Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
EVAN STERN | COLUMN
We need to promote tougher border security
I
n a bold policy move taking
place in the final days of
2019, New Jersey lawmakers
approved legislation that would
permit undocumented immigrants
in the state to secure drivers’
licenses. Signed shortly after by
Gov. Phil Murphy, New Jersey
has now joined several other
states, including New York and
California,
who
have
already
begun offering licenses to millions
of
undocumented
immigrants
across the country.
With the proposal dominated
by Democratic support, advocates
emphasize
the
safer
driving
conditions
that
the
practice
generates
for
undocumented
immigrants and all motorists in
general. Fewer unlicensed drivers
mean better roads for everybody.
Many
conservatives
have
grumbled about this news, but
there’s nothing wrong with policies
that make our roads and highways
safer. Officials in New Jersey are
serving their constituencies and
confronting the concerning flood
of
undocumented
immigration
into our nation. These states aren’t
to blame for our immigration
problem.
These
states
are
responding to the problem.
In the end, these policy moves
point to the steady stream of
undocumented immigration that
made them necessary in the first
place. People who aren’t taking
the correct steps to live in The
United States are flocking here
in great numbers. According to
figures published by the Pew
Research Center, the number
of
undocumented
immigrants
across the U.S. has steadily risen
since 1990 until about 2010, after
which it has more or less remained
constant, if not fallen.
However, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection data proves this
problem is still rampant, indicating
that hundreds of thousands of
undocumented immigrants are
still apprehended every year at our
borders. In 2017, about 300,000
individuals were detained at the
southwestern border, lower than
previous years but still far too large.
States like Wyoming are home to
less than 600,000 people in their
entirety.
Undocumented
immigrants
are not bad people. They are
individuals
from
all
different
backgrounds who want a better
shot at a safe and secure life. They
want their children to have better
lives and they want to be part of
our great nation. Unfortunately,
when they fail to take the necessary
steps to lawfully enter the U.S. and
instead become undocumented,
immigrants not only endanger
themselves and others, but they
also pose a dangerous risk to our
security, economy and society.
Large-scale
undocumented
immigration
is
unacceptable
because
it
carries
so
many
risks.
Allowing
undocumented
immigration to occur is a direct
assault on the well-being of the
migrants
themselves,
not
to
mention the potential danger for
American citizens. According to an
ABC News report published about
a year ago, hundreds of immigrants
die trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico
border every year. Many others,
according to the Department of
Homeland Security, have been
rescued by authorities from deadly
situations.
Far beyond this, undocumented
immigration poses a serious threat
to national security, something
that has a profound effect on us all.
How can anybody be comfortable
with letting people into our nation
that we know nothing about?
While we don’t know a good deal
about many U.S. citizens, we have
an obligation to get to know those
who originate from other locations
before welcoming them to our
country. According to the Heritage
Foundation, a think-tank based in
Washington, D.C., non-citizens
made up 64 percent of all federal
arrests in 2018 despite comprising
only 7 percent of the national
population (although this may be
due to their undocumentated status
instead of further crimes committed
on American soil). In Texas, a large
border state, the Foundation noted
that undocumented immigrants
accounted for nearly 70 percent of
the state’s prison population over
roughly the last decade. In the
same timeframe, undocumented
immigrants have been charged with
almost 500,000 criminal offenses,
including assaults, homicides and
kidnappings.
Besides
this,
undocumented
immigrants
have
also
been
connected
to
extensive
drug
and
human
trafficking
that
have taken a great toll on border
communities. “The fact that our
border can be penetrated so easily
leaves us vulnerable to national
security threats and has resulted
in an influx of criminal activity,
especially as it relates to narcotics
and human trafficking,” according
to Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark. “It is
a serious crisis in need of a serious
legislative solution.” In addition
to the horrific human trafficking
situation that has unfolded at our
borders, drug trafficking especially
has endangered and destroyed
countless lives in U.S. communities,
throwing deadly illegal substances
into every corner of our nation.
Evan Stern can be reached at
erstern@umich.edu.
ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMN
The need for congressional term limits
A
few weeks ago, I was
scrolling through Twitter
when I came across an
article talking about the 84 current
members of Congress who were also
serving during President Clinton’s
impeachment hearings. The Clinton
impeachment took place in 1998,
over two decades ago, before many
University of Michigan students —
myself included — were born. The
fact that there are over 80 members
serving today who have been in
Congress longer than our lifetimes
is absurd. That is why we need to
work to implement term limits for
our members of Congress.
