduras into

custody near the U.S.-Mexico border.

John MooreGetty Images

I

t’s understandable thatGov. Gavin
Newsom would want to set himself
apart from his predecessor and show
the world that he’s not just Jerry
Brown 2.0. But by signing a very prob-
lematic bill on Tuesday — one that Brown
vetoed in 2017 — Newsom took a slap at
President Trump that is hyperpartisan,
probably counterproductive and perhaps
even unconstitutional.
The “Presidential Tax Transparency and
Accountability Act” is clearly directed at
Trump, who as a candidate bucked the
modern tradition of releasing his tax re-
turns. The new law requires that candidates
for president in California release five years
of tax records before they can be included
on the state’s primary ballot.
This means Trump must turn over his
tax documents in the 2020 election or be left
off California’s March primary ballot. Hah.
Take that Mr. Trump. Will this damage
Trump’s reelection bid? Of course not. No
matter what happens in California’s pri-
mary, Trump’s name is likely to be on the
November general election ballot in all
states. And the only people hurt by his fail-
ure to appear on the primary ballot are the
millions of California Republicans who will
be denied the right to pick the candidate of
their choice.
To be clear: Presidential candidates
ought to share their tax documents with the
public. Trump’s refusal to do so was arro-
gant, and left the country rightly wondering
what conflicts of interests he has and just
how little he has been paying in taxes.
But adding new requirements for candi-
dates is a bad idea. If California adds this
partisan requirement as a slap at Trump,
what’s to stop red states from adding a re-
quirement that candidates release their
birth certificates, as Arizona’s Legislature

tried to do in 2011? Will some states require

candidates to release their health records?

Do we really want every state to have its own

requirements governing who can run for

president? That’s a recipe for confusion.

If voters think a candidate should have

released his tax returns, they can punish

him or her at the polls on election day.

In any case, there’s a chance this new law

will never have a chance to influence the

2020 primary ballot. Trump’s legal team

plans to sue to block the law on the grounds

that it is unconstitutional.

As we have pointed out in editorialsmore

than once, states have the authority to regu-

late some ballot access for federal elections,

such as setting deadlines, applying fees and

requiring candidates to gather signatures.

It’s not clear, though, if they can place fur-

ther restrictions on presidential candidates’

qualifications beyond what is already re-

quired by the U.S. Constitution — that a

candidate be 35 years old, a natural-born

U.S. citizen and a resident of the U.S. for at

least 14 years.

In a relevant case in 1995, the Supreme

Court ruled that Arkansas couldn’t bar a

congressional candidate from the ballot just

because he or she had already served more

than two terms. Basically, the court was say-

ing it wasn’t the state’s job to set qualifica-

tions for a federal candidate.

There’s also the question of whether this

new law strays too far into regulating politi-

cal parties. Primaries exist so that parties

can nominate their candidates in the race.

In 2000, the Supreme Court told California it

couldn’t monkey around with how the

parties picked their nominees.

If other states take similar action, it may

well deepen the partisan divide that has

roiled politics and turned Americans

against one another. How does that help?

The tax returns of candidates

More high-speed

rail fantasy

Re “Bullet train hits a

money switch,” July 30

As the reality of the folly

of the high-speed rail line

from Bakersfield to Modes-

to finally becomes undeni-

able, the state pivots and

tries an end run. Now, we

are being told that funds

may be diverted so we can

have higher-speed rail

between Burbank and

Anaheim.

Well, we have some

excellent examples of how

that works. I have ridden

the systems in Taiwan and

Japan. They’re nice, and

some of their lines are

subsidized, I might add.

They do whisk you along at

high speeds.

But that’s out in the

country with nothing

around. As soon as they

enter a city, the trains slow

down.

The last time I checked,

Burbank to Anaheim is still

heavily populated. No train

is going through there at

high speeds — no way, no

how, not ever. Reality bites.

Michael Gorman

Shadow Hills

::

The potential money

switch puts the high-speed

train on a different but no

better track. Switching

tracks, like switching deck

chairs on the Titanic, de-

flects attention from the

underlying problem.

In 2013, Sacramento

Superior Court Judge

Michael Kenny ruled that

the High-Speed Rail Au-

thority “abused its discre-

tion” in approving a fund-

ing plan that fails to iden-

tify required funding

sources. Now, in 2019, noth-

ing in that ruling has

changed.

Why is a switch to con-

ventional slower-speed rail

even being considered? In

2008, the high-speed train

bond measure was passed

by voters. Since then,

China has built 18,000 miles

of high-speed train lines.

Why is it that we haven’t

been able to build even one

mile of the 500-mile high-

speed train system that

was supposed to be com-

pleted by 2020?

Albert Perdon

De Luz, Calif.

::

Every two weeks I see

10% taken out of my pay-

check for California state

income taxes. Now, I read

about $20 billion in funding

for a high-speed rail line

between Bakersfield and

Merced.

While considering the

sheer audacity of this

wasteful project and my

paycheck again headed

down the drain, I was re-

minded of Steve Mc-

Queen’s character in

“Papillon,” who, when

asked by Dustin Hoffman’s

character if his desperate

plan to escape the island

on a raft made of coconuts

will work, replied, “Does it

matter?”

Kevin H. Park

Westlake Village

More math will

not fix anything

Re “Why make it harder to

apply to CSU?” editorial,

July 29

As a secondary math

teacher in the Los Angeles

Unified School District for

16 years, I am certain that

requiring a fourth year of

high school math to enter

Cal State won’t increase

CSU’s graduation rates.

