I am concerned that, in several recent editorials, the newspaper has reiterated many of the inaccurate or misleading arguments that President Barack Obama has used to justify his recent executive order on immigration.

More immigration will not solve Maine’s issues with an aging population, and putting illegal aliens on the tax rolls will not help the budget. This would be true only if the immigrants were net taxpayers. In reality, a large number will be eligible for refundable tax credits, meaning that once they are put on the tax rolls, the tax system will pay them.

This order is presented as an example of prosecutorial discretion, but it goes far beyond that. It will give illegal aliens not only a reprieve from deportation, but a work permit enabling them to compete with Americans for a new range of jobs.

Supposedly, because Congress will not pass a bill, Obama has no choice but to take executive action. However, we already have immigration laws, and they are not being enforced. The onus here should be on the executive branch to enforce the laws, not on Congress to codify the lawlessness.

The whole “pass a bill” argument is equivalent to a robber blaming the victim for the encounter because he did not hand over the money when asked nicely.

I wonder what the newspaper would think were Paul LePage to announce that Maine would no longer prosecute crimes committed by U.S. citizens against illegal aliens, and furthermore, that he would pardon anyone who committed them. He could use the same justifications as Obama: He is setting priorities on resources to prosecute crimes against U.S. citizens, and if Obama does not like it, he can enforce the law.

Somehow I believe the newspaper would quickly change its opinions about prosecutorial discretion.

Michael Jose

Augusta

Copy the Story Link