The Washington Times Weekly - - Politics - BY JEN­NIFER HARPER

Well, Pres­i­dent Obama did it any­way, no mat­ter what the pub­lic thought: Almost half of Americans — 46 per­cent — say Pres­i­dent Obama dis­ap­prove of the idea of tak­ing ex­ec­u­tive ac­tion on im­mi­gra­tion, this ac­cord­ing to a USA To­day poll. Mean­while, the eva­sive so­lu­tions liner on the hori­zons, even as some of­fer his­toric per­spec­tive and a re­al­ity check as the hours go by un­til then.

“The 1986 im­mi­gra­tion law gave amnesty to mil­lions of im­mi­grants but in­cluded no bor­der se­cu­rity,” re­calls keen-eyed pol­icy an­a­lyst Roger Flem­ing, a for­mer House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee coun­sel and contributo­r to PJMe­dia. “Not much has changed since then. Last year’s Se­nate bill, S. 744, spec­i­fies a path to cit­i­zen­ship, but does not in fact re­quire the bor­der be se­cured. Here Amer­ica stands 28 years later with an open bor­der and 11 mil­lion ad­di­tional un­doc­u­mented im­mi­grants due to a gov­ern­ment pol­icy that fails to stop il­le­gal en­trants but spends mil­lions on a bu­reau­cratic maze to legally de­port them. Our bor­der pol­icy en­tices peo­ple to en­ter sur­rep­ti­tiously, and then la­bels them il­le­gal once they’re here.”

So se­cure the bor­der, he says — high-tech fenc­ing, aerial surveil­lance and man­power as re­quired. There would even be an added ben­e­fit.

“There’d be no more la­bel­ing of peo­ple in Amer­ica as il­le­gals. They’d ei­ther be here legally or work­ing their way to­ward le­gal sta­tus. If the world knew our bor­der was se­cure, there would be lit­tle in­cen­tive to try to cross it. The hu­man- and drug-smug­gling car­tels would suf­fer for it; and fewer would die in vain seek­ing il­le­gal en­try,” Mr. Flem­ing adds. “This sum­mer Americans saw a snap­shot of what has been hap­pen­ing on the bor­der for decades — and they’re not for­get­ting it. Bor­der se­cu­rity, de­spite best ef­forts, is not con­sid­ered a racist term; and common-sense mem­bers from both par­ties must step up and do what is right by cit­i­zens on both sides.”

“Con­firmed tax­payer dol­lars that Oba­macare ar­chi­tect Jonathan Gru­ber was paid from 2009 to 2014 — about $1 mil­lion per year — is roughly 24 times the av­er­age salary earned by full-time Amer­i­can work­ers in the same gen­eral time frame,” says Brittany Hughes, a re­porter for CNS News. “The av­er­age an­nual full-time U.S. salary was about $41,600 in those years, which mul­ti­plied 24 times is $998,400, or nearly $1 mil­lion a year.”

Ms. Hughes con­sulted pub­lic records to dis­cover that the con­sul­tant also made more than Pres­i­dent Obama, whose salary is $400,000, and a gag­gle of Demo­cratic lu­mi­nar­ies. “Se­nate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also an out­spo­ken pro­po­nent of Oba­macare, earns an an­nual salary of $193,400. That’s less than one-fifth Gru­ber’s yearly Oba­macare earn­ings,” she points out. prin­ci­ples are just as im­por­tant to­day as they were at our Found­ing. We must get this right.”

Also now un­der­way: “The Road to CPAC,” a year­round on­line ex­pe­ri­ence that in­cludes a 100-day ed­u­ca­tional in­tro­duc­tion to the is­sues and pol­icy con­ver­sa­tions that will be ad­dressed at the four-day event. The con­tent, in­ci­den­tally, comes from The Wash­ing­ton Times, the Com­pet­i­tive En­ter­prise In­sti­tute, the In­de­pen­dent Women’s Fo­rum and Town­Hall. com. Find ev­ery­thing here: Con­ser­va­


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.