Thread: Lou says we should let in any that want to come

USA Nevada wrote:

the question is why are they back logged?

If we only hand out x amount of green cards a year, supposedly in a fair manner to many diverse peoples from many countries , Why should there be a back log at all

Here's an explanation.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5533508.html

Feb. 12, 2008, 11:04AM
Green cards will go out, background check or not

Move meant to ease huge backlog of applicants, but critics warn it's a threat to security


By SUSAN CARROLL
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

To ease an application backlog, the federal government plans to issue green cards to about 47,000 immigrants before the FBI finishes a complete background check — a move that critics warned could compromise national security.

The policy change is designed to address a mounting backlog of green card applicants who have met other requirements for permanent residence and have passed an automated fingerprint check, yet are waiting more than six months for FBI "name check" clearance, said Chris Bentley, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service spokesman.

The green card holders will still be expected to eventually pass the "name check" portion of the background check process, which in some cases takes the FBI more than two years to complete. If U.S. officials find serious problems after issuing a green card, the permanent resident could be deported, Bentley said.

"This maintains national security," Bentley said. "It doesn't compromise the system, but at the same time it allows us to get benefits to people who deserve them."

The decision was outlined in a Feb. 4 USCIS memo. Bentley said officials are still reviewing how to implement the new policy and could not say when they will start issuing green cards from the backlog.

Before applicants are approved for a green card, they must pass an FBI fingerprint check and be screened against a law enforcement database.

But after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress strengthened the requirements for the background check for green card and citizenship applicants. As part of the process, the FBI is required to do more in-depth name checks on immigrants to see if applicants have any connection with suspicious activity.

USCIS officials reported an estimated 329,160 applicants for citizenship and green cards were waiting in the FBI name check backlog as of May, the most recent data available. Of those, about 104,600 — or 32 percent — had been in the system for more than three months but less than a year. Sixteen percent, some 51,497 applicants, were pending between one and two years. About 17 percent of applicants had been waiting more than two years.


'Holy grail' of documents
Critics raised concerns about issuing green cards without completing the full name check since permanent residents are able to travel without restrictions and sponsor relatives for legal status.

"Basically a green card is the holy grail of terrorist documents," said Bryan Griffith, a spokesman with the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington D.C, which advocates for stricter immigration controls. He said the changes will create a "loophole" that could be easily exploited.

An FBI spokesman could not be reached for comment. The agency has attributed the backlog to understaffing and the large volume of requests. The FBI received about 70,000 name check requests per week from 70 agencies in 2007, with half of those coming from USCIS, according to FBI statistics.

The backlog has become so pervasive across the country that hundreds of would-be citizens and green-card holders are suing the federal government to expedite their background checks. Recent cases in Houston include doctors, researchers and oil company employees. In December, a 50-year-old native of Jordan with three U.S.-born children filed a complaint in federal court in Houston to expedite his green card application, which was filed in 1999.

"There are a lot of people who have been waiting for these green cards," said Naomi Jiyoung Bang, an attorney with the Houston immigration firm Quan Burdette & Perez. "It's very frustrating, because unlike the naturalization applicants, they have no rights. They're in limbo."

Ibrahim Abumaria, a 29-year-old from Palestine, came to Houston in 1997 on a student visa and married a U.S. citizen. He said he applied for a green card in 2001. Abumaria, a nursing student, said USCIS officials told him about two years ago the case was pending a background check.

In 2005, his mother died, and he wasn't able to go to Palestine for her funeral, he said, because his visa limits international travel. Now his father is ill, he added.

"It's restricting," he said. "And it's frustrating. I'm not a criminal."

susan.carroll@chron.com

Shock, I won't bring all that post down, but it s more proof what they are doing .

this is really bad news for us all . They are alreqdy giving refugee amnesty to 200,000 iraqis, probably most sunni ,like osama bin laden. This gets more insane everyday .

They are giving amnsety to every third world person they can . They are infiltrasting us with dangerous radical savages . One may become president,who knows !

People from nations like Somalia who drug our soldier through the streets after tearing his body up ,people who use torture tactics to make their victims live longer so the torture is exspanded . Like those two in iraq who were keep alive to prolong it .

These two soldiers captured in iraq were 20 and 23 when sent on a mission with several others who were ambushed . They had their eyes plucked out , their fingers and toes cut off , then hands , feet , were burned , fed their testicles and private part , then right before death they were beheaded . They have no consciene or feelings for other human beings ,only the lust fest they will have in paradise with their virgins . They are in the streets in London, NYC , Dearborn , Coppenhagan ,Paris and other cities who kiss their ass while they threaten them .

Then we have the others who want to lay back on our benefits and refuse to assimilate they give visas to .

A hard rain is about to fall if we don't wake up and unload that whitehouse in a peacful way with ballots and demonstrations . None of us have any place left to go .


You didn't hear about the torture of these young men or the others because on your major media ,they were too busy showing you the iraqi ass's 24-7 ! But a special forces guy told the story on independant websites.

We have millions inside our nation now who hate our guts . And the fox is guarding the hen house !

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

Didn't somebody say Lou Dobbs is a Libertarian? If he is...then you heard right.

When I stated that Lou was a populist I wasn't doing so as some sort of reinforcement to the subtle intention of usanevada to create dismay or doubt about Lou Dobbs.

I was simply stating that he isn't a Libertarian.

Lou's positions are populist. He has stated on his show he supports populism.

But if you notice, I didn't say that is bad or good or left or right. I think we have to be very careful not to fall into the polarity trap. Although my guess is that we will see many more attempts here at ALIPAC to identify fissures and items of disagreement in the coming months, it is best not to let that exploitation occur. In the US, party identification and ideology as is generally defined in colloquial terms, seems to be the basis of difference amoungst folks first and foremost, rather than the merits at hand in an argument. Possibly it is natural during an election for this to occur, but we shouldn't forget that most are here as a result of illegal immigration and collectivist expansion as it relates to illegal immigration. My guess is that you will see massive attempts at disruption over the coming months, they will attempt to discredit and smear William and ALIPAC and its members.

I would propose that when a disruptive or propagandistic presentation occurs, however obvious or veiled, that it be challeneged by requesting proof. Maybe a perfect immediate response to "usanevada" would be something along the lines of prove it, demonstrate it via empirical information, transcript, video clip, links etc. If this cannot be substantiated, then it would seem that this was an obvious attempt at slander. In this particular case at demoralizing a journalist who has been a lion in defending the constitution and the rule of law. Common sense would point out how well timed such slander is as it corresponds to the latest campaign to "oust" Lou is waged. A propagandist would not attack Lou directly on a forum that supports him directly, as that would galvanize support in opposition to the anti Lou open borders movement. The choice for the propagandist is to raise doubt and demoralize.

So in this case and in others, why not simply strike unsubstantiated negative assertations from the forum, or change the thread title and lock it if the offending person cannot provide evidence of the claim. In my opinion this would create a much needed understanding that propagandistic assertions and slander do not have the same place in the heirarchy of things as substantiated information.

There are some forums in the illegal immigration movement that I avoid. Associates of mine have attempted participation on these venues and have seen them be torn to shreads with propagandists, tin foil hatters and collectivist disruptors. It is important to remember that a forum is the public facing of the organization. Support may come or be denied simply based on the information ascertained in a quick context or glance. Research indicates that you have no more than 30 seconds to affect interpretation and collectivists know this. While a low bro response to this might be something like :

"You are giving too much importance to a forum"
or
"Its just a discussion place, dont take it to seriously"

I would say then, that this arguments supporter does not understand that an organization is judged by its people, not its message. The message attracts respondents.

Thats just my opinion...

Originally Posted by Chosen

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

Didn't somebody say Lou Dobbs is a Libertarian? If he is...then you heard right.

When I stated that Lou was a populist I wasn't doing so as some sort of reinforcement to the subtle intention of usanevada to create dismay or doubt about Lou Dobbs.

