USCIS Drafting Amnesty Plan for Illegals Already?

[TBoneTX 45,287]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=153869

Amnesty? Bureaucrats already drawing up plan to implement

$1 billion, 30-week processing program revealed in leaked 14-page Homeland Security memo

Posted: May 14, 2010, 4:48 pm Eastern

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, already has drafted a plan for processing 13 million illegal alien applicants for amnesty in a 30-week period at an estimated cost of $1 billion, WND has learned.

The plan, a copy of which was obtained by WND, anticipates the approval of so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" legislation pending in Congress and assumes a nine-month ramp-up period for processing of applications.

The undated draft report anticipates the possibility of the legislation requiring public benefits to amnesty applicants.

"If the statute requires interim benefits while application pending, issue discrete variant of status document (shorter term duration that [sic] if issued after prospective immigrant status granted)," the 14-page memo states.

Under the plan, applicants 14 through 79 years old would be required to submit themselves for photographs, a full set of fingerprints and a signature. A photo and single print would be required for others.

Only one outside contractor is discussed in the memo – Northrop Grumman – and the plan suggests negotiating a contract now, even before the legislation is approved. It also calls for volunteer help at local service centers and field offices.

The last time Washington attempted a push for amnesty under the guise of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," under President George W. Bush in 2007, the project triggered an outcry from talk radio and the public. It failed as a result. However, the political makeup of the Congress has changed since then, becoming even more Democratic.

Democratic leaders recognize their control of both houses is in jeopardy in the November elections and are determined to pass the amnesty program – though they abhor that word.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has enlisted evangelical leaders to promote the plan. Democrats are determined to get at least some Republican support for the measure so the party is not held to account for amnesty like it is for another unpopular piece of legislation following the health-care debate that already threatens many Democrat seats.

Even Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., formerly vociferous proponents of the plan during the Bush administration, have distanced themselves from efforts in the Senate to revive it.

"You can play a vital role," Schumer told religious leaders including Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, saying Republicans have great respect for them. "So please, if you could, help us get some Republicans just to sit in a room and talk to us."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

World Nut Daily, si man?

[TBoneTX 45,287]

They got a copy of it, si man. We don't know the date of the report, though.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Um, I have it on very good authority, this plan was drafted as early as September of last year, though it may have been through a number of iterations. One of the proposals, if it hasn't been spelled out publicly yet, is across the board fee increases (imagine that!) in the area of 50-100% for all USCIS fees.

Um, I have it on very good authority, this plan was drafted as early as September of last year, though it may have been through a number of iterations. One of the proposals, if it hasn't been spelled out publicly yet, is across the board fee increases (imagine that!) in the area of 50-100% for all USCIS fees.

PS, they also plan to increase employment to handle the increased applications

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Wow, imagine the number of ICE employees you could employ to help raid the true criminals of illegal immigration with 1 billion?

[Pooky 3,784]

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, already has drafted a plan for processing 13 million illegal alien applicants for amnesty in a 30-week period at an estimated cost of $1 billion, WND has learned.

So, for legislation that is still to be finalised and put before Congress, the Federal government already has a plan to legalise 13 million illegal immigrants in a timespan of just over 6 months, at a cost of $1bn.

Yet for legislation ALREADY IN PLACE to deal with illegal immigrants and employers using them, there are no plans to utilise $1bn to make a significant impression on the numbers of illegals.

THIS IS SO MESSED UP IT'S NOT FUNNY!

Let's just hope the rising support for Arizona among the electorate stops immigration "reform" dead.

[justashooter 430]

wow, imagine how many democrat votes this would eventually buy.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

wow, imagine how many democrat votes this would eventually buy.

It is not just Democrats who have historically supported the idea of amnesty, and it was Reagan who kicked things off in 1986. But keep up the partisan non-sense boys!

[Pooky 3,784]

It is not just Democrats who have historically supported the idea of amnesty, and it was Reagan who kicked things off in 1986. But keep up the partisan non-sense boys!

I'm non-partisan and I want this immigration "reform" sunk without trace. I don't give a damn for the corporate protection antics of the Republicans, or the bleeding-heart vote grabbing antics of the Democrats. I didn't support BushBaby's immigration "reform" and I don't support the current one, either. I want the current law enforced and the illegal immigration problem resolved without granting an instant amnesty for 13 million of them.

You can't deny, however, that the majority of those that would come under the auspices of this amnesty would be Democrat-leaning voters, though. No-one seems to think otherwise.

[peejay 327]

It is not just Democrats who have historically supported the idea of amnesty, and it was Reagan who kicked things off in 1986. But keep up the partisan non-sense boys!

