Immigration reform

Regarding “Opinion: Over 75,000 job openings in Iowa alone. Millions of refugees seeking work. Make the connection,” (Feb. 13): I was pleased to read your Feb. 7 commentary on immigration reform by Kristie De Peña, Robert Leonard and David Oman. They identified the problem, but as is so often the case, their proposal that “states can innovate in three ways” makes little sense.

The first option of U.S. congressional bipartisan immigration reform, something I’ve worked on almost daily since 2000, is not state innovation, but is nevertheless what is clearly needed. The second option makes no sense legally or from a policy point of view in terms of the proposed bilateral migration agreement which would allow U.S. employers to train workers so they could come to the U.S. as needed. That would clearly take U.S. congressional action and besides we have had the H-3 temporary trainee program in our immigration laws for many years and what is needed is a viable temporary workers program. The third option of “states taking control of immigration through licensing reform” would in no way speed up or expand legal immigration. There are, in fact, significant barriers for the nurses and other professionals wishing to legally immigrate or qualify for work visas, but licensing reforms would only help marginally at best.

The simple fact is, as President Joe Biden called for in his State of the Union message, we need bipartisan U.S. congressional immigration reform that should start with Dream Act legislation combined with additional funding for effective border control — meaning more asylum officers and more technologies for ports of entry. Charles C. Foster, Houston