Immigration 'reform'? Faulty plumbing
No one turns on the water before fixing the plumbing. And yet as details emerge from the Gang of Eight's Senate immigration legislation, it's increasingly clear that the floodgates for illegal aliens will be opened before any reasonable “fix” is applied to border security.
It's reported that the immigration bill will allow illegal aliens to draw welfare benefits almost immediately. About 11 million illegals would be eligible for Registered Provisional Immigrant status. Critics say that designation would satisfy state laws, which extend benefits to those persons deemed to be “legally present” in the United States.
In a report released Monday, The Heritage Foundation estimates that the amnesty provided by the immigration bill would cost U.S. taxpayers a whopping $6.3 trillion.
While the legislation is clear on who gets what and how, it gets a tad blurry on border enforcement. Oh, there's billions of additional spending for the Department of Homeland Security but “with no clear requirements on how the money is spent,” notes James Carafano for Heritage.
What's on the table is more than merely “a pathway to citizenship.” It's an enticement to illegality, especially when there's no sure way to confirm that only those present in the U.S. before 2012 will be eligible for those aforementioned benefits.
America's immigration plumbing is broken. Simply opening the spigots will create a flood that won't be easily mopped up.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- ‘Canary in a coal mine’: The SSDI dilemma
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- Sunday pops
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- A school choice victory: Follow the child
- The student-loan balloon
- The Box