“The issues you wrote about are not exclusive to California USCIS but Mayorkas has issued orders to grant ungrantable cases throughout USCIS.”—Message to The US Report
The US Report received that message after publishing columns about Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R) inquiries asking for information about potential benefits fraud in the immigration process. Grassley sent a letter to US Citizenship and Immigration Services director Alejandro Mayorkas in September.
Pointing out the level of approval for benefits, Grassley wrote that the employees claim approval ratings for benefits are around 98 percent—“despite estimates that fraudulent applications stand at about 25 percent.” Grassley has sent letters on more than one occasion in an attempt to find out more.
Immigration fraud on all levels is nothing new. Do a quick search and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
For instance in Tampa, Barbara Branks, the owner of La Gringa Professional Immigration Services got prison time for fraud. The Tampa Tribune said, “[B]ranks filed 274 fraudulent asylum petitions.” The paper said she made $816,000 in profit. Those numbers are based on what could be proved.
The Iowa Independent published a story in October about an imam “suspected of conspiracy and fraud in [the] naturalization process, an immigration offense.”
Obviously the federal infrastructure and perhaps the state infrastructure as well need to be investigated. Based on numerous public documents I have come to the conclusion that gatekeepers in government agencies may be influenced by their own political ideology—a backdoor approach to amnesty that may increase because it is not likely the DREAM Act will pass.
I don’t believe the government can afford to implement the DREAM Act. If we are cutting entitlements for American seniors, how can we implement another costly entitlement program?
If you consider all the results you get from a search using the term ‘immigration fraud,’ it’s obvious US immigration policy has been subverted for politics and profit.
How is such fraud enabled? What role do high level federal employees and officials play? Is there a trickle down effect from Washington’s policy?
Immigration is currently projected as a hot button political topic, with leftwingers doe-eyed over the American melting pot and rightwingers wide-eyed over a process run amok.
What’s needed is an investigation of the infrastructure—the directors, the managers and the heads of departments who follow a policy that may not be in the best interest of the US taxpayer.
Look to 1986, to the amnesty bill passed by a Republican Senate and a Democrat House with President Ronald Reagan’s approval. The Center for Immigration Studies in an excellent backgrounder on the 1986 amnesty bill said, “[I]n separate, off-stage negotiations, three key young Democratic members of the House put together a compromise that satisfied representatives of both the (largely Hispanic) farm workers and the California growers. Working around a kitchen table in one of their bachelor apartments on Capital Hill, then-Rep. Leon Panetta (D-Calif.), who spoke for the growers, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who spoke for the illegal farm workers, and the broker, then-Rep., now Sen., Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) created a compromise provision for Special Agricultural Workers, or SAWs. The trio then convinced other members of Congress to accept their provisions for farm workers.”
We now know that bill led to chain migration and we also know it was costly for the US government. We also know that current entitlements and what I consider a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment on birthright citizenship are magnets for illegal entrants.
The federal system needs investigations and audits before anything like the DREAM Act is passed. Any member of Congress voting for such a bill before fraud and corruption are dealt with should be removed from office.
Case in point—does anyone really know what the DREAM Act will cost the US government?
Our subverted system not only harms the taxpayer and the unskilled American worker, it harms those who come here legally and respect federal law.
[Analysis by Kay B. Day/Nov. 24, 2010]