Miami congresswoman is trying to bring, common-sense real immigration reform to Congress
Spot on solution
Re: Maria Elvira Salazar's April 27 op-ed, 'I'm offering a solution to our immigration problem.' Thank you, Congresswoman Salazar, for shedding factual light on yours and other congressional leaders' efforts to bring real immigration reform to the U.S. House floor in the form of proposed legislation. As such, we appreciate you informing us of your proposed Dignity Act.
People need to know that facts and data matter. We should not allow politics to interfere with common sense legislation. We need common sense immigration reform, from leaders with common sense.
Keep doing what you are doing and do not fall victim to the white noise.
Jimmy Tate,
North Miami
Far from home
A family friend who had recently fixed our house floors told me he's moving to Lehigh Acres, a town next to Fort Myers. After moving from Peru and working for 30 years, he realized his dream of buying a home was impossible — if he stayed in Miami.
The Miami Herald has been covering stories like his in 'The Shrinking Middle' series, showcasing how extreme housing prices have pushed people out of Miami. We must advocate for zoning reform; more multi-house units, fewer single-family homes.
Reform, however, isn't about changing our way of life, it's about keeping our culture alive. Affordable, multi-unit housing is about protecting people like my friend — and abuelo and abuela — from being priced out of the city. Today, more of our families are being fractured by Miami's outrageous housing costs, like the aunt who moved to Orlando, the cousin who found work in Tampa, or the brother with the view in Austin.
Miami is nothing without those who built it. If we want to defend our city's culture and keep those who make our city special, we must demand zoning reform.
Angel Aguilar,
Homestead
Pope's message
Pope Francis emphasized that global leaders must not turn their backs on the suffering of migrants and vulnerable populations, calling for greater international solidarity and action. His remarks are a moral reminder that addressing crises at their source, through efforts like global health initiatives, is a shared responsibility.
As Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart plays a critical role in ensuring continued U.S. investment in global health. Ongoing support will uphold America's leadership in promoting humanitarian values and help create healthier, more stable communities abroad. This addresses the interconnected challenges of public health, poverty and migration.
Díaz-Balart's commitment to global health aligns with humanitarian principles and strategic interests. Continuing to champion these programs is not only the right thing to do — it is also smart policy for a more secure and compassionate world.
Ellen Haghighi,
South Miami
Changed stripes?
Reading about Casey DeSantis's Hope Foundation made me laugh out loud. First, the resignations of the Foundation's top two administrators, at a time when they are needed most to help explain what happened. However, U.S. Sen. Rick Scott's statement was most humorous.
In the April 22 Herald online article, 'DeSantis officials with Hope Florida oversight won't get Senate confirmation hearings,' Scott said he wanted to know more about how the state spent money. Scott was CEO of Columbia/HCA, a healthcare company. He oversaw the largest Medicare fraud in the nation's history. Though he was never charged with a crime, before being forced to resign, he took a $10 million severance pay, a five-year consulting contract and $300 million in stock and options. The company eventually went bankrupt.
Is this really the same man who wants to know more about the spiraling Medicare fraud possibly committed by Florida's governor and possibly his wife? Is this really the same Scott or a new and improved Scott?
Perhaps we will never know.
Janet Weller,
Coral Springs
Divert-a-bear
Florida's black bears don't need more bullets — they need better trash management. More than a dozen scientific studies have shown that hunting is not an effective way to reduce human-to-bear conflicts. The real solution is common sense: secure garbage containers, remove food attractants and protect agricultural operations with electric fencing.
Most bear conflicts happen when people leave food and trash unsecured. Bears are smart and opportunistic. If they find an easy meal in an overflowing garbage can, a backyard bird feeder, or an unprotected chicken coop, they'll keep coming back. If there's no reward, they move on. Communities that invest in bear-resistant trash cans and dumpsters see real results — without killing bears.
Killing bears doesn't stop conflicts because hunting doesn't target the specific problem. Instead, it removes random bears from the population, leaving the attractants in place for the next bear to find. That's not management.
Instead of pushing for a hunt, Florida should invest in stronger garbage laws and proper enforcement and support for electric fencing around beehives and chicken coops. These are proven ways to reduce conflicts. Let's stop pretending that hunting is a solution when science says otherwise.
Leslie Sardinia,
North Miami Beach
Tougher teeth
Like chlorine, fluoride is a chemical, not medicine. Baby teeth routinely begin erupting at 6-7 months. Permanent tooth buds are developing underneath and begin erupting between ages 6-13.
