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 mlyonsd

Did he give the reasons why or should we just assume you've gone over it and have decided for us he's wrong.

Same BS about border security first before anything happens on the path to citizenship.

You and your fellow Republicans had better drop this border security before anything else or they will get no credit for the reform and the 70/30 split will remain. The Republicans will never win another national election. We don't need one party rule in the executive branch

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

You and your fellow Republicans had better drop this border security before anything else or they will get no credit for the reform and the 70/30 split will remain. The Republicans will never win another national election. We don't need one party rule in the executive branch

Just like the GOP got a 30-70 split just two years after the 1986 Amnesty that Reagan signed. Do you follow the news?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

No response to my "trap" post?

It plays into something I see as a fundamental flaw in the philosophies of both major parties and I'll probably post a thread on it at some point.

No response at this time, no. But I am looking forward to the thread. It's interesting, and I'll probably have some thoughts.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Just like the GOP got a 30-70 split just two years after the 1986 Amnesty that Reagan signed. Do you follow the news?

Totally different now. I guess you can wait 20 years and hope the public forgets.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

And you can keep you insurance, your doctor, and health care will be cheaper. Right.

The Republicans have the same plan. The only difference is when the pathway to citizenship starts.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

We don't live in a free market. We live in a world where politicians control the market. If there are incentives to come - such as affirmative action policies, cradle-to-grave healthcare and retirement, and superior schools on the cheap for them - they will come.

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

FALSE. Yes... the welfare system is broken... but to think that it is being taken advantage of by immigrants MORE than they give in to the system is to think like a "statist" liberal... it's simply wrong.. not just systematically but pragmatically as well. Stop thinking in "idealistic" term and look at REALITY. Science and NUMBERS will show that that way of thinking is based in FEAR not REALITY. I'm ****ing tired of allowing for FEAR based ideals being given credence over PROVEN REALITY. It's time for us to ball up and stop this nonsense. For ****s sake people, we should be smatter than this.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The Republicans have the same plan. The only difference is when the pathway to citizenship starts.

Yes and BOTH plans are FUNDAMENTALLY flawed. YOU of all people on this board know more about this subject than most. The proposed "solutions" are in the right direction but HALF ASSED at best. Both established parties are looking to pander for votes while still taking advantage of immigrants. It's disgusting and I'm barely able to keep my cool while allowing it to happen... in the name of "reform."

BTW I completely understand those of you who look at this from afar and have your differing opinions... but PLEASE take a second to look at my last few posts on the subject and think about being intellectually consistent. I'm the last thing from being a bleeding heart on any topic... but in this regard I can be empathetic and also RIGHT, without reservation.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

FALSE. Yes... the welfare system is broken... but to think that it is being taken advantage of by immigrants MORE than they give in to the system is to think like a "statist" liberal... it's simply wrong.. not just systematically but pragmatically as well. Stop thinking in "idealistic" term and look at REALITY. Science and NUMBERS will show that that way of thinking is based in FEAR not REALITY. I'm ****ing tired of allowing for FEAR based ideals being given credence over PROVEN REALITY. It's time for us to ball up and stop this nonsense. For ****s sake people, we should be smatter than this.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are talking about legal immigrants where as he was referring to the illegal variety.

[donkhater]

Just like virtually every piece of legislation that is being proposed in DC these days, this plan focuses on the symptoms and results of broader policy rather than the issues that caused the problem in the first place.

To truly 'fix' the illegal immigration problem, (and let's face it, a Mexican immigration problem) the focus needs to be on the issues that are causing millions of Mexicans to flee their homeland and come to the US. I see nothing in this 'solution' that will solve anything.

Illegal immigration will continue, just like mass murders will continue even if 'assault' rifles are banned.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Totally different now. I guess you can wait 20 years and hope the public forgets.

I have no idea what you're babbling about here. What is "totally different" about the 1986 amnesty plan and this one? I'd like you to explain it to those of us who don't know all the differences.


And please explain why George Bush Sr only got 30% of the Latino vote, whereas Romney got 28%. One was VP when the Amnesty happened and one was a meanie talking about self-deportation. Why did they get the same %?

[Otter]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

You and your fellow Republicans had better drop this border security before anything else or they will get no credit for the reform and the 70/30 split will remain. The Republicans will never win another national election. We don't need one party rule in the executive branch

Quoted for future...

For someone so old you sure are stupid. Gratz big red commie! You make a spectacular puppet and wonderful role model.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I have no idea what you're babbling about here. What is "totally different" about the 1986 amnesty plan and this one? I'd like you to explain it to those of us who don't know all the differences

I have to point out the obvious?

• The Latino % of the voting populace is much much higher.
• % of Latinos in battleground states is higher. Already turned Nevada blue, Texas goes purple in 2016/2020.
• The American public is much more receptive to a pathway for illegal's to citizenship.
• The Demographics of politics has changed. The Latino vote can no longer be ignored.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I have to point out the obvious?

• The Latino % of the voting populace is much much higher.
• % of Latinos in battleground states is higher. Already turned Nevada blue, Texas goes purple in 2016/2020.
• The American public is much more receptive to a pathway for illegal's to citizenship.
• The Demographics of politics has changed. The Latino vote can no longer be ignored.

These are all facts. These are also totally irrelevant to the question I asked. Let me try again: can you show me any evidence that supporting Amnesty will help the GOP get the Latino vote?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

These are all facts. These are also totally irrelevant to the question I asked. Let me try again: can you show me any evidence that supporting Amnesty will help the GOP get the Latino vote?

hey moron, you asked what was different between now and 1986.

As far as your new question, Why would I give a shit? I'm not a Republican. You are really thinking and saying that Republicans should oppose a pathway to citizenship because it won't help the Republicans politically.?

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

hey moron, you asked what was different between now and 1986.

As far as your new question, Why would I give a shit? I'm not a Republican. You are really thinking and saying that Republicans should oppose a pathway to citizenship because it won't help the Republicans politically.?

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.