Immigration agency perks putting security at risk?

Daily Bulletin ^ | 9/12/06 | Sara A. Carter

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Problem? What problem? Oh, that. We redefined that to be a non-problem last year.

[VOYAGER]

By one estimate, the Senate bill will bring in over 62 million people over the next decade," Royce said. "USCIS will be faced with a challenge of widespread document fraud. We saw it in the (1986) amnesty bill, and we will see it on a much bigger scale this time around."<

"The dirty rotten scoundrels"!

The gangrape of America by the President amd his willing accomplices the Senate and the divided House!

"VOMIT"!!

[spintreebob]

The faster immigrants are pushed through legally, the more immigrant wannabes will use the system and be legal and the less illegals there will be.

This separates us into many sub-groups.

1) Those who think it is all about ILLEGAL

2) Those who are opposed to all immigration, legal and illegal.

3) Those like me who think the focus should not be legal or illegal, but rather undesireable vs desireable.
- Welcome workers
- Focus on terrorists, murderers, rapists, welfare parasites.

This means changing the concept of an Immigration Service from a FOCUS on NUMBERS to a FOCUS on UNDESIREABLES. Whether the NUMBERS focus is on the NUMBER pushed through or the NUMBER not pushed through, the problem is that the focus should not be on quantity. It should be on quality.

[snowman1]

Why don't they just ask the AMERICAN CITIZEN to just bend over. These people will do anything that it takes to screw the public. Watch the cost of welfare to skyrocket.

[Marine Inspector]

3) Those like me who think the focus should not be legal or illegal, but rather undesireable vs desireable.

That's me.

BTW, everyone that is currently illegally in the country is considered undesirable in my book.

[GarySpFc]

The backlog is still there, and here is how it works. I will use my own stepdaughter as an example.

My wife and I applied August 30, 2002 for her 22 year old daughter to immigrate from Russia to the US. Her priority date became August 30, 2002. At that time they were accepting adult children of citizens with a priority date of July 1, 1996, but we were assured they were processing immigrant visas much faster than in the past. According to the dates above it would take 6 years for my stepdaughter to legally immigrate here. Her papers were processed and approved last Spring, and we paid for the visa in full ($390).
Today her priority date remains August 30, 2002, but as of the August Visa Bulletin they only had visas for those with a priority date of January 1, 1997 or earlier. In other words she has waited for 4 years, and have only come forward 6 months. At the present rate she might be able to immigrate here LEGALLY in another 20 years. This is as an adult daughter of a CITIZEN.

The problem is with Presidents Clinton and Bush. You likely are not aware of it, but they have given amnesties to over 3 million illegal aliens in the last 10 years. These amnesties have given the illegal aliens a place in line, which delays those trying to come legally, and it discourges them. Why should a person wait several years and spend thousands in the process attempting to immigrate legally, when President Bush has promised you will be given amnesty and the cost will be far less?

[Malacoda]

But they're not allowed to PROFILE for undesireables, because the Immigration Advocacy people would go nuts and screech about discrimination.

[VOA]

From all our illegals to you nice people that play by the rules in order
to enter the USA:
SUCKERS!!!

[GarySpFc]

This means changing the concept of an Immigration Service from a FOCUS on NUMBERS to a FOCUS on UNDESIREABLES. Whether the NUMBERS focus is on the NUMBER pushed through or the NUMBER not pushed through, the problem is that the focus should not be on quantity. It should be on quality.

There are so many problems with your thesis I don't know where to start. Let me just say your concept of separating desirables from undesirables is built in the current process, and it frequently fails. Those who are illegal aliens have already proved they do not respect our laws, and are therefore undesirable.

[VOA]

"But they're not allowed to PROFILE for undesireables, because the Immigration
Advocacy people would go nuts and screech about discrimination."

As illustrated by the case of actor James Woods, as he related his
story of identifying 2 of the 9-11 hijackers on The Tonight Show last night.

Apparently Woods (and an airline stewardess?) that reported the weird
activities of some passengers aboard a Boston-to-LA flight not long before
9-11 got a nice treatment by the FBI.

Labeled as bigots and had their reports disregareded.

Until 9-12-01.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1699805/posts

[Marine Inspector]

100% correct.

[Marine Inspector]

The problem is with Presidents Clinton and Bush. You likely are not aware of it, but they have given amnesties to over 3 million illegal aliens in the last 10 years. These amnesties have given the illegal aliens a place in line, which delays those trying to come legally, and it discourges them.

100% Correct.

[PRND21]

The problem is with Presidents Clinton and Bush.

Why do you leave out Reagan?
His "amnesty" was real and not just monger symantics.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

Guess it is out of the question for Citizenship and Immigration Services to have enough employees to actually accomplish their assigned duties!!!!! I am no fan of bigger government, but geez Louise, get the job done timely and accurately! Oh, but noooo, we must make our employees feel like we are appreciating them ... we must bolster their self esteem ... we must have a party! And, at the end of the day, the backlog remains. Sheesh.

< /rant >

[GarySpFc]

The reason I left President Reagan out was because he did not directly have all that much to do with the current backlog.

[GarySpFc]

The CIS charges a fee for everything, and so it's not like they don't have the money.

[PRND21]

That's because he amnestied the backlog.
Blaming Bush/Clinton and not Reagan is suspect.

[gubamyster]

ping

[Malacoda]

SOME of this is is a misrepresentation of fact.

A few facts:

1) Backlog reduction was mandated by Congress. INS (now CIS) was given five years, beginning in October of 2001, to eliminate their backlog. There were no benefits offered, but there were consequences for failure to comply... including the steady elimination of positions, and stripping of authority and budget. Rep. Royce knows this and his comments are nothing but political posturing and pandering.

2) There ARE individuals who have cut corners. To suggest
otherwise would be to ascribe a greater degree of virtue
among civil servants than exists in the general public. They are no less, or more, flawed.

3) There HAVE been rewards for performance. Since
when is it a bad business model to reward employees for
performance? If we are to adopt a business model for
government, shouldn't it come with the incentives? Could
such a model work without them?

4) There HAVE NOT been changes to the national security and
criminal background checks. In fact, they couldn't short-
circuit those systems on individual cases if they tried since the system is largely comprised of automatic notification to law-enforcement partners. Those law enforcement agencies report back and CIS processing systems require immediate "cease and desist" actions on petitions and applications that come back with a "positive hit." On a related point... Those who allege that CIS has cut short National Security or Criminal Record checks should check out the number of Mandamus cases filed nationally to compell USCIS to move cases forward that are "stalled" for background checks completion.

Finally, any article about fraud prevetion and national security, within USCIS, that lacks awareness of the existence of the Office of Fraud Detection and National
Security is hopelessly flawed. Thee IS a division that works to detect and prosecue fraud.