Opinion: Tales of migrants’ woes tug at the heartstrings, but the U.S. cannot be a sanctuary for all

To the editor: The coverage of the plight of back-door immigrants to the United States is laudable in its humanitarian emphasis. But it must be remembered that the United States has an embassy in Bangladesh, Rasel Ahmed’s home country, which publishes clear procedures for obtaining visas to come here legally. (“They gambled, and lost,” Dec. 24)

Ahmed attempted to bypass that system, and The Times sympathetically portrays his failure to succeed at it without any critical analysis of the implications. In particular, there are untold hundreds of millions of desperate people in the world who would like to live here instead of where they are. Clearly something more than the humanitarian impulse alone must inform immigration policy, or we will be swamped.

I have one discomfiting question for those who want open borders and sanctuary policies: How many immigrants should we accept? After all this time, I have never heard a maximum number mentioned, so I assume it is infinite. And no one has explained how that is going to work.

Ronald Masson, Topanga

..

To the editor: America has a stained history when it comes to accepting, let alone welcoming, desperate people to its shores.

When, in 1939, about 900 Jews attempted to flee Nazi Germany, they were denied entry into Cuba. They then sailed to Florida asking for asylum. They were refused entry, and no one else accepted the refugees, who returned to Adolf Hitler’s open arms.

It would behoove us all to re-read Emma Lazarus’ “The New Colossus” that is etched onto the Statue of Liberty and ask ourselves if we live by its meaning or if it belies who we are.

Michael Davidson, Altadena

..

To the editor: Limited and poor as his circumstances were, Ahmed lived free and housed in Bangladesh. He raised $30,000 to smuggle himself to America. Hundreds of thousands in this country live homeless, and millions more could not raise $30,000 if their lives depended on it.

Wanting more opportunity is understandable; the idea that our country can accept anyone and everyone with Ahmed’s dream is ridiculous.

The series about the arduous journey to travel here illegally — the danger, the “soul -crushing” disappointment when it fails — paints a romantically misleading picture of people who are not seeking asylum but lie to claim that status upon arrival. Meanwhile, there is true persecution for Bangladeshis who question militant Islam or are secular or gay; several have been butchered in the streets. They sought the modest opportunity of freedom at home.

There are no grandiose Pulitzer attempts for them.

Mitch Paradise, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook