USA Today leaks Obama's backup immigration plan if the Senate fails to pass a bill

[BigRedChief]

White House immigration bill offers path to residency
Alan Gomez, USA TODAY7:37p.m. EST February 16, 2013
The legislation is being developed as members in both chambers of Congress are drafting their own immigration bills
Story Highlights

• An administration official said the plan is being distributed to agencies
• Proposal calls for more security funding and status checks
• Illegal immigrants would apply for "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa

WASHINGTON — A draft of a White House immigration proposal obtained by USA TODAY would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents within eight years.


The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires within four years. In addition, the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants could apply for a newly created "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa, under the draft bill being written by the White House.


If approved, they could then apply for the same provisional legal status for their spouse or children living outside the country, according to the draft.

The draft was obtained from an Obama administration official who said it was being distributed to various agencies. The official requested anonymity because he was not authorized to release the proposal publicly.


The bill, which is still a working draft that could be significantly altered and may never be sent to Congress, is being developed as members in both chambers of Congress are drafting their own immigration bills. Last month, four Republican senators joined with four Democratic senators to announce their agreement on the general outlines of an immigration plan. In the House, a bipartisan group of representatives has been negotiating an immigration proposal for years and are writing their own bill.

In his first term, Obama often deferred to Congress on drafting and advancing major legislation, including the Affordable Care Act. He has openly supported the efforts in Congress to take the lead on immigration legislation, and just this week met with Democratic senators to discuss their proposals.
But two weeks ago in Las Vegas, while outlining his immigration plans, Obama made clear that he would not wait too long for Congress to get moving.

"If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away," he said.

White House spokesman Clark Stevens said Saturday that the administration continues to support the bipartisan efforts ongoing in Congress.


"The president has made clear the principles upon which he believes any common-sense immigration reform effort should be based," Stevens said. "We continue to work in support of a bipartisan effort, and while the president has made clear he will move forward if Congress fails to act, progress continues to be made and the administration has not prepared a final bill to submit."


According to the White House draft, people would need to pass a criminal background check, submit biometric information and pay fees to qualify for the new visa. If approved, they would be allowed to legally reside in the U.S. for four years, work and leave the country for short periods of time. After the four years, they could then reapply for an extension.


Illegal immigrants would be disqualified from the program if they were convicted of a crime that led to a prison term of at least one year, three or more different crimes that resulted in a total of 90 days in jail, or if they committed any offense abroad that "if committed in the United States would render the alien inadmissible or removable from the United States."


People currently in federal custody or facing deportation proceedings also could be allowed to apply for the Lawful Prospective Immigrant visa. Application forms and instructions would be provided in "the most common languages spoken by persons in the United States," but the application and all supporting evidence submitted to the federal government would have to be in English.


They would also be given a new identification card to show as proof of their legal status in the country.


The immigrants could then apply for legal permanent residence, commonly known as a green card, within eight years if they learn English and "the history and government of the United States" and pay back taxes. That would then clear the path for them to apply for U.S. citizenship.


To combat fraud, the draft proposes a new Social Security card be developed that is "fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant and wear-resistant." The Social Security Administration would be required to issue the new cards within two years.


A major requirement for many Republicans is enhanced border security. The bill calls for an unspecified increase in the Border Patrol, allows the Department of Homeland Security to expand technological improvements along the border and adds 140 new immigration judges to process the heavy flow of people who violate immigration laws.


It also orders U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to study whether a land-border crossing fee should be implemented to help offset border security costs. The draft also proposes raising many inspection fees that border-crossers already pay.


The draft bill proposes a new plan to allow Homeland Security to "accept donations" from citizens, businesses and local and state governments to improve ports of entry and security features along the border. And it would require CBP to begin collecting statistics on deaths along the border and report them quarterly.


The draft also expands the E-Verify program that checks the immigration status of people seeking new jobs. Businesses with more than 1,000 employees must begin using the system within two years, businesses with more than 250 employees within three years and all businesses within four years.
Homeland Security, working with the U.S. departments of Labor and Agriculture, the attorney general and other agencies, would engage in a $40 million-a-year program to educate business owners and workers about the program.



Homeland Security also would be required to submit a report within 18 months showing how the worker verification system is working, and specifically explain how it is affecting the nation's agriculture industry, which relies heavily on illegal immigrant workers.


The draft obtained by USA TODAY does not include sections that would alter the nation's legal immigration system to adjust the future flow of legal immigrants, which is expected to be a critical component of any immigration overhaul.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-bill/1925017/

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

I think what he is saying is that in his opinion (which I agree with) the amnesty issue will not help the GOP therefore don't allow the false hope of votes derail us from our principles.

And what principle are you upholding?

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

And what principle are you upholding?

Border security is the priority to many of us. First you have to stop (or at least slow down as much as possible) the constant influx of illegals. Then you can start addressing the other issues in the debate. But even then, I think amnesty in this situation is a crock of shit. I don't think most will go for it. And let us be real honest, it isn't amnesty that has the Latinos voting for the left. It is, as Rush so succinctly put it after the election, Santa Clause they are voting for.

Amnesty is nothing more than a red herring thrown out by the left trying to get the right to believe they need to modify their position when it will not help them one bit.

[Direckshun]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...e-hostility-t#

Gingrich: Obama Immigration Bill Will Never Pass House Due to Hostility Towards President
By Noel Sheppard
February 17, 2013 | 12:34

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made a statement on ABC's This Week Sunday that will turn heads on both sides of Capitol Hill and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

"An Obama immigration plan is not going to pass the House" due to "the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility."

