Immigrants Fought for the United States Before It Was Truly Their Country
By Brigid Schulte Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 22, 2007; Page A01
In a crowd of nearly 100 eager faces of newly sworn-in citizens on the grounds of Mount Vernon yesterday, three men in the front row stood out. Their black shoes shone to glossy perfection. Their backs were ramrod straight. One wore the crisp white uniform of the Navy. Another, the drab khaki of the Marines and a third, the dress uniform of the Army. Two had campaign ribbons from serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Until yesterday, the sailor, the Marine and the soldier were among more than 40,000 "green card" service members -- non-citizens serving in the U.S. military. After swearing to defend the Constitution, Petty Officer Reginald Cherubin, 30, Marine Sgt. Brian Joseph, 38, and Army Sgt. Jeremy Tattrie, 24, joined another group: the more than 26,000 service members who have become U.S. citizens since the Iraq war began and the Bush administration expedited the citizenship process for military members. Seventy-five service members have received their citizenship posthumously since then.
Navy Petty Officer Reginald Cherubin, left, from Haiti, Marine Sgt. Brian Joseph, from St. Vincent, and Army Sgt. Jeremy Tattrie of Canada had been among the more than 40,000 non-citizens in the U.S. military until yesterday, when they became U.S. citizens in a ceremony at Mount Vernon. (By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)
It was the sight of Iraqis pulling down Saddam Hussein's statue in 2003 that led Tattrie, a Canadian by birth who was then in college in Florida, to join the military.
"I felt the call to duty," he said, clutching one of the small American flags that immigration officials had just passed out. "I just felt the urge to serve my country." Even though when he enlisted, the United States wasn't, technically, it.
The three were sworn in as the military and the country are engaged in a vigorous, divisive debate about what place immigrants should have in the armed forces and society at large.
The ceremony at George Washington's home took place as lawmakers on the other side of the Potomac River began debating a controversial immigration bill that would, among other provisions, grant legal status to virtually all undocumented workers, create a temporary worker program and tighten border controls.
The bill also calls for allowing the military to be a path to citizenship for a limited number of undocumented immigrants -- those who were brought to the United States when they were younger than 16 and have been living here for at least five years.
The ceremony also came as some military experts want to open the armed forces to undocumented immigrants and foreign recruits to fill the ranks as the Army and Marines plan troop increases.
Critics fear a flood of recruits lured solely by the promise of legal status. "A very large number of non-citizens could change the purpose of the military from the defense of the country to a job and a way to get a foot in the door of the United States," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates restrictions on immigration. "It becomes a kind of mercenary thing."
Others argue that a liberalized policy could improve the armed forces. Margaret Stock, an immigration lawyer, Army officer and law professor at West Point, noted that during wartime, military brass can already sign up undocumented immigrants, some of whom have received citizenship.
"I think that it's great for the military to allow people to enlist who are qualified to be in the military," Stock said. "Having papers doesn't tell me whether someone's qualified or not."
Official military policy is to accept legal permanent residents with green cards, although Congress in January 2006 gave military leaders wartime powers to enlist anyone they deem "vital to the national interest."
At Mount Vernon yesterday, the three military men remained stoic as they were swarmed by photographers and TV cameras and held out by federal officials as the best that immigration has to offer.
"There's too much immigrant-bashing going on," said Dan Kane, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Featuring the three military personnel "sends a powerful message that immigrants make a meaningful contribution to the United States."
Legal permanent residents serving in the military were given the right to apply for citizenship immediately by a wartime executive order signed by President Bush in 2002. In peacetime, permanent residents in the military are required to wait three years.
Nonetheless, there has not been a rush to obtain citizenship, according to Emilio Gonza***, USCIS director. "After the executive order, we have not seen hordes of people joining the military," he said. "These people don't join the military just to become citizens. These people joined the military because they wanted to serve."
Cherubin, who immigrated in May 1999, joined the Navy a few months later and is based at Anacostia Naval Station, was the first to be called to receive his citizenship papers yesterday.
After high school in Haiti, there was nothing for him. He just waited for the day when his father, already in the United States, would call and say his visa had come through.
"When you live in a country like Haiti, you don't think about your future," Cherubin said. "You live day by day. The biggest dream you could possibly have is coming to the United States."
Cherubin joined the military so he could go to college. It wasn't until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that he found a sense of purpose to his life in the Navy. An aviation planner, he was deployed to an aircraft carrier and readied F-18 hornets for bombing runs over Afghanistan.
"To be part of that, to be among the first people over there fighting back, it was a beautiful feeling," he said.
During the ceremony, Glenda Joseph slipped to the front row to snap a photo of her husband. She'd been after him to get his citizenship for the 14 years they'd been married. He'd always wanted to but procrastinated. Then he was deployed for 10 months, running convoys throughout Iraq, and there was no time.
Based in Quantico, Joseph is an aviation assignments monitor and is charged with moving 10,000 Marines around the globe. He moved from St. Vincent to Brooklyn, N.Y., with his family when he was 6. He's been in the Marines for 16 years, has earned two bachelor's degrees and is working on a master's degree.
Fact Sheet: Immigration Fact Check: Responding to Key Myths
White House News In Focus: Immigration
1. MYTH: Ending the current green card backlog would result in 900,000 new residents per year on top of current numbers.
FACT: The current proposal aims to end the green card backlog in eight years. However, this does not mean that 3.5 to 4 million people over the current number will be admitted into the country. The backlog will be cleared in two ways: 240,000 green cards are being shifted from other priorities within the existing green card pool. This is important – it does not represent an increase in the number of green cards given, it is simply a reallocation of green cards that are authorized for issuance within the current system. Separately, the number of green cards will be temporarily increased by 200,000 for each of the eight years after the enactment of the bill. This is an increase, but it does not mean 200,000 applicants plus their spouses and children. It is 200,000 new people total. FACT: About 15 percent of family-based green card recipients are already residing in the U.S. on temporary visas or illegally. Thus, only about 170,000 additional individuals per year are entering the country. 2. MYTH: The border security and employer enforcement triggers can be waived. It has been asserted that the bill contains the following language: "b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only if the President certifies within 180 days of enactment that the border security and other measures described in such subsection can be completed within 18 months of enactment, subject to the necessary appropriations."
