Editorial voices from elsewhere
Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States as compiled by the Associated Press:
Last fall, Congress was on the verge of doing away with the most troubling invasion of privacy revealed by Edward Snowden: the National Security Agency’s indiscriminate collection of the telephone records of millions of Americans. But then opponents cited the emergence of the Islamic State as a reason for preserving the status quo. The Senate failed to muster the 60 votes needed to proceed with the so-called U.S.A. Freedom Act.
But the legislation has staged a comeback. Last week the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill of the same name that would end bulk collection – leaving phone records in the possession of telecommunications providers. The government could search telephone records only by convincing a court that there was “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that a specific search term – such as a telephone number – was associated with international terrorism. And rules would be tightened so that investigators couldn’t search records from, say, an entire state, city or ZIP Code.
We had hoped that Congress would take a fresh look at whether this program is necessary at all, given a presidential task force’s conclusion that it was “not essential to preventing attacks.” But if Congress is determined to continue the program, it must establish safeguards. The bill does this, though there is room for improvement.
Congressional hearings were held last week on a bill aimed at ending birthright citizenship – the principle that anyone born in the United States, with the exception of those whose parents are in the service of a foreign government, is an American citizen.
A bill pushed by U.S. Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, would require that at least one parent would have to be an American citizen for a child to inherit citizenship. The effort arose because of nativist fears that Hispanic immigrants are coming here in droves to deliver “anchor babies” that would make deportation of the parents more problematic. In reality, however, giving birth to an American citizen does not change the parents’ immigration status.
King’s bill is misguided. Congress does not have the authority to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Eliminating birthright citizenship can be accomplished only by amending the Constitution.
Birthright citizenship helps define our country as a nation of immigrants and is enshrined in the Constitution. If we as a nation are to change the fundamental nature of American citizenship, we should do so in the right way and for the right reasons.
The ease of making contributions online has helped Americans become much more generous to other countries, especially when disaster strikes. Since a magnitude 7.8 earthquake hit Nepal on April 25, Americans have already donated millions of dollars, including more than $10 million alone raised through a Facebook link.
Access to stories about the thousands of deaths, injuries and utter devastation of homes and livelihood move people to contribute – and they do after such tragedies. But the need for assistance lasts much longer than when the disaster is no longer the top story for news media.
Donations tend to peak three days after catastrophic events, said Donna Callejon, chief business officer at Global Giving, a Washington, D.C.,-based charity fundraising website. “It’s reality that the majority of the people who give after a disaster are driven by the news cycles,” she said.
Contributions made within days of a disaster are crucial to support establishment of emergency services, such as food, shelter and water. Still, rebuilding after events such as earthquakes, hurricanes and massive floods often takes years, long after the relief agencies have come and gone.
Nepal’s needs will not fade as quickly as the headlines, and neither should efforts to help.