I was simply stating that he isn't a Libertarian.

Lou's positions are populist. He has stated on his show he supports populism.

But if you notice, I didn't say that is bad or good or left or right. I think we have to be very careful not to fall into the polarity trap. Although my guess is that we will see many more attempts here at ALIPAC to identify fissures and items of disagreement in the coming months, it is best not to let that exploitation occur. In the US, party identification and ideology as is generally defined in colloquial terms, seems to be the basis of difference amoungst folks first and foremost, rather than the merits at hand in an argument. Possibly it is natural during an election for this to occur, but we shouldn't forget that most are here as a result of illegal immigration and collectivist expansion as it relates to illegal immigration. My guess is that you will see massive attempts at disruption over the coming months, they will attempt to discredit and smear William and ALIPAC and its members.

I would propose that when a disruptive or propagandistic presentation occurs, however obvious or veiled, that it be challeneged by requesting proof. Maybe a perfect immediate response to "usanevada" would be something along the lines of prove it, demonstrate it via empirical information, transcript, video clip, links etc. If this cannot be substantiated, then it would seem that this was an obvious attempt at slander. In this particular case at demoralizing a journalist who has been a lion in defending the constitution and the rule of law. Common sense would point out how well timed such slander is as it corresponds to the latest campaign to "oust" Lou is waged. A propagandist would not attack Lou directly on a forum that supports him directly, as that would galvanize support in opposition to the anti Lou open borders movement. The choice for the propagandist is to raise doubt and demoralize.

So in this case and in others, why not simply strike unsubstantiated negative assertations from the forum, or change the thread title and lock it if the offending person cannot provide evidence of the claim. In my opinion this would create a much needed understanding that propagandistic assertions and slander do not have the same place in the heirarchy of things as substantiated information.

There are some forums in the illegal immigration movement that I avoid. Associates of mine have attempted participation on these venues and have seen them be torn to shreads with propagandists, tin foil hatters and collectivist disruptors. It is important to remember that a forum is the public facing of the organization. Support may come or be denied simply based on the information ascertained in a quick context or glance. Research indicates that you have no more than 30 seconds to affect interpretation and collectivists know this. While a low bro response to this might be something like :

"You are giving too much importance to a forum"
or
"Its just a discussion place, dont take it to seriously"

I would say then, that this arguments supporter does not understand that an organization is judged by its people, not its message. The message attracts respondents.

Thats just my opinion...

I agree we must be careful , but we also have to allow some things to be said without dressing them up and also let it stay a democratic type forum where everyone has their rights to speak out about their concerns .

We can't just ask the ones we dissagree with to prove everything that they write here . And if we all have to look up proof , it will slow us down .

Debate is how we learn who to vote for and trust . If Lou or anyone else is who some claim he is, then his reputation will withstand the ridicule .

We have all been fooled bi time by those we thought we could trust . Politics are always a heated subject .

Sometimes it is good to remind each other what we are up against and the danger that lurks inside our nation .

I welcome rebuttal and dissapline when I'm wrong or get carried away .

I don't think we have many who are out to get us here at ALIPAC .

NoAmnasty wrote:

We can't just ask the ones we dissagree with to prove everything that they write here .

Why not? An individual should always be prepared to provide evidence to support their claim, especially when passing it off as fact.

Concerns, questions, and opinions are fine, but anyone passing something off as a fact should be fully prepared to back their play.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... dt.01.html

DOBBS: Our federal government is just a wonderful organization. The Department of Homeland Security tonight has come up with a solution to a massive backlog of green card applications. The Department of Homeland Security now says it will grant green cards and dispense altogether with the completion of those just really, really tiresome background checks that it has to take -- undertake with each applicant.

As Bill Tucker now reports, this is just the latest example of our government putting expediency ahead of national security, and I don't know what ahead of just good judgment.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER (voice-over): The Department of Homeland Security is reversing its long-standing policy and will begin granting green cards to tens of thousands of applicants whose background checks are incomplete. Eligible immigrants are those whose fingerprints have cleared the FBI database of criminal convictions and arrests, but whose names haven't.

DHS defends the practice, noting that all applicants for green cards are people who have been in the country for several years and who have already undergone one background check when they initially entered the country. It's a move, though, that has alarmed agency critics. MARK KRIKORIAN, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: The whole point to doing these security checks every time a foreigner changes status is to give us a second, third, fourth chance to find out if they're really supposed to be here.

TUCKER: The policy change is intended to clear up a backlog of 150,000 applicants, some of whom have been waiting for more than three years. Critics say the policy reversal smacks of expedience trumping security.

MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER INS AGENT: If we can spend so much time, money, and effort screening passengers getting onboard airplanes, wouldn't it only make sense that we similarly subject aliens seeking to enter the United States, especially permanently, through a similar process of scrutiny?

TUCKER: In 2006 the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it had lost the files of 111,000 people waiting to become naturalized citizens. The agency then admitted it had granted citizenship to 30,000 of those people anyway.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Bottom line, say the critics, is that we are not taking responsibility for our immigration policies. Congress doesn't provide the necessary staffing, funding, or resources to do the job right, and the critics say that leaves us with two very simple choices.

Either Congress does provide the resources, or we reduce the number of legal immigrants that we allow in every year so that we can do the job right. Lou, compromising on security shouldn't be an option here.

DOBBS: Well, it shouldn't be necessary to reduce the number of people who want to come into this country lawfully. It shouldn't be even a consideration as to not providing a security and background check, a complete background check, on every person who wants to come into this country. Citizenship and Immigration Services run by Emilio Gonzales (ph), this man is a complete idiot.

He has an administration -- he is working in an administration that is filled with idiots, so his idiocy is not by any chance a rare or unusual occurrence in this administration, but the fact that Congress is compounding the absolute neglect and -- I can't even tell you -- the buffoonery of this administration by not insisting that we give greater resources to citizenship and immigration and demand that they operate like a responsible agency of this super power is -- it's unconscionable.

TUCKER: Well DHS's response when I talked to them for a while was that USCIS is a feeder (ph) of an agency. In other words, they're self-funded and they're hiding behind that excuse rather than saying we want to step in...

(CROSSTALK) DOBBS: Forgive me for interrupting you, Bill. I don't want to hear any more lamebrain concepts from DHS any more of their lame excuses. These people are absolutely irresponsible and they're unconscionable in their conduct of their constitutional responsibilities to the American people, and to those who want to become citizens of this country.

We talk about an immigration issue, an illegal immigration issue. Part of the reason is that we have a government that is absolutely acting in disregard and how about a little respect for the people who want to come here? We are -- we should be setting standards that by god every immigrant to this country lawfully has to meet, but we should treat them with respect when they do meet those standards.

TUCKER: Absolutely.

DOBBS: And we should treat that -- this nation with some respect. None of the above is occurring, of course. Thank you very much, George W. Bush, great work, what a great administration. I know you must be profoundly proud.

Lou was simply expressing his disgust with the incompetency of the DHS. He's on our side...one of the good guys!

Originally Posted by usanevada

Did I just hear Dobbs correctly?

He said papers should be available and easy to get for
WHOEVER wants to come in here ?

..the rebroadcast is on NOW..! 2am MT

I haven't seen him yet today [Weds]

Originally Posted by MountainDog

Originally Posted by harleycritter

Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.
Will Rogers

Hey poop head, where ya been? I missed you!

hey bro, been on the trip of a life time.

"DOBBS: Well, it shouldn't be necessary to reduce the number of people who want to come into this country lawfully. It shouldn't be even a consideration as to not providing a security and background check, a complete background check, on every person who wants to come into this country."

This is the part I caught ,

I wasn't making a statement of fact in my opening post , I just
ask if anyone else heard it and what they thought of it

I have never doubted that Lou was a good guy in the fight
against illegal immigration ,

From what I heard Dobbs say last night he is absolutely right DHS is full of idiots. Our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.