De facto amnesty: The real message
De facto amnesty for an estimated 300,000 illegal aliens is not merely an Obama administration end run around a Congress opposed to such coddling. It also hamstrings an economy struggling to create jobs -- and is especially harmful to younger, less-educated jobless Americans.
In a new report, Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies ( cis.org ), says this administration is allowing hundreds of thousands of illegals who'd otherwise be deported to stay here and to apply for work authorization, too.
Which, of course, makes finding work even harder for younger, undereducated Americans, "the most likely to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs."
Their plight is bad enough in itself. Writes Mr. Camarota, reviewing numerous statistics:
"In most cases, unemployment for young, U.S.-born workers is double or nearly double what it was in the first quarter of 2007, before the recession began." And that's with "an estimated 7 (million) to 8 million illegal immigrants holding jobs in the United States."
The Obama administration could do a great service for America's young workers by abiding by the law and sending illegals home. Instead, it has chosen to solidify their hold on jobs here. And that shows how warped this White House's priorities are and how little it actually cares for the welfare of American citizens.
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 â 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.