Currently, there are no term
limits on how long a member of
the House of Representatives or
the Senate can serve. This leads to
many members of Congress having
extremely long tenures. Proponents
of term limits argue that term limits
will help bring new ideas to the table,
encourage people to vote and lead to
less gridlock in Washington. This is
all grounded in the theory that one
of the main issues in Washington
today is aging lawmakers who have
been in Congress for decades and
subsequently have a monopoly on
power.
It is not hard to see validity in
this point. Incumbent lawmakers
do have many advantages, such as
increased name recognition and
successful campaign experience.
This makes it difficult for other
candidates
to
challenge
them,
whether
through
a
primary
challenge or in the general election.
A 2018 analysis of incumbency
reelection found sitting lawmakers
being reelected over 80 percent of
the time in all the local, state and
federal races surveyed across the
United States.
Even if new members make it
into Congress, much of the power
lies in the hands of the leadership,
who are mostly career politicians
with long tenures in Congress.
This can prevent new lawmakers
from making an impact, which in
turn may send a message to voters
that their vote doesn’t matter
because their representative cannot
accomplish anything. Therefore,
many people argue that the best way
to overcome this problem is through
the passage of term limits, which
will lead to new blood and an influx
of unique ideas.
Opponents of term limits argue
that it is crucial to gain expertise
and become knowledgeable on
important issues — something that
can only come with experience.
Therefore, opponents argue that
term limits will force out effective
lawmakers.
This
won’t
be
a
problem, given how much of the
policy and constituent work is done
by the staff, not the representatives
themselves.
My opinions about term limits
are influenced by the experiences
I have had working in politics.
This past summer, I interned for
my member of Congress in his
district
office.
While
working
there, I learned about an aspect
of Congressional work that is
often
forgotten:
constituent
casework. Every day, the staff at the
Congressman’s office would work
tirelessly to help constituents on
issues ranging from immigration
to social security to the postal
service. The people working in
the office had countless years of
experience and knew the laws and
the processes inside and out.
It is these government workers
who are in the trenches on a daily
basis working to help constituents.
These are people with years
of
experience
navigating
the
complicated bureaucratic system.
I would hope that these dedicated
and crucially important employees
often retain their position, even if a
new member is elected. This helps
to assuage fears about term limits
leading to a lack of experience,
because experienced staff will still
be in place.
In order to help further alleviate
the concerns of detractors, we
should institute term limits that
are long enough to allow for
representatives to have enough
time
to
complete
meaningful
work without serving for multiple
decades. A good limit would be six
terms, or 12 years, for the House
and two terms, or 12 years, for the
Senate. 12 years is a reasonable
amount of time for members to
accomplish a sufficient amount
while still allowing an influx of
new ideas and the ability for diverse
voices to be heard.
Many politicians on both sides
of the aisle, from Republican
senators
to
Democratic
presidential
candidates,
have
called for term limits of this exact
length. Change and progress help
to make us grow stronger. By
putting in place reasonable term
limits, we can help to transform
Congress into a more fair and
effective legislative body.
Isabelle Schindler can be reached
at ischind@umich.edu.
MARY ROLFES | COLUMN
Finding a sharper solution to the anti-vaccine movement
M
ary Poppins said it
best
—
sometimes
“a spoonful of sugar
helps the medicine go down.” The
saying refers to the general idea
that
accomplishing
something
unpleasant is more doable by
manufacturing a bit of fun, but it
can be seen quite literally in the
world of medicine. We inject all
sorts of sweetness into unpleasant
tasks, especially those for children,
such as adding fruity flavoring to
cough syrups, shaping vitamins like
cartoon characters and rewarding
them with a piece of candy for good
behavior at a doctor’s appointment.
Administering shots is much more
difficult to sweeten; not much can
be done about the fact that the
needle is going to pinch.
Still, many doctors and nurses
try their best, by making shots
into a fun game or by promising a
special bandage after. Ensuring
proper medical care is necessary to
support individuals in leading their
best lives and to produce a healthier
population, but sometimes this
care
can
be
uncomfortable,
frightening and downright painful.
Many
medical
practitioners
and
institutions
emphasize
compassion, understanding and
a little bit of sweetness to support
their patients through difficult
procedures. Unfortunately, this
principle does seem to have its
limits, especially when a medical
issue becomes highly publicized.
At present, the societal response
to the hot button issue of the
anti-vaccine movement has been
overwhelmingly bitter.
It’s understandable why it’s
difficult to take a saccharine
approach to such a scary issue.
Many believe the anti-vaccine
movement will leave a large
population vulnerable to illnesses
with
horrifying
side
effects
which ravaged entire societies
just decades ago. As such, the
fear and rhetoric surrounding
anti-vaccination are somewhat
out of proportion to the actual
scale of decreasing vaccinations.