Reagan signed an amnesty bill passed by a Democratic majority congress and handed off to him to sign. Of course he could have vetoed it and let them see if they could get the votes to override a veto, but it didn't happen that way. Former Attorney General during Reagan's presidency, Edwin Meese, has stated that it is his opinion that had Reagan seen the mess that precedent created he would not have done it and certainly would not do it again. Read:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18399

I personally could give ####### which party propagates this continued failed policy of repeatedly amnestying illegal aliens. It's stupid and does nothing to deter illegal immigration. It rewards and encourages it. How about enforcing the laws and fulfilling the broken promises of the previous "comprehensive immigration reforms" instead of another amnesty? We do not need to amnesty illegal aliens to enforce present immigration/work authorization laws nor to genuinely reform immigration and secure our border.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I'm non-partisan and I want this immigration "reform" sunk without trace. I don't give a damn for the corporate protection antics of the Republicans, or the bleeding-heart vote grabbing antics of the Democrats. I didn't support BushBaby's immigration "reform" and I don't support the current one, either. I want the current law enforced and the illegal immigration problem resolved without granting an instant amnesty for 13 million of them.

You can't deny, however, that the majority of those that would come under the auspices of this amnesty would be Democrat-leaning voters, though. No-one seems to think otherwise.

Fair enough. It is painful to watch the clueless make this a partisan issue though. I don't know that I personally agree with amnesty for all, only that I am sure it would be disruptive and brutal to attempt to forcibly remove all illegals.

Let's also not forget, the worst of the worst are drug gang members. They don't have employers. They would be completely unaffected by a crackdown on illegal employment.

Who they may or may not vote for, and if many would vote at all is a side issue.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Um, I have it on very good authority, this plan was drafted as early as September of last year, though it may have been through a number of iterations. One of the proposals, if it hasn't been spelled out publicly yet, is across the board fee increases (imagine that!) in the area of 50-100% for all USCIS fees.

PS, they also plan to increase employment to handle the increased applications

[Pooky 3,784]

Fair enough. It is painful to watch the clueless make this a partisan issue though. I don't know that I personally agree with amnesty for all, only that I am sure it would be disruptive and brutal to attempt to forcibly remove all illegals.

Let's also not forget, the worst of the worst are drug gang members. They don't have employers. They would be completely unaffected by a crackdown on illegal employment.

Who they may or may not vote for, and if many would vote at all is a side issue.

Agreed, possible voter allegiance is a side issue, for now.

But "disruptive and brutal to attempt to forcibly remove all illegals"? You're being a bit strong there. How many people here are advocating rounding up 13-20 million people and deporting them? Not me. Not most of the people supporting enforcement of the current Federal laws.

Most people here are arguing to strangle the demand side of the equation. Take care of the employers first and foremost. Raid them. Fine them - hard. Make it financially untenable to employ illegal immigrant labour. Cut off the demand and the flow of illegal immigrants will slow, stop, then reverse itself. If illegal immigrants are identified in this process, then the weight of Federal law should fall on them and they should be deported. To do otherwise is abrogating the law and negligent of the Federal authorities.

But "disruptive and brutal"? Illegal immigrants know they are coming here in the hope that the Federal authorities will continue to make only token efforts to enforce current Federal law. They know the risks. They have accepted the risks by coming here in the first place. They can have no complaints if the Federal authorities catch up with them and do what they are current legislation requires of them.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I was listening to Fox News Radio at night (right wing radio station). A man called in and said, "Since the Republicans oppose Amnesty, and Democrats wants Amnesty, there's no chance in hell we'll be able to solve this issue. I'd suggest that those who are here illegally file for permanent stay, pay a huge fine, pay any back taxes, and are set at the end of the paperwork line behind those who set their petitions earlier."

It turned out everyone who called that night, Democrats and Republicans agree on this type of solution. I wonder why nobody in Congress is proposing this type of measure.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I was listening to Fox News Radio at night (right wing radio station). A man called in and said, "Since the Republicans oppose Amnesty, and Democrats wants Amnesty, there's no chance in hell we'll be able to solve this issue. I'd suggest that those who are here illegally file for permanent stay, pay a huge fine, pay any back taxes, and are set at the end of the paperwork line behind those who set their petitions earlier."

It turned out everyone who called that night, Democrats and Republicans agree on this type of solution. I wonder why nobody in Congress is proposing this type of measure.

b/c it's not realistic either. Do you really think the illegals could afford to pay a large fine and back taxes? Hell no. - It'd turn out to be an amnesty bill all around where most wouldn't end up paying a dime.