More visa games
Again aiming to circumvent Congress so it can coddle illegal aliens, the Obama administration wants to grant "unlawful presence waivers" that would halt deportations of illegals who face "extreme hardship" -- extended separation from U.S.-citizen spouses, children or parents -- in getting visas legally.
Judicial Watch says the administration wants to "significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from" immediate-relative illegals awaiting U.S. visas after returning to their native countries as they're required to do.
Immigration officials say only the process of -- not the criteria for -- granting legal status would change. But Judicial Watch points out the underlying fallacy: "Besides the obvious security issues, changing this would be like rewarding bad behavior in a child. It doesn't make sense."
A 60-day clock for public comment began ticking on April 2. Once time's up, don't bet against this change's finalization.
This "stealth amnesty" president, after all, has already stopped deporting illegals without other crimes on their records and illegals charged with but not yet convicted of crimes. He needs Latino votes for his re-election. And for him, political gain outweighs what's best for the United States.
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.