From Not Viable to Less Viable with the Stroke of a Pen

Just the other day someone asked me when I was going to comment on President Obama’s Executive Order authorizing amnesty for five million illegal immigrants. For what it’s worth the following posting sums up my feelings about Obama’s executive action. Note: I am not against legal immigration nor do I oppose amnesty on an individual case by case basis. This should be considered only under extraordinary circumstances and within the framework of the rule of law.

A couple of weeks ago, the President addressed the nation about his intention to pursue amnesty for illegal immigrants through executive action. This decision, counter to his own statements over the last few years, represents the very height of Presidential arrogance and signifies a dangerous shift from a nation of laws to a nation of men. In order to achieve some sort of gain for his political party, the President risks damage to the rule of law in our nation, but he also threatens a more immediate impact on those here legally, those following the legal process to gain entry into our country, and others struggling to find work in a fragile economy. Our border states will also be further stressed as they deal with another, almost certain surge of additional illegal immigrants looking for similar treatment from this White House. On top of the just mentioned concerns with President Obama’s Amnesty Executive Order we have a possible conundrum with Social Security and Medicare as it relates to amnesty for the illegal immigrants.

Are you aware that federal law states that people who pay taxes and are deemed “lawfully present in the United States” can collect benefits under two popular entitlement programs? They may also receive survivor and disability benefits. Fact; The five million immigrants granted protection from deportation will be eligible for both Social Security and Medicare and all rights therein.  If you have what are generally regarded as the most popular entitlement programs – and they are not viable in the long run – and now you are making them even less so by adding large numbers of low income individuals then that is going to have a sizable and harmful impact on those people who spent a lifetime contributing into a Federal Government mandated “safety net” program. Some proponents suggest that analysis, of course, relies on the assumption that the long term finances of the two programs are not improved by lawmakers. The question to ask oneself is, when was the last time lawmakers improved anything without costing taxpaying Americans more money? It certainly was not Obama's "Affordable Healthcare" program. Do you suppose it was Obama’s “Shovel Ready Job” project or his “Cash for Clunkers” scheme or how about his “Clean Air” initiatives?