Penalties become focus of immigration debate By Nicole Gaouette, Times Staff Writer May 19, 2007
Major provisions of the immigration bill deal WASHINGTON "” The ambitious proposal to revamp the U.S. immigration system negotiated by the White House and key senators will confront a critical question next week: How tough does it have to be on illegal immigrants to pass?
As the Senate considers the bill, the lawmakers who wrote it will need to persuade skeptical conservatives that the plan does enough to punish immigrants who illegally entered the country.
The bill would offer a path to citizenship for most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, knowing Democratic backing won't be enough to pass the bill, has said it would need support from at least 70 Republicans. In the Senate, passage would require at least half of the Republicans, as well as some conservative Democrats.
Conservative critics have denounced the bill, labeling it "amnesty" "” a politically lethal charge.
When debate begins Monday, lawmakers will haggle over the penalties illegal immigrants should face to become legal residents, then citizens. Should they be forced to leave the country first? How much should they pay in fines? Should they be required to forfeit the Social Security benefits they earned while working illegally?
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who was heavily involved in the negotiations, said he worried the bill might end up being a repeat of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.
That law legalized some 2.7 million illegal immigrants, but because mandated enforcement measures were never put in place, millions more are believed to have illegally crossed the border in the hope of citizenship.
"We have to make a basic determination: Will this bill restore respect for our laws?" Cornyn said. "Or will it have the opposite effect and encourage still more disregard for our immigration and border security laws?"
Senators who helped negotiate the bill are aware of those concerns. "What more hurdles can be placed to be sure we do the maximum to avoid the charge of amnesty?" asked Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). "We are still open to suggestions."
In crafting the compromise, Specter, his bipartisan group of colleagues and two Cabinet officials had sought to address such an "amnesty" charge. Although the bill would grant probationary legal status to illegal immigrants who were in the country before Jan. 1, 2007, it requires a number of steps to become legal.
Eligible illegal immigrants would be granted "Z visas" as a step toward citizenship. But to get there, they would have to pay a total of $5,000 in fines and $2,000 in processing fees.
Heads of household would have to return to their home country and reenter legally, and all family members would have to pass background checks.
After four years, illegal immigrants who want to renew their Z visas for four more years would have to pass the English proficiency test given to those applying for citizenship.
The bill also includes a provision, championed by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), to effectively bar future citizens from receiving Social Security benefits that they had earned while working illegally, even though they were paying taxes. Ensign's attempt to add this measure to a bill last year failed by a vote of 50 to 49.
Critics say that would punish illegal immigrants after they have become citizens, possibly leaving them in poverty.
The White House made a similar proposal during negotiations on the current bill.
Sen. Jon Kyl, a conservative Republican from Arizona and one of the principal negotiators, said, "I don't consider it amnesty." He insisted that "there is no automatic path to citizenship," noting that illegal immigrants who fail to apply for probationary legal status or those who commit crimes will be deported.
But Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who will lead debate against the Senate bill, said he would "actively oppose immigration legislation that does not meet the expectations of the American people on important issues such as ... citizenship."
Immigrant advocates are uneasy about the trend of escalating punishment in the last two years of the debate.
A White House proposal floated this year proposed a $10,000 fine on top of $3,500 in fees levied every three years. And at one point in this year's talks, White House negotiators reportedly suggested fees and fines amounting to $64,000 for a family of four.
"Some politicians appear to have succumbed to sharp increases in penalties so as to as strongly and vigorously as possible deny there's any whiff of amnesty," said Jonathan Blazer, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center.
Blazer warned that fines had reached the point where "many people will simply not be able to afford to come above ground."
The Senate, however, is very likely to take up proposals next week to increase fees and penalties in a bid to counter the "amnesty" label.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) has worked with Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) for more than a year on an immigration plan that would not allow immigrants to access any Social Security benefits earned illegally.
The Hutchison-Pence proposal also goes further than the Z visa provision by requiring all illegal immigrants to return home, not just the heads of household.
Some lawmakers argue that there is no way to justify giving citizenship to people who have broken the law, no matter how many hurdles are put in place.
Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Solana Beach) said offering legal status would just draw millions more illegal immigrants to the southern border.
"There is no way we're going to control illegal immigration if we announce we're going to reward people who have already broken our laws," he said.
The bill, seen as last chance for reform before '08 election, creates a path to citizenship and temporary-worker program only after border security measures are in place.
By Nicole Gaouette, Times Staff Writer May 18, 2007
WASHINGTON "” After months of painstaking negotiations, a bipartisan group of senators forged an agreement Thursday on a bill that would allow most illegal immigrants now in the country to become citizens; reshape how legal immigrants are admitted; and create security measures that eventually would require all U.S. workers to prove their legal status.
The plan to legalize most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and to create a temporary-worker program would not start until steps were completed to strengthen border security and workplace enforcement.
The bill calls for hiring about 6,000 additional Border Patrol officers, building hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, and expanding surveillance with radar towers and aerial drones. Employers would have to electronically verify the legal status of new hires and would face stiff penalties for breaking the law.
The senators and Cabinet secretaries who negotiated the measure stressed that it needed to pass soon, before election politics made it impossible to tackle the controversial issue.
"This is the last, best chance we'll have as a Congress," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) at negotiators' Capitol news conference. "If this somehow collapsed, it would be years before you could re-create this."
The negotiators acknowledged that their compromise bill would provoke intense criticism from both ends of the political spectrum that could imperil it in the Senate and House.
"This plan isn't perfect, but it's a strong bill and it is a worthy solution," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator.
The intricately crafted bill brings President Bush a step closer to a domestic goal that he has championed since he took office. On Thursday, he hailed the deal as a "historic moment" and said he was "anxious to sign a comprehensive immigration bill as soon as I possibly can."
Dissenting voices from the Senate quickly signaled how difficult the president's goal might be. "We should not give a blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants who want to flaunt the laws of this land," Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the negotiators, said he had "serious concerns" because some key details had yet to be drafted.
The Senate plans to take up the bill Monday, and the leadership aims to have a final vote before Memorial Day "” an ambitious goal in light of the contention last year over a Senate immigration bill. That bill passed the Senate but was never debated in the House.
The two bills have similar elements, but the new one makes far more substantial changes to the immigration system. It also offers more illegal immigrants a chance, as Kennedy put it, to come "out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."
The bill would immediately offer probationary legal status to illegal immigrants who were in the country before Jan. 1, 2007, and those who qualified would be able to gain citizenship within an estimated 12 to 13 years.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Thursday warned immigrants against illegally crossing the border now, saying they would be barred from becoming legal residents. "That would be the absolute dumbest thing to do," he said.
Illegal immigrants would have six months to a year to apply for probationary status. Once the border and workplace security requirements were in place, they could apply for a "Z visa."
The visa would be good for four years and could be renewed once. After eight years, applicants who qualified could begin applying for permanent resident status, or a green card, a step toward citizenship. After five years with a green card, the immigrants could then apply for citizenship. Chertoff said he expected that about 15% to 20% of the 12 million illegal immigrants would be disqualified, for committing crimes or for other reasons.
Z visa applicants would have to meet several criteria, such as having a good work history and, after the first four years, passing the English proficiency test given to those applying for citizenship. Heads of household would have to return to their home country and reenter legally.
Each Z visa applicant would be subject to a $1,000 fine and a $1,500 processing fee, which could be paid in installments. Visa renewals would cost $500. Z visa holders who sought a green card would have to pay an additional $4,000 fine.
Critics like Byrd branded the plan "amnesty." But Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez insisted it was not. "This is not an unconditional pardon," Gutierrez said. "And, very importantly, there is no automatic path to citizenship."
Gutierrez and others were vague about the cost of the program, which would require major construction, new data systems and high-tech identification cards. "Whatever that final number will be, it will be a lot less costly than to remain in a system that is socially unsustainable," Gutierrez said.
The bill also aims to clear within eight years the backlog of about 5 million foreigners who have applied to reunite with their families in the U.S. Some have waited 22 years or longer.
A temporary-worker program would be created for general labor needs, but in a concession to Republicans, it would not allow workers to become legal residents. "Temporary means temporary," Chertoff said. "It's not meant to be a kind of under-the-table path to a green card."
Under the program, workers could come to the U.S. for three two-year periods with a one-year interval between each stay.
A separate program, shepherded by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would simplify the current AgJobs program for agricultural workers and would also allow those workers to achieve citizenship.
Chertoff estimated that it would take 18 months to put in place the border and workplace enforcement measures that would trigger the additional changes. "We have the tools which we need to scale up," Chertoff said. "It's going to take time and money, but we have the time and money to get there."
The bill would boost the number of border agents to 18,000 from about 12,000. It would build 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing. And it would mandate that facilities be available to detain up to 27,500 illegal immigrants a day.
U.S. citizens would feel the impact of the workplace enforcement measure. All employers would be required to electronically verify the eligibility of new hires, and after three years, firms would have to verify the eligibility of all current employees.
Senate Republican aides said the Department of Homeland Security would make sure that a worker's identity documents "” likely to include a tamper-proof Social Security card and possibly a revamped driver's license "” are an exact photo match of information on file. The employer would also have to send in the worker's Social Security number.
In a step that has raised privacy concerns among some lawmakers, the Homeland Security Department would be given expanded access to Social Security information and limited Internal Revenue Service data so that it could detect when numbers were fake or being used by more than one person.
The plan would also reconfigure future legal immigration, changing the "reunification" practice that gives priority to members of extended families. Under the bill, only members of "nuclear families," defined as spouses and minor children, would be given preference. Other visas would be allocated on a merit-based point system that rewarded education; language ability; and skills, high-tech and low-tech, that are needed in the United States. Family ties to the U.S. would earn points for applicants as one factor among the many.
"That is a very big shift," said Gutierrez.
The senators who presented the plan to U.S. and foreign reporters had negotiated for three months, several days a week. Their staff members, many of whom had worked overnight, looked on with heavy-lidded eyes, their arms loaded with briefing papers as thick as phone books.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the lead GOP negotiator on the bill, spoke about the "horrible, horrible problem" illegal immigration posed for the nation and his state, and offered a warning about the necessary compromises ahead.
"It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and say, 'No, I want it my way,' " he said.
"No one gets 100% of what they want, if you're going to get something done."
nicole.gaouette@latimes.com
Times staff writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Overhaul bill
Under the proposal, illegal immigrants who are currently employed would be able to obtain four-year, renewable visas if they meet these criteria:
What's next for immigration deal From Associated Press 12:11 PM PDT, May 18, 2007
A look at the next steps for an immigration overhaul plan worked out by a bipartisan group of senators and the White House:
SENATE CONSIDERATION
The Senate plans to open debate Monday on the bill and consider amendments throughout next week. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has set a Memorial Day deadline for completing the measure, but it's unlikely the complex plan can be finished that quickly.
HOUSE ACTION
Democratic leaders are waiting for the Senate to pass a bill before they consider one in the more-polarized House. They plan to act on immigration in July, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has told President Bush she won't bring up a bill unless he can promise at least 70 Republicans will support it.
CONFERENCE
If the House passes a version, House and Senate negotiators would have to blend the two bills into one. The House and Senate then would each have to pass that product. It would then go to Bush for his signature.
ENACTMENT:
Bush has said he's eager to sign the measure into law by August, when Congress adjourns for four weeks, returning Sept. 4.
New immigration bill faces a wall of old opposition
Attacks from left and right suggest latest push for change, although representing a potential breakthrough, could again end in a stalemate affecting millions.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer May 18, 2007
This is far from over. "” Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley)
WASHINGTON "” The compromise immigration plan unveiled Thursday by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats offers the best prospect for congressional action on the explosive issue this year "” perhaps for several years to come.
But the attacks from both left and right that met the proposal suggested the latest push for change, although representing a potential breakthrough, could again end in a stalemate. At the very least, the criticism showed that the bill's supporters would need to do a lot of arm-twisting on both sides of the aisle.
"This is far from over," Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) said, criticizing as "amnesty, amnesty and amnesty" the provision that provides illegal immigrant workers with a path to legal standing and citizenship.
The provisions on citizenship were by no means the only ones to come under fire.
Among Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada expressed "serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration."
Reid's statement was referring to parts of the measure that would set out conditions for temporarily letting foreign workers enter the United States, and to changes in the provisions that permit legal immigrants to bring family members into the country.
Another Democrat, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, said the guest worker program threatened to drive down U.S. wages.
"America's workers have enough downward pressure on their wages because of unfair trade deals and corporate outsourcing of millions of jobs every year," he said in a statement. "The last thing they need now is to have an inflow of millions of more immigrants competing for their jobs at substandard wages."
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) signaled that he wanted to tighten border security and "repair the woefully inadequate legal immigration process before we move to an amnesty-based immigration system."
Among Republicans, Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa objected to a provision that he said would give the Homeland Security Department "unlimited, open-ended access to all Social Security data, including confidential tax return information."
The provision Grassley challenged is designed to create a workable employment verification system. His statement said the provision would take a "wrecking ball" to "the balance between taxpayer privacy and legitimate law enforcement."
Still, the bipartisan Senate agreement "” and its support across the political spectrum, including the backing of liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), conservative Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and President Bush "” should improve its prospects.
"I like the chances," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "The fact that they have such a broad coalition in the Senate bodes well for the House."
Rep. George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa), who has pushed for a guest worker program that would benefit his agricultural-rich district, predicted the measure would pass.
Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) called prospects bright. "I think there are a lot of people who want to see us do something in a comprehensive way," he said. But he acknowledged that he and other advocates of comprehensive changes in immigration policy had their work cut out to round up GOP support for the measure.
Rep. Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.), the third-ranking Republican in the House, said, "I think there's a sense over here to attempt to solve the problem in a responsible way." But he said most of his colleagues were "keeping their powder dry until they have had an opportunity to see the details" of the Senate proposal.
Even with bipartisan Senate backing and Bush's support, some analysts said supporters would need to round up as many as 70 Republicans to get the measure through the House because of opposition from Democrats in conservative districts.
"If 70 is what they need, I think we've got 70 Republicans," Flake said. "There are a lot of Republicans over here who understand, if nothing else, the benefits of getting this behind us as an issue."
A number of House Republicans remained unbending in their opposition to anything they regarded as amounting to amnesty.
Gallegly said he wasn't swayed by support for the bill from conservative Republicans like Kyl. "This is amnesty, pure and simple," he said in a statement.
He continued: "If we grant this amnesty, we only encourage yet even more illegal immigration."
Noting that the bill would require the head of household to return to the country of origin to apply for the full family's permanent residency, Gallegly said, "Only one lawbreaker has to return to apply for permanent residency for a family of lawbreakers."
Andrew Whalen, a spokesman for freshman Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), said: "I can tell you that if it has anything resembling amnesty, it's going to be a no-go for the congressman."
Ninety-seven House members "” all Republicans except Democrats Nancy E. Boyda of Kansas and Jim Marshall of Georgia "” recently sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) calling on her "not to bring amnesty legislation to the House floor."
Marshall spokesman Douglas Moore said, "We are not in favor of any kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants."
Reid, the Senate majority leader, said, "We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process."
Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) complained in a statement that the compromise would end up costing taxpayers "trillions of dollars in entitlement spending" for immigrants moving on to the "already straining Social Security and Medicare system."
Transcript: President's Radio Address Saturday, May 19, 2007
Good morning.
This week, my administration reached an agreement with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on immigration reform. I thank the leaders in both parties who worked hard to produce legislation that will secure the border, restore respect for the law, and meet the legitimate needs of our economy.
This legislation includes all the elements required for comprehensive immigration reform. It will improve security at our borders. It will give employers new tools to verify the employment status of workers and hold businesses to account for those they hire.
It will create a temporary worker program. It will help us resolve the status of millions of illegal immigrants who are here already, without animosity and without amnesty. And it will honor the great American tradition of the melting pot by strengthening our efforts to help new arrivals assimilate into our society.
Here's how the bill works: First, it will require that strong border security and enforcement benchmarks are met before other elements of the legislation are implemented. These benchmarks include completing our plan to double the number of Border Patrol agents, improving border infrastructure, and maintaining enough beds in our detention facilities so that all those apprehended at the border can be held and returned to their home countries.
We will also improve work site enforcement by implementing an effective system to verify worker eligibility using tamper-resistant identification cards, and by imposing stiffer penalties on companies that knowingly violate the law. Once these benchmarks are met, they will trigger other provisions of comprehensive reform.
The legislation will create a new temporary worker program. Such a program will help our economy and take pressure off the border by providing foreign workers with a legal and orderly way to enter our country to fill jobs that Americans are not doing. To ensure that this program is truly temporary, workers will be limited to three two-year terms, with at least a year spent outside the United States between each term.
Temporary workers will be allowed to bring immediate family members only if they demonstrate that they can support them financially, and that their family members are covered by health insurance.
This legislation will also help resolve the status of illegal immigrants who are already in our country without amnesty. Those who come out of the shadows will be given probationary status. If they pass a strict background check, pay a fine, hold a job, maintain a clean criminal record, and eventually learn English, they will qualify for and maintain a Z visa.
If they want to become citizens, they have to do all these things, plus pay an additional fine, go to the back of the line, pass a citizenship test, and return to their country to apply for their green card.
This legislation will also strengthen our efforts to help new immigrants assimilate. The key to unlocking the full promise of America is the ability to speak English. This bill affirms that English is the language of the United States. And it provides new opportunities for immigrants to learn English and embrace the shared ideals that bind us as a nation.
In addition, this legislation will clear the backlog of family members who've applied to come to our country lawfully, and have been waiting patiently in line. This legislation will end chain migration by limiting the relatives who can automatically receive green cards to spouses and minor children.
And this legislation will transform our immigration system so that future immigration decisions are focused on admitting immigrants who have the skills, education, and English proficiency that will help America compete in a global economy.
I realize that many hold strong convictions on this issue, and reaching an agreement was not easy. I appreciate the effort of Senators who came together to craft this important legislation.
This bill brings us closer to an immigration system that enforces our laws and upholds the great American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom.
U.S. atty to assist in probe of N.Y. immigrant's homicide
5/11/2007, 6:17 p.m. EDT The Associated Press
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) "” Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore says the U.S. Attorney's office will join the investigation into the killing of a Guatemalan immigrant after Hispanic advocates called for federal involvement in the probe.
The Bedford Police Department is leading the investigation into the death of Rene Perez, who called police in neighboring Mount Kisco shortly before his body was found in Bedford. On Thursday, Hispanic advocates called for federal authorities, saying the immigrant community does not trust local police departments to investigate each other.
At a news conference Friday, Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore said she had asked Mike J. Garcia, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to join the investigation.
"Based on my review of the circumstances as they are unfolding during the course of this investigation, it is becoming clear to me that both state and federal interests may be impacted here and that is the reason why I called Mike Garcia and asked him to join us," she said.
Garcia confirmed in a statement Friday that federal authorities had opened an investigation and were working with local law enforcement agencies.
Fernando Mateo, president of Hispanics Across America, on Friday called it "unfortunate" that DiFiore waited weeks after Perez's April 28 death to call in the federal government.
"Nonetheless, we are pleased that she recognized her mistake and that the proper federal authorities are now involved. We need answers and we need them now," he said.
Bedford police Lt. Robert Mazurak said he would welcome any assistance, "and we will work with any agency that can help us resolve this case."
Perez, who was homeless but frequented Mount Kisco, called the police from a coin laundry there on the night of April 28, complaining of stomach pain. Three officers responded, but it was declared that Perez "did not have a police matter." An hour later, Perez was found dying on a roadside in Bedford.
The Westchester medical examiner found that Perez, 42, died of internal injuries and labeled the death a homicide.
Mount Kisco police had had hundreds of dealings with Perez, who had a long record of being drunk, getting arrested and making 911 calls.
On Thursday, Mateo called for the federal investigation, saying, "This is a bias case. There might be a serial killer. We don't know if it's law enforcement. We don't know if it's just an immigrant hater. We don't know who it is. But we're certainly not going to solve this case with just the Bedford Police Department investigating the Mount Kisco Police Department."
The killing is the third unsolved homicide since 2003 involving a Guatemalan immigrant who disappeared from Mount Kisco.
DiFiore has said she has no doubts about the integrity of the investigation.
Mateo was accompanied by the Rev. Brian Jordan, a Manhattan priest who works with immigrants. Jordan said the Guatemalan's death was "a microcosm of the immigrant struggle throughout the United States."
He also called Perez's killing "a hate crime" and said, "murder is not a justified means of deportation." He acknowledged later there was no "absolute proof" of a hate crime.
In Mount Kisco, meanwhile, the three village police officers being investigated were placed on desk duty, acting Chief Louis Terlizzi said.
Hispanic group (Hispanics Across America) wants U.S. to probe immigrant killings
By JORGE FITZ-GIBBON THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: May 11, 2007) WHITE PLAINS - A Hispanic advocacy group charged yesterday that the community "has lost faith" in the ability of local police to probe the deaths of three Mount Kisco Guatemalan immigrants since 2003 - including the homicide of 42-year-old Rene Perez in Bedford.
Speaking outside U.S. District Court in White Plains, Fernando Mateo, president of Hispanics Across America, also called for federal authorities to take the unsolved homicide cases away from Bedford and Mount Kisco police.
Bedford is investigating Perez's death, a probe that has implicated three Mount Kisco police officers who have been put on desk duty.
Mount Kisco police, in turn, are investigating the strangulation deaths of two other Guatemalan immigrants in 2003 and 2004.
"We need for everyone to be investigated in this case," Mateo said. "We want a third party that can address this issue and address it properly, because we want our community to have faith in our justice system, to have faith in their police department."
Mateo said he and other activists were scheduled to meet with officials from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan on Monday morning.
Bedford police Lt. Robert Mazurak would not comment on Mateo's call to have federal investigators take over the case, but said the department would welcome any useful assistance.
"We want to resolve this," Mazurak said. "We will take assistance from anyone, wherever it comes from, that will aid us in our investigation."
He said Bedford had not been contacted by other agencies.
Mount Kisco Acting Police Chief Louis Terlizzi did not return calls seeking comment.
Perez, a homeless vagrant, was found mortally injured on Byram Lake Road in Bedford at 11:35 p.m. April 28.
Mount Kisco Police Officers George Bubaris and Edward Dwyer and Lt. Edward Dunnigan had a run-in with Perez less than an hour earlier, when he called 911 from a coin-operated laundry.
No suspects have been named in the case, but Bedford Police Chief Christian Menzel said this week that the Mount Kisco officers are part of the investigation.
Mateo, of Hispanics Across America, has met with Bedford police, and said he is seeking a meeting with Mount Kisco police.
The two other slay cases in Mount Kisco remain open. On June 6, 2004, Roberto Martinez, 42, was found strangled at a construction site on Lexington Avenue.
Santos Bojorguez, 33, was found behind the Verizon building on Main Street on Dec. 18, 2003. He had also been strangled.
Coalition criticizes outside activists as divisive in Mount Kisco
By JORGE FITZ-GIBBON THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: May 19, 2007) WHITE PLAINS - A New York City-based Hispanic group may have ruffled feathers among local immigrant advocates by inserting himself into the recent controversy over the death of a Guatemalan immigrant from Mount Kisco.
The newly formed Westchester Immigration Alliance won't say which group or groups they mean. But a member expressed frustration at advocates who "helicopter in" - a veiled reference to activist Fernando Mateo, an Irvington resident and a recent fixture in the Mount Kisco case. Mateo is president of Hispanics Across America, based in New York City.
In a statement yesterday, the alliance chided "advocacy groups who are not based in this area" and "may not be cognizant of all the facets of the situation."
"Outsiders are coming in who know nothing of our history, who haven't tried to link up with us and work with us to see what we're doing before they start creating divisiveness," said alliance member Graciela Heymann, director of the Westchester Hispanic Coalition.
Day laborer Rene Perez was found dying on a Bedford road on April 28, less than one hour after an encounter with three Mount Kisco police officers.
Mateo jumped into the controversy last week. He held a news conference outside the federal courthouse in White Plains urging federal intervention and this week held a vigil outside Mount Kisco Village Hall. He also brought the Guardian Angels, a nonviolence youth group based in New York City, to Mount Kisco.
He said yesterday that he was simply doing what local groups did not do in response to Perez's unsolved and suspicious death.
"I think they should've joined us in the effort, rather than sit on the sidelines and now wanting to have some say or criticism about what we accomplished," he said. "Our organization got involved because we didn't believe there were any organizations interested in finding the truth."
But Heymann said some actions could "inflame the situation and exacerbate people's fears."
She also said the media may have made things worse by sensationalizing Perez's death.
"There is this noise around it that we find very disturbing," she said. "We find the speculation by the press incredibly damaging and divisive for the community."
Reach Jorge Fitz-Gibbon at 914-694-5016 or jfitzgib@lohud.com.
No Easy Path to Immigration Reform, Senates Comprehensive Proposal Raises Concerns About Implementation
By Spencer S. Hsu Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, May 20, 2007; Page A08
In vowing not to repeat the mistakes of the country's 1986 amnesty, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said late last week that the Senate immigration overhaul "put workability front and center," promising to secure U.S. borders and workplaces and making the economy more competitive.
But many aspects of the proposal pose enormous implementation challenges, whose consequences would be felt not just by an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants but by every U.S. employer, worker and new legal immigrant in coming years.
Changes would require careful calibration to meet changing labor market needs and human responses, all on a scale never before attempted, said immigration lawyers, business lobbyists, former U.S. officials and policy analysts.
In some ways, border security improvements that would have to be made by a December 2008 deadline are the easy part, according to Dawn M. Lurie, bar liaison for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency (USCIS) has been "overburdened and pretty much dysfunctional," she said.
"I read this [bill] and say this is hysterical. How is it going to be implemented? It's crazy," said Lurie, who praised the bill's general intent.
The Senate measure requires that DHS in 18 months expand nationwide to all 7 million U.S. employers an improved version of a program used voluntarily by 6,000 companies to check Social Security numbers against government databases, to weed out illegal workers.
However, a pilot program was prone to false alarms, with as many as 20 percent of noncitizens and 13 percent of citizens sent for follow-up visits to immigration offices. A new version is supposed to help employers verify that document holders are who they say they are by letting them download digital photographs, but it may not be entirely workable in a massive deployment, said Laura Foote Reiff, a lawyer with Greenberg Traurig who represents the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition of service industries.
"It's huge," Reiff said. "It's not just a matter of them having the capacity to do it and the staff to handle this. It's also employers having the notice they need to train their people to get whatever equipment they need to use the new system, and to work out the kinks."
What's more, in three years all companies would have to recheck identification and Social Security documents for all 140 million U.S. workers, including citizens.
Security mix-ups that keep travelers from boarding airplanes could pale in comparison with database problems that block Americans from their work.
"If you tell me you can get this right 99 percent, from a policy perspective, that's fantastic," said Deborah W. Meyers, senior analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. "The challenge is that 1 percent is an awful lot of people."
Meanwhile, DHS would be gearing up to launch the biggest pieces of the plan -- a "Y visa" for 400,000 temporary workers and a "Z visa" for up to 12 million illegal immigrants who entered the United States before the start of this year.
No Easy Path to Immigration Reform The Y visa for guest workers would be good for two years and could be renewed three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.
Under the four-year renewable Z visa program, employed illegal immigrants could apply for a temporary permit, then stay in the United States after paying a $5,000 fine and a $1,500 processing fee and passing a criminal background check. Heads of illegal-immigrant households would have eight years to return to their home countries for a chance to apply for permanent residency for household members.
President Bush and first lady Laura Bush board Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, Friday, May 18, 2007, for a trip to Richmond, Va., then onto the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas. (AP Photo/Caleb Jones) (Caleb Jones - AP)
Life Along 'La Linea' The U.S.-Mexico border is at the forefront of a growing debate over U.S. immigration and border security reform.
Both programs have some unknowns, and size is one of them. In 1986, only about 3 million immigrants applied for legal status.
"How do you register 10 million people in 18 months?" Meyers asked.
Also, before the proposed eight-year deadline for the Z visa program arrived, Congress would require that DHS clear its waiting list of 4 million applications by legal immigrants for visas to reunite relatives, dating to January 2005.
To do that, the government projects having to ramp up the issuance of family-preference visas by 440,000 a year. By comparison, USCIS now processes about 1.1 million green-card requests a year.
Requiring workers to come and go also would disrupt companies and burden immigrant families, said David W. Leopold, an officer of the immigration lawyers group.
"What's the incentive for somebody to leave and come back?" he said. "The more complex it is, the more difficult it will be for people to qualify, which will lead to the same sort of unsolvable illegal population problem that we have now."
Performing security checks also would be difficult. Of 2.7 million names of pending USCIS applicants resubmitted for checks against FBI databases at the end of 2002, 440,000 remain unresolved, the FBI has said.
In one of its most significant proposed changes, the Senate plan mandates a move -- after the family waiting list is cleared -- to awarding visas using a point-based merit system based on education, English proficiency and job skills rather than family relations.
While the change is politically contentious, it also could pose "a crapshoot for employers," said Carl W. Hampe, a Washington lawyer and former Senate Judiciary counsel who helped draft the 1986 law. Hampe said lawmakers rejected a point system back then, concerned that it would be too rigid for Congress and immigration agencies to adjust to market changes.
William Yates, former head of operations for USCIS, said the task would be made more difficult by growing pains in DHS.
"Can it be implemented? Yes. . . . Is it going to be difficult? Yes," Yates said. "And is it going to be more difficult because it's such a new department? Yes."
Swift says raid cost more than it believed By JERRY PERKINS REGISTER FARM EDITOR May 12, 2007
Swift & Co. on Friday raised its estimate of the losses it suffered because of an immigration raid in Marshalltown and five other plants in December.
Losses totaled $45 million to $50 million for the fiscal year ending May 27, the company said.
The company originally estimated the cost of the raid and its aftermath at $30 million.
Ray Silcock, Swift's executive vice president and chief financial officer, said the new estimate included $20 million in lost earnings and $10 million in increased recruiting and training costs.