FACT: This is false. This language is not in the bill currently, but was in an earlier draft. Instead, the bill contains a sense of Congress that all triggers can be met in 18 months. All triggers must be met before the guest worker program or the Z visa program could begin. 3. MYTH: Z visa applicants (current undocumented) do not have to pay fines.
FACT: Z visa applicants will have to pay a $1,000 fine for heads of households and an additional $500 fine for each dependent (spouses and children). There will also be a processing fee of up to $1,500 and a $500 state impact assistance fee. The $1,000 is not the cost of the visa, but rather a fine for having broken the law. The processing fee will take care of the costs of the visa. The fines and fees are not the only hurdle – applicants must be employed, pass background checks, pay processing fees, and agree to meet accelerated English and civics requirements to get their Z visas. FACT: A Z visa holder wishing to remain in the country under their Z visa indefinitely would still have to renew their visa every four years. Renewing the Z visa means more processing fees (again, up to $1,500 each time). The financial liability for Z visa holders starts to add up very quickly if holders choose to remain in this status instead of pursuing Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status. 4. MYTH: DHS only has only one day to complete background checks.
FACT: Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status is a multi-step process that includes thorough background checks with no guarantees. It can be broken down into three parts: probationary period, Z status, and LPR. 1. Probationary Period. The undocumented worker comes out of the shadows to acknowledge they have broken the law. In order to obtain probationary status, they must show they are employed and pass a preliminary background check. There is a provision in the bill that says DHS has one day to find a "disqualifying factor," but that is not the end of the process. That is a very short term way of ensuring that if someone comes out of the shadows and admits their illegality, they will not be deported while the process is ongoing and can continue working while the full background check is completed. At any time if something pops up, the applicant becomes deportable, and will never have a chance at Z status and certainly not LPR status.
2. Z Status. If they have passed the hurdles above, the undocumented worker is considered for Z status. At this stage they must pay their $1,000 fine ($1,000 is just for a head of household – there is an additional fine of $500 for each dependent) and processing fees; are subject to updated background checks to make sure they have not committed crimes while in probationary status; agree to meet English and civics standards as a condition of renewal; and show employment. There is no one day "Treatment of applications" in this process. One must complete or agree to all of the above before they are able to achieve Z status.
3. LPR Status. Here, there is another $4,000 fine and more processing fees. More background checks are also conducted in order to make sure that the applicant has kept his or her record clean. The applicant will have had to have stayed employed and met the English and civics requirements. They will have to make an application from their home country, go to the back of the line, and demonstrate merit under the new green card points system. Then, and only then, will the undocumented worker obtain a green card.
5. MYTH: A Rasmussen poll shows Americans support an enforcement-only approach.
FACT: The plan proposed in Rasmussen's poll does not include many of the components included in the actual plan. Rasmussen asked respondents: "A different proposal has been made that also includes a fence along the Mexican border, more border patrol agents, strict penalties on anyone who hires illegal aliens. This proposal, however, would also offer illegal aliens a path to citizenship if they pay back taxes and other fines. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?" FACT: The process is much more onerous than the text of Rasmussen's question suggests. In order to have an opportunity for citizenship, undocumented workers will have to pay a total of $5,000 in fines, pass multiple background checks, complete accelerated English and civics requirements, go back home to apply in their home country, demonstrate merit in the new merit-based green card system, AND go to the back of the line behind those who applied lawfully. FACT: A recent bi-partisan poll conducted by The Tarrance Group (R) and Lake Research (D) that did include more components of the plan found 75 percent of American voters said they would favor a plan that: provides resources to greatly increase border security; imposes much tougher penalties on employers who hire illegal workers; allows additional foreign workers to come to the U.S. to work for a temporary period; creates a system in which illegal immigrants could come forward and register, pay a fine, and receive a temporary work permit; and provides these temporary workers with a multi-year path to earned citizenship, if they get to the end of the line and meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English, and paying taxes. Only 17 percent opposed this plan. 6. MYTH: The bill will impose a huge new tax on businesses that follow the law.
FACT: Companies are held liable if their contractors and subcontractors hire undocumented workers. However, the Department of Homeland Security will create systems to help ensure these burdens can be met by employers who want to follow the law through the Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) and other procedures. FACT: This bill seeks to help employers verify the status of workers. Enforcement of the paperwork fines will be targeted against those employers trying to avoid the law and hire illegal workers. The law includes a provision for the Secretary of Homeland Security to send a pre-penalty notice where he believes there may be a violation, and the employer can avoid a penalty by showing mitigating circumstances (e.g., good faith compliance). FACT: This bill does not seek to put the sole responsibility for legal hiring practices on the government OR the private sector. The bill is designed to have participation from the business community so the government can easily determine which employers are knowingly violating the law. 7. MYTH: The bill does not crack down on employers who violate the law.
FACT: In the bill, fines for hiring an illegal worker are $5,000 maximum per illegal worker for the first offense, $10,000 maximum per illegal worker for the second, and $25,000 maximum per illegal worker for the third.
The Bipartisan Border Security And Immigration Reform Agreement Addresses And Overcomes Failures Of The 1986 Immigration Reform And Control Act. The 1986 Act failed because it gave a complete pardon (amnesty) to 3 million illegal immigrants as part of an automatic path to citizenship, did not provide the resources necessary to secure the borders adequately, relied on an employer verification system with only limited capability to detect ID fraud, provided inadequate penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and made no provisions to meet future labor needs of U.S. employers in a growing economy.
