Letters to the editor for Nov. 13
No DNA without consent
The Oct. 22 issue of The Olympian carried an article headlined, “US takes step to require DNA samples from asylum seekers.” I was horrified. Taking DNA samples is a medical procedure which ethically requires the freely-given permission of the person giving the sample. It is not something you do to non-criminals without this consent.
Asylum-seekers are not criminals. Most are decent family groups trying to save their lives and should be admired and respected for their strength and passion toward this goal. Many of them do not speak English and could not give consent for that reason, and many more probably have no idea what DNA is and what can be gleaned from it.
I have a Ph.D. in the molecular genetics of mammals, and all of my research involved DNA. I have also been a juror in a case that used DNA comparison to convict the attacker. Once the immigrants’ DNA is collected, the presence of certain genes could be used to determine who gets asylum and who doesn’t. This is a very dangerous path to go down and it should be blocked immediately.
Your excellent article reminds us, “But multiple studies have found that people in the United States illegally are less likely to commit crime than U.S. citizens, and legal immigrants are even less likely to do so.” This excuse for putting all of these people in the FBI database is not justified as well as being an unethical invasion of privacy.
Bernie Sanders is the progressive candidate on housing
Bernie Sanders’ housing policy lifts up the housing movement’s demands. Borrowing from People’s Action, a multiracial working class advocacy organization, it understands that housing must be provisioned according to need, not profit, and that housing justice means empowering and protecting tenants.
The profit-driven housing market has warped a basic need into a vehicle for speculation and wealth accumulation. Bernie’s plan provides an alternative, pledging massive investments in non-market housing: It rehabilitates (and decarbonizes) our public housing stock, funds community land trusts, builds millions of affordable units, and penalizes speculation. It fully funds the Section 8 program, eliminating the waiting list, and provides supportive housing for the unhoused.
Bernie’s plan also mandates robust tenant protections. It guarantees just cause for eviction, the right to form a tenant union, and a 3% rent increase cap. It strengthens housing discrimination law and adds LGBTQ protections.
Elizabeth Warren’s plan doesn’t demonstrate the same grasp of the crisis or respect for the housing movement. Hers provides only $3.6 billion for public housing rehabilitation (New York City’s stock alone requires $30 billion in repairs) and doesn’t mention rental assistance. It conditions federal funding on some tenant protections, but does not require them. Most notably, she opposes a national rent increase cap.
Bernie’s plan makes the boldest investment in non-market housing and understands that reforms are best implemented nationally, so that landlords and developers cannot divest from individual cities that implement them. For real solutions to the housing crisis, vote for Bernie Sanders.