Ron Overman (“A national emergency,” Nov. 27) and Marci Esparza (“Americans first,” Nov. 30) say we can't afford to take in asylum seekers until we take care of our own people in need. They cite homeless veterans, victims of forest fires, children lining below the poverty line and elders who have to decide between food or medication.
Yes, these problems need to be addressed. There are solutions to the problems that could have been applied ages ago, such as raising the minimum wage to a living standard and fighting climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Would Overman and Esparza support those solutions? Or do they have better ones? I'm looking forward to hearing from them.
What do they think of tear-gassing defenseless civilians, or taking children from their parents? I would be interested in hearing from them on that also.
Yes, helping asylum-seekers would be at taxpayers expense. But if they could become established citizens, they would improve the economy by spending money. That's what drives the economy. They would pay taxes. That would be pay back for the help they would have received, and it would help with a host of problems Overman and Esparza didn't mention.
If every undocumented immigrant were deported, that would leave a big hole in the economy.
Leon Johnson, West Valley City