In Contrast, The Bipartisan Border Security And Immigration Reform Agreement:
1. Does not offer amnesty to illegal immigrants already here; 2. Contains much tougher border security triggers that must be in place and operational before the Z visa and temporary worker programs take effect; 3. Requires that a sophisticated Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) capable of rooting out fraud be ready to process all new hires before the Z visa and temporary worker programs take effect; 4. Substantially increases penalties on employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants; and 5. Creates a temporary worker program to relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet our economic needs.
1. No Amnesty
Illegal Immigrants Already Here Must Acknowledge That They Broke The Law And Pay A Fine. In order to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status, workers in the country before January 1, 2007, must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, pass criminal background checks, remain employed, and maintain a clean record.
Z Visa Workers Must Pay An Additional Fine, Learn English, And Meet Other Requirements To Apply For A Green Card, And Cannot Receive One Until Years In The Future. Z visa workers must apply at the back of the line and wait until the current backlog is cleared, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, maintain employment, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.
The 1986 Act Created An Automatic Path To Citizenship That Provided Green Cards After Just 18 Months, But Satisfying The Requirements In This Proposal Will Take Most Green Card Applicants More Than A Decade. 2. Strengthening Border Security
Tough Border Security Benchmarks Must Be Met Before The Z Visa And Temporary Worker Programs Go Into Effect. These triggers include constructing 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers at the border and finishing doubling the size of the Border Patrol since the President took office - a goal previously set by the President and already well on its way to achievement.
The Department Of Homeland Security Is On Track To Build 150 Miles Of Fence By The End Of September 2007 And To Build 370 Miles By The End Of Calendar Year 2008. Currently, about 86 miles of fence have been built along the border, with 64 additional miles planned by the end of September 2007.
We Have Expanded The Border Patrol From About 9,000 Agents In 2001 To More Than 13,000 Agents Today, And By The End Of 2008, We Will Have More Than 18,000 Agents On The Job. With Enhanced Enforcement, We Have Already Seen A Tremendous Change At The Border. The number of people apprehended for illegally crossing our Southern border is down by nearly 27 percent in 2007 from this point in 2006.
The 1986 Act Provided Only About 4,000 Agents For The Border Patrol. By contrast, we will have more than four times that number of Border Patrol agents in place before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect. In addition, improvements in infrastructure and technology at the border make border enforcement more achievable now than it was 20 years ago. For example, today, we have in place:
5,290 sensors on the southern border 687 night time cameras on the southern border
449 day time cameras on the southern border
1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) in Southern AZ 3. Putting A Workable Employer Verification System In Place
An Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) Must Be Ready To Process New Hires Before The Z Visa And Temporary Worker Programs Go Into Effect. Employers will be required to verify the work eligibility of all employees using the EEVS, and all workers will be required to present stronger and more readily verifiable identification documents.
The EEVS Will Require Presentation Of A Limited Range Of Highly Secure Government IDs, Which Will Be Checked Electronically Against Federal And State Databases. When a worker presents an identification document to obtain employment, the EEVS will perform an electronic check against Federal and State databases. The Social Security Administration will be asked to confirm whether the name and Social Security number presented by the worker are a "match" in its files. Furthermore, the EEVS will use links to the U.S. State Department and individual State Departments of Motor Vehicles to provide employers with the digital photograph associated in government databases with the ID presented. Once employers have direct access to the original photograph associated with an ID, it will be much harder for illegal immigrants to fool them with fake documents.
The 1986 Act Relied On A Verification System That Did Not Have The Capacity To Detect ID Fraud. More than two dozen documents are acceptable under the 1986 system, and employers are not legally required to verify the documents' authenticity. 4. Increasing Penalties For Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Immigrants
Employers Who Hire Illegal Workers Will Face Stiff New Criminal And Civil Penalties. The maximum civil fine for hiring illegal workers will rise from the 1986 level of $2,000 to $5,000 for first offenders and from the 1986 level of $10,000 to $25,000 for three-time offenders. The maximum criminal penalty for a pattern or practice of hiring illegal workers will increase 25-fold, from $3,000 per alien to $75,000 per alien.
5. Creating A Temporary Worker Program
By Creating A Lawful And Orderly Channel For Foreign Workers To Come To America On A Temporary Basis, The Temporary Worker Program (TWP) Will Help Reduce The Number Of People Trying To Sneak Across The Border. The TWP will help meet our economic needs by allowing workers to enter the country legally on a temporary basis to fill jobs that Americans are not doing.
TWP Workers Can Come To The U.S. Only On A Temporary Basis. To ensure that "temporary" means "temporary," workers are limited to three two-year terms, with at least one year spent outside the United States between each term.
The TWP Will Allow U.S. Law Enforcement To Focus More Of Its Resources On Apprehending Violent Criminals And Terrorists Who Pose A Threat To Our Security
The 1986 Act Failed To Address Our Economy's Need For Immigrant Labor. Further illegal immigration was encouraged by this lack of a legal avenue to meet the labor needs of U.S. employers.
POSTED: 1:46 p.m. EDT, May 21, 2007 By Ruben Navarrette Jr. Special to CNN
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- On Thursday, senators announced a rather remarkable bipartisan compromise on immigration reform that combines border enforcement, a guest worker program, a path to legalization for illegal immigrants, tougher employer sanctions, and an education/skills-based point system for future immigrants.
The same day, the Census Bureau reported what many Americans already know: The United States is becoming a Hispanic nation. Hispanics are the nation's largest minority with 44.3 million people and they account for almost half the growth in the U.S. population. Meanwhile, since 2000, the white school-age population dropped 4 percent, and the white population shrank in sixteen states.
The stories are connected. Anti-illegal immigration crusaders claim their worries are entirely practical -- tied to border security or the cost of entitlements or the fact that illegal immigrants supposedly depress wages for the low skilled.
(That reminds me. Memo to the low skilled: "Grow up. Stop complaining. And go get more skills. Then you won't have to suffer the humiliation of being driven out of the market by folks with a sixth-grade education who are here illegally and don't even speak English.")
But I digress ...
As someone who has written about immigration for more than 15 years, and heard from hundreds of thousands of readers along the way, I can tell you that most of the anxiety over illegal immigration is cultural. People worry about changing demographics, the encroachment of Spanish, the fear that the country is becoming Hispanic-ized, etc. One sociologist called it "cultural displacement" -- the fear that your children will grow up in a world different than the one you grew up in, with fewer advantages, where they will have to work harder for what they accomplish.
One of the more fearful members of Congress is Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-California. Last year, while campaigning, he told a largely white audience near San Diego that if we don't end illegal immigration, one day our children would live in a world where instead of electing to take Spanish in high school, they'll have to take Spanish. Bilbray now heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus. That's where members of Congress come together at regular meetings and complain about illegal immigration while counting the campaign contributions they collect from businesses back home, many of which undoubtedly profit from hiring illegal immigrants.
Last week, Bilbray popped up on one newscast after another and milked his 15 minutes. He opposes the Senate plan, which he calls -- wait for it -- amnesty. But, like most of the critics, he offers no alternate piece of legislation to solve the problem over which he claims to be worried sick.
The Senate compromise isn't perfect. But it's bold and thoughtful, and it's a start. It also did something that's very significant -- dividing traditional allies and uniting traditional adversaries.
If the deal crumbles, we'll return to the status quo. Illegal immigrants will still come to the United States do jobs that Americans won't do. And employers will still hire them. Nothing will change. No one will be punished or held accountable. There's a word for that. I know -- wait for it: amnesty.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of The San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column here.
Ailing Texas Politician Makes His Bed at State Capitol to Block Anti-Illegal Immigrant Voting Bill
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
AUSTIN, Texas "” Against his doctor's advice, a stooped and feeble Sen. Mario Gallegos arrives at the Texas legislature each day, just to make sure lawmakers do not take up a bill requiring voters to show identification proving they are not illegal immigrants.
And when the rigors of the job start to wear on the Democratic lawmaker, whose body is trying to reject a liver transplanted four months ago, he retires to a hospital-style bed "” donated by a Republican colleague "” in a room next to the Senate chamber.
From there, he can be summoned at a moment's notice should his vote be needed to keep the bill from reaching the floor.
In a life-and-death drama playing out in the legislature, Gallegos is putting his health at risk to block a measure he and others say could prevent many minorities and the elderly from taking part in elections in Texas.
"If there was enough votes to block, I promise I wouldn't be here," he said from his bed, his slumped shoulders and tired, jaundiced eyes making him look much older than his 56 years. The once-burly lawmaker is now thin and his skin hangs loose.
The Republicans pushing the voter ID bill say illegal immigrants are voting in Texas elections and must be stopped. But Democrats say thousands of legal residents will lose the right to vote because they lack proper identification. Opponents of the measure "” including Gallegos, a Mexican-American "” say minorities, the elderly and the poor are less likely than others to have driver's licenses or other documents.
In the Texas Senate, bills cannot move forward unless 21 of the 31 senators vote to bring them up for debate. The Democrats hold 11 seats, just enough to block a bill if they stick together.
Gallegos, a recovering alcoholic whose liver was ruined by drinking, received the transplant two weeks into the five-month legislative session that ends on Monday. He returned to the Capitol 13 weeks later just to stop the voter ID bill.
Now he is dealing with symptoms of organ rejection and the exhaustion of the job.
He is taking medication to keep the organ rejection under control. But his doctors say he should be resting and should be within 100 miles of the hospital where he received the transplant in case something goes wrong. The state capitol in Austin is about 160 miles from his hospital in Houston.
Most of Gallegos' Houston-area constituents are black or Hispanic, and about a quarter of them live in poverty. About one in five speak little or no English.
So the retired firefighter starts his mornings with 10 pills and a visit to the legislature's nurse to check his blood glucose levels. He visits the nurse for similar blood tests twice more throughout the day, and periodically gives himself shots of insulin.
Then it is another seven pills before crashing into bed at his Austin apartment at about 8 p.m.
When the Senate is in session, he sometimes retires to his bed in the sergeant-at-arms' office, where it is quiet enough to get some rest.
"I just want to take care of him," said Republican Sen. Robert Deuell, who provided the bed and is also a family physician. "He's going to come one way or another, so I just figured I'd make it easy for him."
It is a far cry from the past eight sessions Gallegos spent in Austin, before his heavy drinking led to an intervention by his Senate colleagues. He quit drinking and went into rehab last spring.
Under what is known as the Luna Precedent, named for a lawmaker who was hospitalized in the 1990s, legislators can ask for 24-hour notice that a bill is about to come up. Gallegos was given such notice early this month. But lawmakers can invoke the Luna Precedent only once during a session.
Gallegos' Republican colleagues agreed not to bring up the bill last Friday when he was in Houston for a biopsy that determined his liver was not infected. That act of courtesy followed days of rancor over Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's unsuccessful effort to push the bill through when another Democrat came down with the stomach flu.
Deuell said waiting was "just the decent thing to do."
"I hope he lives, but if for some reason he wouldn't, I couldn't in good conscience have him die thinking he failed," he said.
I suggest that you go to Mexico and do research on the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by CollegeStudent: Hey all. I am a senior college student. I am writing my thesis on the exploitation that illegal mexican workers experience because of their lack of rights. I would appreciate if anyone knows of any books or other sources that address this topic. I have a lot of stuff, but I am looking for a primary source, like a personal account, to help focus my paper. Thank you.
Also, I am going to try to anonymously interview some illegal workers for their stories. I feel like this may be a diffucult thing to do, so I would appreciate any help in that area. I live in the Charlotte are if that helps at all.
A bid by Democrats to throw out a key part of the Senate immigration overhaul is defeated. More fights are brewing. By Nicole Gaouette, Times Staff Writer May 23, 2007
Immigration Reform Bill
WASHINGTON "” A controversial bill that would overhaul the nation's immigration system survived its first major test Tuesday, when the Senate overwhelmingly defeated a bid by two Democratic senators to eliminate a key component: a program to allow foreign workers into the country temporarily.
The amendment "” the first in the debate and the first of a number of attacks expected from liberal lawmakers "” sparked a contentious exchange over whether the temporary worker program would depress the wages of Americans.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who cosponsored the amendment with Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), criticized the temporary worker program as "a way to keep our workers down, keep them weak and, in my view, destroy the middle class."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a principal author of the bill, countered that a temporary worker program would protect wages for American workers.
"We are trying to take illegality out of the equation," he said.
The debate laid bare disagreements among Democrats on immigration. Although many conservative Republican senators oppose the bill, most Democrats on the left are trying to strike a difficult balance. They hope to change the bill but think it could offer the best chance in years to address illegal immigration.
The intensity of the debate signaled steep challenges for the bipartisan group of senators who wrote the bill and were working to protect its core features, which they think are essential to draw enough votes to pass.
The vote was delayed by about 3 1/2 hours because Senate leaders wanted to be sure they had enough support. For several hours, they could only determine that it would be "very close," a senior Democratic aide said.
In the end, the amendment was defeated, 64 to 31. Boxer and 28 other Democrats voted for it. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who helped draw up the bill, joined most Republicans in voting against the amendment.
Feinstein said she was not "a big fan" of the temporary worker program but felt bound by a pledge that the bipartisan coalition made to defend its bill. That coalition, dubbed the "grand bargainers" because of trade-offs at the heart of the bill, met in the afternoon to discuss how to kill the amendment.
The immigration overhaul bill would improve border security and workplace enforcement, raising fines for employers who hired illegally and requiring them to verify that employees were legally eligible to work.
It would also create a way for illegal immigrants to become citizens, provided that they paid fines and fees and fulfilled a number of other requirements. In exchange for that Democratic priority, Republicans were able to reduce the role of family reunification as a criterion for future immigration and create a point system that rewards education and skills.
One of the bill's more controversial provisions is the temporary worker program. It would allow as many as 600,000 foreign citizens to work three two-year stints with breaks in between. But it would not allow them to remain in the U.S. after that.
Business groups waded into Tuesday's debate, an indication of how important they considered the temporary worker program.
The National Restaurant Assn., which opposed the amendment, notified lawmakers that it would be watching how they voted. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote senators urging them to vote against the amendment. Both organizations think it is crucial to establish a legal way for certain businesses to deal with persistent labor shortages.
The chamber also urged a "no" vote on an amendment expected today from Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) that would cut the number of participants in the temporary worker program to 200,000 a year.
Unions are split on the issue. Some say a temporary worker program would exploit immigrants and depress Americans' wages. Others see immigrants as the backbone of their future membership and applaud worker programs, but insist that the bill allow participants to remain in the country.
Eliseo Medina with the Service Employees International Union said the bill would promote more illegal immigration unless it was amended to allow temporary workers to become citizens.
"If they are going to be limited in this way, many of them will simply overstay their visas and add themselves to a new undocumented pool," he said.
Democrats hope to amend other parts of the bill that they dislike. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) are set to unveil an amendment today that would target the shift away from a family-based immigration system. Their measure aims to lift limits in the bill that would prevent legal permanent residents from bringing their spouses and minor children to the U.S.
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) put it, the current system "” which has allowed about 12 million people to live in this country illegally "” "is broken and badly in need of a fix." Most of the country seems to agree.
Why is it taking so long for Congress to act?
Because there is no consensus on what the fix ought to be. Some advocate sealing the borders and shutting off the flow of illegal immigrants before anything else is done. Others, especially business interests, argue that the economy cannot function without a large, dependable flow of immigrant workers. Designed as a compromise, the Senate proposal has so many provisions packed into its 326 pages that most everyone can find something to dislike.
What would the proposal do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already here?
It would immediately grant probationary legal status to those who entered the country before Jan. 1, 2007. After meeting certain criteria "” such as paying fines, having a good work history and passing an English proficiency test "” those immigrants would be able to gain citizenship within an estimated 12 years.
Would the proposal amount to amnesty for illegal immigrants?
By definition, amnesty means wiping the slate clean. The Senate proposal would offer people here illegally a chance to become legal, but would impose complicated requirements.
Those who entered the U.S. before the Jan. 1 cutoff would be eligible for a special "Z visa" if they have a job and pay $5,000 in fees and penalties. Visa holders would then travel to their native countries, where they would pay an additional $4,000 penalty and apply for permanent U.S. residency. The spouse, elderly parents and minor children of a successful applicant could be granted permanent resident status.
Is there a guest worker program to fill jobs that employers say they can't find enough Americans to do?
There is. Workers who are matched with employers through an electronic database would get a two-year visa, renewable twice "” provided that workers spent at least a year in their native countries between each two-year stint in the U.S.
Guest workers could be accompanied by spouses and children only if they were able to prove that their income exceeded the poverty rate by at least 50% and their family members had health insurance. If guest workers choose to bring their families, they would forfeit the right to additional two-year stints. Non-seasonal guest workers would be capped at 400,000, whereas seasonal farmworkers could enter in unlimited numbers.
Would the Senate proposal make it harder for people to cross the border illegally?
It would, and this is the least controversial part of the proposal. The government would hire 6,000 Border Patrol agents, on top of the 12,000 now in place. Another 370 miles of fence would be built on the border with Mexico, along with 200 miles of vehicle barriers.
The proposal mandates 27,500 detention or prison spaces be made available along the borders. And it calls for the deployment of four unmanned aircraft to patrol the southern border and the construction of 70 radar and camera towers.
Border Patrol agents would collect "biometric" data, such as fingerprints and eye prints, to verify the identity of border crossers. They would be allowed to cross-check identity documents with the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service.
Historically, the rules governing quotas of legal immigrants have given priority to reuniting families. Would the Senate agreement make any changes?
It would give greater emphasis to job specialties and less to family ties. Would-be immigrants currently can apply for a green card no matter their skills. The new system would be tilted toward more skilled workers. Applicants would get extra credit for education, fluency in English, math and science backgrounds, and other factors.
What chance is there that such a complicated stew will become law?
The odds for passage of an immigration bill are probably better than last year, but it is far from a sure thing. The Senate got the ball rolling Monday by voting, 69 to 23, to debate the issue. Last year the Senate passed an immigration bill, only to have it die in the House "” which was then in Republican hands. Both the House and Senate are now controlled by Democrats. But opposition and support for this proposal cross party lines.
U.S. raids Missouri poultry plant, workers arrested
Wed May 23, 2007 11:37AM EDT
U.S. News By Carey Gillam
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - Federal immigration officials were interrogating and beginning deportation proceedings for about 100 workers seized at a Missouri poultry-processing plant who are suspected of working in the country illegally, an immigration official said on Wednesday.
Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested workers at George's Processing Inc. in Butterfield, Mo. on Tuesday as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into identity fraud, Social Security fraud and a variety of immigration-related violations.
Most of those arrested are from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Many were being held in county jails in Kansas City, Wichita and St. Louis pending hearings before federal immigration judges, said ICE spokesman Tim Counts.
Some of the workers have been allowed to post bond and be released, including some who act as primary caregivers for children, Counts said.
The raid and follows the earlier arrests of five individuals connected to the case, including four who have pleaded guilty to charges that include identity fraud and social security fraud.
The management of the poultry plant have not been charged, said Counts. He said the investigation is continuing.
Officials at George's Poultry did not return calls.
The ICE was established in March 2003 as the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. An ICE report issued in April showed more than 2,700 illegal aliens arrested through the fiscal second quarter of 2007, on pace to exceed the 3,667 arrests made in 2006.
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD Published: May 23, 2007 The NYTimes
On the surface, there was nothing extraordinary about a certain government office in Little Rock, Ark., the other day as paperwork was signed, names were called, fees were paid, waits were endured and computer keyboards went tap, tap, tap.
Michael Stravato for The New York Times Mexico opened a consulate in Little Rock, Ark., last month. More Photos » Just the workaday humdrum of official government business "” the government of Mexico, that is, in yet another new consulate, the country's 47th in the United States.
Mexico's consulates function as a safety net of sorts, issuing passports and identification cards that facilitate banking and offering assistance when Mexican immigrants, an estimated 11 million, run into trouble.
Increasingly, they are also acting as influential free agents in a broken immigration system that Congress is trying to overhaul. As the consulate that opened last month in Little Rock illustrates, the Mexican government is following its citizens far from the border into the growing quarters of Latino migration, much of it illegal.
Since 2000, consulates have opened in places where immigration from Mexico has soared, including St. Paul; Indianapolis; Kansas City, Mo.; Omaha and Raleigh, N.C.
"They have every right to open one up," said State Representative Jon Woods, a Republican from northwest Arkansas who won office last year on a platform that included combating illegal immigration. "But the problem I have with it opening up is it blatantly screams that illegal immigration is a problem in Arkansas. That's the main reason it opened up."
Under the bill being debated in Washington, legal status would be offered to most of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, while border security would be strengthened and penalties for employers of illegal immigrants would be increased. Yesterday, the Senate voted to keep a provision in the bill that would allow hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers to enter the country each year.
Rafael Laveaga, a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy, declined to comment on what effect the legislation might have on consulates, though his government has said it supports efforts to increase legal immigration and has called the current bill "an important step toward the approval of comprehensive immigration reform this year."
A recent analysis of census data suggested that Arkansas had the country's fastest-growing Hispanic population this decade, set at 70,000 in 2005, a 48 percent increase over five years. At least half of the newcomers were illegal immigrants, according to the analysis commissioned by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation from the Urban Institute and released last month.
Consulate officials in Little Rock acknowledge that the 6,000-square-foot piece of Mexican territory occupying a former medical clinic serves all Mexican citizens, regardless of immigration status.
"We can't interfere with the laws of the United States, but the consulates are certainly involved when individuals' rights are not exercised or are violated or when there are cases of families that have been separated, with the parents deported and the children remaining here," Arturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, said in a speech on April 25 at the opening of the consulate in Little Rock.
Roberto Gonzá***, 20, a construction worker living here illegally, waited recently in the lobby for the identification card the Mexican government issues known as the "matrÃcula consular." The card is honored in the United States by many police agencies, employers and "” most important "” by banks, which are used by countless immigrants to send billions of dollars home every year. But it is a lightning rod for critics of illegal immigration, who see it as a demonstration of the Mexican government's helping its citizens live in the United States illegally.
"I will be able to open bank accounts, pay water and light bills, have an easier life here with the consulate and the documents they give," said Mr. Gonzá***, one of more than 200 people who have received a card since the consulate opened.
"This is like the birth of a community," Mr. Chao said, driving around town and pointing at the number of businesses catering to immigrants.
For Mr. Chao, the going has been smooth. The consulate has served about 50 people a day, and he says he expects the number to grow as word spreads that it is open.
The opening of the Little Rock consulate follows the one in St. Paul, which opened in June 2005. In New Orleans, where growing numbers of Mexican immigrants are working on post-Hurricane Katrina construction, plans are in the works to reopen a consulate, which closed for budget reasons nearly five years ago. There are 539 foreign consulates in the United States, and Mexico has more than any other country. (After Mexico, Canada has 19, Japan 17 and Britain 12).
Michael Stravato for The New York Times The ID cards are recognized by some banks and police agencies.
A Slice of Home In addition to issuing identification cards and passports, the consulates perform the usual consular functions: assisting citizens who are arrested, helping arrange the return to Mexico of the dead and fostering trade and cultural ties.
But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a public policy institute in Washington that is opposed to illegal immigration, said the spread of Mexican consulates and their advocacy of the identification card amounted to an end run around American immigration laws.
Mr. Krikorian said Mexico went further than other countries that issue such cards, including the United States, by lobbying banks and law enforcement agencies to recognize the cards as valid identification, knowing full well that most legal residents would not need such a card.
The Mexican government in the past few years has issued nearly three million of what it calls a high-security version of the card, which is accepted by more than 160 banks and recognized by 1,100 police departments.
"These consulates are not like most other countries' consulates," Mr. Krikorian said. "They are not there simply to help their countrymen if there is a problem with law enforcement or to promote Mexican business in the United States."
The card was "one of the major areas of activity" at consulates, he said, adding, "The point being to ˜document' the undocumented and make an end run around Congress."
The Bush administration has not blocked use of the cards, saying in a policy statement in 2004 that banks must have "flexible standards" in deciding what identification to accept.
Mexican government officials said they were only serving the needs of a growing population. The 11 million Mexican-born immigrants living in the United States, as estimated by the Pew Hispanic Center, account for about 10 percent of all Mexicans.
Jorge G. Castañeda, a former foreign minister of Mexico and a professor at New York University, said Mexico had long had an abundance of consulates in the United States, including more than 10 on or near the border, where cultural bonds and conflict run deep.
"Why don't other countries have more? Because they don't have a border like we do," Mr. Castañeda said. "It's pretty straightforward. And other consulates are in large metro areas where there are very important Mexican communities."
Before the consulate in Little Rock opened, people in Arkansas who sought Mexican consular services had to go to Dallas, a five-hour drive, not an easy trip for the many immigrants who lack cars or have limited time off from work.
The study by the Urban Institute found that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arkansas were from Mexico, with a smattering of Central Americans. Most poured in to work at chicken processing plants and fill construction and service industry jobs. A small percentage moved into professional jobs, the analysis found.
It estimated that a little more than half of all new immigrants in Arkansas were there illegally, but Randy Kapps, the lead demographer on the study, said it was impossible to be precise.
It was no coincidence, Mr. Chao said, that Mexico chose to open a consulate in the state that is home to Wal-Mart and other businesses with which it would like to strengthen ties. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former President Vicente Fox of Mexico promoted trade, in addition to the immigrant population, as important selling points when they broached the idea of a consulate here four years ago.
"There is a lot of investment in Mexico from Arkansas businesses and a lot of opportunity," Mr. Chao said, sipping water bottled by a company that wants to expand into the Mexican market.
But the heart of the mission here, he said, is serving people like Ramiro Givara, a 31-year-old construction worker who dropped by the consulate the other day and walked out with a freshly minted identification card.
"This is so much easier for us," Mr. Givara said. "It is like having part of Mexico here."
As Law Is Renegotiated, Immigrant Families Are on Edge
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Amir Nikpouri, a legal immigrant from Iran, has tried since 2005 to gain entry to the United States for his wife
By JULIA PRESTON Published: May 24, 2007
Jessica Brandi Lifland for The New York Times Hans Buwalda, a Dutch software engineer in California, has delayed marriage because of current immigration law. "I never thought I could have so much in common with someone, especially with me living here and her in Tehran," said Mr. Nikpouri, who is 30 and a longtime legal immigrant in the United States.
Five months after they met, the couple were married, in August 2005 in Tehran. Then Mr. Nikpouri came home to Chicago and read the immigration law that determines when he will be able to bring his new wife from Iran to live with him. He discovered that they would have to wait at least four years, and in the meantime she could not come to the United States even once to visit.
Mr. Nikpouri is one of an estimated 1.5 million legal immigrants in the United States who have been waiting as long as seven years to bring husbands, wives and small children to live with them. Instead of giving them new hope, a bipartisan compromise bill now under debate on the Senate floor would only make their plight worse, senators, lawyers and immigrants said yesterday.
While the bill's supporters say it would put legal immigrants ahead of illegal ones, immigrant advocacy groups and lawyers who have studied the measure say it is a minefield for those who have been waiting for years in the bureaucratic labyrinths of the immigration system. If the bill passes, they said, millions of foreigners already in the legal pipeline could face even longer waits than they do now.
For future immigrants, priorities would shift to favor those with specialized job skills, higher education levels and English language ability over the family ties that have been the foundation of the system for four decades, making it even more difficult for relatives to immigrate.
Supporters of the bill, including the White House, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, and Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican, say it would help aspiring legal immigrants by eliminating the backlog of about four million visa applications within eight years. A total of 440,000 green cards "” as visas for legal permanent residents are known "” will be set aside during each of the eight years to reduce the backlog. But by a quirk of the bill, legal immigrants who are seeking to bring spouses would be left out of the backlog reduction and the number of visas allotted to them would be slightly reduced.
