ShareThis Page
Better immigration recipe |

Better immigration recipe

When you make risotto, you don’t add all the broth at once, just a little at a time so the rice can fully absorb it. The same principle should be applied to immigration.

It would be better to regulate the immigration rate to a limited number (perhaps thousands instead of tens of thousands) at a time so immigrants can assimilate, learn the language (no “PC” rules like dual labeling permitted) and the culture (although they may retain those parts of their culture, religion, etc., that aren’t counter to ours), and take citizenship classes to learn our history and what good citizenship means. Additionally, because of their limited number, they could be more easily absorbed into society and the workforce.

Writing about the Roman Empire in his 1950 book “The Age of Faith,” prescient historian Will Durant observed, “The higher birth rate outside the Empire, and the higher standard of living within it, made immigration or invasion a manifest destiny for the Roman Empire as it is for America today.” For Rome, that destiny turned out to be the demise of the empire.

President Obama would profit from reading a little history and learning something from it, but, unfortunately, O the Magnificent’s goal is more voters, not better citizens. That doesn’t bode well for America.

William R. Casey

West Mifflin

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.