ShareThis Page

The immigration issue

| Sunday, Nov. 4, 2012, 8:52 p.m.

A hidden factor in continuing high unemployment — unaddressed in the race for the White House — is that immigrants have fared better than native-born Americans under the Obama administration.

A new Center for Immigration Studies ( analysis of government data finds two-thirds of the net employment increase since Barack Obama became president has gone to immigrants, mainly legal ones — 1.94 million jobs versus 938,000 for the native-born.

Total immigration is down in recent years, but the United States still admits about 1 million permanent immigrants and several hundred thousand guest workers annually, CIS points out.

Neither the Obama administration nor Congress has acted to modify those levels during an extraordinarily challenging period for native-born workers. In fact, this White House has advantaged immigrants by:

• Offering work authorization to an estimated 2 million illegals who arrived before age 16

• Not detaining illegals detected through employer audits, enabling them to pursue other jobs

• And urging the Supreme Court in 2010 to overturn Arizona's law requiring employers to verify new hires' legal status.

The Obama administration thus has heightened native-born workers' recessionary pain. Immigrants' gains at their expense should have been a campaign issue — and must be an Election Day issue for voters.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.