NEWT GINGRICH: I think there's a very important part of this that the Obama administration probably can't bring itself to deal with: an Obama immigration plan is not going to pass the House.

JONATHAN KARL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: He needs a Rubio/Obama plan.

GINGRICH: No, I'm just saying just as a Bush Social Security plan after '04 was dead because it was the Bush Social Security plan. So if you want to actually get legislation…

KARL: Can I ask you, will a Rubio immigration plan pass the House?

GINGRICH: No, but I think a Rubio, the House Republicans and House Democrats have been meeting on immigration. I mean, I think there will be a House immigration bill that has a very substantial support that Boehner and Cantor and others will be supporting, and I think that negotiated with a Senate immigration bill that has to have bipartisan support could actually get to the president's desk. But an Obama plan led and driven by Obama in this atmosphere with the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility I think is very hard to imagine that bill, that his bill is going to pass the House.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...e-hostility-t#

Gingrich: Obama Immigration Bill Will Never Pass House Due to Hostility Towards President
By Noel Sheppard
February 17, 2013 | 12:34

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made a statement on ABC's This Week Sunday that will turn heads on both sides of Capitol Hill and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

"An Obama immigration plan is not going to pass the House" due to "the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility."

After 4 ****ing years you would think the Republicans would so something other than oppose anything Obama.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Border security is the priority to many of us. First you have to stop (or at least slow down as much as possible) the constant influx of illegals. Then you can start addressing the other issues in the debate. But even then, I think amnesty in this situation is a crock of shit. I don't think most will go for it. And let us be real honest, it isn't amnesty that has the Latinos voting for the left. It is, as Rush so succinctly put it after the election, Santa Clause they are voting for.

Amnesty is nothing more than a red herring thrown out by the left trying to get the right to believe they need to modify their position when it will not help them one bit.

If the Republicans in Washington believed as you do, Texas will turn blue in 2016. But, they are not as blind to the demographics as you seem to be. the public has moved on, you should too.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

So ****ing what? If you are scared of some uneducated, non-english speaking immigrant of taking your job, you need to research a career change. Every proposal says......

• They go to the back of the line.
• They pay a fine, back taxes.
• They pay taxes while they are in line waiting.
• they have to register and maintain their residence in a database.
• Learn English.
• They get no benefits as a citizen until they actually are a citizen. Which as of right now could be 11 years.

What back taxes are they paying? More like they'll be living off our tax dollars for their entire life.

Edit: This seems really flawed to me. First off how are they going to determine how many dollars in back taxes these people owe? So they were illegally employed and between them and their illegal employer they're going to suddenly be honest and truthful? Sure. Also I would imagine that most of these people are low income people who when they file their tax return will get all their money back plus some. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of this 11 milliom people don't comply and don't give a shit either way.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by philfree

What back taxes are they paying? More like they'll be living off our tax dollars for their entire life.

Edit: This seems really flawed to me. First off how are they going to determine how many dollars in back taxes these people owe? So they were illegally employed and between them and their illegal employer they're going to suddenly be honest and truthful? Sure. Also I would imagine that most of these people are low income people who when they file their tax return will get all their money back plus some. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of this 11 milliom people don't comply and don't give a shit either way.

Again, the Republican plan is the exact same. The only difference is when the pathway to citizenship starts. Republicans want nothing to start until border security is finished. Dem's want both to start.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

If the Republicans in Washington believed as you do, Texas will turn blue in 2016. But, they are not as blind to the demographics as you seem to be. the public has moved on, you should too.

Be honest, the public hasn't moved on.

The public has literally CHANGED.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

I think what he is saying is that in his opinion (which I agree with) the amnesty issue will not help the GOP therefore don't allow the false hope of votes derail us from our principles.

It's amazing how obtuse that turd is.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

You can't have open borders with a welfare system. You must choose one or the other.

Exactly, how I feel. I also don't believe it's part of any natural order to have no borders, though it is a libertarian stand.

Besides, Henry Kissinger said "we're" building an "international society." So who is this "we" ? It's the power elite in our government.
The central planning by our govt is toward no borders. I suspect under one govt eventually. But this isn't happening due to some natural order at all.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Be honest, the public hasn't moved on.

The public has literally CHANGED.

I agree. Just like gay marriage and equality for gays. The public view on a pathway to citizenship has changed.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

If the Republicans in Washington believed as you do, Texas will turn blue in 2016. But, they are not as blind to the demographics as you seem to be. the public has moved on, you should too.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid you have me confused for some kind of f#cking politician that changes with the prevailing winds. I'm not. And I sure as hell am not going to take advice from some one who is a member of the opposition. Like you, or any other Dem actually has my party's best interest at heart. Please.

Here is a little something I dug up on the '86 Amnesty plan. Illegal immigration actually went UP on account of it.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/ins1986amnesty.html

Again, no thanks on your advice. I'll stand by my beliefs and avoid this red herring everyone keeps saying we should pay attention too.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I agree. Just like gay marriage and equality for gays. The public view on a pathway to citizenship has changed.

I agree unless the borders aren't secured.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Exactly, how I feel. I also don't believe it's part of any natural order to have no borders, though it is a libertarian stand.
[/indent]

Back in the immigration wave of the 1880s, there were no welfare programs or special preference policies like affirmative action for the newcomers to take. It was sink-or-swim and you could only get ahead by taking crappy jobs (if they were even available) and working your way up by proving your value to your employer. It wasn't perfect but it's better than what we have today.

We can have an open immigration system like that today, or we can opt for a socialist system in Europe. But we have to choose. We cannot have both.