If an employer says he has no intention of firing the "entire" workforce of a company, just how comfortable do you think the employees feel?
Well, that's how I felt when federal officials said they have no intention of providing a backdoor amnesty to "the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."
. . . nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions.
-- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security in response to leaked memos from the agency
This comment certainly has merit. People often write or ask for memos that just provide an idea of options. Obviously, I would feel better if DHS was not even writing down the option of giving massive numbers of amnesties without permission of Congress. Nonetheless, the fact a memo was written like that doesn't mean that option will be taken or is even being seriously considered.
But then USCIS of the DHS seemed to undermine any reassurances by saying:
To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.
So does that mean DHS is only contemplating giving these forms of amnesty to 4 million of the 10 million illegal aliens? Or 9 million?
Why the adjective?
I would have felt a lot better if USCIS had said it had no plans to grant these amnesties "to any large groups of illegal immigrants."
It is pretty clear from the memos that these backdoor amnesties are prime possibilities for that little DREAM Act amnesty's intended beneficiaries. And that is 2.1 million illegal aliens -- about the size Ronald Reagan's entire blanket amnesty of 1986. (At least, Reagan's amnesty was passed with roll call votes in Congress. )
And then the White House press spokesman when forced by the media to respond to the leaked memos said:
I have not seen these memos. I don't think they've circulated a lot through this White House.
"A lot?" A lot!
So, they've been circulating quite a bit? Some? In the White House.
Frankly, "circulated at all in the White House" seems to suggest some level of interest at the highest level.
The whole nation owes a lot to Iowa's Sen. Charles Grassley for his tenacity this summer in demanding responses from DHS to months of rumors about internal plans to grant amnesties without approval of Congress. His digging out and publicizing these "what if" memos has begun to provide the antiseptic of public daylight. I know our NumbersUSA members have inundated the White House, DHS and all of Congress the last two days with strong disapproval of any "executive amnesties."
One sign that the public outcry may be starting to back off the Administration was the later comment from USCIS:
. . .memo was never signed and never made its way to its intended recipient USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas.
We don't seem to have any proof one way or another on that, but it is a good sign that the department is doing everything it can to disassociate the director from the ideas in the memo.
I would still prefer to hear the Administration deny it is considering an administrative amnesty for any kinds of groups rather than just that it won't do it for the entire illegal community.
Fellow Americans, it is you who have made a comprehensive amnesty bill so radioactive that congressional leaders refuse to bring it up for a vote. The only way to stop the backdoor amnesties is if you apply the same kind of pressures. The federal government has proven it will protect de facto amnesties by taking states to court that try to move illegal foreign workers out of their jobs. We don't seem to be able to do anything to stop that federal assault on our abilities for self-determination and protection. But I think the ideas in the USCIS memos are so much farther in their assault on the limits of power on the Executive Branch that we can stop those ideas in the court of public opinion.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA
Updated: Mon, Aug 2nd 2010 @ 12:49pm EDT