Editorials
Friday, September 27, 1996
Immigration reform bills
are still flawed
THE House has passed and sent to the Senate separate immigration reform bills, both of which should be killed. Unfortunately, one has a chance of Senate passage, which would leave it to President Clinton to exercise his veto.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott already has taken a swipe at Clinton on the issue, charging that the president's call for more changes in the main bill is a ruse to hide the administration's opposition to cracking down on illegal aliens. But there are still serious problems with the measure as it emerged from the House, problems that must either be corrected in the Senate or leave it deserving of the legislative graveyard.
Earlier the House dropped a provision that would have allowed states to deny public education to children who are illegal aliens, but this was approved as a separate bill. The measure makes no sense because it would put children on the streets, where they would create worse problems. Fortunately the Senate is expected to kill the bill and Clinton has vowed to veto it.
However, the main immigration bill as passed by the House is still badly flawed. For example, legal immigrants who used almost any form of public assistance for a year could be deported. The courts would be barred from reviewing many actions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
This means, among other things, that legal immigrants convicted of minor offenses could be deported without judicial review. It is unfair and unnecessary to victimize legal immigrants when the real problem is illegal immigrants. This is pandering to xenophobia.
The sensible provisions of the bill would increase the number of border patrol guards by 1,000 a year through 2001, strengthen penalties for falsifying documents and smuggling people into the country, and requiring higher incomes for sponsors of immigrants.
Lott warned that Clinton's new demands for changes could kill the bill. That would be better than approving its dangerous provisions. The constructive ones could be approved separately. If the bill comes to his desk in its present form, Clinton should veto it.
Ban on ephedrine
IT'S hard to argue with a doctor on a medical issue, and the other eight members of the City Council weren't about to argue with Councilman Duke Bainum, who is entitled to an M.D. after his name, on the issue of the drug ephedrine.
A bill introduced by Bainum and passed unanimously would bar persons under 21 from purchasing products containing ephedrine. Bainum said ephedrine products have killed at least 17 Americans in recent years from heart attacks and strokes. Donald Mastriano, a health-food distributor, told the Council he was concerned about a requirement that ephedrine products be labeled for sale to those 21 and older. He argued that a company can't be required to label products specially for sale in Honolulu.
The complaint has merit. This is an issue that should be handled on a nationwide basis. But we can't fault the Council for acting to protect the health of the community.
Vandalism on Internet
IN the brave new world of cyberspace, not everyone is bursting with brotherly love. Bigots may also acquire the ability to plug into the Internet. Not only that; some have learned how to wipe out material they don't like. It's sort of like burning books, without the paper.
Last weekend electronic vandals wiped clean dozens of public bulletin boards used by Jews, Muslims, feminists and homosexuals, erasing copies of an estimated 27,000 messages. There have been other assaults on the Internet, among them alterations of the World Wide Web home pages of the Justice Department and the CIA. Everything, it seems, is vulnerable.
The era of cyberspace is bound to spawn volumes of new legislation to deal with these problems. The danger is not that the government will fail to act to protect the Internet but that it will overreact and try to censor the vandals.
Hospital stays
PRESIDENT Clinton, despite protests by insurance carriers, has signed a bill requiring them to pay for at least two-day hospital stays for new mothers and their babies. Controlling the cost of medical care is imperative, but pushing mothers out of the hospitals too soon is no way to do it. Talk about a motherhood issue!
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor