free web hosting | free website | Web Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | Coaching Institute | php hosting
affordable web hosting Pets web page hosting web hosting website hosting web hosting service web hosting web host
**************************************************************************************

IMMIGRATION WATCH



Archive for March, 2007

America a haven for African homosexuals?

What a flood that could be!

Olivia Nabulwala says her family in Uganda was so angry and ashamed to learn she was a lesbian that her relatives hurled insults at her, pummeled her and, finally, stripped her and held her down while a stranger raped her. “I hated myself from that day,” she said in a sworn statement. “I disliked my family for subjecting me to such torture, and yet they felt this was a good punishment for me.” Now, in a case that illuminates a relatively unexplored area of U.S. immigration law, the African immigrant is asking for asylum in the U.S. on the grounds she was persecuted over her sexual orientation. A federal appeals court ruling last week has raised her hopes of success.

Persecution based on sexual orientation has been grounds for asylum in the U.S. since the 1990s, but such cases are still rare. Most involve gay men persecuted by their government. There are few cases involving women, who are more likely to be persecuted by family members, said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, a gay rights group that represents immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said it does not systematically track the number of asylum claims based on sexual orientation. Most immigration cases are dispensed without a published opinion. “That’s why we’re so excited about this case,” Tiven said. “A published opinion gives it greater weight, makes it citable.”

Immigration Equality, based in New York, said that last year it won 18 asylum cases for gay men and transgender women from the Congo, Algeria, Jamaica, Russia, Egypt, Peru, Bangladesh, Venezuela and Colombia. It said it lost two such asylum cases. Among some recent cases: A man who said he was beaten by Mexican police and threatened because he is gay won asylum in January. Another Mexican man was granted asylum in a 2000 appeals court ruling that extended protection to transvestites.

To qualify for asylum, applicants must demonstrate past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular group, which now includes homosexuals. Asylum seekers must also show, among other things, that their government was unable or unwilling to protect them. In 1990, a gay Cuban who said he was abused by government officials in his homeland won asylum in the first significant ruling of its kind in the U.S. That ruling became the basis for then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s 1994 order allowing gays from other countries to seek asylum for persecution based on sexual orientation.

“It is a relatively new area of asylum law; there’s not a lot of bricks in the wall as to how these cases get played out,” Tiven said. “But here’s a high-level court, citing a reasonable and relevant application of government passivity.” “For women, it’s developed quite slowly,” she added. “Around the world, women face harm, often severe harm, from the nearest and not so dearest.”

In an affidavit in support of her application for asylum, Nabulwala, who is in her late 20s, says being gay is shameful in African culture and illegal in Uganda, and that her family expelled her from the clan. The Associated Press normally withholds the names of people who claim to be victims of sexual assault, but Nabulwala agreed through her lawyer to allow her name to be used. In her affidavit, Nabulwala says she realized she was a lesbian while attending an all-girls Christian boarding school in Kampala. In her senior year, 1994, after the local newspaper wrote a story about lesbian relationships at her high school, and her parents confronted her, Nabulwala admitted she was gay. She says her admission was a “big blow” to her father, who angrily told her she must end it or she “could no longer be his child.” Later, she says, she was brought to a family meeting, where insults were hurled at her and an aunt “beat me so hard with clenched fists and said it would help bring me back to my senses.”

In 2001, Nabulwala, by then in college, says she was called to another family meeting after relatives learned she was still involved in a lesbian relationship. “During this meeting, my Dad said so many unpleasant and hurtful words to me,” she says. “He was so angry that he reached out to grab my neck to strangle me. He stated he was going to kill me because I was an embarrassment to him, our family, as well as the entire clan.” She says two aunts dragged her out of the meeting into her room, where a young man was waiting. “I was forced to have sex with a total stranger, which was very nasty, while my aunts watched in laughter,” she says. #8220;Afterwards, they all left me lying there in a lot of pain.”

Three months later, she entered the U.S. on a visitor visa, overstayed, then fought deportation by asserting a right to asylum. An immigration judge in Minnesota, where she now lives, said he did not doubt Nabulwala had suffered in Uganda because of her sexual orientation. But he ruled that the rape was a “private family mistreatment,” and not sponsored or authorized by the government. However, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the judge used the wrong legal standard, and ordered the case sent back for further proceedings on whether the Ugandan government was unwilling or unable to control the abuse, as Nabulwala contends.

Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda and punishable by one to four years in prison. But a police spokeswoman, Alice Nakoba, said no one has ever been convicted. She defended her country’s treatment of gays, saying that Ugandans seeking asylum in developed countries exaggerate. Nabulwala is “extremely happy” about the March 21 ruling, said her attorney, Eric Dorkin. Dorkin would not allow her to be interviewed or photographed, citing concerns about her safety and privacy. If Nabulwala is unsuccessful, she will be deported. “She’s afraid to go back,” Immigration Equality legal director Victoria Neilson said. “There’s no protection in Uganda for gay people.”

Source

Comments

Latest CIS Bulletin:

1. ”Amnesty Follies: The false inevitability of ‘Comprehensive immigration reform”’
Mark Krikorian
National Review Online, March 15, 2007

EXCERPT: ”When the Democrats won in November, there was a sense that an illegal-alien amnesty and huge increases in future immigration were inevitable. Even Rep. Tom Tancredo, the uber-hawk on immigration, was taken in: ‘We will fight it, we will lose,’ he told the Washington Times. ‘It will go to the Senate, it will pass. The president will sign it. And it will happen quickly because that’s one thing they know they can pass.’

”Sometimes it’s good to be wrong. . . . ”

********
********

2. ”An easy curb on illegal immigration”
by Jessica M. Vaughan
The Providence Journal, March 14, 2007

EXCERPT: ” … The most widely accepted approach is to prevent the employment of illegal aliens by making sure that businesses, state agencies and their contractors confirm the immigration status of new employees with the federal government. Colorado, Georgia and Idaho have already passed some degree of mandatory verification, and a bill filed by Sen. Marc Cote and Rep. Jon Brien, two Democrats from Woonsocket, would establish a similar practice in the Ocean State. … ”

********
********

3. ”Latino Voting in the 2006 Election: Realignment to the GOP Remains Distant”
James G. Gimpel
Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, March 2007

EXCERPT: ” … Practically speaking this means that to attract a steady stream of Latinos toward the GOP, continued economic prosperity and upward economic mobility will be important issues of concern. Republicans will make steady gains among Latinos through policies that facilitate Latino economic prosperity, business ownership, and secure employment.

”There is no evidence that a more open immigration policy is one of those policies, as there is ample evidence from economics that unskilled immigrants compete in the same labor market niches as unskilled natives, lowering wages and living standards among all unskilled workers (Borjas 2001; 2003). The best course toward the long-term political realignment of the Latino vote may be a less open immigration policy. The share of Latinos voting Republican has remained largely unchanged across three decades, with fluctuations barely exceeding the error margin in most surveys. If the path to Republican Party identification is paved by upward economic mobility, there would be many more Latino Republicans if these last 30 years had not witnessed record levels of unskilled immigration. … ”

********
********

4. ”Assistance for Elderly and Disabled Refugees”
Statement of Mark Krikorian before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives March 22, 2007

EXCERPT: ” … In the context of limited government resources, and given the fact that a refugee is dramatically more costly to taxpayers than any other kind of immigrant, policymakers must consider whether the costs of admitting additional refugees should be balanced by a reduction in the admission of other immigrants. To govern is to choose, and if we choose to permit humanitarian immigration (as I would argue we must, though not necessarily as it is arranged today), then we must face up to the costs and order the rest of our immigration system accordingly.”

********
********

5. ”Crossing the Border: Immigrants in Detention and Victims of Trafficking”
Statement of Michael W. Cutler before the House Committee on Homeland Security March 15, 2007

EXCERPT: ” … Because of the inherent risks to the safety and well being of our nation and our citizens, I would strongly urge that aliens who apply for political asylum be kept in a detention facility until their true identities can be determined along with a proper determination being made of their credible fear should they be returned to their home country. I believe, however that it is essential to provide comfortable detention facilities for these aliens who are illegally in the United States and have applied for political asylum, especially if they are accompanied by their families. In this perilous era, it is my judgment that while our officials conduct investigations of the bona fides of claims of credible fear articulated by applicants for political asylum, that we have the way to detain such aliens until they are determined to pose no threat to our country and have, indeed, met the requirements to be eligible to be granted political asylum. However, should an alien be proven to not be eligible to be granted political asylum wither because he committed fraud or because he actually poses a threat to our national security, retaining such an alien in custody would deny him the ability to abscond and embed himself in our country. … ”

********
********

6. ”Preventing Illegal Employment: Federal ‘Basic Pilot’ Verification Program is an Effective and Business-friendly Tool”
Statement of Jessica M. Vaughan before the House Committee on Labor, Rhode Island General Assembly March 14, 2007

EXCERPT: ” … Mandatory verification of immigration status for new employment is not a silver bullet. Rather, it should be considered as one key part of a larger strategy to address illegal immigration that relies on partnerships between federal and state authorities, and between government agencies. This strategy acknowledges that the population of more than 12 million illegal immigrants realistically cannot be apprehended and deported one by one. Nor is the federal government likely to enact a mass amnesty to legalize this population. Instead, lawmakers should rely on an array of policies to increase the day-to-day enforcement of immigration laws, prevent employment, and encourage voluntary compliance with immigration laws. Other proven tools include electronic status verification for public benefits, immigration law training for state and local law enforcement and public agency employees, strict standards for drivers’ licensing, and rigorous identification standards for financial institutions. Adoption of these policies will convince a large number of illegal aliens that they would be better off returning home on their own, thereby easing the burden on local communities, and enabling federal authorities to concentrate their resources on the most problematic cases.”

Comments

New Bush proposal

The Bush administration floated elements of an immigration plan on Wednesday that would make it harder for millions of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship than under legislation passed by the Senate last year, according to officials in both parties. These officials said the administration also suggested barring future guest workers who enter the country legally from bringing family members with them — a proposal unlikely to survive intact. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss about elements of a plan that was not yet public.

President Bush and Democratic leaders of Congress have both pledged to seek a compromise on immigration legislation this year, and the administration’s point men, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, sat down in the Capitol with key senators of both parties for an initial meeting.

Efforts to pass compromise legislation last year collapsed when Republican lawmakers objected to a Senate-passed bill that created a path to citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million to 12 million men women and children in the country illegally. Bush spoke favorably of the measure, even making a prime-time televised speech at one point backing a plan to allow millions of immigrants an eventual chance at citizenship as part of a comprehensive approach to the issue. But conservative critics attacked it as amnesty, and it died last fall when the expiring Republican-controlled Congress adjourned without taking final action.

Administration officials have been meeting privately in recent weeks with key Republicans, including some who opposed the 2006 legislation, in hopes of forging a general agreement within the party. As described by several officials, the proposal would allow currently illegal immigrants to stay in the United States under a new Z visa. They could apply for so-called green cards, taking their place in line alongside men and women who are in the country legally and want citizenship, and would be required to undergo periodic background checks while waiting. Immigrants possessing green cards have lawful permanent residency status.

The length of their wait would depend on the number of green cards available — a feature that officials in both parties said would mean millions of illegal immigrants would have to wait far longer than under the Senate bill of last year. “It takes longer and they’ve got to go through the same channels as everybody else,” said one Republican who had been briefed on the administration’s proposal.

Under last year’s bill, immigrants in the U.S. longer than five years could apply for citizenship without leaving the country. Those in the U.S. for more than two years but fewer than five would be required to go to a border point of entry, but they could return quickly as legal temporary workers while their citizenship application was pending.

Source

Comments

Maryland raids

Immigration agents arrested more than 50 people Thursday in raids on a temporary employment agency’s offices and places where it provided undocumented workers, including the port of Baltimore, authorities said. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also seized a bank account containing more than $600,000 from the employment agency, Jones Industrial Network, which provides workers in the Baltimore area. The agency’s offices and eight other businesses were searched, including three where the temp agency is suspected of providing undocumented workers, ICE said.

The investigation began last year after immigration officials heard that temp agencies had provided illegal immigrants as workers to the port of Baltimore and other unwitting employers, ICE said. Having “illegal aliens working and having access to our ports is a major security vulnerability,” said ICE field office director Calvin McCormick.

The employment agency’s offices downtown near the Inner Harbor were closed Thursday, with a sign in English and Spanish saying the company would not be open. An exact number of officials and temporary workers arrested was not immediately released. Jones officials were not arrested or charged, although ICE officials said their investigation continued. Jones is the only company that has been targeted criminally, and all others involved in the raids have cooperated, ICE officials said.

A lawyer for sportswear maker Under Armour Inc., which was also raided, said the Baltimore company was not aware that employees were illegal immigrations. The company has cooperated fully with the investigation, of which it is not a target, and it is considering legal action against the temp agency, general counsel Kevin Haley said. “At Under Armour, we are patriots first and last, and we’re fully committed to compliance with all laws and regulations,” Haley said. “We’re furious that apparently one of the temp agencies we use was not so committed or gave the appearance of being not so committed.” The workers were employed at the company’s distribution center, Haley said.

McCormick said 20 of those detained may qualify for humanitarian release. James Dinkins, ICE special agent in charge, said those detained were being transferred to three institutions in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Immigration officials said state and federal officials would interview the detainees to determine whether any medical, sole-caregiver or other issues would qualify them for humanitarian release. Relatives of the detainees can call a 24-hour toll-free hot line, 866-341-3858.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick this month urged federal authorities not to move out of that state any more factory workers detained in an immigration raid until their children were located and arrangements made for their care. More than 300 people were detained for possible deportation in a raid at a leather factory that makes equipment for the military.

Source

Comments

65 million Muslims in Europe by 2037

So can Sharia be far behind? But Sweden’s consul general in Istanbul, Ingmar Karlsson, is not concerned about that. No, he is sure that a tolerant, Europeanized Islam will somehow magically appear. He is much more exercised about “xenophobia” than about the Islamization of Europe. “Islam is and will be a European religion,” from Today’s Zaman:

“The birthrate among Muslim immigrants in Europe is three times higher than that of the non-Muslim European population. According to Sweden’s consul general in ?stanbul, Ingmar Karlsson, if this trend continues, the Muslim population will be doubled by 2015, while Europe’s non-Muslim population will decrease by 3.5 percent. Some estimates indicate that in 30 years the number of Muslims in Europe could be as high as 65 million.

The outspoken consul general, who is a doctor of divinity and the author of more than 10 books on the subjects of Europe’s relationship with faith, terrorism, Islam and minorities, has said that the trend towards a multi-racial and multi-confessional Europe is unstoppable; therefore, Islam must be recognized and regarded as a “domestic” European religion.

Therefore? Domestic? /p>

Karlsson, whose latest book will be available in Sweden today, titled “Europe and the Turk,” said that Turkey’s membership in the European Union would demonstrate the falsity of the argument that Islam and democracy cannot mix, also helping to bring about favorable changes in the Islamic world’s attitude towards Europe.

Neither of these follow. All that Turkey’s entry into the EU would prove would be the suicidal short-sightedness of the Europeans, and it would make the Islamic world regard Europe favorably the way one may view his lunch favorably.

“There is nothing which intrinsically prevents a Muslim from being as good a Swede as a member of the Pentecostal Bretheren or an adherent of the Jewish faith, nor is there anything that prevents mosques from becoming as natural a feature of Swedish cities as churches have always been in ?stanbul, Aleppo, Damascus, Mosul or Cairo,” Karlsson said.

Wishful thinking. Karlsson ignores the fact that traditionally Islam has never recognized a sacred/secular distinction, and that Muslims come to Europe with a ready-made model of society — a model that many, if not most, believe superior to the European model, and which many, if not most, would be happy to see replace European society and laws as they are currently constituted. Pentecostals and Jews never went anywhere with anything comparable to that.

For EU membership, religion is not among the criteria, therefore, refusing Turkey’s admission on religious grounds would send a dangerous signal, especially after Sept.11, 2001, Karlsson noted, adding that Turkey’s rejection by the EU would have a radicalizing effect both in the Muslim world and in Turkey itself.

Did you catch that? Islam is benign, so let Turkey into the EU, because if we don’t, these benign folks will kill us. Karlsson just goes on in this vein. Read it all, if you have the stomach.

Source

Comments

Britain: New concern at impact of record immigration

After 10 years of record immigration, the Government is to set up a high-level forum to assess its impact on communities. The move marks a significant change of approach by Labour, which has justified the four-fold increase since 1997 almost entirely on economic grounds. David Blunkett, a former Home Secretary, once said there was no obvious upper limit to the numbers that could come from outside the EU. But the Home Office said yesterday that it was establishing a Migration Impacts Forum (MIF) alongside another new body advising on skills shortages that immigrants might be able to fill.

The announcement was part of a package of measures that included the prospect of a 1,000 pound fine on families whose relatives failed to go home when their visas expir d. It is already an offence punishable by a 5,000pound fine to retain a nanny who has overstayed. It also envisaged further curbs on forced marriage by raising the minimum age for bringing a spouse to the UK from 18 to 21. It will be a requirement for spouses to learn English before they can join their wife or husband.

Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, who will chair the MIF alongside Phil Woolas, the communities minister, said: “I want to make sure that when ministers decide how high the hurdle should be set, they have got a clear understanding of where in the British economy migration is needed and where it isn’t. They also must have access to information about the impacts that immigration is having on communities. “We need to ensure that we are making decisions with our eyes wide open.”

The forum will consider evidence that schools, hospitals, housing and transport infrastructure are all feeling the strain of a growing population. Doctors have complained that their surgeries cannot cope with the number of new patients now registering, largely from Eastern Europe. Many were women who were seeking assistance with a pregnancy or who were seeking an abortion.

Figures published today by Migrationwatch, which has campaigned for the wider impact to be considered, - suggest that at least 73,000 new homes would be needed every year to house England’s rapidly growing immigrant population. Council chiefs have already warned the Government that local services are coming under huge strain as a result of unprecedented levels of immigration. Over an 18-month period, about 9,000 new National Insurance numbers were issued in Slough, Berks, of which just 150 went to British nationals. Yet the Office for National Statistics recorded only 300 international migrants settling in the area. Net immigration in 2005 was close to 200,000 - four times the number when Labour took office in 1997.

The latest measures foreshadow a new visa regime for tourists, whose length of stay could be reduced from six months to three months. Officials said only two per cent of visitors stayed longer than three months and these could be people who worked illegally or breached their visa terms.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: “It is high time that the wider picture was considered, including the widespread public concern that we are losing our own culture. “But this forum will be useless if it includes only the usual suspects from the immigration industry and employers who stand to gain from immigration.”

Source

Comments

Immigration officials really good at keeping desirable immigrants out

The best interests of U.S. citizens are obviously not on the bure ucratic list of priorities

A Bradenton man is fighting to keep his family together, even though they are half a world away. He and his wife, a Japanese national, are caught in the middle of an immigration nightmare. It started with what seemed like a simple visa mistake. Now every moment of every day, Keith Campbell is fighting to bring home his wife and two young boys. “I can’t let it go on forever, being half a world away. I’ve got little kids. I feel like I need to be protected from my own government,” said Campbell.

He and his wife Akiko met in Asia while he was working overseas. They got married nine years ago and built a life together with their children in Bradenton. Campbell says his wife entered the country with a fiance visa - the problem was that they’d just gotten married. “That’s it. There’s no, no criminal activity, no questionable behavior, no link to terrorism. There’s no anything,” offered Campbell. But in the eyes of immigration officials, she was in the country illegally. Campbell says they’ve struggled to clear up the mistake for years. So, when a letter arrived, saying “notice of approval for visa petition,” they thought their prayers were answered.

In January, Akiko flew to Japan and went to the U.S. embassy as instructed. She took the kids with her for a visit to her homeland. But when she got there, Campbell says she was told she couldn’t come back. She was not only denied a visa, but told she couldn’t re-apply for another 10-years.

“It was a shock. It changed the spirit of what was going on. It went from her going over there for a visit, to her being over there forever,” said Campbell. He believes immigration officials never intended to issue a visa to his wife. “I went to the embassy. I asked if they knew it was denied all along and they said yes. We knew it up front. So it’s definitely an underhanded, dishonest way,” said Campbell. “It is an outrage. I can’t be outraged though. People who are outraged aren’t successful. So, I’ve got to be calculated and do what makes sense and be morally correct. And I’ve got to be within the law. But I feel like the government’s picked a fight and I’m gonna fight. I’m gonna fight to get her back because she deserves to be here.”

Campbell has received hundreds of letters of support from friends and colleagues. He’s also written plenty of letters himself to immigration officials and politicians. So far nothing’s worked. But, he’s not giving up. He says his wife and children are his life. “She hasn’t given up hope and that’s what fuels my fire. But she tells me it’s hard to hope. It’s getting harder to hope.”

Source

Comments

Tough in Tucson

Immigration attorneys advising clients to avoid driving

Tucson immigration attorneys are advising clients to avoid driving or riding in cars in light of stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws across the country.

Immigration attorneys are reporting an increase in the number of clients seeking help after being detained by the U.S. Border Patrol during routine traffic stops. Patricia Mejia said she receives calls every other day from clients who were detained for a traffic violation. “Some were stopped for something as minor as turning on a yellow light or swerving,” she said. “Yeah, it’s true, but does that mean now you deport me and my entire family? It seems extreme.”

Detentions appear to have escalated in the past year, she said. Previously, drivers might have been detained, but now, she said many of her clients who were detained were passengers in the car. Now she advises her clients not to drive, or even ride in a car unless it’s an emergency. “I just tell them to take the bus or ride your bike,” she said, “because if you’re driving and you get pulled over, you are going to Mexico tonight.”

Tucson police officers will call the Border Patrol if they suspect someone they come into contact with is in the country illegally, said Sgt. Mark Robinson, of the Tucson Police Department.

Immigration attorney Gloria Goldman said there seems to be an escalation in detention of people in the Tucson area and the environment has led to increased fear among many illegal immigrants. “People are in a panic so they’re coming to see me,” said Goldman, who has seen an uptick in the number of people seeking her services. Unfortunately, she said, many have no recourse under current immigration law and there is little she can do to help them.

Source

Comments

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: RHETORIC AND REALITY

This is based on a true story. The name and location have been changed to protect a lady who is in great fear for her life. However, it could be any number of millions of people who have seen their neighborhoods, cities, states and country becoming balkanized by illegal immigration. The rhetoric is that illegal aliens are coming into our country just to get jobs and to feed their families. Also, we hear repeatedly that “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande”. However, gangs, disease, crime, drug running, smuggling and violence of all sorts do not stop at the Rio Grande, either.

Janice has good reason to put those comforting words in chilling perspective. She says: “I am the victim of illegals..Nicaraguan, Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican”. She tells of being victimized repeatedly by an international gang that robbed her, on and off for one and a half years. She was a registered nurse, working at night in the Emergency Room, helping people. Meanwhile, this gang was taking whatever they wanted from her house. They threatened her life by spray painting all over her walls “We’re going to kill you, you f….Anglo bitch”. They broke in one time with a gun while she was in the house. When she left, fearing for her safety, they burned her house down, putting her into debt for $25,000.

The police gang unit tried to catch them, but the professionalism of the gang, as well as the physical layout of the neighborhood, always gave the gang time to escape. They only apprehended one member, who had removed his glove as he sprayed the accelerant all over her furniture and her thousands of books before the fire was lit. His thumbprint was left on the accelerant can.

Janice respects legal immigrants and recalls that her people were Lithuanian, who were being executed by the Russians, when they invaded. Her great-grandfather had a premonition and took his family on “vacation” to another country, only one week before the invasion. Although he claimed political asylum, he was not allowed to come to America for three years, after he was checked out thoroughly. He was told to learn our language, obey our laws, expect no social welfare help of any kind, and the future was up to him. He shared a room with seventeen other men. They took turns sleeping on the floor with a blanket. He saved every penny he could to bring over his wife and Janice’s grandmother, who was a child at the time. This took five years to accomplish. No government forms were printed in Lithuanian for this family. They learned English and learned how to get along in this country by becoming self sufficient and contributing to society, appreciating the opportunity to do so.

With that kind of background, it is alarming for her to see the amount of taxpayer provided aid directed to illegal aliens. She recalls: “In the Emergency Room I took care of a child with Brazilian parents, who proudly presented her with her Medicaid card. They were driving a Mercedes. The parents each had a Rolex watch and other expensive jewelry, handmade clothing and shoes. Even the child was wearing more expensive jewelry than I could afford. They commented that this is the `greatest country`”. They explained that it is well known in Brazil that if you come to Disneyland for the last month of pregnancy and stay here until the baby is born, then the baby is a United States citizen and enables the whole family to apply for help.”

What Janice described as the “last straw” happened when she was Christmas shopping and went into a business with a Spanish speaking owner. He folded his arms and stated, in Spanish, that he didn’t speak English. She said that was not a problem, as she spoke Spanish. He told her he didn’t like her Spanish. At that point, a young man had come into the shop and heard the exchange. He said that “your kind does not belong here. We’re going to drive your kind out of this state.” It was astounding to encounter such hatred when Janice had only gone in to spend money. In this vein, Janice recalls one who was smuggled into the country who said that Americans work too hard, and he would go home except that Americans are so easy to steal from, because they want to believe good about everyone.

The prevalent attitude of some who are coming here now is that everything is free and they have a right to services. They are told by their communities that they can get anything they want by calling 911. In the Emergency Room, Janice had to hang up the phone after a discharged patient called 911 to get a ride home. She got very angry at Janice when she was told that 911 was for life-threatening emergencies only.

Because of the viciousness of the gang that was targeting her, Janice had to move and even sell her car, to try to escape detection. Janice maintains that we have enough hom -grown criminals already; we don’t have to import more. Also, she is tired of her tax money going to house and maintain jailed illegals. Paying for prison is just the last stop on the road to incarceration. Before that happens, a policeman has to arrest, a judge has to sit, and an attorney, (appointed by the state and paid for by taxpayers), has to defend a suspected lawbreaker.

Resettled now in another state, Janice still feels the trauma of not knowing just what she would encounter in her own home. “What this gang did to me was a form of murder..torture…What our government doesn’t get is that victims (survivors) of these criminals are left with deep emotional scars.” Although Janice deeply loves her country, she feels betrayed by a government that will not protect its borders, allowing criminal gangs to settle in cities and terrorize taxpaying citizens. Having been so severely victimized, she now is in constant fear for her safety, which no government entity can any longer ensure.

Source

Comments

Compassionate Conservatism for Illegal Immigrants

For all of the media’s Bush-bashing, there is one issue where the liberal media, Bush, and the Democrats agree: amnesty for illegal immigrants. Proof of this collaboration is evident when the media continue to quote and praise one particular “Bushism” on the controversial topic. In the March 12, 2007 issue of Time magazine, writer Massimo Calabresi quotes Bush from a 1999 campaign stop in Iowa as saying, “Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande.” Calabresi wrote that Bush’s words on the subject of illegal immigration showed “it was hard not to believe he [Bush] was speaking from the heart,” adding that “the felicitous phrase became a touchstone of compassionate conservatism.”

This is one “Bushism” that the liberal media do like. In Orwellian doublespeak, illegal aliens have become “undocumented workers,” and “family values south of the border” have come to mean amnesty for those who break our laws. In one sense, Bush was right. Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande. But, the fact remains that the U.S. border does stop at the Rio Grande. Crossing it illegally makes a foreign national a criminal. Any worthwhile concept or discussion of “family values” should not condone lawbreaking.

From Open Borders to No Borders

Although it went relatively unnoticed at the time, Bush’s comment should have been a warning that he never had any serious intention of stopping illegal immigration. But going from inaction on humanitarian grounds to a plan to grant amnesty to millions of criminals is a stretch that has left most conservatives dismayed and angry.

In fact, the situation is worse than that. s we have documented in the AIM Report, a process which started under Clinton and is continuing under Bush is leading to an emerging North American Community or Union of the U.S., Mexico and Canada. The “Security and Prosperity Partnership” is leading to the creation of a regional bloc of nations which threatens the sovereignty and borders of each. Some of the proponents, such as former President Carter official and Clinton adviser Robert Pastor, envision a “North American Parliament” and super-national institutions, including a North American Supreme Court. There are some good reasons for increased cooperation among the three nations, especially on such issues as energy and security, but it should be done in an open manner and with necessary congressional oversight. However, under no circumstances should it lead to the creation of a transnational form of government that undermines our national sovereignty and democratic and representative government.

Few could have imagined that less than eight years later, Bush would be one of the biggest advocates of an amnesty plan that will, in effect, forgive 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants for the crimes of entering the country illegally but also, in many cases, failing to pay taxes, and identity theft. Illegal immigrants will be rewarded for violating American sovereignty and cheating the system while legal immigrants, who play by the rules, wait years to become citizens.

As proof that Bush is serious about enacting immigration reform, Calabresi quotes White House spokesman Tony Snow as saying that for President Bush, “making immigration fair and safe ‘is a matter of very strong personal commitment.’” This statement, however, requires translation. Making immigration “fair and safe” really means rewarding those who broke the law and facilitating the entry into the U.S. of millions of more foreign workers. We could use less of this “personal commitment” to encourage more illegal aliens to come to the U.S., and instead some actual commitment to enforce our immigration laws.

The Bush-Kennedy Bill

According to Calabresi, Congress is preparing to debate a “compromise bill” in the coming weeks and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate say “Bush’s help is crucial.” One of those leaders, it turns out, is Senator Ted Kennedy. Calabresi recounts that Kennedy said that “in a private meeting on Jan. 8, Bush gave him a commitment to back ‘comprehensive’ legislation, which Kennedy believes is a commitment to granting them [illegal immigrants] eventual citizenship.” This is amnesty, regardless of how long it eventually takes.

Bush could never have gotten a Republican Congress to go along with such an audacious scheme. But with the Democrats in charge, the situation has changed. Calabresi writes that “November’s Democratic victory in Congress should have improved Bush’s odds of getting what he calls ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” For Bush, comprehensive immigration reform includes both amnesty and a guest-worker program, although even Calabresi admits that “some Democrats side with unions in opposition” to the latter. One of those Democrats, Rep. Charles Rangel, says a guest-worker program is a form of slavery.

Calabresi’s information is helpful but not always correct. He writes, for example, that some of Bush’s most outspoken Republican opponents on the immigration matter “lost in races to Democrats who back his position.” But, this statement is more pro-illegal immigration propaganda. As reported January 1, 2007 by Accuracy in Media, “no political candidate who won this November ran on a campaign promise of more immigration or amnesty for illegal immigrants, and among Republicans the turnover was less among those candidates who took the strongest stands against illegal immigration; 11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were l st, but only 6.7% of the Members of the Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.”

All of this means that, if Bush wants to get his “comprehensive” package through Congress, it will be through the cooperation of liberals like Ted Kennedy. Bush seems to realize this. Although Bush and the Democrats working together on an amnesty bill is fine with the media, it is not fine with conservatives. Conservatives helped elect a president to protect the borders, not hold out the welcome mat.

The Democratic Angle

For their part, the Democrats clearly see the amnesty recipients as potential voters for their party and candidates. The Bush Administration has another motive. In explaining the Bush rationale for the program, Calabresi writes that there “has been a marked labor shortage, especially in agriculture,” and that “growers nationwide blame the shortage for losses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.” An alternative explanation is that there have been some high-profile cases of agricultural products such as spinach and lettuce being tainted and poisonous, causing sales and consumption to decline. Nevertheless, Calabresi reports that business is “leaning on lawmakers to do something.” The “something” means bringing in more foreign workers at cheap wages. Calabresi quotes a “senior Senate Republican aide” as saying that business pressure has “increased the chances of comprehensive immigration reform.”

So the immigration “reform” measure is shaping up as a combination of Republicans selling out to Big Business demands for cheap labor, while Democrats award citizenship for votes. This is the way Washington works, and it is a disgrace.

Calabresi says that a new amnesty bill is already in the works, could be introduced soon, and that its cosponsors will be Kennedy and Republican John McCain. One Democratic aide told Calabresi that Senate Majority Leader Reid “plans to get the new bipartisan bill to the floor this spring in the hope of forcing it through Congress before the presidential campaign paralyzes Washington. If it’s not done by August, says one, ‘it’s dead.’”

The Sales Pitch

Our liberal media will do their best to assist this process, promoting the finished product as a fine bipartisan effort. Bush may call it compassionate, but it is not compassionate to reward criminals, and it is certainly not conservative.

As Ronald Reagan famously said, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” But this is exactly what the U.S. is dangerously close to becoming.

Source

Comments

Illegals to sue imprisoned deputy sheriff

Mexicans say civil rights violated when injured during escape from officer

In a case eerily reminiscent of the controversial jailing of Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos while the illegal-alien drug-smuggler they wounded went free, two illegal aliens are now suing imprisoned Texas Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez for injuries from shell fragments that struck them as the officer shot at the tires of a van in which they escaped from a routine traffic stop. Maricela Rodriguez-Garcia and Candido Garcia-Perez are preparing to file a civil lawsuit against Hernandez and Sheriff Don G. Letsinger, possibly seeking millions of dollars in damages for alleged violation of their civil rights.

Jimmy Parks, defense attorney for Hernandez, told WND the lawsuit “has just become standard operating procedure down here on the border.” “There is a natural progression that begins when these people organize a professional (human) smuggling ring to get illegal aliens into the United States,” he said. “They become very sophisticated at it, then when law enforcement makes the attempt to try to break up the smuggling ring, they just run away.”

WND has obtained a copy of a draft complaint to be filed in the U.S. District Court in Del Rio, Texas, against Hernandez and Letsinger, both individually and in their official capacities. Parks said he was not surprised by the lawsuit and expects “the illegal aliens are going to sue for millions in this case.”

Hernandez was sentenced last week to one-year plus one-day in federal prison for criminally violating the civil rights of the illegal aliens who were in a van that attempted to run over Hernandez after a traffic stop April 14, 2005, in Rocksprings, Texas. As WND reported, the federal government had recommended a seven-year prison term. Rodriguez-Garcia was injured in the face and Garcia Perez on the arm by shell fragments from Hernandez’s weapon.

The complaint claims violations of Rodriguez-Garcia and Garcia-Perez’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Jim Kosub, the attorney representing Letsinger and Edwards County, told WND a mediation hearing had been scheduled in April on the threatened lawsuit. The complaint charges Hernandez deprived the plaintiffs of their civil rights “by using deadly force in a situation in which such force was unwarranted.”

Parks told WND the illegal aliens organizing human smuggling operations don’t view the lights go ng off on a police vehicle as “a stop command.” “The way to win the lottery is to take off and refuse to obey the lawful authority in the United States,” he said. “The illegal aliens know that if they can scrutinize the acts of the law enforcement officer, there’s a decent chance the police may end up going to prison, while the illegal aliens are end up with one good lawsuit.” Parks explained that during the trial, evidence came out that the Mexican consulate was trying to get jobs and citizenship for the illegal aliens involved in the Hernandez incident, including Rodriguez-Garcia and Garcia Perez.

The draft complaint identifies the two as residents of Travis County, Texas. Parks affirmed that Rodriguez-Garcia and Garcia-Perez “have been living in Travis County for some time,” but they “just go back and forth to Mexico illegally.” “What the complaint doesn’t say is that they are illegal residents of Travis County,” he said. “That’s the truth.” A frustrated Parks asked, “Why would anyone in their right mind want to be a law enforcement officer down on the border in this day and age?” He said Homeland Security “puts undue pressure on the border law enforcement officers, telling them that they are our nation’s frontline of defense against another terrorist attack in New York or Washington.” “But if you make one single mistake, you may be prosecuted, sent to federal prison, and bankrupt in a civil suit,” he said.

Hernandez and his wife were devastated by the prospect of facing this law suit. “Economically, Mrs. Hernandez is living day-to-day,” Parks said. “The only thing that gives them inspiration to get through the day is that Gil Hernandez and his wife know they have to stay strong for their 7-month daughter, Alektra. This civil law suit just adds injury on top of injury for Gil Hernandez and his family.”

Letsinger also said the suit was expected. “I think it is kind of ridiculous that a bunch of people enter into a felony conspiracy to violate the immigration laws of the United States, and one of the conspirators who was driving the vehicle tries to run over a deputy sheriff,” Letsinger told WND. “And now the conspirators want to turn around and sue the deputy sheriff for defending his life, as well as sue the county and the sheriff the deputy worked for.”

The complaint alleges the “force used by said Defendant was excessive and caused Plaintiffs severe injuries. Said Defendant’s conduct was grossly disproportionate to the need for action under the circumstances and amounted to an abuse of official power that shocks the conscience.” The complaint charges Letsinger and Edwards County, claiming their “rules regulations and policies, as well as the training program in existence prior to and at the time of the shooting” were “unconstitutionally deficient and authorized unconstitutional behavior.” The “deadly force policy in effect” caused Hernandez to “use excessive force” against the illegals, the complaint said.

Damages will be sought for “medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and physical impairment. Plaintiffs also will seek exemplary damages, as well as reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation.”

Source

Comments

EU dithering

Once a taboo subject in most European Union capitals, legal immigration has climbed up the agenda as the 27-nation bloc struggles to compensate for an ageing population and to fill labour shortages, especially in the vital information technology sector. Despite the new focus on seeking out foreign workers, managing migration flows - both through legal and illicit channels - remains one of the EU’s biggest challenges. First and foremost, EU governments are under pressure to curb the uncontrolled influx of mainly African illegal migrants to Europe’s southern member states. The crisis has a tragic human angle since many of the would-be migrants, using rickety boats to make the hazardous sea crossing to Europe, have drowned on the way.

The EU has responded by stepping up border controls, with so-called ‘frontline’ states, Spain, Italy and Malta, demanding even tougher measures against the illegals. In addition, faced with labour shortages in key economic sectors, EU governments are for the first time seriously looking at ways of opening up channels for legal immigration.

EU officials say that the bloc must first and foremost try and attract skilled and well-trained migrants to compensate for Europe’s falling birth rates and ageing population. This is also seen as necessary if the EU is to compete successfully with emerging economic powerhouses China and India.

In spite of the recent enlargement, which has brought the total number of people living in the EU to about 500 million, statistics show that given low birth rates and an ageing population, Europe will lose 20 million workers by 2050. The EU’s top immigration official Franco Frattini argues that Europe must match labour supply and demand and has called for ’selective immigration to continue the EU’s economic development and rise to the challenge of globalisation.’ Frattini recently sounded the alarm bell, warning that high-skilled workers from poor African countries were moving to the United States and Canada while Europe was facing an influx of less-trained migrants.

His latest ideas to turn Europe into a magnet for foreign smart brains include a European version of the US green card. Such a scheme could make the bloc more attractive for skilled workers by simplifying bureaucratic procedures, thus allowing foreigners to move freely between EU member states. The European Commission is currently asking national governments to provide the EU executive with details of their labour shortages. So-called ‘job centres’ are planned for African countries. Under the new scheme, foreigners will be given temporary migration opportunities to fill gaps on the EU labour market in areas such as agriculture, construction and tourism. The centres will also inform would-be migrants about the dangers of illegal migration as well as help African countries create jobs.

The International Organisation for Migration sees the EU move to open up legal opportunities for migrants as a ‘constructive step in the right direction.’ But while member states like France, Spain and Italy have signalled support for the commission’s drive to coordinate legal immigration at European level, other EU governments are strongly opposed to the plans. The bloc’s new members from central and eastern Europe for instance are demanding that work barriers against their c tizens should be removed before any action is taken to boost immigration from outside the EU. This follows what many eastern Europeans see as discriminatory rules which allow some western European countries to temporarily keep out low-cost workers from former communist states.

National governments’ unwillingness to cede control on immigration issues to the European Commission is not surprising since the question touches on the sensitive concepts of citizenship and nationhood. As a result, national immigration policies are mapped out according to domestic labour market needs, which means that they are not only different, but also often contradictory. Spain in 2005 angered its EU neighbours by launching a programme granting legal amnesty to up to 800,000 undocumented immigrants. Ireland and Finland are also relatively open on immigration because of their booming economies.

Those with weak economies and high unemployment figures, however, have introduced tougher immigration measures. ‘The EU is such a diverse place,’ said Hugo Brady, immigration expert at the London-based Centre of European Reform. As such, progress in forging a common EU policy on legal migration would be ‘the slowest of all ways to manage migration,’ he said.

Source

Comments

Britain: Immigrants being blamed for the negativity spawned by the Left

Can immigrants be blamed for lack of loyalty to a country that seems to have lost faith in itself?

UK Chancellor Gordon Brown’s recent initiative to ensure that immigrants feel a proper sense of loyalty to Britain has been criticised for being either too little too late or just plain daft. Brown said last month that immigrants should do some `community work’ before being granted British citizenship. For Brown, citizenship should be a `kind of contract’ with `rights and responsibilities’. This follows on from other proposals suggesting that immigrants should be `encouraged’ to learn English and should take tests to demonstrate that they know what Britain is all about and that they wish to be part of it.

Enforced community service is unlikely to engender a sense of belonging. But then, what really seems to be behind the latest demands for immigrants to buy into Britishness is a lack of any positive, coherent sense of what it is to be British amongst the British elite itself. This weakened sense of Britishness has nothing intrinsically to do with immigrants. And yet, more and more, a situation that is the result of various complex historical and political factors is being represented as a problem to do with immigration. This is itself a problem for the rest of us, as it means attention is misplaced upon immigrants and energy is misdirected towards helping immigrants to fit into something that isn’t really there.

Take education. It is argued by some that there has been a `downward drag’ in standards due to there being too many immigrant children in the classroom. My guess is that pupils today are more disadvantaged by an educational establishment which is not able, or willing, to assert the need for teaching English language and literature to take precedence over the need to be `multicultural’ than they are by the presence of pupils who do not speak English very well.

Some believe that a big problem in the health service today is that patients don’t understand their doctors, and apparently have to strain to make sense of what the man or woman with the strange accent is saying. What about all the other major problems with the health service, from a lack of resources to the transformation of the NHS into a behaviour-policing outfit? Time and time again, problems that are the result of the actions and policies of the British authorities are being ascribed to immigrants `failing to fit in’. Few ask what exactly there is for them to fit into.

Most Indian immigrants of my parents’ generation felt positively hostile to certain British institutions. For example, many were distrustful of the British Army and supported the Quit India Movement, the civil disobedience movement launched in India in 1942 in response to Mahatma Gandhi’s call for the immediate independence of India from Britain. Yet simultaneously they felt an affinity with British society and culture. This meant they wanted to make a break with their country of birth in order to be part of a society perceived as going forwards.

Financial gain was not uppermost in their minds. Individual freedom, meritocracy and social mobility were high on the list of attractions. Even when they arrived in the UK and realised that these things were not available to all on an equal basis, their belief in, and desire to be part of, British life remained. They believed that by working through institutions and popular organisations such as trade unions and political parties, many people - themselves included - could improve their lot.

The dynamic engendered by British society at that time was strong enough to inspire people all over the world. Today what immigrants once sought to do spontaneously (learn the language and culture) has to be imposed by government - not primarily because immigrants have changed, but because British society represents less of what they want to sign up to.

Rather than address more difficult issues - that Britain today is less than inspirational on the world stage, is less of a meritocracy, more socially stratified and a place where individuals are more closely monitored in virtually all aspects of our lives - politicians and pundits tear their hair out wondering why on earth immigrants don’t appear to want to be part of and to celebrate British culture.

Maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. I can see no reason why it should matter to anyone. Many people live outside their countries of birth; they work and socialise without conflict. Yet they do not feel that they necessarily belong to, or have to belong to, the country they have chosen to live in. People may feel contradictory affiliations; and something as subjective as a sense of belonging frequently waxes and wanes over time. A more confident, forward-looking society would be more relaxed about these facts.

Whatever measures or cod `solutions’ the British political caste comes up with, people’s subjective sense of belonging cannot be created by diktat. One of the few positive virtues of British society that politicians often cite is its tolerance. It is ironic, then, that the present government is so intolerant of people who do not conform to its increasingly long list of absurd criteria of what makes for a `good British citizen’.

Still, as long as the focus remains on what immigrants do or don’t do to prove their loyalty, the heat is off looking at ourselves, and identifyi g what the real problems are and what some real solutions might be.

Source

Comments

Democrats face hurdles in passing immigration bill

Democrats may have support from President Bush on immigration, but they face other obstacles in getting a bill through Congress. The Democrats lack enough votes within their party and must overcome lingering Republican disdain for what some consider “amnesty” for some people in the U.S. illegally, as well as union opposition.

The difficulty of their predicament is showing. The bill’s Senate sponsors couldn’t agree and gave up their alliance on joint legislation, while its House sponsors introduced their own version, knowing its prospects are heavily dependent on Bush. “We need to get a bill and he needs to start twisting a few arms,” said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Although Bush supported last year’s Senate bill, he also signed a House Republican bill calling for a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border. And he did little to persuade Republicans to negotiate an immigration bill. Originally, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., planned to introduce a sweeping immigration reform bill with their House partners, Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. an Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. McCain’s enthusiasm withered as he faced a mounting challenge from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and conservatives on the presidential campaign trail unwilling to accept anything less than deportation of illegal immigrants. In response, McCain broke with Kennedy and said he is looking at proposals that could pass, including one requiring illegal immigrants to self deport and apply for jobs in the U.S. through private employment centers set up in certain countries.

“Both parties are clear where they need to be on a bipartisan bill and a realistic bill, but the politics of getting there is not easy and the clock is running,” said Deborah Meyers, senior policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute. Gutierrez and Flake have gone forward with the bill they began drafting with Kennedy and McCain, and have made it the starting point for debate in the House. They hope to lure Republicans and provide some cover for Democrats elected on tough immigration platforms with a provision requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country at some point during a six-year period and return legally. Even so, “there aren’t enough Democrats in the House to pass comprehensive immigration reform. There aren’t enough senators, Democratic senators … to pass it,” Gutierrez said.

On the House side, Several Democratic freshmen campaigned against so-called amnesty to elp their party win control of Congress. Among them was Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas, who won the conservative Republican district once held by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. “He would not support a bill that has a road to legal residency for illegal and undocumented workers who are already here,” said Lampson spokesman Bobby Zafarnia.

During his recent visit to Mexico, Bush pledged to intensify his push for a comprehensive immigration bill. He said he would work to reject “protectionist sentiments” that are bogging down the debate, and named Kennedy as his key ally in the effort. He dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and some White House officials to meet with a group of Republican senators on immigration over several days. The meetings have included Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, and John Cornyn, R-Texas. Both voted against last year’s Senate bill and wrote their own bill that would have required illegal immigrants to return home, even for a short period, before getting on a path to citizenship. Cornyn and Kyl also are critical of proposals to allow future guestworkers a shot at citizenship too, another feature of last year’s Senate bill.

Kennedy wants to start the Senate debate with the immigration bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year — a bill heavily written by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Four of the 12 committee members who voted for that bill were Republicans, including another Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Democrats also are facing opposition from unions. Many AFL-CIO member unions and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are concerned that employers will choose to hire foreigners over more expensive American workers. They want limits on work visas for foreigners, but also full labor protections that would let them join unions. “The ideal immigration reform bill would not contain a guest worker program,” said Yvette Pena Lopes, a Teamsters lobbyist. If one is created, the Teamsters and other unions want it to expire in three to five years, Lopes said. Immigration bill sponsors say allowing workers to become legal permanent residents after several years of work will help protect them from exploitation by employers. The bill is HR1645.

Source

Comments

Memo shows immigration prosecutions rare

Guidelines issued by U.S. attorneys in Texas showed that most illegal immigrants crossing into the state had to be arrested at least six times before federal authorities would prosecute them, according to an internal Justice Department memo. The disclosure provides a rare view of how federal authorities attempt to curb illegal immigration. The memo was released this week in response to a congressional investigation of the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys.

The Border Patrol makes more than 1 million arrests a year on the U.S.-Mexico border. T.J. Bonner, head of a union representing Border Patrol agents, said it’s unrealistic to prosecute all violators. “Let’s be honest, there isn’t enough jail space to incarcerate everyone who crosses that border,” said Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. “If everyone demanded a hearing in front of an immigration judge, it would bring our system to a grinding halt in a matter of days.”

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Thursday that immigration prosecutions are a high priority and that the government sent 30 additional attorneys to the border region in the second half of 2006. He said U.S. attorneys set guidelines that, in part, reflect local crime issues and staffing. “Increasing the number of prosecutors will permit districts to adjust their guidelines and take in more cases,” he said. “For law enforcement reasons, the department cannot discuss what the present prosecutorial guidelines are concerning the border.”

The memo was written in response to Justice Department inquiries about immigration prosecutions by the five U.S. attorney offices that cover the 2,000-mile border - San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, Houston and Albuquerque, N.M. Guidelines vary by office, but migrants with no criminal records who have not been deported by an immigration judge will almost certainly be turned back to Mexico “numerous times” before getting prosecuted, according to another Justice Department memo dated Nov. 22, 2005. Those “voluntary returns” are booked on administrative, not criminal, violations. Parts of the other memo are blacked out, so it’s unclear whether the document refers to U.S. attorneys in Houston or San Antonio.

The memo says one Texas district prosecutes migrants if the Border Patrol catches them at least six to eight times. The other district prosecutes after someone is caught at least seven times.

In late 2005, the government created a 200-mile zone near Del Rio, Texas, in which every adult arrested for illegal immigration would be prosecuted and jailed before being deported.

The San Diego office, which covers an area stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Arizona state line, does not prosecute “purely economic migrants” as a general rule, according to the memo.

The Arizona district, the nation’s busiest corridor for illegal crossings, “almost certainly” declines to prosecute on a first or second offense, the memo says. The New Mexico district makes decisions based on criminal records in the U.S. There are many exceptions to the rule, including violators with criminal records. Representatives of all five U.S. attorney offices declined to comment.

Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who advocates a crackdown on illegal immigration, said the Texas guidelines underscore a lax enforcement attitude. He said the federal government should contract for more jail space, perhaps with local governments. “If you made it a priority of the department, you would see a reduction,” Tancredo said. Arizona’s Paul Charlton and New Mexico’s David Iglesias were also among the eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired. Justice Department officials have said they were concerned about the prosecutors’ approach to immigration cases.

Source

Comments

Immigration to Israel

Excerpt:

Joseph Massad decries the immigration policies that gives Jews preference in acquiring Israeli citizenship and residency. He also appears to be woefully ill informed when it comes to immigration policy. As a free and sovereign state, Israel has the right to have any immigration policy it chooses. Further, Israeli immigration policy is remarkably similar to the immigration policies of other nations.

Citizenship status is derived by way of one of two criteria- ‘blood’ or ‘land.’ In the United States, for example, citizenship is primarily derived by ‘land’ status. That means that if you were born here, you are automatically awarded citizenship. Conversely, being born in Switzerland is no guarantee of citizenship. In fact, there are generations of people that have been born in Switzerland that are not entitled to Swiss citizenship according to Swiss law.

Descendants of British, Irish and Polish ancestry, for example, are all entitled to enhanced and privileged immigration status by those nations. Throughout most of Europe, having even a bit of ‘preferred’ blood entitles one to a citizenship ‘fast track.’ Israel has every right to determine her own immigration rules.

Consider too, the rescue of Ethiopian Jews (the largest rescue of Blacks by whites in history) and compare that to the slaughter by the Arab tribe janjaweed in Darfur and the ongoing slave trade by Arab slave traders in Mauritania. It isn’t surprising that Muslims that made their way from Sudan want to stay in Israel.

In fact, when the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon after occupying an 11 mile security zone (After years of rocket attacks against civilians and the Lebanese government’s inability or unwillingness to halt those attacks, the Israelis had enough), even the Alawites, the clan than claims the ruling Assads of Syria, pleaded to remain under Israeli jurisdiction, preferring Israeli rule to that of an Arab country.

One might ask Mr Massad why there are no long lines for residency permits at Arab embassies and consulates and yet other Arabs and Muslims would be happy to live in Israel.

Source

Comments

New immigration bill introduced in U.S. House

An immigration bill introduced today in the House, which contains provisions for legalization for longtime undocumented immigrants, is reigniting the hopes of immigrants and their advocates in El Paso. The legislation, Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act, or STRIVE, of 2007 was introduced by U.S. Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Il., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. It is the first major immigration bill this year. It would offer temporary legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants but would require them to leave the country before they could be eligible for permanent residency and U.S. citizenship, a provision called “touchback.” …

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C., group pushing for stricter immigration laws, said the touchback provision was no more than a “pointless roundtrip to the nearest border” in a written release. “Making them (undocumented immigrants) take a road trip and giving them a piece of paper won’t change the impact that the millions who have come here illegally continue to have on jobs, education, health care and other areas of American life,” said Dan Stein, FAIR president. Rep. Flake explained that the touchback provision was important because it would create a record of legal entry for immigrants.

The bill also includes border security features, an increase in penalties against criminal immigrants, an employment verification system and a worker visa program that could bring 400,000 new workers the first year. The bill’s sponsor insist that undocumented immigrants wanting permanent residency would go to the back of the line and only attended to when the visa backlog has been cleared.

U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, was a co-sponsor of the bill. “During my ten years in Congress, I have pushed for progress through what I have always referred to as a ‘three-legged stool’ of increased border security, immigration reform with a path to earned legalization, and enforcement of employer sanctions. All three components are critical to a successful bill and are reflected in this legislation,” he said.

Last year, House Republicans, who were the majority, passed an immigration bill that contained no legalization, no guest worker program and that would have made it a felony to be in the United States without without the proper documents. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated last year that there were 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The House bill failed to be reconciled with a more pro-immigrant, bipartisan one from the Senate.

This year, with Democrats at the helm and the support of president Bush for a guest worker program, immigrants’ advocates are hoping things have changed in their favor. But Democrats do not have enough votes to pass a bill without the support of some Republicans, experts said. Gutierrez and Flake have spent months drafting their bill behind closed doors with input from White House officials, members of both parties and senators. They initially were working with Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., the architect’s of last year’s Senate immigration bill, but the senators bailed out after they couldn’t agree on some key issues.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, MALDEF, supported the effort. “Immigrants, who work in some of the most dangerous jobs in the United States, deserve to work and live with dignity,” said Eric Gutierrez, the group’s legislative attorney.

Source

Comments (3)

Immigration conflict raised in firings

During a congressional showdown over illegal immigration last spring, Justice Department officials found themselves scrambling to answer Republicans’ pointed questions about low immigration-related prosecution rates by U.S. attorneys on the southwest border. Republicans, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., had homed in on Southern California’s U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, demanding to know why they were hearing she had refused to prosecute illegal immigrants unless they had previously been convicted of two felonies.

Internal e-mails released as a part of a congressional investigation show Justice Department officials conceded among themselves that they had “some concerns about asserting that the SO Cal U.S. attorney’s office has a strong record in this area.” The e-mail exchange - between Associate Deputy Attorney General Lee Otis and other Justice officials in April 2006 - is one of several contained in more than 3,000 pages of documents released over the past week. The newest batch, released Wednesday, includes further references to intense criticism from Republican lawmakers about the priorities of several border-state U.S. attorneys. Just months later, Lam, Arizona’s Paul Charlton and New Mexico’s David Iglesias were among eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired with no explanation.

The dismissals have caused an uproar on Capitol Hill as lawmakers have demanded to know whether they were part of a purge to replace the prosecutors with political cronies or as a result of their work on political corruption cases. All three border prosecutors were investigating political corruption cases at the time they were fired.

Justice Department officials said after the firings that poor performance and policy disputes were behind their decision. Immigration-related prosecutions were at least part of their concerns with Lam, Charlton and Iglesias, Justice Department officials have said, although officials have also said they had other problems with each. Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Wednesday that “consistency with the department’s policy priorities” on immigration was “an appropriate factor that (it) considered in deciding to ask for the resignations of U.S. attorneys.”

The border-state U.S. attorneys were scrutinized at a difficult time for the Bush administration. The president was struggling to get wary House Republicans to back his immigration plan, which called for a guest worker program for foreigners and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the country now. Many Republican lawmakers were calling for a border fence and tough restrictions on illegal immigrants.

The U.S. attorneys on the southern border prosecuted more than two-thirds of the criminal immigration cases in the nation in 2005. But lawmakers repeatedly questioned their priorities. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., now one of Lam’s strongest supporters, questioned Lam’s immigration prosecution rates, although Feinstein said she was satisfied with the answer that Lam was focusing on big cases.

Issa and 18 other lawmakers angrily wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Oct. 20, 2005, about immigration prosecutions, particularly in Southern Cal fornia. “It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to punish dangerous criminals who violate federal laws, and this includes criminal aliens,” the letter reads. Republican Sen. Pete Domenici called Gonzales in January 2006 to discuss the “criminal docket and caseload” in his home state of New Mexico. Domenici’s call prompted a flurry of questions about how the caseload in New Mexico compared with other states. A memo from the U.S. attorney’s executive office quotes Iglesias as saying there was a severe need for more prosecutors in the border city of Las Cruces. Justice Department officials later listed poor morale and insufficient resources in Las Cruces among their concerns about Iglesias’ management.

And in a July 2006 meeting with Bush, then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., raised concerns about Charlton’s policy of prosecuting only cases charging possession of more than 500 pounds of marijuana. At the time, the Justice Department defended Charlton and his colleagues. Federal prosecutors’ resources on the southwest border - particularly Arizona - were “absolutely stretched to the limit,” wrote Rachel Brand, an assistant attorney general, in an e-mail to Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who recently resigned. Less than two months later, Charlton was on the list of federal prosecutors the attorney general’s office and the White House were considering pushing out.

Source

Comments

A moderate Democratic pundit takes on NYT over illegal immigration

Mickey Kaus of Slate magazine takes a shrewd look at how the New York Times frames the illegal immigration debate as involving smart, humane people on one side and dumb, inhumane yahoos on the other side. He also points out how the media try to boil down the illegal immigration debate to either let-’em-stay-one-way-or-the-other or send-all-12-million-home-this-instant:

By associating the anti-McCain view with not only deportation but immediate deportation, polls like the one cited by [NYT reporter Adam] Nagourney reinforce the idea that massive deportation of millions of illegals is the only alternative to McCain’s “comprehensive” approach.

In fact, the most intense opponents of McCain’s plan–such as Tancredo or Mark Krikorian of Center for Immigration Studies–favor a slow strategy of “attrition,” not mass deportation. And it’s quite possible to envision a less harsh alternative to McCain-Kennedy that involves no additional deportation–like the alternative of simply not passing McCain-Kennedy (and living with the status quo). Or just building a border fence, which would keep illegal immigrants from entering the country b t do nothing to kick out those who are already here. Or requiring U.S. employers to actually check (as opposed to pretend to check) the immigration status of new hires but not of their existing workers.

We’re not served by coverage that doesn’t look at these options, especially “requiring U.S. employers to actually check (as opposed to pretend to check) the immigration status of new hires but not of their existing workers.” That turns off the magnet without (at least at first) disrupting existing businesses. Why not try this small attempt at reform first before pursuing the NYT’s grand agenda?

Source

Comments

A belated interest in enforcement

They could have been doing this years ago

No, Ana Figueroa told the young seamstress, who was posing as a recent immigrant from Mexico. Without papers, she couldn’t work at the plant. A beat passed. Then Ms. Figueroa, who screened employees at Michael Bianco Inc. (MBI), told her to see “Felix” on the factory floor. He would get her papers for $60. “Usted no oyó eso de mí,” she added. (”You didn’t hear that from me.”) A few days later, the seamstress, who happened to be an undercover informant wearing a microphone, found herself at a sewing machine, stitching survival vests for the US military.

That chain of events, described in a federal affidavit, led to a high-profile immigration-enforcement raid in New Bedford, Mass., two weeks ago. While media accounts focused on the firm’s immigrant workers, many of them mothers with young children, the company’s owner and three other officials, including Figueroa, were also arrested and now face federal charges with prison terms up to 10 years. (Figueroa’s attorney, Ray O’Hara, says she was an hourly employee, not a manager: “She was told what to do, and that was it.”)

The raid is part of a growing crackdown on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Historically, such charges have been all but impossible to prove because managers could always say they were unaware that workers carried false documents. Now, the federal government is playing hardball with tactics reminiscent of the war on drugs: undercover agents, hidden recording equipment, and seizures of property connected with the crime.

The goal is to go after employers in industries that draw large numbers of illegal immigrants, such as meatpacking, construction, and apparel. The raids also have a potential political payoff. By showing a willingness to crack down on illegal immigrants and their employers, the Bush administration may be hoping to convince immigration hard-liners to support a guest-worker program, political observers say. “It’s a sea change in enforcement strategy,” says Jennifer Chacon, an immigration expert at the University of California at Davis.

For example: The old Immigration and Naturalization Service fined employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants. Its successor organization, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, is arresting them. That’s why the number of workplace fines dropped from 417 in fiscal year 1999 to three in FY 2004, while criminal arrests – of which a sizable number involve company executives or managers – are up dramatically. In FY 2005, there were 176 arrests; a year later, there were 718. In the first three months of FY 2007, which began in October, there have been 395 criminal arrests.

Seizures of property are also on the rise. In drug busts, for example, the federal government can take property related to a crime, requiring the property owner to prove in a hearing that it’s not part of a crime. Such seizures often end up with owners forfeiting the property. Now the ICE is using the tactic. In FY 2005, it got $15 million from a single forfeiture case – more money than the total the government collected in immigration-related workplace fines in the previous eight years. The result: a rising tide of criminal convictions. In FY 2005 (the latest numbers available), there were 127, up from 46 in 2004. In a recent case, the owner of a Baltimore sushi chain pleaded guilty to money-laundering and harboring illegal workers and agreed to settle for $1 million.

ICE officials say agents are, in effect, carrying out the enforcement measures promised but never delivered after the 1986 amnesty of some 4 million illegal workers. A nearly $100 million boost in its budget last year has allowed ICE to hire 67 new agents and add nearly 2,000 detention beds, laying the groundwork for the crackdown, officials say. “We’re doing a lot of sophisticated targeting,” says ICE spokeswoman Pat Reilly. “It’s one thing to remove people, but the magnet [for illegals] is getting a job. If you can make that a little more risky both for the employer and the person who takes the job, then hopefully it stems the flow somewhat.”

Tipped off by a company insider, ICE sent an undercover informant to an IFCO Systems plant in Guilderland, N.Y. Pretending to look for work, the informant showed an executive a green card with someone else’s name and face on it. “This will probably work – it looks like you to me,” the executive replied, according to a federal indictment. When the informant later came back with a batch of fake green cards, forged by ICE’s own documents lab, the management asked for more and thanked him for his service to the company, the indictment says.

A follow-up ICE investigation found that managers at IFCO, a large Houston-based manufacturer of pallets and containers, recruited illegal workers in Texas and brought them to facilities across the country. The company put them up in company-owned houses and drove them to and from work. Last April, ICE conducted a multistate raid, netting more than 1,000 illegal workers at IFCO and seven current and former managers. Last month, five of them pleaded guilty in Albany, N.Y., to federal charges of conspiracy to hire illegal workers, with each facing up to two years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

In another big case, three principals of RCI, a multimillion-dollar cleaning firm, were charged last month for tax evasion and harboring illegal aliens. The workers were recruited at Hispanic fairs and through Spanish newspapers and were never required to fill out W-4 tax-withholding documents or I-9 employee-verification forms, according to the federal indictment. All wages were paid in cash through a variety of shell companies, prosecutors say.

The use of illegal workers “pervades many industries throughout the United States,” writes John Vandevelde, a lawyer representing one of the RCI executives, in an e-mail. His client “expects to resolve this matter to everyone’s satisfaction.”

Spokesmen for the poultry, meat, and construction industries say that such outright scams are not the norm. Most such industries support collaborative efforts by ICE, such as the Basic Pilot program, which helps businesses double-check IDs with a Social Security database, and a new “best practices” framework, IMAGE, which provides a set of guidelines that companies can follow to ensure they don’t hire illegal workers.

Still, for many industries that employ low-wage laborers, obeying current federal regulations remains a “not too hot, not too cold” enterprise, says Janet Riley, a spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute, a Washington, D.C., trade group. “If you don’t screen closely enough and [papers] are falsified, then you face immigration issues. If you scrutinize too close, you face [federal] civil rights issues.”

So far, the recent arrests of plant managers and executives aren’t affecting hiring practices of low-wage labor, says Richard Lobb, a spokesman for the Chicken Council in Washington.

Some observers say the targeted enforcement may be a short-lived and symbolic shot aimed straight at Congress. Though everyone “from the dog catcher to the coroner” in theory supports tougher immigration enforcement, the workplace crackdown is more likely a “dress rehearsal” for another attempt at establishing a guest-worker program, says US Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) of Colorado, a candidate for president in 2008.

The upshot? “Increasing enforcement of businesses is going to really ratchet up the lobbying pressure on senators and congressmen who get a good chunk of their campaign cash from business interests,” says John Booth, political scientist at the University of North Texas in Denton. “Those who stand to benefit from a normalization of a wider labor supply from abroad are going to put some real pressure on Congress to fix this before they get their executives put in jail.”

Source

Comments

“Basic Pilot” getting more use

The Orange County city of Mission Viejo has decided on its own to follow up on at least some of the failed federal immigration laws. It’s an idea that may catch on. Immigrant-rights groups are appalled, but they shouldn’t be. The effort is pretty mild, and could help refine a national screening system known as the Basic Pilot Program. Mission Viejo’s ordinance requires that new city employees and companies contracting with the city screen their employees through Basic Pilot to verify they are legally allowed to work in this country.

Basic Pilot is a computer screening system started experimentally in 1996 and expanded to all 50 states in 2004. Ordinarily, participation is voluntary, and thousands of employers, public and private, use it. What’s different about Mission Viejo is that the city will require private businesses, at least those working for the city, to screen their employees.

Ana Maria Patino, an activist lawyer who lives in Laguna Beach, told the Orange County Register the ordinance is anti-immigrant and anti-business. But Nancy Cho, president of the Mission Viejo Chamber of Commerce, said she thinks the city’s approach is “just great.” Some of the city’s bigger employees are using Basic Pilot. Orange County’s Catholic Auxiliary Bishop Jaime Soto, a supporter of illegal immigrants’ rights, issued a statement saying Mission Viejo’s ordinance “further confirms the need for a comprehensive immigration reform” and is punitive.

Amen, bishop, except for the punitive part. Hardly anybody would disagree about the need for reform, depending, of course, on what kind we end up with. If any. The likeliest outcome nationally is that there is going to be a long wait for anything of substance. What’s needed are secure borders that neither would-be workers nor terrorists can easily penetrate, together with immigration controls that provide enough documented workers to meet the nation’s job needs.

As for Basic Pilot, it is a useful service. Employers simply supply the Social Security number of a job applicant to make sure it is valid, and that the applicant is in the country legally. Opponents complain that Basic Pilot’s databases are inaccurate and outdated. But there is no better way to improve them than to use them.

We’ll soon see how well Mission Viejo’s new ordinance works. Cities can’t have their own immigration policies and they can’t enforce federal immigration laws. But there’s no reason they can’t check their own employees’ legal status, including employees of contractors who work for them. Incidentally, there’s no reason any business, large or small, shouldn’t use Basic Pilot. Remember Wal-Mart’s embarrassment when it turned out some of its contractors were using illegals? Wal-Mart simply changed its policy to require that contractors use Basic Pilot, and the problem was solved. Owners of sma l businesses can simply go to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Web site and follow some simple online directions.

No matter which side of the immigration debate you’re on, there is nothing wrong with following the law. Federal or local.