Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Pin the blame on the other party

Pin the blame on the other party
Getty Images

Bonar is the Nebraska Chapter Coordinator of Mormon Women for Ethical Government. She lives in Omaha, Nebraska with her husband and three children.

In recent years, the approach by Congress to immigration seems to be a never-ending game of "Pin the Blame on the Other Party." At face value, the faults of the immigration system are not mutually obvious, and the solutions are not agreeably attainable. One party’s approach to immigration may be criticized as idealistic. The other’s tactic is viewed as draconian. Meanwhile, the immigration system remains frustrated, and the extended support agencies, economy, and general public suffers.


If both sides were willing to work together to iron out the details, the immigration system would be principled and pragmatic — the best of both worlds. That’s why collaboration between Republicans and Democrats needs to be encouraged and praised.

My representative, Don Bacon of Nebraska, is such a collaborator. He has a history of supporting immigration reform legislation that has benefited the greater Omaha area he represents. Rep. Bacon is a Republican, his district is purple, and his state is red. His approach to that tension is to be willing to work with members of both parties to collaborate on legislation that gets across the finish line and then benefits the general public.

Rep. Bacon continued his pattern of bipartisan work to benefit his state by choosing to support the Afghan Adjustment Act (AAA) last month. This bill provides a pathway for legal permanent residency and a right to work in the U.S. for our Afghan allies who served alongside Americans in the war in Afghanistan.

The AAA establishes additional vetting procedures for applicants and expands eligibility for the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. Currently, most Afghans who have been admitted to the U.S. are on humanitarian parole — a program that allows applicants to stay in the U.S. temporarily, usually two years. This humanitarian parole has recently been extended for those who reapply, but once that expires again, parolees face loss of jobs, loss of homes, and deportation from the country. Parolees can try for permanent status by applying for asylum, but this system is severely backlogged and not likely to bring permanency before their parole expires again. The AAA would solve this problem by putting vetted Afghans on legal footing similar to resettled refugees, saving time and precious government resources.

Passing the AAA would be a great support for Afghan evacuees and their families, and it would ease the burdens of the community agencies that are working so hard to assist the refugee and immigrant communities. Afghans have contributed to American society by entering the workforce, creating businesses, attending schools, and adding richness to neighborhoods. Because passage of the AAA failed in the last Congress and may not be a guarantee in this Congress, many Afghans experience anxiety over the possibility of losing their new American homes and lives. The prosperity and safety of living in the U.S. have cemented many Afghans’ desires to stay in the U.S. and to continue supporting and contributing to the American way. However, the blessing of living in the U.S. is time bound unless the AAA is passed with bipartisan support in Congress.

Some lawmakers are hesitant to solve this issue when they feel solving a different immigration issue — at the border — is paramount. However, the AAA is as much a national security and veteran issue as it is an immigration issue. It is critical for the U.S. to be an honorable ally to those who served alongside our military and other agencies in the war in Afghanistan. Despite the country’s fall to Taliban rule, the U.S. needs to keep its promises of providing legal permanent residence to those who qualify and are vetted under the Afghan Adjustment Act.

Some also express concern that other immigrant groups — who are desperately waiting to obtain lawful permanent resident status — feel betrayed that Afghans would receive preferential treatment over them. Immigration is a hot issue that has faced political gridlock for more than three decades. This gridlock will never be broken if immigration continues to be viewed as a zero-sum game. A win for one group provides hope for another group, and the bipartisan relationships fostered through one improvement in our immigration system could help enable many more.

Lawmakers in Washington need to build bridges of cooperation between the two parties and not construct taller walls of division. Much work can be done with the cooperation and collaboration of members of both parties. Immigration will no longer be a migraine of an issue but a functioning system of the U.S. that both parties can be proud of and Americans can celebrate. Collaboration between Republicans and Democrats should no longer be a rarity. It should be the accepted reality.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less