According to a 2017 report from
the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), vaccination
rates
remain
relatively
stable
and high. Still, the same report
does note that the proportion of
children receiving no vaccines by
24 months of age has increased,
albeit slightly and gradually. This
small increase matters, however;
the decline in vaccinations is
often credited as causing a “global
resurgence”
of
preventable
diseases, inhibiting the goal of
eradication.
Measles
is
an
especially
notable example — although it
was declared eliminated from
the United States in 2000, it
has recently made an infamous
comeback. The year 2019 saw
the highest number of reported
cases since 1992, totaling 1,241 as
of September 5. The prospect of
measles and other debilitating and
deadly diseases returning to the
U.S. is certainly terrifying, so the
vitriolic reaction to the anti-vaccine
movement seems only natural. The
term “anti-vaxxer” has become
pejorative, often grouped with
the same type of “stupid” as flat-
earthers
and
climate
change
deniers.
Unfortunately,
this
vilification is unlikely to sway those
hesitant about vaccination to the
positive side.
In fact, a hateful response only
serves to deepen divides, allowing
the anti-vaccine movement to
create a narrative of persecution.
With the anti-vaccine sentiment
taking a continually deeper hold in
the U.S., it is imperative to reassess
how we are approaching this
movement, and shifting the basis
of our policies and discussions to
understanding and compassion.
For one, skepticism of vaccination
is often treated as ignorance and
stupidity. But many people have
personal and cultural histories
with the institution of medicine
that
lead
to
understandable
hesitation and mistrust, which
may include the prospect of
vaccination.
Furthermore,
the
concept of vaccination is certainly
not intuitive. The narrative of
illness prevention is largely based
on avoiding germs, so the idea of
having germs inserted into one’s
body seems directly in opposition.
Beyond active or inactive viral
cultures, many other ingredients
that compose vaccines do not
merely seem scary — we have
been warned to avoid them,
notably
formaldehyde
and
mercury-containing
thimerosal.
Of course, vaccines have been
well established as scientifically
and medically safe. But a mere
statement of safety accompanied
by absolute authority instead of
understandable evidence can be
intimidating and isolating rather
than convincing.
Skepticism is largely treated as
irrational and unreasonable, but
this
black-and-white
response
is incredibly invalidating and
frustrating.
Instead,
patients
should be treated as rational,
capable of having reasonable
concerns and discussions about
the evidence behind vaccine safety.
Reason is a far more effective
response than resentment.
It
is
also
important
to
acknowledge the emotions which
accompany vaccination. These
emotions
may
contribute
to
irrational thinking, but mitigating
irrational
responses
are
not
always accomplished by outright
ignoring such feelings.
Often, the decision against
vaccination is made by parents
on behalf of their children, and
many vaccines are scheduled
for the first couple of months of
life. Parents are tasked with the
heavy responsibility of caring for
this delicate, fragile new person,
so
it’s
understandable
that
protective instincts may kick in
at the thought of several massive
needles containing viral cultures
being injected into them.
YouTuber Unnatural Vegan
summarizes this well, noting her
own emotional response to her
child’s vaccination — while her
“rational” side knows vaccines are
safe and necessary, her emotions
did cause a moment of hesitation.
For a new parent who doesn’t
understand vaccination and has
never seen the diseases they
prevent, such emotions may
cause an even more influential
response. Instead of invalidating
this emotional response, the
focus should instead be on
increasing understanding of the
technology and the importance of
vaccination.
Validate protective parental
instincts,
and
channel
them
into protecting children from
preventable and potentially deadly
diseases. Instead of operating
with absolute authority, treat
parents as autonomous decision-
makers in their children’s health,
supported by medicine rather
than ruled by it.
Clearly, the bitter approach to
the anti-vaccine is not the most
effective one. Maybe it’s time to
try employing a bit of sweetness
instead. Maybe it’s a spoonful
of compassion — rather than
hatred — that we should utilize
in the effort to quell the influence
of the anti-vaccine movement.
Vaccines
absolutely
are
a
revolutionary,
priceless
public
health technology that should be
embraced and utilized by as many
people as possible.
Creating
a
more
positive
attitude toward vaccination will
not be accomplished by fighting
fire with fire — or by reacting
to ambivalence with bitterness.
Finding a smarter approach to
this prickly subject is not just
crucial for the health outcomes
of individuals — it is a public
health imperative.
Mary Rolfes can be reached at
morolfes@umich.edu.
ANNA GETZINGER | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT GETZINGA@UMICH.EDU
Read more at MichiganDaily.com