What to do about NYC migrants and reactions to the GOP presidential debate

Humanity says we should let everyone in [“NYC shelter mandate challenges,” News, Aug. 24]. But not in my backyard. Americans have a conflict of interest. Most want to do the right thing, but at what cost to our family and wallet?

Let’s create an immigration quota based on need. Also, those seeking to become U.S. citizens must, at some point, join America’s military. The five-year obligation would involve both our armed forces and Army Corps of Engineers.

They would become more accustomed to our culture, get paid and get health benefits. Those serving in the Army Corps of Engineers could learn a trade to join the workforce and be self-sufficient.

Problems can be resolved if politics and power took a back seat to common sense and humanity.

— Jack Britvan, Jericho

New York City’s cost to shelter, feed and care for tens of thousands of asylum-seeking migrants could balloon to more than $12 billion in two years [“Mayor: Asylum-seekers to cost NYC $12B by ’25,” News, Aug. 10]. Mayor Eric Adams’ deputy mayor adds that “very few” of these migrants will actually go through the process of filing for asylum, and of these, few will be granted asylum.

According to the law, the migrants cannot work here legally until at least six months after formally applying for asylum. Therefore, at some point, we should stop calling all of them “asylum-seekers” and start calling them what they really are: undocumented migrants.

They are taking precious resources away from our own citizens who are in need. Thousands of people in Hawaii lost everything and are homeless due to the wildfire devastation in Maui. Personally, I would prefer that we use the $12 billion of our tax dollars to help the people in Hawaii.

— John Campanella, Albertson

The editorial “Migrant crisis needs leaders” misses the mark [Opinion, Aug. 18]. Mayor Eric Adams and Gov. Kathy Hochul are mere pawns in the game they have helped perpetuate and now find unsustainable.

The city has taken in some 100,000 asylum-seekers since spring of 2022 while illegal border crossings in 2022 topped 2.7 million. The leadership that is lacking starts and ends with the White House.

— Mark McEntee, Malverne

The failure of leadership has created this sinkhole of despair, with decades of political inaction about immigration reform. It is not a lack of compassion but the obvious question of how many more migrants can this country take in?

Where is the accountability about taxpayer money and its use? We have never seen an outreach of this magnitude toward our own homeless, veterans and others in need of care.

Is it wrong for federal and state leaders to say we can no longer sustain this? Where are Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand? Charity is supposed to begin at home, but we have it backward.

— Tony Giametta, Oceanside

I recently was upstate and was amazed at all the vacant land and buildings. Why aren’t the migrants being sent there instead of overcrowding the city and possibly Long Island?

— Carol Altschuler, Babylon

Reactions to first ’23 Republicans’ debate

When the basic takeaway from the Republican presidential debate is not the content of what the candidates presented but rather the raucous response from the audience, both boos and cheers, something must change [“Takeaways from first GOP debate,” News, Aug. 25]. It seemed more like a gladiator sporting event than a forum for exchange of ideas.

Future debates should take place with no audience or a limited studio audience, as done during the pandemic, so the millions at home can decide for themselves on the topics discussed and candidates’ responses, rather than being overwhelmed with the crowd’s cheers and boos.

The moderators could then focus on the responses rather than crowd control, as well as giving equal time and restraining candidates from freely talking over one another.

— Rory Sadoff, Massapequa

Wednesday night was a sad time for democracy. Most of the candidates on the stage said that they would vote for a candidate if he was convicted of felonies. How sad for the Republican Party, which was once the leader in supporting the rule of law. Convicted means guilty of a crime.

Also, most of them support a man who has contempt for the Constitution; a man who thought about suspending the Constitution to save his job; a man who attacks our judicial system and has no regard for the laws of this country.

Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and former Vice President Mike Pence made the most rational statements. The rest usually just used canned responses.

Wake up, Republicans, before we end up like Turkey and Hungary.

— Jeff Goldschmidt, Stony Brook

I thought the moderators did a decent job of handling chaotic moments. The loud bell letting the candidates know that their time was up was nice, but it would have been nicer if the candidates adhered to the rules.

Here’s a solution. When they hear the bell, they have 10 seconds before the microphone is shut off. It would make for a more organized and less chaotic debate.

— Rich Sundermier, Rockville Centre

I was disturbed by the disconnect between some candidates’ claims to support the Constitution and references to promote their Christian beliefs.

The president is expected to be the president of all the people. That would include Jews, Muslims and Eastern religions such as Buddhism.

If I were an American other than a Christian, I would be insulted by their remarks and fearful that the separation of church and state would not be upheld.

— Linda Frank, Massapequa Park

What a bunch of spineless candidates they showed themselves to be. Almost every Republican raised a hand when asked who would support former President Donald Trump even if he were convicted of the charges he is facing. Really? How then can any Republican be trusted to uphold the Constitution?

— Tom Dwyer, Centereach