Letters to the Editor: The government should stop making ‘false promises' for hopes of legal immigration
While I am at it, the Department of Homeland Security's offer of $1,000 to 'self-deport,' with a chance to return legally to live the American dream later, is more than likely a false promise. In light of the administration's recent actions, I think we can dispel the notion that legal immigration to the U.S. involves filling out an application, proving that you are a good person, then waiting in line. Unless an individual qualifies under one of the categories for immigrant visas, mostly related to family or profession, there is little chance of immigrating legally without being harassed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The U.S. government should stop making false promises and raising hopes. There is no hope, just more lies and more cruelty.
Laurie Jacobs, San Clemente
..
To the editor: Please tell me that Diaz will be suing the federal government for what it has done and is doing to him. I feel as if I'm living in a dystopian state.
When I see the DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's commercial on television attempting to sell the public on the lie that it is the worst of the worst that are being rounded up by ICE agents, the rhetoric reminds me of the North Korean 'news' broadcasters touting the actions of their 'dear leader.'
Ronald Webster, Long Beach
..
To the editor: It was with great sadness and alarm that I read the July 22 stories of the detentions of Diaz and Narciso Barranco ('3 U.S. Marine brothers faced toughest mission: Getting their dad freed from ICE custody,' July 22). The brutality and inhumane treatment these men experienced at the hands of ICE should worry every citizen. Immigrants, legal or illegal, are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect and knowledge that they have legal rights.
Carol Karas, Camarillo
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US woman claims murder bid evidence against her is ‘terrible coincidence'
A US citizen accused of attempting to shoot a stranger dead has suggested the perpetrator was 'another American woman' who sounded similar to her, used the same phone and wore the same sort of trainers. Aimee Betro, 45, told jurors that it was 'all just a terrible coincidence' that she was around the corner from the scene of the attempted assassination six minutes later. Betro, who denies conspiracy to murder, is alleged to have flown into Britain and taken part in a plot orchestrated by co-conspirators Mohammed Aslam, 56, and his son Mohammed Nabil Nazir, 31, to attack a rival family, in September 2019. Betro, from West Allis in Wisconsin, told jurors on Tuesday that she did not know there had been an attempted killing when she left the UK two days afterwards. Prosecutors allege Betro hid her identity using a niqab when she tried to shoot Sikander Ali at point blank range outside his home in Measham Grove, Yardley, Birmingham, but the gun jammed, allowing him to flee. Birmingham Crown Court has heard Aslam and Nazir, who were jailed last year for their part in the assassination plot, were involved in a feud with Mr Ali's father, Aslat Mahumad. Addressing the evidence against her in chronological order during questioning by defence barrister Paul Lewis KC, Betro claimed she was in Birmingham city centre at the time of the attempted assassination, and a follow-up shooting at the intended victim's house hours later. She also maintained that a woman described as having an American accent and being small and fat, who bought a vehicle linked to the plot, was not her. Betro went on to claim that she did not have possession of a gun at any time during the night of September 7 into the early hours of September 8, when three shots were fired at a house in Measham Grove after a woman arrived there in a taxi. During cross-examination of Betro, prosecutor Tom Walkling KC asked her a series of questions about what she claimed the 'different American woman' had done at about the time of the attempted murder and the follow-up incident. Answering questions from Mr Walkling, the defendant said that the other American woman had called Mr Mahumad, using a phone Betro had bought. Betro claimed she had not bought a Mercedes car used in the plot, then agreed with Mr Walkling when he asked if 'that was a different American woman as well?' Mr Walkling then asked: 'And you didn't try to murder Sikander Ali that evening?' Betro said: 'No.' Mr Walkling continued: 'But you were around the corner six minutes later?' Betro answered: 'Yes.' The graphic design and childhood education graduate, who spent five years living in Armenia before her arrest in January this year, confirmed to Mr Walkling that it was her case that the 'other American woman' who had fired shots at a property in Measham Grove in the early hours and was 'using your phone and wearing shoes like yours'. Mr Walkling then asked 'It's all just a terrible coincidence is it?' and Betro replied: 'Yes.' The prosecutor said: 'So there must be, on your case, another American woman in Birmingham at the same time as you, who knew Mr Nazir, who sounded similar to you, who used the cheap phone that you bought, who called (a taxi firm) on your own telephone, and who wore at the very least the same sort of Converse trainers you had.' Betro answered: 'Yes.' Mr Walkling continued: 'This other American woman we are describing told a taxi (driver) she wanted to go back to the Rotunda. 'So was this mysterious American woman who shared so many characteristics with you also staying at the Rotunda? It does sound rather like you doesn't it?' Wearing a black top, glasses and with her hair in space buns, Betro replied: 'No.' She also claimed she had 'no reason or motive' to carry out the shooting and did not know the intended victim's family. Betro told the jury on Monday that she flew into Britain to celebrate her birthday and attend a boat party, having met Nazir on a dating app and having previously travelled to the UK to meet him. The defendant also denies possessing a self-loading pistol and a charge of fraudulently evading the prohibition on importing ammunition. The trial continues.
Fast Company
27 minutes ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
