The immigration ruse
With his poll numbers in the basement — and his credibility on the trash heap — President Obama's push for so-called “comprehensive” immigration reform rightfully raises skepticism.
Especially given the administration's conniving rollout of ObamaCare — if you like your health plan, you can keep it — claims of beefed-up border security should come into serious question.
Fool me once ... .
In pursuit of its “pathway to citizenship” — that is, amnesty — the Obama administration insists that it has tightened border security. And to make the elixir for immigration “reform” go down easier, Democrats included additional funding for border security in the Senate-approved immigration bill.
Fool me twice ... .
Now comes news that the deportation of illegal aliens, in fact, has sunk to its lowest level in 40 years, The Heritage Foundation reports. Meanwhile, Homeland Security has OK'd 81 percent of 580,000 applicants for provisional legal status, which was initiated by the administration, not Congress, according to Heritage.
As for that additional border security funding, the legislation grants considerable authority to Homeland Security's secretary to waive this provision. “So if you liked the border security promised by the bill, you won't necessarily get to keep it,” writes Ken McIntyre for Heritage.
The nation's been down this road previously and is now paying an awful price for ObamaCare, for which repeal is the only resolution. This time around, Congress need not pass the immigration bill to find out what's in it.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
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.
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- A carbon tax? Cap it
- The Thursday wrap