A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Aurora Sentinel, Sept. 19, on Colin Powell’s comments on immigration reform:
Sometimes it takes restating the obvious to break people free of their rabid misconceptions.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell did just that this weekend on a Sunday morning news show by imploring his fellow Republicans to return to common sense about immigration reform and find a way to bring millions of hard-working illegal immigrants into legal status, because they are an integral and vital part of the U.S. economy.
“They’re all over my house, doing things whenever I call for repairs, and I’m sure you’ve seen them at your house,” Powell said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We’ve got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status.”
He said the Republican Party should not adopt an anti-immigration philosophy and should find a compromise position on ways to bring millions of illegal immigrants into the fold through programs such as the DREAM Act.
Powell is right. Political gridlock on this and other issues does nothing to make America a better place for those who live here legally or illegally.
In a perfect or even a better world, more than 12 million illegal immigrants would have waited their turn to move to the United States, and the government would have offered a better, more expedient immigration system.
But what the United States and especially Congress can no longer ignore is that many, if not most of these people, are firmly entrenched in our societal and economic community, and even if the government were to find a way to round them up and deport them, the effect on the country’s already unstable economy would likely be catastrophic. That’s for two reasons: First, these immigrants do millions of jobs that Americans will not do. Whether it’s because jobs such as roofing, mowing lawns, cleaning motel rooms, dressing carcasses or laying bricks are too hard of work or don’t pay enough, the jobs, even when unemployment is so high, go wanting.
Second, filling those positions with immigrants willing to work for lower wages keeps the rate for many services low. Millions of businesses across the country would struggle or fail if their cheap labor pool were to wither.
There are many emotional aspects of the illegal immigration debate, but the pragmatic issues must take precedent here. Congress must take on the issue with an imminent solution—not roadblocks—in mind.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Sept. 20, on the DREAM Act: Children should not be sucked into the often ugly debate of immigration or penalized for the illegal acts of their parents.
Yet among the 3 million students who graduate from high school each year are 65,000 who entered the country illegally. And while most of them had no say in the matter of joining their parents in an illegal border crossing, once they graduate from high school their dreams of making a better life for themselves in this country often end.
Because public schools aren’t allowed to screen out illegal immigrants, these graduates have received significant U.S. taxpayer investment in their educations.
The DREAM Act, which is gaining some momentum in the U.S. Senate, seeks to help our nation benefit from those investments. In fact, we think the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act is a common sense solution that would make our nation stronger.
It’s a smart way to bring about some small reform to the problem of illegal immigration. And making it easier for these students, who have grown up and been educated as Americans, to become legal citizens makes good sense economically.
Keeping them in the shadows when they could be openly contributing to society takes away their hope, and with a loss of hope sometimes comes criminal and negligent behavior.
The DREAM Act has had bipartisan support in the past, but is often stalled in the harsh political debate over the problem of illegal immigration.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., now says he will introduce the legislation into a defense policy bill that lawmakers plan to address before exiting Washington to campaign for November elections.
President Barack Obama supports the measure. Colorado’s senators, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, both support the DREAM Act, too.
We would rather lawmakers address the DREAM Act on its own merits, and not as an add-on to other important legislation. Yes, the DREAM Act contains a military component. But passing controversial measures by attaching them to must-have legislation, such as bills to support the troops, is part of what makes Americans so cynical about Washington.
In fact, Reid’s plans drew fire from longtime supporters of the DREAM Act. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, who has voted for the DREAM Act in the past, said last week that the “Senate leadership is insisting on ignoring the will of the people and holding our troops hostage by cynically pushing a defense bill chock-full of controversial measures to score cheap political points with its liberal base.”
Perhaps, but then again, sometimes that’s how controversial bills become law.
The DREAM Act would allow people up to the age of 35 who entered the country before they were 15 to become citizens if they attend college or join the military.
The immigrants must have been in the country for five consecutive years and either graduated from high school, obtained a GED, or won admittance to a college or university.
They also must be of good standing.
While we’d rather see the legislation stand on its own, the DREAM Act would be good for America.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Pueblo Chieftain, Sept. 21, on political ads funded by Accountability for Colorado:
A radio ad attacking Republican state legislative candidate Keith Swerdfeger is about as scurrilous as they come.
It’s the product of a so-called 527 committee, Accountability for Colorado. The largest contributor is the Colorado Education Association, which is also financially backing Mr. Swerdfeger’s opponent, Carole Partin, a Democrat and president of the Pueblo Education Association.
The 527 committees are not directly attached to candidates, but they certainly can throw their vitriol against candidates who oppose those they favor. Thus Mr. Swerdfeger is compared to Ponzi scheme criminal Bernie Madoff and accused of mishandling union pensions.
Mr. Swerdfeger is proud that the company he founded, K.R. Swerdfeger Construction, is a union shop (his wife is the daughter of a former steelworker union official). Yet he also has been a leader in the business community and, as chairman of the Pueblo Economic Development Corp., led the team that brought the Vestas wind tower plant and all its jobs to Pueblo.
Reckless allegations by despicable 527s such as Accountability for Colorado can leave the wrong impression with casual readers or listeners. In this case we thought it best to set the record straight.
Editorial:
———
The Coloradoan, Sept. 19, on Rep. Markey’s decision to not participate in a debate: Rep. Betsy Markey is right when she told the Coloradoan editorial board last week that debates offer an unfiltered opportunity for the public to view candidates.
That is just one reason why Markey’s decision last week not to participate in an Oct. 16 debate alongside her Republican opponent, Cory Gardner, is shortsighted, to say the least.
Markey said she declined to participate in the 9News/Coloradoan debate because of a longstanding policy at the TV station that requires that candidates participating in the debate must have received a polling of 10 percent or greater. Markey wants all four candidates, including independent Ken “Wasko” Waszkiewicz and Doug Aden of the American Constitution Party, to participate.
At first glance, her reasons for not participating seem magnanimous. She is correct that all four candidates have earned their places on the ballot.
But a deeper look reveals that political strategy, not generosity of spirit, is the true motivation here. Political experts say Markey’s campaign staff likely would prefer to have Aden and Waszkiewicz in the debate and in the conversation about the debate in hopes that they might draw conservative voters from Gardner.
In other words, political strategy at this moment is trumping the need for the public to see the top two candidates square off in a debate. That means voters won’t be given an unfettered opportunity to compare and contrast the top two candidates in a forum that has drawn the largest audience in the 4th Congressional District in the past.
Markey, a former Larimer County Democratic Party chairwoman and former staff member of Sen. Ken Salazar has not raised such objections to debate rules before. Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat, and Republican Ken Buck have participated in two debates so far without their eight other minority party candidates. So, too, has Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, who has debated Republican Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo of the American Constitution Party without seven other candidates.
Markey said she still is talking with a local TV channel and Rocky Mountain PBS about either a candidates’ forum or debate that would involve the four candidates.
Time is running out here for voters to become informed about their candidates beyond closely controlled campaign messaging.
Markey is the incumbent and has longtime political experience. She should welcome a debate in any form.
Editorial:
