Editorial: Here illegally? It's not like that's wrong or anything

It's probably my imagination, but I thought the president said something about no welfare benefits and no Obamacare for the illegal immigrants he was going to make legal with the stroke of a pen.

Do you remember the good old days when we actually had a southern border?

Anyway, if my memory is correct, neither one of those promises hold any real value to people who do care about the border, getting citizenship lawfully, and keeping the country solvent.

Take Obamacare - please. The promise of not making illegals eligible for it is a stab in the back for lower skilled American workers. If you are an employer with lots of low-skill jobs to fill, are you going to be hiring workers who must have health insurance provided by your business at, say, $300 a month each, or are you going to hire workers the law doesn't allow you to insure?

Go ahead, take your time.

As for welfare benefits, who needs them when the Earned Income Tax Credit is going to pay illegals thousands of dollars once they get their Social Security cards and file returns? In some cases, I've read, the payoff will be in excess of $20,000.

If only one illegal immigrant gets the EITC, that's one too many.

Meanwhile, let's look at how this story is playing out in the national media.

TUCSON (AP) - Brenda Armendariz, her husband and their two Mexico-born children were hoping to resolve their constant fears of being deported after President Barack Obama issued his latest executive orders on immigration.

But now that a federal judge in Texas has blocked Obama's efforts to protect four million more immigrants, her family is disillusioned and her children feel stuck as the president's offer of temporary legal status moves frustratingly beyond their reach.

Get that? People who are here illegally are "disillusioned" and have to actually fear deportation. Tell me, is there another country in the world where what our president is doing would even be contemplated out loud by elected officials? And how much "constant fear" of deportation can they really have when they allow their names to be used by a wire service that reaches all points of the globe?

By the time we get to the seventh paragraph of the AP story, we learn that "their patience is wearing thin." This doesn't refer to the majority of Americans who worry about what will happen to their country if this open borders policy is allowed to stand. No, the reporter was referring to the patience of people here illegally.

The Republicans hold majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate, in part because they did not favor what the president has done, and never mind that he did it after the election so the Democrats wouldn't get hammered even worse than they did.

As for the Republicans, if they can't get a handle on this president's action and stop - and reverse - this flood at the border, why should we vote for them again?

•••

Remember the glorious Obamacare rollout and how the government spent over $1 billion and still couldn't get its Website to function correctly?

Given that, can you tell me why it would be a good idea to put that same bumbling, inept, inefficient, money-wasting government in charge of the Internet by making it a public utility and regulating it as such?

If we get Net Neutrality, here's something you can bank on: Your Internet access will eventually be slower and more expensive. Government's track record makes that a given.

Proponents offer all kinds of dire warnings about what will happen if the government doesn't step in. If any of those warnings are true, why hasn't it happened already? Why has my ISP failed to block content and speech it doesn't like? Is it just a coincidence that every place I want to go online is OK by my ISP, or is my ISP indifferent as long as it gets paid on time?

Right now I have four companies I know of that want to sell me Internet access. The ISP I've contracted with competes for my money. And when my Internet is running slow, it runs slow no matter where I surf.

Now consider this: How can, for example, AT&T "edit" my Internet experience when my ISP has no connection to AT&T? If we are to logically consider arguments for and against, can you say with a straight face AT&T is more able than the government to censor the Internet?

To paraphrase one observer, the Internet to this point has proven to be good for all levels of business, providing for innovation and allowing technology to compete and succeed without the "benefits" of government oversight.

Exactly. Why spoil that track record by getting the federal government involved?