I also fear that aligning

high school graduation

requirements to this pro-

posed requirement may

reduce high school gradua-

tion rates. Typically, third-

year high school math is

Algebra 2. Before LAUSD

aligned its graduation

requirements with the

entrance requirements of

the University of California

and Cal State systems, my

Algebra 2 students worked

hard and were motivated

to succeed.

However, after the

graduation requirements

changed, my Algebra 2

classes contained many far

less motivated students

who had much difficulty

with the material. In fact,

students who had difficulty

in any high school math

class were academically

underprepared.

I believe there are two

primary reasons for the

persistent under-pre-

paredness in math: the

effects of poverty on fam-

ilies, and the fact that the

developmental level of the

Common Core curricu-

lum’s early-grade math

standards is beyond most

youngsters’ cognitive

capabilities. These prob-

lems cannot be solved by

adding new requirements

in the 12th grade.

Ronel Kelmen

Wright

El Segundo

::

Your opinion that it’s

too onerous and even

pointless to require more

math classes for admission

into Cal State is wrong.

We Californians gladly

support higher education

as a great investment for

our society. But the need

for remedial math courses

at CSU to cover material

that high school graduates

are supposed to know has

persisted too long, requir-

ing the expenditure of

resources that could be put

to better use.

Rather than turn a CSU

degree into the equivalent

of a youth sport participa-

tion trophy, let’s increase

its value and in the end

obtain more utility for the

tax dollar. Nobody says

that high school graduates

who did not take a fourth

year of math are unworthy

of society’s support, only

that they are not yet ready

for CSU and there are

remedies like the commu-

nity college system.

A CSU degree tells us

the holder has not only

acquired a body of knowl-

edge but has also demon-

strated the effort and

tenacity required to envi-

sion and complete the task.

Let the CSU folks decide

what to expect of the stu-

dents.

Al Stroberg

Ojai

Not impressed

by Adam Schiff

Re “Adam Schiff 's plain

speaking elevated the

Mueller hearings,” Opin-

ion, July 28

As columnist Virginia

Heffernan writes, former

Justice Department spe-

cial counsel Robert S.

Mueller III’s testimony was

indeed going nowhere

when the House Intelli-

gence Committee started

its questioning.

But when Chairman

Adam B. Schiff (D-Bur-

bank) spoke, nothing

changed. This is the same

Schiff who assured us he

had seen actual evidence of

Trump’s collusion — why

should we accept what he

says now?

I dislike Schiff even

more than I dislike Trump,

but I am intellectually

honest. Schiff spoke well

and he read a fine speech; I

give him credit for that.

But the speech was not

grounded in the reality of

evidence. There was no

bombshell revelation, but

Schiff stuck to his script.

Perhaps Schiff showed

his mysterious evidence to

Heffernan.

Arnie Sklar

Beverly Hills

::

When I joined the GOP

55 years ago, it was the

party of Sen. Thomas

Kuchel, supporter of the

Civil Rights Act and a

leading environmentalist,

and Dwight D. Eisenhower,

who during his presidency

was the most imposing

bulwark against possible

aggression by the Soviet

Union.

After reading Heffer-

nan’s column, I am relieved

that someone else agrees

with me that the party that

protected us from Russian

aggression and espionage

and sought to safeguard

our rights no longer exists.

Instead, today’s Republi-

cans seem to have followed

their leader down to the

lowest forms of politics.

Heffernan is right:

Mueller and Schiff again

and again returned to the

report to show the mis-

deeds of the Trump cam-

paign. But since a sitting

president cannot be

charged with a crime, I am

left in a quandary: For

whom can an educated and

moral person like me vote

in 2020?

Bobbi Bruesch

Rosemead

::

When will Democrats

accept the Mueller report

and cease this incredible

waste of time and effort to

attack Trump that is going

absolutely nowhere and

polarizing America?

Russia is not the threat

to America that China is.

Trump was right to seek to

work with Russia.

Now, because of this

anti-Russian hysteria, we

have been alienating that

country since the fall of the

Berlin Wall in 1989 and

forcing it to partner with

China, which will become

very problematic for

America in the coming

decades.

It’s time to move on and

focus on real threats.

Michael Pravica

Henderson, Nev.

No to a ‘yes’ man

Re “Intelligence pick plays to an audience of one,” July 31

Great presidents do not surround themselves with

“yes” men and women. They seek advisors who have

strong and diverse opinions.

George Washington had polar opposites Thomas

Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in his Cabinet.

Abraham Lincoln had Salmon P. Chase, William H.

Seward and Edwin Stanton, who heartily and vocally

disagreed with the president on many issues. John F.

Kennedy hired the “best and the brightest,” regardless of

political affiliation.

Dissenting voices were hallmarks of these

administrations.

President Trump, on the other hand, surrounds

himself with appointees who will flatter and feed his

fragile ego. As the departure of Director of National

Intelligence Dan Coats and the nomination of Trump

loyalist Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) to replace him

shows, if appointees disagree with the president, they’re

out.

Thin skin does not make a good leader.

Rhys Thomas

Valley Glen

Alex WongGetty Images

REP. JOHN Ratcliffe, seen questioning Robert

Mueller, is Trump’s pick for intelligence chief.

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