If traces of fluoride can be incorporated during dental development by drinking fluoridated water, the outer shell, or enamel becomes a denser, harder substance and more resistance to decay.
Fluoridated toothpastes and topical fluoride treatments are encouraged, but cannot replace incorporating fluoride during tooth development.
Steven P. Willis,
Coral Springs
Fallen prestige
Harvard University, America`s oldest and richest University, has a storied history with countless alumni, including American presidents, Supreme Court justices and many accomplished graduates in business, science and the media.
The respect and prestige Harvard received has diminished over the years as the university embraced discriminatory policies which adversely impacted Asian applicants, as evidenced in the Supreme Court case Fair Admission v. Harvard. The Court ultimately struck down Harvard's admission policies, calling them discriminatory.
In recent decades, Harvard tilted further to the left with more left-leaning faculty members. More recently, were the allegations that the school's administration tolerated anti-Jewish hate and that some students were threatened with violence and intimidation. Congressional hearings highlighted Harvard's tolerance and indifference of antisemitism on campus. In response to its record on these issues, the Trump administration cut taxpayer funding. Efforts are also underway to further tax the university.
Harvard's taxpayer funding could be used for public colleges and vocational schools. Harvard can financially stand on its own. Perhaps these actions will lead to much needed internal reforms.
Tim Seale,
Miami
Time to pivot
With all due respect to Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, now is not the time to cower in a corner and tell us that she is anxious and afraid of retaliation. Nor is it the time to use her 'charm' to get a few scraps of concessions.
This is the time to put on her 'big girl panties' and fight — fight for her home state; fight for her constituents; fight for the United States; fight for democracy!
If she cannot fight, we understand. She should just step aside and let those who are willing and able do the fighting.
Jeannette Garcia,
Miami
Senior discount
Recent news reports state that President Trump's aides are considering $5,000 bonuses to families to reverse declining birth rates and push conservative values.
While on its face this appears discriminatory on account of age, maybe to avoid that claim a discount could be given to senior citizens for just going through the motions?
Harry N. Turk,
Miami
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

13 hours ago
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON -- Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Get ready for hunger to skyrocket in North Carolina
At a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida, SNAP recipients were able to use their Electronic Benefits Transfer cards for food. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA). It's hard to fathom in a proposal that includes billions upon billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but one of the most significant changes included in the massive budget bill approved by the U.S. House late last month was this: big cuts to the nation's main anti-hunger program. Under the legislation, millions of people would lose SNAP food assistance benefits. Meanwhile, states would be saddled with 14 billion dollars in new costs. And the impacts will be felt in the stomachs of families across the nation. As Raleigh-area Congresswoman Deborah Ross explained last week, in her district – one of the state's more affluent ones – 20,000 of her adult constituents will lose all of their SNAP benefits. Statewide, a total of almost half a million people will lose benefits and the cuts will ripple through grocery stores and the economy as a whole. The bottom line: Rep. Ross is right. The Republican budget will cause irreparable harm to the people of our state. All caring and thinking North Carolinians should support her effort to push back. For NC Newsline, I'm Rob Schofield.


Skift
a day ago
- Skift
Junk Fees, Airport Security, No Tax on Tips: 7 Travel Bills in Congress We're Tracking
Although travel isn't at the top of Congress' agenda, lawmakers in Washington are discussing several bills that would impact the industry. Travel and tourism isn't at the top of Congress' agenda, which this month is dominated by debate over the President Donald Trump-backed 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill. But that doesn't mean that lawmakers aren't attempting to make laws that would directly affect the hotel, lodging, air travel, and cruise industries. Here are seven such federal bills to watch heading into the summer: 1: Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 Introduced by Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), this bipartisan bill targets 'unfair and deceptive advertising of prices for hotel rooms and other places of short-term lodging.' Bill co-sponsors include Reps. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Russell Fry (R-S.C.), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.), Craig Goldman (R-Texas), Eugene Vindman (D-Va.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). The bill mandates that hotels and short-term rental providers must: Display the 'total services price, if a price is displayed, in any advertisement, marketing, or price list wherever the covered services are displayed, advertised, marketed, or offered for sale.' Disclose 'the total services price at the time the covered services are first displayed to [an] individual and anytime thereafter throughout the covered services purchasing process.' Disclose before a final purchase 'any tax, fee, or assessment imposed by any government entity, quasi-government entity, or government-created special district or program on the sale of covered services.' The bill passed the U.S. House on a voice vote in April. The U.S. Senate is now considering the measure. There, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has introduced a Senate version of the Hotel Fees and Transparency Act of 2025, which is co-sponsored by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Shelley Moo