Swift also said Friday that it has returned to "standard staffing levels" at all four of its U.S. beef processing plants after federal agents removed about 950 employees on Dec. 12.
The December raid also involved two Swift pork processing facilities, in Marshalltown and in Worthington, Minn. The pork operations returned to normal employment levels in March, the company had announced.
Swift, based in Greeley, Colo., has beef plants in Greeley; Grand Island, Neb.; Cactus, Texas; and Hyrum, Utah.
Swift & Co. has almost $10 billion in annual sales and is the third-largest processor of fresh beef and pork in the United States and is the largest beef processor in Australia.
Register Farm Editor Jerry Perkins can be reached at (515) 284-8456 or jperkins@dmreg
Agriculture firms study immigration proposal. A union that represents farmworkers opposes the guest-worker provision in the plan the Senate will dabate.
By JERRY PERKINS REGISTER FARM EDITOR May 19, 2007
Tom Bell, a farmer from Conesville, has a big stake in the immigration legislation that will be debated in the Senate on Monday.
Bell is waiting to hear whether he can hire 60 workers from Mexico from May 25 through Sept. 25 to raise the watermelons, cantaloupes, zucchini and cucumbers he grows in southeast Iowa. And, he wants to bring in 500 more workers in July to detassel seed corn.
"I just hope they pass something so that when these workers come up here, they can go to work and then go home," Bell said. "They're excellent workers. We need them here in Iowa."
A deal worked out by senators and the White House would give the agriculture industry a consistent supply of immigrant labor. As enforcement has tightened, farmworker shortages have increased across the country, farmers say.
The proposed legislation would help agribusiness in other ways. Meatpacking plants could keep many of their workers who are now here illegally.
Employers and their lawyers were sorting through the complicated proposal, which was still being drafted late Friday and will begin to be debated Monday in the Senate. Critics across the political spectrum quickly found problems with the bill.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., said the proposed bill amounts to an amnesty that promotes illegality. Under the deal, most immigrants here illegally could remain if they come forward, pay $5,000 in fines and complete other requirements.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which represents workers at meatpacking plants in Iowa, said it opposes instituting a guest worker program like the one worked out in the deal by the Senate and White House.
Terms of the deal say that holders of "guest worker" visas - which are different from temporary farmworker visas - would be allowed to spend three two-year terms in the United States if they leave for a year between each term.
Mark Lauritsen, international vice president for the union in Washington, D.C., said allowing temporary guest workers would cause instability.
"It appears they want to take permanent jobs and turn them into short-term jobs," said Lauritsen, who is from Marathon. "That's no way to build a community, and it opens the door for more exploitation of the temporary workers by companies."
Lauritsen also criticized the point system that would favor high-skilled workers over low-skilled workers with family in the United States.
"We're a country that says it values families," he said. "A point system will put a high-skilled worker over someone who wants to reunite with their families. It gives no value to separated families."
Meatpacking companies with operations in Iowa were reviewing the deal.
"Preliminary information suggests the plan contains many of the key reform elements that Swift & Co. has been advocating for over a year," said Sean McHugh, a spokesman for the Greeley, Colo.-based meatpacker.
Last December, federal officials raided a hog processing plant in Marshalltown and five other Swift plants. About 100 Marshalltown workers were detained by authorities for a lack of legal documents.
McHugh said Swift is in favor of improved worker verification, recognition of the U.S. economy's growing need for labor and provisions to bolster border security - all elements he found in the deal.
Spokesmen for Tyson Fresh Meats, which has 9,000 employees in Iowa, and Cargill Meat Solutions, which employs more than 2,000 workers at its hog processing plant in Ottumwa, said they support proposals that provide a way for workers in the United States illegally to earn legal status, allow for better control of the border, and give employers better tools to verify citizenship.
Granting employers more power to verify employees' legal status didn't sit well with Lauritsen.
"That's like letting the fox watch the henhouse," he said. "What's needed is outside verification."
Temporary farmworkers will be treated differently from other guest workers or illegal immigrants under the Senate proposal.
The deal could allow up to 1.5 million farmworkers to obtain permanent legal status after paying fines, learning English and completing other requirements.
Bell said bringing in workers on temporary agriculture visas as he does every year is not cheap.
"It costs me $400 to $500 to buy each of them a bus ticket, and I have to provide them with housing and pay them $9.97 an hour," he said.
Farm Editor Jerry Perkins can be reached at (515) 284-8456 or jperkins@dmreg.com
The Associated Press Thursday, May 17, 2007; 6:20 PM
Brief chronology of U.S. immigration laws:
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act: Barred the entry of any Chinese for 10 years, made permanent in 1904 until it was rescinded in 1943.
1921 Quota Act: Established first immigration quotas.
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act: Enacted by Congress overriding a veto by President Truman. Established the basic body of immigration law used today. Reaffirmed a quota system for new immigrants based on their national origins; established preferences for immigrants based on education, skills and relatives already living in U.S.
1965 Hart-Celler Act: Replaced immigration system based on national origins and in place since 1920s with system designed to unite families. The change shifted the origin of most immigrants from Europe to Asia and Latin America. Limited available visas.
1980 Refugee Act: Established U.S. policy on admission of refugees and defined refugees according to U.N norms.
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: Provided amnesty and temporary status to all illegal aliens who had lived in the United States continuously since before Jan. 1, 1982; extended a separate, more lenient amnesty to farmworkers; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens; increased inspection and enforcement at U.S. borders.
1990 Immigration Act: Established limits on immigration but also increased available visas; continued reunification of families as a goal of immigration policy; increased the number of immigrants admitted for employment; gave higher preference to professionals and highly skilled immigrants; provided for admission to U.S. of immigrants from "underrepresented" countries.
1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act: Mainly an enforcement measure. Doubled the size of the Border Patrol to 10,000 agents over five years; required construction of 14 miles of fencing at key points on the U.S.-Mexico border; toughened penalties for smuggling and document fraud; tightened sanctions on employers of illegal immigrants; denied government benefits to non-citizens; toughened refugee and asylum provisions; gave immigration officials authority for expedited removal to immediately deport a foreigner at a port of entry; denied public benefits to non-citizens.
2000 Legal Immigration Family Equity Act: Allowed illegal immigrants married to a U.S. citizen and in the country before Dec. 21, 2000, to apply for legal permanent residency after paying a $1,000 fine.
2006 Secure Fence Act _ Requires construction of at least 700 miles of fencing along U.S. Mexico border.
Sources: Center for Immigration Studies; Citizenship and Immigration Services; Associated Press Archives.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, accompanied by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, speaks during a news conference on immigration reform.
ASK A REPORTER
Have a question about immigration? Send a message to USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely. For more Capitol Hill "news that doesn't fit in print," read her blog.
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY WASHINGTON "” Forget your poor, tired, huddled masses. Now some policymakers are saying the nation might be better off fixing its sights on engineers and Ph.D.s. The immigration legislation the Senate begins debating today takes a step in that direction, a step that other countries have taken with mixed success.
In what Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez called "a very significant and, we believe, very important shift," the bill proposes to change the policy that has made family the chief factor in determining who becomes a citizen.
If the bipartisan bill is enacted, relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents will still make up most of the nation's immigrants. But their numbers will shrink as the proportion who gain entry because of their skills grows. "We have to be more focused on what the country needs," Gutierrez told USA TODAY.
"This legislation will transform our immigration system so that future immigration decisions are focused on admitting immigrants who have the skills, education and English proficiency that will help America compete," President Bush said in his weekend radio address.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: House | Senate | Washington | Senators | Michael Chertoff The bill's prospects for becoming law remain unclear. On ABC's This Week, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday that the measure could tie up the Senate. "It's got to go on for at least a couple of weeks to give everybody the opportunity in the Senate to feel like they've had their chance to offer amendments that they think would improve the bill," he said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is not happy with how the compromise would treat families. "We should try to fashion something that recognizes the reality of life," she said on the same show.
Few admitted for job skills
Of the more than 1.2 million people who immigrated last year, fewer than 13% were admitted based on job skills. The Senate bill would change the equation to set aside about one-third of the immigration slots each year for people who earn admission based on a points system designed to measure their ability to succeed in the economy.
The system would give an advantage to those people who are highly educated, have skills that are in demand in the USA, have worked here, have relatives here and are fluent in English.
To make room for the economic immigrants, special preference categories for the adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents will be eliminated. Those family members still will have a chance to immigrate, but they will have to compete in the merit-based point system for slots.
Some, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are denouncing the move as a betrayal of a historic legacy that has made America a nation of up-by-their-own-bootstraps success stories.
In a hearing on the immigration legislation this year, Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy noted that his Irish-American father employed many Vermonters in his Montpelier print shop, as did his Italian-American grandfather at a local stone quarry, even though neither earned a high school diploma.
Advocates of a more selective immigration process argue that times have changed. They insist that a more populous USA can afford to be choosier and should be to remain competitive in a global marketplace. "We have to ask ourselves," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., "who are the most likely to be successful here and also benefit the United States?"
Employers want more skills-based immigrants, but some are expressing concern that the points system won't deliver. Compete America, a coalition of major companies lobbying for an overhaul of the immigration system, said last week that the points system would be "bureaucratic" and "take key personnel decision-making out of the hands of U.S. employers," who, under the current system, sponsor the immigrants they want.
The system proposed in the bill would admit immigrants who qualify on points, whether or not they have a job offer.
Canada, Australia guide the way
Other countries already have established point systems.
In both Canada and Australia, a majority of those who immigrate each year enter through a points system. Great Britain will start phasing in a points-based system next year.
There are "pluses and minuses" to Canada's system, says Toronto-based immigration lawyer Sergio Karas. The biggest problem, he said, is that "somebody from India with a master's from MIT gets the same number of points as someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy from a less prestigious university," Karas said.
As a result, "we are continually confronted with stories of professionals such as doctors ... driving taxis," Howard Greenberg, the former head of the Canadian Bar Association's immigration section, told the House Judiciary Committee this month.
The Senate bill attempts to address the potential imbalance by giving extra points to would-be immigrants in fields where the federal government projects labor shortages. That list includes such relatively low-skilled jobs as home-health aides, landscapers, janitors, housekeepers and farmworkers.
Bill Sheppit, retired head of immigration at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, said his country's experience demonstrates that it takes more than just diplomas to make an effective immigration policy. "We've figured out there really is a greater demand for construction workers than unemployed Ph.D.s," he said.
Carl D. Wynn Jr., who last fall posed as a U.S. border agent and wrongly suggested that a Little Rock construction company had hired illegal immigrants, has come to symbolize how the divisive immigration debate can progress from legal expressions of opposition to offensive action. Wynn, also accused of attempting to sabotage the same company by planting tire-ripping spikes outside the business, has quickly come to represent a "troubling" development within the radical ranks of the anti-immigration movement, said Little Rock U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin, whose office won a guilty plea last month from the laborer.
Since 2000, the number of extremist groups has increased by 40%, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which closely tracks the groups' activities. In the past two years, the growth has been largely driven by the emergence of about 144 "nativist" groups that oppose immigration.
"When folks try to take law enforcement matters into their own hands, it creates a potentially dangerous situation," Griffin said. "Mr. Wynn's actions are troubling to us."
Charles Frahm, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said there is increasing concern that the most radical elements of the anti-immigration wing may be "susceptible" to recruitment by white supremacists and other groups inclined toward violence.
"This is certainly a concern for every police chief in the country," said Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C. Police Chief Darrel Stephens, president of the national Major City Chiefs Association. "As long as the issue remains unsettled, the tension grows."
Perhaps not since the anti-government militia movement came to prominence in the early 1990s, the Southern Poverty Law Center says, have so many groups embraced such a common campaign for dealing with what they describe as failed government policy.
"The infection is spreading," said Mark Potok, editor of the center's Intelligence Report.
"It's no longer unusual to hear vilifying ***** tales of immigrant-borne secret conspiracies and massive criminality on radio, cable television and even in the mouths of pandering politicians," he said.
Among the most abrasive figures on the anti-immigration movement, according to the center, is Donald Pauly of Nevada.
In an interview with USA TODAY, Pauly's voice is calm but serious.
Frustrated by the surge of illegal immigrants into Las Vegas, the self-employed electrical engineer formed the Emigration Party of Nevada Headquartered largely on the Internet, Pauly has advanced some radical ideas for dealing with illegal immigrants. He openly advocates the deployment of government snipers to the porous southwest border and favors the forced sterilization of Mexican women after the birth of their first child.
"For the time being, we do not associate with anyone who is violent unless in self-defense," Pauly said in a later e-mail message. "However, I remind you of this quote of Thomas Jefferson's:
'The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.' "
The radical discourse has become increasingly common across the USA.
Last year, an Arizona jury leveled a judgment of nearly $100,000 against a rancher for threatening a Mexican-American family.
Prior to the court decision, the rancher, Roger Barnett, gained national attention for his efforts to round up illegal immigrants who had cut paths through his property.
"There is not a clear understanding (among the public) of who is ultimately responsible for enforcing immigration laws," Stephens said. "The tension will only increase until the issue is resolved."
Businesses, families have a lot riding on immigration change
By Teresa Watanabe, Times Staff Writer May 21, 2007
the U.S. Senate prepares this week to debate the most sweeping proposed change to the nation's immigration system in more than four decades, Irvine technology executive Bruce Warren and Los Angeles homemaker Monsorat Jaldon symbolize the high stakes looming for millions of families, businesses and workers.
The proposal would shift the way the nation awards green cards from a heavy preference on applicants with family ties "” a system adopted in 1965 "” to those with advanced skills, college degrees and English-speaking ability.
To Warren, that kind of change is urgently needed to keep the nation and high-tech firms like his globally competitive. For three years, he said, his Axiom Microdevices Inc. has unsuccessfully scoured the U.S. labor market for an experienced field engineer with a niche expertise in semiconductors for cell phone systems. The firm finally found a perfect candidate in France "” but can't bring him here because of limits on skilled-labor visas.
"Bringing the best and the brightest to this country rather than choose those based on blood is the right thing to do," said Warren, the firm's chief financial officer. "These people are educated. They'll pay taxes. They'll help U.S. high-tech companies compete globally. Let's bring them here rather than Joe Taxi Driver's uncle."
But Jaldon is appalled at the potential change. A native of the Philippines, her family has greatly benefited from the U.S. immigration system's priority on family reunification. In turn, she says, her assorted relatives have helped the nation by offering professional expertise in medical technology, chemistry and engineering, by paying taxes and by aiding each other without welfare or other public assistance.
First, Jaldon's eldest daughter immigrated to the United States as a medical technician more than a decade ago. Then daughter sponsored mother; Jaldon got her green card in just six months. Now Jaldon is petitioning to bring over her 27-year-old son, a film animator, and a 53-year-old daughter, a nurse.
The Senate's proposed change would disrupt those family chains, however, by severely limiting which relatives could be admitted. Under the proposal, Jaldon's daughter would no longer be eligible for a family visa because her application was submitted after the cut-off date of May 2005.
"I worry about my children," Jaldon said. "I want all of them to be here."
The proposed shift is included in a massive immigration reform bill unveiled last week by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat, and Jon Kyl, a Republican. It would introduce a point system immediately as a basis for the 140,000 permanent visas awarded annually for workers and, after about eight years, increase that number to 380,000. Point systems are used in countries such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.
Under the proposed system, green card applicants could earn a maximum of 100 points. Job qualifications would account for nearly half the points, with the highest numbers assigned for specialty or high-demand occupations such as engineering, as well as smaller credits for technical expertise, a U.S. job offer, U.S. work experience and youth. Educational background could add 28 points, while those who speak fluent English could earn 15.
Family connections could bring 10 more points, but only for applicants with 55 points or higher.
For families, the Senate proposal would eliminate most of the backlog of 4.5 million relatives waiting for green cards over eight years. In a provision that has sparked outcry among immigrant rights groups, however, the bill's May 2005 cut-off date would leave out 800,000 applicants, according to Karen K. Narasaki, president of the Asian American Justice Center in Washington.
"These are people who played by the rules and now they're just going to get left out in the cold," Narasaki said. "This shows tremendous disrespect to families and family values."
After the backlog is reduced, family-based visas subject to numerical caps would drop from about 226,000 annually to 127,000. The system would eliminate preferences entirely for adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
The proposal would also place a cap of 40,000 on parents of U.S. citizens for the first time. Only spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens would continue to have unlimited access to green cards.
In a statement last week, Kennedy defended the change. The proposal "maintains that more than a majority of future immigration will be based on family ties," he said.
Hans Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California said the proposed shift could help keep the state on the technological cutting edge.
In a study scheduled for release this week, Johnson and others have found that the state's projected skilled-labor shortage will be so severe in the next several years that even large increases in immigration may not solve it.
"Using a point system that looks at education and skills makes sense in light of the economic demand for high-skilled workers, not just now but also in the future," Johnson said.
Others add that shifting the nation's immigration flow from unskilled to skilled workers will benefit U.S. taxpayers. In testimony this month before a House immigration subcommittee, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation in Washington said that households headed by immigrants without high school diplomas, both legal and illegal, cost taxpayers $3 in public services for every $1 in taxes contributed.
Immigration policy, Rector testified, "should limit immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, avoiding those who will increase poverty and impose new costs on overburdened U.S. taxpayers," he said.
But the proposed change has been blasted by many, including immigration control advocates and immigrant rights groups.
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington said that bringing in more foreign high-skilled workers was merely a "cheap labor program." The center plans to release this week a study showing that foreign high-skilled workers earn less than Americans with comparable skills and education.
"We just need less immigration overall," he said.
Many immigrant rights groups argue that the Senate proposal undervalues the contributions of lower-skilled migrants and the family webs of emotional and financial support that help so many immigrants prosper. Instead, they assert, visas for both business owners and families should be increased.
"The proposal seems not to value people as human beings, but only how they service and benefit corporations," said Aquilina Soriano-Versoza, executive director of the Pilipino Workers' Center in Los Angeles.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups say labor shortages are looming not only for professionals but also for lower-skilled workers in food service, hotel and construction industries "” a shortage they argue will deepen as baby boomers increasingly retire.
"Our concern is that the proposal may tilt too sharply toward the skilled and leave members who need unskilled labor out in the cold," said Randy Johnson, a chamber vice president. (The proposal would admit hundreds of thousands of low-skilled temporary workers, but would not offer them a path to citizenship.)
Several immigration experts said Washington should tread more carefully before introducing such major changes in how the nation selects its immigrants. They said a small pilot program should be tried before introducing it wholesale.
"This kind of dramatic shift may be a good idea, but it should be done with much more deliberation and thoughtful consideration than what's been done so far," said Ben Johnson, director of the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center in Washington. "It frightens me to think we are going to make such a major change without having any way to test the system out first."
May 17, 2007, 2:30 pm Questions and Answers: Immigration By Julia Preston
[ From the editors: The The 681 comments and counting, posted in response to an item on illegal immigration, leave no doubt that readers of The Lede have strong opinions on the subject.
No one is more aware of that than Julia Preston, a national correspondent for The New York Times who has traveled across the country covering the immigration beat. So we asked her to answer some of the questions raised in those comments. Her answers, rich with with statistics, expert opinions and personal observations, are a great reason to take a break from that comment button. Previously, Ms. Preston served as deputy investigations editor, United Nations Bureau chief and a foreign correspondent based in Mexico, where she worked on a team that won a Pulitzer prize.
I don't know if any of you have families or have ever had to really deal with illegal immigration first hand, but I beg you to take a good look at what is happening to the American people who try to obey the laws of this country.
In the last decade I have seen my health care costs more than doubled. When I have confronted insurance, health care administrators, and doctors about this their response is always the same. It is to 'cover the cost of illegal aliens who don't pay'.
I have sat with my 18 month old son, in an emergency room, for 9 hours waiting for stitches while hoards of Spanish speaking people clogged the waiting room. After finding the few who could speak English, I found that most were there for the free flu shots and care for the sniffles. They were more than open about the fact that they were there because they knew they wouldn't have to pay. I pray that none of you have to spend 9 hours trying to calm a child with a 2 inch long gash in his head while trying to figure out how you were going to pay the ER bill AND your mortgage, all the while fighting back the rage that you were also paying for everyone else in the room.
I moved to my small suburban neighborhood 6 years ago. We chose this neighborhood because it was small and well kept. Over that six years, a full 50% of the homes have been turned over to rental property. All but one of the homes have multiple Hispanic families living in them, some of which have been very open about the fact that they are not here legally. (Those are the ones who can speak English.) The conditions of those homes has become so degraded that the values of the homes in my neighborhood are now less than they were when I moved there. I was a teacher for 6 years. All I have to say about that is the amount of money that is poured into teaching English as a second language is appalling. I have a number of problems with the education system in the country, but this one disturbs me the most because so many of these children are of illegal alien parents. Catch the word illegal in there?
Before anyone calls me a bigot, or pulls that 'Americans won't do the work' ****, know that I DID the work. In high school and college I worked both as a farm hand and as a roofer. I met many illegal aliens, and few were concerned about paying taxes or following the law. Many would be deported and then return the next week. Almost all of the pay went across the border. I know that the employers were paying them in cash, so I am not removing any fault from them. I currently work in an are where there is a lot of construction going on. I have gotten to know a number of the workers out here, and again, they are very open about the fact that they are not here legally and they are making good money. My point here is that no one who hasn't been in the fields, warehouses, or construction yards with these people can convince me that they are here to become law bidding citizens. They ARE here for a better life ... at the expense of everyone else. As for the hardships faced by these people in this country, give me a break. These people know what they are walking into. They know full well what the risks are. How do I know? I have walked away from the media and the loud mouths and walked right up and asked the questions.
Finally, some of you may have been following the events unfolding in Farmers Branch, a suburb of Dallas, Texas. The voters there passed, by 68% of the vote, a law banning the rental of property to illegal aliens. Those opposing this law (to enforce do-nothing federal laws) had a federal court look into this situation. This morning I was crushed to hear that the federal judge blocked the law. A federal judge blocked a law passed by the people, a law that was set forth to enforce federal laws already in place. The opposition of this law pushed it to the federal level because they knew the feds would do what they do best ... nothing.
I'm not a racist, a bigot, or a hate monger. I love what this country was founded on, diversity. I embrace the fact that we are made up of different cultures, languages, and beliefs. However, this isn't about any of those. This is about protecting the people of this country. I am a man who has worked VERY hard for what he has and has grown weary of watching a hoard of criminals (remember they broke the law by being here) take what he has earned.
LOCAL/NEWS City by City: Carrollton/Farmers Branch
Judge temporarily halts FB rental ban
Ruling cites conflict with U.S. law: backers say voters' will ignored
10:32 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News ssandoval@dallasnews.com
FARMERS BRANCH – A day before the city planned to start enforcing an ordinance banning apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants, a federal judge put a temporary stop to the plan, ruling that it "conflicts with federal law."
Legal experts said the ruling Monday by U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay signals that the ordinance may face trouble in federal court despite Farmers Branch voters' overwhelming approval of it May 12. Federal courts have issued rulings stopping other cities from implementing similar laws.
Judge Lindsay, in a 20-page ruling granting a temporary restraining order, said Farmers Branch had wrongly used federal laws governing who receives housing subsidies to write its ordinance and had created its own classification system for determining which noncitizens may rent an apartment in the city.
Also Online Read the judge's order (.pdf) "The court recognizes that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country, and one who asserts otherwise ignores reality," Judge Lindsay wrote. "The court also fully understands the frustration of cities attempting to address a national problem that the federal government should handle; however, such frustration, no matter how great, cannot serve as a basis to pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law."
Criticism, approval
Farmers Branch City Council members criticized the judge for ignoring residents' approval of the ordinance, which would require apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators face fines of up to $500, and each day would be considered a separate violation.
"I am disappointed that the judge chose to ignore the will of the people," said City Council member Tim O'Hare, who proposed the ordinance. "However, I am hopeful ... the judge will not grant the preliminary injunction and allow us to enforce the ordinance as voted on by two-thirds of our residents."
Marisol Perez, staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the judge's decision is in line with court decisions elsewhere that have stopped similar laws.
"We are pleased the judge has recognized this ordinance is illegal and in violation of the U.S. Constitution," Ms. Perez said. "This sends a clear message that these types of ordinances should not be passed by local cities."
A temporary restraining order is issued to preserve the status quo until a hearing can be held. A hearing must be held within 10 days to determine whether the order will be lifted or whether a temporary injunction will be put in place to prevent the city from implementing the law until the case goes to trial, attorneys on both sides said.
"Immigration has historically and constitutionally been an issue that's delegated to the federal government, and local governments should not be involved in enforcing immigration laws," said Barbara Hines, clinical-law professor at the University of Texas and director of the university's Immigration Clinic.
Dr. Hines said that though a temporary restraining order is just that – temporary – until a determination can be made whether to issue a preliminary injunction, and a preliminary injunction wouldn't even mean the city would lose at trial, it is an important step.
"I think a ruling striking down the Farmers Branch ordinance [with a preliminary injunction] would send an important signal to other communities that are contemplating a similar ordinance," she said.
Supremacy clause
Judge Lindsay said in the order that because the city is trying to regulate immigration differently from the federal government, the ordinance is in violation of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have argued that the ordinance ventured into an area – immigration – reserved exclusively for the federal government.
That argument has been accepted by federal courts in lawsuits brought against Hazleton, Pa., and Escondido, Calif., which also adopted ordinances against illegal immigration.
The court criticized the city for using federal regulations governing which noncitizens may receive housing subsidies instead of adopting federal standards that determine who is here legally.
The ruling is a good indication the ordinance will be overturned after further hearings, said William A. Brewer III, an attorney representing some of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit
"This is really game, set and match," he said. "He is reading the law the same way we do, this ordinance as being unconstitutional and pre-empted by federal law."
Residents who support the ordinance have criticized opponents for pursuing the lawsuits and petitioning the court to halt the city from implementing the ordinance after residents voted in favor of it. Other supporters say opponents, who petitioned the City Council to put the matter to a public vote and called themselves Let the Voters Decide, should let the matter rest now that voters have decided.
"I do not understand why we have a vote on it and it doesn't seem to matter to the judge," City Council member Bill Moses said.
WHAT'S NEXT
Judge Lindsay must conduct a hearing within 10 days to determine whether the order will be lifted or whether a temporary injunction will be put in place to halt the city from implementing the ordinance until the case goes to trial.
LOCAL/NEWS City by City: Carrollton/Farmers Branch
3 sue over Farmer's Branch election method
They say at-large City Council seats weaken Hispanic's votes
07:55 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News ssandoval@dallasnews.com
Three Hispanic Farmers Branch residents have filed a lawsuit to stop at-large City Council elections and force the city to move to representation based on districts.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Dallas, says the current at-large method of electing council members unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of Latino voters and denies them the right to vote on account of their race, color or ethnicity.
The suit was one of three legal actions relating to Farmers Branch on Monday. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the city from enforcing its ban on apartment rentals to illegal immigrants. Another filing, in state court, alleges the Farmers Branch City Council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by discussing the proposed ordinance behind closed doors and without posting notice of its deliberations.
The single-member district lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the city from holding any future elections under the at-large system.
"It does now allow, for example, neighborhoods of low- or middle-income people to elect council members of their choice," said Dallas activist Domingo Garcia, who brought together the plaintiffs and San Antonio attorney Rolando Rios. "Basically what you have is a good ol' boy country club system of government, and it excludes a majority of the citizens from meaningful participation."
He said that if the single-member district being proposed by the plaintiffs had been in place in the May 12 election, Hispanic candidate Jose Galvez would have been elected. Their suggested map would give the city one Latino-majority populated council district.
Newly elected City Council member Tim Scott, who defeated Mr. Galvez and Berry Grubbs for the Place 1 seat, said there's no evidence a Hispanic can't get elected.
The lawsuit "is preposterous and a giant waste of time," said Mr. Scott, who was sworn in Monday night. "Mr. Galvez did not win a single precinct. I won every precinct, and the local Hispanic leadership, [the League of United Latin American Citizens], did not even support him. ... It's more self-aggrandizing by Domingo Garcia."
David Koch, also elected May 12, to the Place 4 seat, agreed.
"If you look at the percentage of Hispanics in the city and the percentage of Hispanics that register and come out to vote, there is simply no way for him to claim and prove that a Hispanic had been denied a seat because of the system of voting we have in this city," Mr. Koch said. The lawsuit alleges that "Latino candidates have run but been unable to get elected" because of the at-large system.
But Mr. Garcia acknowledged Monday that Mr. Galvez was the first Hispanic to run for Farmers Branch City Council.
" 'One' is a very significant development. There's a perception, 'Why run at-large if you can't get elected,' " Mr. Rios said.
Mr. Galvez said that he turned down a request from Mr. Garcia to participate in the lawsuit and is in discussions with Dallas activist Carlos Quintanilla about participating in another lawsuit seeking single-member districts.
About 40 percent of the city's population is estimated to be Hispanic. Voter registration cards do not ask for the voters' ethnicity, but Dallas County elections records show that about 16.9 percent of the registered voters in the city have Hispanic surnames.
Mr. Galvez's best showing in the election was in Precinct 1502, where about 43 percent of the voters have Hispanic surnames.
But the City Council elections were closely tied to the election on Ordinance 2903, which would ban apartments from renting to illegal immigrants.
Precinct 1502, just east of Interstate 35E, is the only precinct where Ordinance 2903 failed, but only by about 21 votes. Mr. Galvez, who opposed the ordinance, got 41 percent of the vote there in the three-way race for Place 1. But he lost to Mr. Scott, an ardent supporter of the apartment ban, by eight votes.
Plaintiff Valentin Reyes said he got involved in the lawsuit because of his frustration over the election.
He said that with single-member districts, Mr. Galvez would have become the first Hispanic voice on the council.
"He needs to represent the district he won," Mr. Reyes said.
Add to del.icio.us
