The recent editorial by Bloomberg View, “Immigration bill strikes delicate political balance” (April 20), gives a biased and inaccurate review of the “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation (S. 744) currently being debated in the Senate.

The editorial not only denies that this bill would be an amnesty, it expresses puzzlement that anyone would consider the “arduous, 13-year path to citizenship as anything other than a gauntlet.”

Yet a few paragraphs prior, it admitted that “if the law is enacted, these immigrants would be able to obtain a provisional status allowing them to work legally in the U.S.” In other words, people who are here illegally would receive immediate legal status. That is amnesty.

Most of these people are not primarily concerned with citizenship; what they want is legal status that will enable them to work in the U.S., displacing American workers. And, despite all assurances, they most likely will be eligible for various welfare programs.

For another thing, the editorial complains that the proposed border security benchmarks are too tough. Actually, the benchmarks are jokes. The secretary of homeland security has the unchecked power to declare the benchmarks met, so an administration sympathetic to illegal immigrants could render them meaningless, and the only consequence for not meeting them is the formation of a commission.

Even if they were tough, shouldn’t they be? How does Bloomberg intend to make certain that the border is secured without consequences for not securing it?

Far from striking a delicate balance, S. 744 is a worse amnesty than the one proposed in 2007, and it needs to be rejected.

Michael J. Jose

Augusta