To the editor: I couldn’t agree more with guest contributor David J. Bier that immigration, like many other things in the country, should be subject to the rule of law (“Voters wanted immigration enforcement, but not like this,” June 5). Prior to the Trump era, the problem was that those responsible for determining immigration policy couldn’t reach consensus on what the policy and the law should be. Well, maybe they could have if Donald Trump hadn’t intervened to block proposed bipartisan immigration legislation, just to keep the issue alive for the 2024 presidential campaign. Against that backdrop, I’m baffled that Bier doesn’t point out that, for President Trump, the chaos and the cruelty are the point.
June Ailin Sewell, Marina del Rey
..
To the editor: The article raises an important point: Support for border enforcement doesn’t justify extreme or harmful policies. Many voters expected a more thoughtful, humane approach, not one that detains families or rushes deportations without considering individual circumstances. These methods don’t reflect the values of fairness and dignity most Americans still believe in.
People say that tough enforcement is about following the law, but without compassion, the law does more harm than intended. Enforcing immigration policies should involve smart case-by-case judgment and not punishment for everyone. A better approach would balance safety with empathy and recognize that real solutions come from true understanding, not fear.
Patricia Geronimo, Redondo Beach
