Immigration Solution and Obamacare Rulings
Dear Mark: I consider myself to be politically independent and feel fairly objective when it comes to the current border issue with Mexico. Both Democrats and Republicans appear to be focused on scoring political points rather than a true solution to the undocumented worker issue. Was Harry Reid right when he said that a new comprehensive immigration policy would have prevented this? — Crystal Clear
Dear Crystal: Of course, Sen. Reid was wrong. The word comprehensive comes from the Latin word comprehendo, which, according to my 7th grade Latin teacher, translates into "many words hiding a lot of bull and pork." The senate bill Reid is referring to does not include the type of increased border security that would have prevented the incursion by thousands from Central America across our southern border.
Successful immigration reform doesn't have to be comprehensive because it isn't one homogenous issue. In fact if it was separated into several categories of legislation I believe bipartisan support could easily be found for the majority of the proposals.
Let's see congress try individual bills on this.
National Security: With the increase in worldwide terrorism, a porous border is an obvious problem that needs to be addressed immediately.
Employment Status: Who can work here, and for how long, seems simple enough to determine.
Visas: Who can receive a visa, for what reason, for how long, and how will they be tracked?
Citizenship: If the process needs to be improved and modernized or the requirements need to be revisited, then debate a new law.
Refugees and Political Asylum: Create a definition.
Humanitarian Aid: Utilize FEMA similar to when natural disasters strike our country.
Enforcement: Finally, each new immigration law must have a strict enforcement mechanism.
Dear Mark: The Affordable Care Act was tested again in court, and once again it survived, which should finally shut all you right-wingers up.
Dear Nice Day: This isn't simply a matter of letting people receive subsidies; this is a matter of following the letter of the law. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in the constitution and the separation of powers between the three branches. It's not the job of judges to create laws; that is the job of congress. Not that congress does such a great job of holding up its end of that three-legged stool.
When Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats finally read the Obamacare law after passing it, and then realized that the majority of states would not be setting up their own exchanges, they did something almost as scary as the law itself. Democrats empowered the IRS to write rules to correct the "subsidy" loophole. In this case a judge who affirms a poorly written law of this magnitude is going to cost the taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars.
Subsidizing "everybody" may have been the intent of the law, but let's not forget it was also the intent of the ACA to lower premiums $2,500 per family and cover 30 million more people. America is still waiting on those "good intentions."
As the saying goes, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and unfortunately Democrats such as Obama, Pelosi and Reid were in such a hurry to cram Obamacare down the throat of America that they wrote a crappy law with gaping loopholes. Liberals, you're reaping what you sowed. Bring on the Supremes.
E-mail your questions to email@example.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com. Follow Mark on Twitter @MarkPLevy
COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM