FB prepares to enforce rental ban Letter to apartments explains restrictions on illegal immigrants
08:20 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News ssandoval@dallasnews.com
Farmers Branch is moving forward with plans to implement a law May 22 – approved Saturday by nearly two-thirds of voters – that would ban apartments from renting to most illegal immigrants.
A letter is to go out today to all apartment complexes in the city reminding them about the law and clarifying some of the requirements, City Attorney Matthew Boyle said. He is confident the courts will not halt the implementation of the ordinance, though attorneys in two pending lawsuits against the city have vowed to seek injunctions this week seeking to do just that.
But how they plan to enforce the ordinance, Mr. Boyle wouldn't say.
"If the chief of police intends to crack down on speeding on Valley View Lane, he's not going to go tell the entire world he's going to put motorcycle cops out there on Valley View Lane," Mr. Boyle said. "That's not the best way to getting compliance and getting enforcement. The city does not telegraph out any of its enforcement intentions or prerogatives."
He said the city will, however, be proactive in educating those who are affected by the ordinance to make it "as orderly as possible to comply."
The law requires that apartments obtain proof that tenants are U.S. citizens or in the country legally.
In addition to the letter, the city staff tentatively plans to brief apartment managers in a May 24 meeting.
The Apartment Association of Greater Dallas argues the law is too vague and places an unfair burden on apartment management.
Mr. Boyle said Monday that the law does not mean illegal immigrants now living in apartments in Farmers Branch have to move out.
If they are on a lease or rental agreement before May 22, they can stay without having to provide documentation.
And if that existing lease includes a clause that specifically calls for periodic lease renewals, they will not have to provide documentation at that time, either, Mr. Boyle said.
"If it's a one-year lease and says I can renew on a year-to-year basis, that is not a new lease, that's an extension of an existing lease," he said.
If the lease or rental agreement does not contractually provide for lease renewal, then tenants would be signing a new lease at the end of the term if they stayed, and at that time the apartments must obtain the required documents, Mr. Boyle said.
Any tenants signing a lease after May 22 would have to provide the documents both at signing and every time they renew.
One exception to the ban on immigrants is for mixed-status families. They may enter into a lease or rental arrangement if the family is already a tenant, the head of household or spouse has eligible immigration status and the family includes only the head of household and spouse and their parents or minor children.
Apartments could be fined up to $500 a day for violating the law.
But Mr. Boyle said one key component of the ordinance is that apartments are responsible only for making sure they have some type of document that looks valid. Pictures of those acceptable documents have been distributed to the apartment managers, he said.
"If somebody is a good forger or has some other way improperly gained access to the required credentials, that's not a burden assumed by apartment complex owners and managers," he said.
Gerry Henigsman, executive vice president of the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas, said the law will place a burden on the apartment management and tenants, including U.S. citizens.
Currently, he said, most apartments ask for a valid driver's license before renting.
The new law requires that U.S. citizens or residents provide a signed declaration of citizenship or nationality, confirmed by presenting a U.S. passport or "other appropriate documentation" identified by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as acceptable evidence of citizenship status.
In a letter sent to apartment managers in January, the city said the documentation of citizenship status could be a passport, valid current Texas driver's license or a birth certificate.
But Mr. Henigsman argues that what the city says is acceptable is not specified in the law, and therefore could be a problem.
"You've got to adhere to exactly how the ordinance reads," Mr. Henigsman said. "It can't be a loosey-goosey thing saying you don't have to do this or that. Every [apartment complex] puts themselves in financial and legal danger by not adhering to the ordinance."
Meanwhile, one of the opponents of the ordinance sent a letter to the mayor and City Council on Monday, asking for a moratorium on any additional anti-illegal immigration ordinances like Ordinance 2903, "until we have some indication of how it will play out."
"It seems reasonable to ask you to use 2903 as a barometer or test case to predict the costs and efficacy of these measures," Christopher McGuire said.
Tim Scott, an ardent supporter of the ordinance who was elected to the City Council on Saturday, responded by asking Mr. McGuire to encourage Let the Voters Decide to call for all litigation against the city to be dropped, saying the voters sent a "loud message where they stand on this issue."
"That message would be consistent with the original stated intention of the petition drive," Mr. Scott said.
Mr. McGuire responded that he is not a spokesman for Let the Voters Decide, the political action committee that successfully petitioned the city to put the ordinance to a public vote. Although other cities, including Hazleton, Pa., have adopted similar apartment laws, Farmers Branch is the first city to have a public vote on it.
"If you think we or any citizens group can influence the plaintiffs you will face in the coming years, you are grossly overestimating our influence," Mr. McGuire said.
HIGHLIGHTS OF ORDINANCE 2903
•Apartment owners or managers must verify citizenship or immigration status for each occupant of an apartment unit before entering into a lease agreement, except noncitizens who are minor children of the family or who are 62 years of age or older.
•Apartment management does not have to obtain proof of citizenship or immigration status from tenants renewing their lease or rental agreement. However, if the existing contract does not include a clause specifically allowing periodic renewal, then when a tenant enters into a contract to remain, it is considered a new lease and subject to the ordinance.
•Mixed-status families may enter into a new lease or rental agreement if the person is already a tenant, the head of household or the spouse has eligible immigration status, the family includes only the head of household and spouse and their parents or minor children.
•Tenants must sign a release form allowing management to submit copies of the documents to the city and to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement division for verification of immigration status.
Apartment management must obtain the following items from all tenants entering into a new lease:
For U.S. citizens: A signed declaration of citizenship or U.S. nationality, confirmed by a U.S. passport or "other appropriate documentation in a form designated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as acceptable evidence of citizenship status."
For noncitizens claiming to be in the country legally:
•A signed declaration of eligible immigration status.
•One form from a list of documents designated by ICE as acceptable evidence of immigration status.
After immigrant rental ban's approval, some plan exodus
08:42 AM CDT on Monday, May 14, 2007 By DIANNE SOLÃS / The Dallas Morning News dsolis@dallasnews.com
FARMERS BRANCH – "Stress-free living," advertises a flier for the Clipper Pointe Apartments in Addison.
"If you are a Farmers Branch resident, we have the perfect special just for you," reads the flier.
The office was closed Sunday at Clipper Pointe, and at Fox Creek Apartments, located just across Josey Lane from Farmers Branch. But just in case prospective tenants need a geography lesson, a large red-and-white banner reads: "Fox Creek, Carrollton, TX."
The vote Saturday on an ordinance to crack down on illegal immigrants had an almost immediate impact on some residents; several interviewed Sunday said they planned to move.
Ordinance 2903 passed with more than two-thirds of the vote, making Farmers Branch the first city in Texas to pass such a law. Supporters have said they did so because of the burden illegal immigrants place on schools, city services and health care.
Starting May 22, landlords will be fined $500 a day for leasing to most illegal immigrants, though attorneys for some apartment complexes have said they would seek a restraining order early this week.
Attorneys plan to challenge the Farmers Branch ordinance – patterned somewhat after one in Hazleton, Pa. – partly on the grounds that it's the federal government's purview to enforce immigration law and partly on the premise that it violates the Federal Housing Act, disproportionately affecting Latinos. Like many in the warren of cheap apartments in Farmers Branch, Maria is thinking of moving out of the city – and maybe even the country.
"It is just so difficult to think that they don't want us," said Maria, 30, a stay-at-home mom who declined to give her last name for fear of reprisal.
Her husband came here seven years ago and works as a mechanic. She joined him four years ago and they made a home in Farmers Branch – in a small one-bedroom apartment with a window air-conditioning unit and a small patio. A year later, she had her three kids, now 13, 10 and 8, sent from a small ranch in Durango, Mexico. Her fourth child – a U.S. citizen – was born just five months ago.
But now the family is scared.
"We will have to start all over again from the bottom," she said. "I went through so much to get here, and look what happens."
"Vamonos a Mexico [Let's go back to Mexico]," her 8-year-old son pleaded.
But her 10-year-old daughter promised to study harder so she could become a police officer who would never deport illegal immigrants.
Maria said some of her neighbors moved not long after the City Council first proposed the ordinance eight months ago. But she said she must think of her children and their schooling.
The aftermath
Even before the Saturday balloting, nearby apartment complexes were ready to scoop up new tenants fleeing Farmers Branch. And at one Farmers Branch complex, a manager who asked for anonymity said that occupancy was already down 7 percent.
City officials, including a newly elected council member, made it clear at a victory party Saturday night that they planned to get even tougher. The city faces lawsuits by plaintiffs that include Farmers Branch apartment complexes.
But supporters of the ordinance said they will wait until it comes up for review in six months before they push for further measures, which could include going after those who rent homes to illegal immigrants and businesses who employ them.
Saturday night, City Council member Tim O'Hare had this message to the attorneys bringing the lawsuits: "If they come after us, we are going to come right back after them."
Further, Mr. O'Hare said, the city would seek repayment of attorneys' fees. The victory party at a Holiday Inn Select erupted into cheers.
Mayor Pro Tem Ben Robinson said he believed the city would prevail, and the voters decided for a crackdown.
"They are fed up with the fact that illegal immigration is being overlooked in all parts of our life," said Mr. Robinson, as the victory party picked up around him. "We think it is within our rights to take action for our city."
Pre-election tensions were high in Farmers Branch. Mayor Bob Phelps' home was vandalized shortly after he came out against the ordinance The U.S. Justice Department sent election observers.
In Addison on Sunday, Mayor Joe Chow, who immigrated to the U.S. from Taiwan, said that illegal immigration is a complex issue, and that greater enforcement is needed. His town council recently passed a resolution asking the federal government to take action.
But he said an ordinance styled after the one in Farmers Branch would "divide the community."
"As an immigrant myself, a legal immigrant, I feel immigrants have made a lot of contributions to the community," he said.
"We are all of the same blood coming here to struggle to help this country," said the Honduran sign-maker, who is here with his wife.
In Carrollton, apartment dweller Ernesto Santos said he was grateful to live in the U.S. – and grateful to live in Carrollton. The rent is about $10 higher than at apartments across the street in Farmers Branch. But it's worth it, he said.
"This is so bad," he said of the ordinance. "There are so many Mexicans here now."
And repeating a refrain heard throughout the day, he said, "We just come here to work."
Then the construction worker added, "Are the white guys out there working in the sun?"
At a neighboring Farmers Branch complex, Juana Calzonzin, a 36-year-old who said she was a legal permanent resident, had a direct message: "Leave us in peace. We aren't doing anything but working."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
FB isn't the only city to take action Municipalities across U.S. aren't waiting on Congress to address illegal immigration
12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 By DAVID McLEMORE and DIANNE SOLÃS / The Dallas Morning News
From Farmers Branch to Hazleton, Pa., more than 100 municipalities across the country are taking it upon themselves to tackle illegal immigration.
In Pennsylvania, 32 municipalities have considered or enacted resolutions – such as making English the official language, cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and punishing landlords who rent to them. In California, 13 cities have passed or considered local laws to crack down on illegal immigrants and push for comprehensive immigration legislation. The list goes on.
And state legislatures in all 50 states, dissatisfied with congressional inaction, are considering more than twice the number of immigration-related laws as in previous years – with most imposing tougher restrictions on illegal immigrants.
The message to Congress, some say: If you can't do it, we will.
On Tuesday, the Senate was struggling to meet Majority Leader Harry Reid's ultimatum to end months of delay and begin policy discussions today for immigration legislation – or face a vote on a bill passed last year that no one now likes. But late Tuesday, Mr. Reid, D-Nev., postponed a vote until Monday.
The actions at the local level are the result of frustrations with congressional inability to forge a bipartisan overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, say groups on both sides of the debate.
"What we find in the local initiatives is that people use the only mechanisms they have to get the situation resolved," said Cecilia Muñoz, senior vice president of research, advocacy and legislation at the National Council of La Raza, a Latino rights organization. "We believe that was the cause of the Farmers Branch vote. It was a vote out of frustration. Unfortunately, it will cause a lot of harm."
The overwhelming passage of the Farmers Branch ordinance Saturday marked the first public vote on a local ordinance to get tough on illegal immigration, though opponents have filed for an injunction to stop the measure from going into effect Tuesday.
The Dallas suburb's ordinance would fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and require apartment managers to collect documents on the legal status of tenants. Dozens of cities across the country have seen similar tough measures approved by municipal government in the last year.
In cracking down, however, many activists are running smack into the complexity of the nation's immigration laws, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University law professor. Mr. Yale-Loehr testified in March as an expert witness in a trial involving the town of Hazleton.
"People think it is easy to determine, and it is not," the law professor said. A person can have legal status one day and lose it the next, he noted. And mixed-status families present other difficulties in enforcing an ordinance without raising discrimination claims for those in a family who are U.S. citizens, he noted.
Legal challenge
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against an April 2006 initiative in San Bernardino, Calif., that would deny city permits and contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants, ban such immigrants from renting or leasing city property, and require official city business to be conducted in English.
And the ACLU of Oklahoma is considering a legal challenge to a bill that Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry signed into law last week. The new law would prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs and public assistance and require law enforcement agents to police illegal immigrants arrested for particular crimes.
Several measures in the Texas Legislature have died in committee.
And last year, a federal judge issued a restraining order barring enforcement of several measures enacted by the town of Hazleton, Pa., that would require businesses to investigate the legal status of employees and tenants.
"If you're a landlord, how are you supposed to know who has legal papers and who doesn't?" Ms. Muñoz said. "You're more likely then to make a determination about tenants based on ethnicity. And that tends to make all Latinos suspect."
Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors reduced immigration, said the increase in action at the local level is simply a reflection of the public being fed up with illegal immigration.
"Votes such as at Farmers Branch are very clear messages that the community wants illegal immigrants to go away," Mr. Camarota said. "Local communities are left holding the bag for the consequences of illegal immigration. The longer the federal government doesn't act, the more the cities pay in education, health care and social costs."
Meanwhile, Congress is in gridlock on the issue because it can't craft legislation that appeals to both immigration special-interest groups and the public at large, Mr. Camarota said.
"Politically, the usual answer is just kick the can down the street and blame it on the other guy," Mr. Camarota said. "If that's the Senate's response this week, we'll see more activity at the local level like that at Farmers Branch. Period."
State legislators in all 50 states are dealing with more than twice the number of immigration-related bills than they were this time last year, according to a new report by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Some 1,169 pieces of legislation and resolutions designed to address immigration or immigrant-related issues have been introduced this year – compared with 570 in 2006. And at least 57 measures have been enacted in 18 states, including Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas and Kentucky, the report said.
"There's no question that immigration reform is one of the nation's most pressing issues, and it should come as no surprise that state legislators are responding accordingly," said Texas state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, president of the conference of state legislatures. "However, what is extremely disappointing is Congress' inability to craft a comprehensive immigration reform solution.
"Washington's inability to reach consensus has forced states to roll up their sleeves and get the job done," she added.
In addition, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund said that through February, about 130 local governments from Avon Park, Fla., to Sandwich, Mass., have attempted or passed ordinances or resolutions dealing with immigration-related matters. About a fifth of those efforts were in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.
While many small towns are cracking down on illegal immigrants, some large cities have taken a more neutral stance in support of comprehensive legislation.
The public desires for immigration reform are a strange balance of toughness on illegal entry and recognition of the positive contributions of those immigrants who have lived and worked in the country for years.
In a poll released April 26, about 64 percent said they support immigration reform legislation that provides increased border security and tougher enforcement, while including a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
The poll was conducted by The Tarrance Group for the National Immigration Forum from April 15-19 and April 22 of 800 registered likely voters in 2008. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
"Voters are clearly laying this issue at the feet of Congress," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the national Immigration Forum, which commissioned the poll. "Doing nothing is not an option."
Ms. Muñoz agrees.
"There will be hell to pay if the Senate doesn't act and if some form of reform doesn't happen," Ms. Muñoz said.
Senate debate
The discussions in the Senate have largely stalled along partisan lines on a number of contentious issues, particularly on how the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States would be treated.
Republican senators favor rules tougher than last year's Senate bill for those here illegally to achieve legal status – longer waits, bigger fines and a return to the country of origin.
Negotiators for the White House proposed an equally controversial measure that stresses job skills and education over family ties in the qualifications for future legal immigration.
Discussions have stumbled over opening the borders to more tech workers and whether agricultural workers will be able to enter only through a guest worker program that would end their stay after three years.
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said hurried action by the Democratic leadership would not help provide useful, workable immigration reform.
"It would be terribly disappointing and unfortunate if the Democrat majority leader were to set aside this work and simply move to last year's bill that was rejected by a majority of Congress and the American people," he said.
"Securing our borders and repairing our broken immigration system is too important to get bogged down in partisan politics or political gamesmanship," Mr. Cornyn said. "I hope the Democrat leader will do the right thing and allow these negotiations to continue instead of attempting to ram through a flawed bill without the appropriate amount of bipartisan input and consideration."
Groups join fight
Increasingly, however, grassroots organizations have formed to fight guest worker programs and legalization plans.
The Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee recently launched Operation City Walls to spread the anti-illegal immigrant movement to cities across the country to help create local support to derail amnesty and legalization plans, PAC president William Gheen said.
The group works with more than 100 cities and towns that have passed or are considering ordinances similar to that passed by Farmers Branch.
What's remarkable about Farmers Branch, Mr. Gheen said, is that two-thirds of the voters supported the measure, though they were significantly outspent by the opposition in the campaign.
"Ninety percent of the time the side that spends the most wins," Mr. Gheen said. "Farmers Branch not only reversed that, they devastated that statistic, which means anybody on an existing city or town council, or anyone considering running for city or town council, needs to take up this issue."
Staff writer Stephanie Sandoval contributed to this report.
MALDEF JOINS LAWSUIT TO RECOVER WAGES FOR EMPLOYEES WHO WERE FORCED TO WORK "OFF THE CLOCK" WITHOUT PAY
Claim for Unpaid Wages Could Affect Over a Thousand Workers Throughout California May 16, 2007
LOS ANGELES, CA—In keeping with its mission to protect the rights of Latinos, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) announced today that it is joining a class action brought by over a thousand Latino construction workers who install gutters, fireplaces, insulation and other construction products at numerous locations throughout California. The case, Gutierrez et al. v. Schmid Insulation Contractors, Inc., et al., was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.
“We were expected to arrive early and load Masco’s trucks at the company yards. We weren’t paid for that or for all of our time traveling to the job sites and setting up the equipment for work,†said lead plaintiff Arturo Navarrete. “We also didn’t get paid for all of our time traveling back to Masco’s yard and doing the unloading work. We just want to be paid for all the hours spent working for Masco,†he added.
“Masco and its local construction companies, such as Schmid Insulation and Paragon Schmid, often didn’t even pay workers fully for their time on the job site and, instead, required workers to change their time cards, making what they called ‘negative bonus’ deductions from their paychecks. A national company like Masco shouldn’t be able get away with this,†said Joel R. Villaseñor, attorney with the law firm Sullivan Taketa LLP.
“California law protects the basic right of all employees, including Latino workers, to an honest wage for an honest day’s work,†said Annabelle Gonzalves, MALDEF’s Los Angeles Regional Counsel. “By asserting their legal rights to fair treatment, these workers are making the statement that they will no longer tolerate the blatant exploitation of their labor. MALDEF is proud to stand with these courageous workers.†MALDEF has set up a toll-free number, (888) 546-7439, for potential class members to call if they have questions about the lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks to recover millions of dollars in wages owed to over a thousand workers, going back to 2002 under California wage and hour laws. The defendant is Schmid Insulation Contractors, Inc., the California operating unit of one of the nation’s largest residential insulation, gutter, and fireplace installation companies, Masco Contractor Services. Plaintiffs intend to file an Amended Complaint naming a number of other affiliates of the nationwide Masco Corporation of Taylor, Michigan, that are engaged in the construction business in California.
According to Bill Lann Lee of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., “The significance of this case is that Latino workers have stood up to vindicate their right to be paid fairly for their work. Latino workers have filed very few wage and hour cases despite the fact that they are such a large proportion of California’s workforce. This case is long overdue.†Mr. Lee was formerly the nation’s chief civil rights prosecutor as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the United States Department of Justice.
Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation’s leading Latino legal organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.
For more information contact: Laura Rodriguez: 310-956-2425 Bill Lann Lee: 510-839-6824
U.S. canal project raises tension on mexico border
POSTED: 11:14 a.m. EDT, April 25, 2007
Story Highlights• Court ruling allows U.S. authorities to stop up the cracks in All-American Canal • San Diego County Water Authority: Relining project will save water lost in leaky bed • Mexicans fear project will hurt wetland environment, leave farmers high and dry • Tensions over water have long simmered on the U.S.-Mexico border
HECHICERA, Mexico (Reuters) -- For decades, Mexican farmers and U.S. consumers have shared water from one of the world's largest irrigation canals running along part of the parched California-Mexico border.
But a court decision that allows U.S. authorities to stop up the cracks and save water for thirsty farms and sprawling subdivisions in Southern California is raising tensions in the borderlands.
This month's ruling by a court in San Francisco approved a plan to reline part of the All-American Canal with concrete, stopping accidental runoff from the waterway that has benefited Mexican farmers since it opened in 1942.
The court ordered the refurbishment of around a quarter of the 82-mile (132-kilometer) conduit to proceed "without delay" in an overhaul that is set to take up to two years to complete at a cost of some $250 million.
The San Diego County Water Authority says the project is needed to recover some 22 billion gallons (83.5 million cubic meters) of water lost through the leaky canal bed each year that local consumers in the water-strapped area have already been billed for.
Mexican authorities, environmentalists and farmers are furious at the planned relining, which they say could harm a fragile wetland environment and leave many villages in the Mexicali Valley south of the border high and dry.
"When they reline the canal, this area will dry out completely," said farmer Alfredo Mendez, pointing to the green wheat fields cut through with irrigation channels near Hechicera village just south of the waterway. "A lot of people are going to get hurt," he added.
Tensions over water have long simmered on the sun-baked U.S.-Mexico border, where farmers and city dwellers on either side of the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) line compete for a scarce commodity.
To the east, consumers spar for the murky waters of the Rio Grande as it flows to the Gulf of Mexico. In the west they vie for the Colorado River, which is reduced to barely a trickle by the time it reaches its delta in the Sea of Cortez in Mexico.
The project to reline the canal -- which carries water from the Colorado -- was opposed by a Mexican community group and two U.S. environmental organizations presenting a complex array of objections, including claims of violations of U.S. laws such as the Endangered Species Act.
City Hall in the Baja California state capital, Mexicali, has agreed to bankroll a three-million-peso ($270,000) war chest to continue to fight the relining.
Endangered species may be affected Mexican President Felipe Calderon has warned that damage from the project would be "terrible for Mexico." During a recent visit to the affected area, he said the revamp would be counterproductive for the United States because it could drive more Mexicans north to seek jobs at a time when the world's largest economy is eager to stem illegal immigration.
Mexican authorities say stopping the seepage will lower the water table south of the border, forcing dozens of villages and towns to bore deeper wells through salty soils to meet their domestic and agricultural needs.
The relining process also will dry out the fragile ecosystem of the Mesa de Andrade wetlands near the U.S.-Mexico border, which is home to endangered species such as the desert pupfish minnow and a secretive bird, the Yuma clapper rail.
"The natural environment knows no borders, and this project will hurt it," said Karl Flessa, a professor at the University of Arizona who is familiar with the area's ecology.
"The amount of habitat available to these endangered species will be diminished," he added.
California is the last of seven states to take their cut from the finite resources of the Colorado River, and water is so precious that authorities seek to conserve every last drop.
For the San Diego County Water Authority, the plan to reline the canal is simply a conservation measure that will save water equivalent to the needs of a city of 500,000 people.
Officials said most will be funneled west to provide for new subdivisions and to meet the needs of farmers tending high-value crops such as avocados and cut flowers in the county.
The remainder will go to settle outstanding water debts with American Indian tribes.
Water authority legal counsel Dan Hentschke said he has sympathy for the people in Mexico who have been using water that's been leaking out over the years, but he is quite clear as to the rights of the relining project.
"We are just fixing a leaking hose that is carrying water that California has already paid for," Hentschke said.
"[International water rights] are an issue that should be resolved by diplomats and not courts and lawyers," he added.
Wal-Mart to give skype calling a boost ...including long distance abroad
09:31 AM CDT on Monday, May 14, 2007 Associated Press
NEW YORK – Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is adding an array of Skype phone gear to the electronics section in 1,800 stores, bringing the renegade provider of cheap calling over the Internet to a huge mainstream audience.
The dedicated Skype section will feature handsets, headsets and webcams designed to work with Skype, a provider of free and very cheap long-distance calls, including to phone numbers abroad. Wal-Mart will also sell the first prepaid cards for Skype calls to be sold in this country, the companies were announcing Monday.
The new section at more than half of Wal-Mart's roughly 3,300 U.S. stores will feature Skype-compatible gear made by Motorola Inc., Plantronics Inc., Logitech International SA, Royal Philips Electronics NV and others.
Those manufacturers already sell those products in stores on their own through their own relationships with Best Buy Co. and Circuit City Stores Inc., but Wal-Mart will be the first to offer a wide selection in one place.
Wal-Mart also sells products that work with Vonage, which also transmits calls over an Internet connection but tends to more closely replicate the experience of using a traditional telephone. By contrast, while there are a growing number of cordless phones compatible with Skype, the service is commonly used by plugging a headset into a computer and clicking on names in a buddy list like those found in an instant messaging program.
With tens of millions of regular users, Skype has developed a huge following, especially among international callers. But the service is not as well known to the general public, even among people with high-speed Internet connections.
"We think there will be a lot of Wal-Mart shoppers who will not be familiar with Skype," said Don Albert, general manager for Skype North America, a unit of eBay Inc.
"We have worked with Wal-Mart to describe Skype simply in the display," Albert said, noting that the products may vary from store to store, depending on the market. "In more tech-savvy areas, you may see higher-end Skype certified hardware."
Wal-Mart typically rolls out new products in 1,000 to 2,000 stores, and the 1,800 featuring Skype products will be evenly spread across the nation, said Melissa O'Brien, a spokeswoman for the retailer.
Immigration Overhaul Is Closer to Senate Floor Proposal Would Offer Rout to Legal Status,Shift Preferences to Skilled Workers
By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 17, 2007; Page A04
Senate negotiators reached a tentative agreement yesterday on a broad overhaul of the nation's immigration laws that would offer virtually all of the nation's 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status while shifting migration preferences away from the extended families of citizens toward more skilled and educated workers.
Under the tentative deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.
The tentative deal was negotiated by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), left, and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). (Peter Morrison - AP)
A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.
To satisfy Republicans, those provisions would come in force only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants. Republicans are demanding 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace.
"This is not the architecture of an immigration bill that I would have initially liked to see," conceded Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), the Democrats' chief negotiator, "but we're not dealing with that. This is a legislative process."
The agreement would effectively bring an immigration overhaul to the Senate floor next week, but its passage is far from assured. The framework has the support of the White House and the chief negotiators, Kennedy and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). But immigration rights groups and some key Senate Democrats remain leery, especially of changing a preference system that has favored family members for more than 40 years.
"When they say, 'We're all in agreement, we have a deal,' certainly I don't feel that way," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).
Since 1965, migrants have needed a sponsor in the United States, meaning that virtually all immigrants have had family members or employers already here. The new proposal would augment that system with a merit-based program that would award points based on education levels, work experience and English proficiency, as well as family ties. Automatic family unifications would remain but would be limited to spouses and children under 21. The adult children and siblings of U.S. residents would probably need other credentials, such as skills and education, to qualify for an immigrant visa. A number of unskilled parents would be allowed in, but that flow would be capped.
To Republicans, the new system would make the nation more economically competitive while opening access to a wider array of migrants. "I think you'll find the point system to be pretty well balanced," said Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
But to immigration groups, the proposal is a radical break from existing U.S. law, and without changes, they could withhold their support from the final bill.
"We want to see an immigration reform debate on the Senate floor. We want to see this move forward. But we are wildly uncomfortable with a lot of what we're hearing," said Cecilia Muñoz, chief lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza.
The other hurdle will come from the temporary-worker program. The immigration bill that passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support would have allowed laborers entering the country as temporary workers to stay and work toward citizenship. But Republicans said this year that they could support such a program only if the workers would be truly temporary.
Immigration groups say such a program would only spur a new wave of illegal migration, as temporary workers go underground once their work permits expire. Perhaps more importantly, two powerful service unions -- the Service Employees International Union and Unite Here -- have threatened to pull their support from any immigration bill that would not give temporary workers a way to remain in the country, fearing that a truly temporary program would drive down wages for low-skill work.
Last Updated 12:08 am PDT Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A6
WASHINGTON -- The Senate moved toward an uncertain showdown on an immigration overhaul Tuesday night as Bush administration officials huddled with key senators in an attempt to broker a last-minute compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Senate would begin work today with placeholder legislation left over from last year if compromise efforts fell apart. But restive Republicans strongly hinted that they'd attempt to block debate if Reid pressed ahead with that course.
The outcome was impossible to predict as Congress again tries to address President Bush's call for a comprehensive immigration bill. A bill passed the Senate in 2006 but died in a stalemate with the House of Representatives.
Here's what's at issue:
Q: What's next?
A: The Senate's first step today will be a test vote to proceed with debate, requiring a so-called super majority of 60 votes. It could decide the fate of one of the president's top domestic initiatives.
Although diehards would attempt to resurrect it, a delay would throw it deeper into 2008 presidential politics, making it even harder to reach consensus. Consequently, many lawmakers say today's procedural vote may be make-or-break for the issue.
Q: What's the placeholder legislation?
A: The 2006 bill that passed the Senate, which Republicans then controlled, by 62-36. Reid put it on the table as the starting point for debate if efforts to forge a compromise bill collapse. Many Republicans who oppose last year's bill resent that strategy and see it as a back-door attempt to revive the measure.
Q: What's the state of play on compromise talks?
A: Senators negotiated for several hours late Tuesday, but didn't reach agreement in the latest round of bipartisan talks, which began more than two months ago. They plan more negotiations today before the start of the debate, according to Senate aides. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, representing the administration, was among those who were meeting off the Senate floor.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remained hopeful that a compromise would be reached. "I remain optimistic that we'll put together a bill that clears the Senate on a bipartisan basis," he said.
Q: What are the prospects for success?
A: By some accounts, the negotiators had at least 25 remaining issues, and some earlier agreements showed signs of unraveling.
"Everything's linked to everything else," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "I don't think you'll see a resolution until all these things are resolved."
Q: What are the most contentious issues?
A: There appears to be general agreement on legalizing more than 12 million illegal immigrants if they pay fines, learn English and return to their home countries for a brief time. But the size of the fines -- at one point proposed at more than $10,000 -- has become a sticking point.
Another dispute centers on the White House push to admit immigrants on the basis of merit and their potential contributions to the U.S. economy while sharply reducing the number of relatives they could bring. Democrats, at one point, appeared to be moving toward a version of the White House plan, but they took a second look after immigrant organizations and other Democratic constituencies opposed reducing so-called family immigration.
Q: Would Reid be receptive to delaying the vote?
A: Conceivably, if negotiators appear to be closing in on a compromise. Another option is to allow the Senate to get started and then quickly substitute a compromise bill. Many Republicans, however, oppose that approach and say they need perhaps weeks to review a bill that could be more than 600 pages long.
Q: Who are the leading participants?
A: Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy on the Democratic side and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl for the Republicans. Other key participants have included Sens. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.; Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Cornyn; and Kay Bailey Hutchison, who's also a Republican from Bush's home state of Texas.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate inched closer Wednesday to approving landmark legislation that would overhaul the nation's immigration laws and allow 12-million illegal residents a path to citizenship.
But the fragile deal largely hinged on a significant but little-known change that would grant legal residency to immigrants based on their skills rather than their family ties.
It would mark a change to a decades-old policy that some fear will lead to inhumanely separating families or forcing them to sneak into the United States illegally.
Tamar Jacoby of the conservative Manhattan Institute, who favors comprehensive immigration reform that includes citizenship, said altering the family preference policy would be a dramatic shift.
"That's the way it's been for more than 40 years," she said. "That would be a big change."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had imposed a deadline of this week for a deal but pushed it back until Monday when he learned negotiators were getting close.
"This is a good bill," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican and one of the negotiators. "There are no issues that rise to the level of deal breakers or anything like that."
The Senate proposal would expand the guest worker program, provide employers with new ways to verify the legal status of their workers and increase security on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Illegal immigrants in the United States would be granted a new Z visa, allowing them to remain here legally for eight years. After that, they could petition for citizenship by temporarily going back to their home country, paying fines and meeting other criteria. Many of the details are still being worked out.
The last big sticking points: How long should guest workers be allowed to stay in the country, and should they be allowed a path to citizenship?
Polls show Americans overwhelmingly support immigration reform that includes citizenship, and President Bush has continued to make it a top domestic goal.
Immigration on skills
Last year, the Senate passed a bill supporting a path to citizenship, guest worker programs and border security. The House rejected the proposal, demanding only enforcement.
The move away from family preference was never seriously considered last year, but was brought up this year by a key negotiator, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Supporters of the change say the nation should base immigration on skills, which would help the economy and reduce the number of immigrants on public assistance.
"Family preference is chain migration," said Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "It's runaway population growth. ... This restores control to the U.S."
Opponents of the change say it would violate the right of Americans to live with their families.
Kevin Appleby, director of migration and refugee policy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the bishops will likely not support the bill, partly based on the change to family preference.
"I think there will be undocumented immigrants because of these cuts," he said.
Under the current system established in 1965, spouses, minor children and parents of those here legally are eligible for green cards. Family members, including adult children and siblings, are given preference over others who do not have family in the United States.
What others do
About two-thirds of the more than 1-million people admitted to the country last year were family-sponsored immigrants. About 12 percent came in based on employment, and the rest were refugees, asylum seekers and others. Many of those others had relatives here as well.
Other countries, including Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, use a point-system similar to what the Senate is considering. Priority is given to education, work experience, language skills and income.
Lawmakers have talked for two decades about reducing or eliminating preference given to families. In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform urged Congress to move to a system that favors higher-skilled immigrants.
Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, supports eliminating family preferences, but not if it means the Senate will agree to allow 12-million illegal immigrants to become citizens.
"There is no question the status quo is bad, but this is worse," she said.
Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Anita Kumar can be reached at akumar@sptimes.com or 202 463-0576.
Fast Facts:
What's next?
The Senate expects to begin debating immigration reform next week with a preliminary vote expected for Monday. The House plans to consider a proposal in July before Congress' monthlong August recess.
The proposals
Senate: The proposal, still being negotiated, includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants after eight years if they meet certain criteria and return to their home country. It would also change the criteria for legal immigration by focusing more on the needs of the U.S. market and less on family considerations. It would expand the guest worker program, create a stronger verification system for employers and increase border security.
House: The Strive Act (Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act), introduced by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants after six years if they meet certain criteria, they briefly leave the country and then return through a port of entry. It also includes an expanded guest worker program, a stronger verification system for employers and increased border security.
Whatever happened to immigration reform? Cal Thomas & Bob Beckel USAToday
A year ago, it was competing with Iraq for front-page headlines. Now, a comprehensive fix is probably a world away. And that’s precisely what’s wrong with Washington.
Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.
Today: Revisiting immigration reform
(Illustration by Keith Simmons, USA TODAY)
Bob:This time last year immigration reform was a hot topic in Washington. The massive protests in major U.S. cities catapulted the issue into an election-year lightning rod. The public still cares deeply about immigration reform, yet the candidates for president in both parties are running from it like scalded dogs. Most of them would just as soon duck the issue until after the election, but immigration reform cannot wait.
Cal:You're right. With 12 million illegal immigrants here now, and more coming every day, time isn't on our country's side.
Bob:Patience in the Latino community is running out, too. The clashes a couple weeks ago during immigration protests in Los Angeles could be a sign that the status quo won't work much longer.
Calon't rely on the politicians to do anything out of conviction, Bob. Those demonstrators included many illegal aliens and their supporters. They demanded we lay aside our laws and grant them full legal status. Don't you find it bizarre that the illegals picked May 1, Law Day, to protest? Some of them are filing lawsuits in our courts to give them a legal status they do not deserve. It's surreal!
Bob:Many court challenges are about splitting immigrant families whose children were born in the USA and are, therefore, citizens. They were born to mothers who came here illegally, but that doesn't change the right for these children and their advocates to go to court. Law Day was the ideal time to make this case. The lawsuits and demonstrations would go away if our elected officials actually did something about our immigration problems.
Cal:Congress' failure to move forward on reform is precisely what is wrong in Washington today, and it's this sort of intransigence that led us to begin this column two years ago. The ingredients are all here: A major immigration problem, an energized and interested public and a president who is advocating reform. What's missing?
Bob:Compromise. I know that closed-door discussions between Senate
Add to del.icio.us
on't rely on the politicians to do anything out of conviction, Bob. Those demonstrators included many illegal aliens and their supporters. They demanded we lay aside our laws and grant them full legal status. Don't you find it bizarre that the illegals picked May 1, Law Day, to protest? Some of them are filing lawsuits in our courts to give them a legal status they do not deserve. It's surreal!