Migrant program delays people’s lives too long

First of all, full disclosure: I am very pro-legal immigration, and also very pro-Second Amendment.

The Feb. 13 article titled “Migrants demand permanent residency” states there are more than 300,000 people, from several different countries, currently in “temporary” protected status. This status grants them permission to stay in the U.S. until the situation in their home country stabilizes.

That sounds good on the surface, but in reality locks those in that status into virtually permanent limbo with no apparent end in sight. The fly in the ointment is “until the situation in their home country stabilizes.” These are all longterm dysfunctional countries, in almost no way governed by “rule of law” and are unlikely to change any time soon. No way these immigrants will ever want to return home. By definition this program is temporary, and that temporary status should be enforced. Better yet, do away with the program entirely, and grant those already here some sort of permanent status. The program serves no real purpose, other than to bypass legal immigration limits and to lock participants into a dead-end situation.

In the Feb. 13 article titled “Carrying gun without permit endorsed,” we hear the Arkansas House of Representatives has endorsed a non-binding resolution supporting the right to carry a weapon in public, without the need of a special permit, otherwise known as constitutional carry. What a waste of time. It’s nonbinding.

The state Legislature needs to pass a law that specifically allows constitutional carry and stop dilly-dallying around with nonbinding resolutions. Regardless of what the anti-gun crowd thinks, allowing law-abiding citizens to carry weapons actually makes a given space safer. Look at the places with really tough gun laws, such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California. If those restrictive gun laws were working, we’d see much lower crime rates. We don’t.

Now look at states with constitutional carry. There are more than a dozen. If the liberals are right, those states should have very high crime and violence rates. They don’t. Think about it: If you’re a criminal looking to commit a crime, and you know a high percentage of people you see are armed, would you go ahead and try to rob that liquor store or bank? Of course not. You’d look somewhere else less risky that doesn’t involve confronting a group of armed citizens.

Also, think about any recent mass shooting. Had there been at least a couple of armed civilians or teachers present, they could have intervened, returned fire and limited the number of casualties.

Remember: Law-abiding gun owners are the solution, not the problem. Blame the perpetrator, not the gun. MARK DAGUE Bentonville