"This bill is a disaster for nuclear families, especially if they have obeyed the law," said Paul Donnelly, an adviser to American Families United, an advocacy group for legal immigrants. "If you talk about family unification and you don't talk about nuclear families, what do you mean?"
Currently, there is no limit on the number of green cards for foreign spouses and children of American citizens. When foreigners are granted green cards, they too are entitled to bring their spouses and minor children to live in the United States.
But legal immigrants who marry foreigners living abroad after they have become permanent American residents have to get in line to bring them in, and the line is at least four years long.
Mr. Nikpouri moved with his Iranian parents to the United States when he was 13. His parents have become naturalized American citizens and run a family automobile auction business in Chicago. Because of problems in his legal paperwork, Mr. Nikpouri did not receive his green card until 2004.
Under current law, if he applies for a green card for his wife, she cannot come to the United States until it is granted "” in 2011, if he is lucky. His other option is to wait until 2009 to apply for American citizenship. Mr. Nikpouri asked "” because his wife remains in Iran "” that her name not be published.
"I work like a citizen, I pay taxes, but I cannot bring my wife," Mr. Nikpouri said. "We want to live together. It's the most basic human possibility."
Romance found Hans Buwalda, a software engineer who is a legal permanent resident from the Netherlands, when he met a woman from Singapore over the Internet in April 2006. Mr. Buwalda said he pioneered sophisticated software tests at home and brought them to California, where he now lives, to build a business.
Mr. Buwalda says he hopes to remain in this country, but cannot marry his girlfriend if he wants to see her. Marriage to him would preclude her from even visiting the United States until her green card is granted. "Someone like me who is very law abiding, there is no way I can marry, unless I want to postpone my honeymoon for five years," he said.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, both Democrats, and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican, introduced an amendment to the bill yesterday that would eliminate the numerical limits on green cards for spouses and young children of legal immigrants.
More broadly, people who have battled the overburdened and often arbitrary immigration system were skeptical of the bill because of the immense new workload it would bring.
Among them are Curtis and Glenys Old, who have been fighting a deportation order for her son, Michael Head, a British citizen. Mrs. Old, who was born in Britain, had an Internet romance with Mr. Old, an American, that led to their marriage in July 2002. During their engagement, Mrs. Old brought Mr. Head, who was 19, and her daughter Sarah, then 13, on temporary legal visas to live with her. The family settled in Wardensville, W.Va., and Mrs. Old and her daughter became American citizens.
After Michael applied to become a permanent resident, months dragged by while the immigration service processed his petition. By the time he was called in for an interview, he had turned 21. Immigration officers told him he was no longer eligible for a child visa and ordered him to leave the country.
"Just because it took them so long to process a piece of paper is why we are being torn apart," said Mr. Old, a computer system administrator. Mrs. Old said she had sold her home in England and that her son had no family to return to there.
Under the Senate bill, all adult children like Michael, who is now 24, would not be eligible to join their parents, even if the parents were American citizens. "To me, Michael will always be my child, my son, no matter how many years you put on him," Mrs. Old said.
05/24/07 President Bush preparing to hold 5-minute speech (immigration & Iraq supplemental funding bill). Questions/answers in front of reporters 11:00 EST per Fox News.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
Wednesday | May 23, 2007 Publications : Prairie Writers
The day without farm workers By David Mas Masumoto
Released May 14, 2007
Last year for one day, no one came to work in my peach orchard. A row of ladders stood empty. This was my day without immigrant labor.
Without workers, I cannot farm. If I cannot farm, my organic heirloom peaches and raisins won't reach people's dinner tables.
Without passage of immigration reform, I can't get enough help to harvest my fruits. This work is transient and something most Americans won't do, even with higher wages. Under the current system, which gives so many immigrants illegal status, good workers from south of the border are forced to hide in the shadows, constantly fearful of deportation.
As the debate over undocumented workers unfolds, the growing of food seems to be left out. This debate isn't just about citizenship. It's also about who works the fields and how crops are grown. And it's about working conditions and treating workers fairly -- something that I and other small farmers try to do as we labor side by side with our workers.
Immigration reform needs to grant some form of legal status to the nearly 2 million illegal workers on farms and acknowledge their contribution to the farm economy and rural communities. At the very least, we should grant undocumented workers a guest worker status, ensuring fair treatment for their hard work.
Specialty fruits and vegetables depend on these hands. Now more than ever, a labor shortage threatens these crops.
I almost lost my raisin crop two years ago. Last year, pear farmers in Northern California were forced to let fruit rot on trees because there were not enough workers. I try to ripen my peaches to perfection, but lose many when I can't get pickers; some of my best fruits fall from my trees.
Without labor, agriculture will mechanize the process as much as possible, substituting technology and capital for people on the land. This shift is not simply about the invention of a machine, but rather a dramatic change in how things are grown. It means rewarding plant breeders not for great flavor, but instead for fruit that works with machines.
I can imagine the ideal machined peaches of the future. Design them so they will simultaneously ripen. (My crews revisit a single tree four to five times, picking only what is ripe at the moment.) Breed a peach with a stem that snaps easily, so a tree can be shaken by a machine. Manufacture fruit that won't bruise when harvested, picked rock hard to survive a handless system.
But there is no technology that can replace the human touch without sacrificing good taste.
Sustainable and organic fruit farming demands constant attention and response to nature each season: Our systems are labor intensive. I need the human element on my farm.
Farming is an inexact science. There's an art to pruning and growing a perfect peach that requires years of practice and many hands. Without workers, I'll have no choice but to farm differently: The politics of undocumented immigrants can change the flavor on my farm.
But agriculture is morally wrong if the sole goal is to create a new pipeline of cheap labor. Farmers must acknowledge the value of the people in their fields.
Undocumented workers have labored like ghosts -- invisible, hidden, secluded. Immigration reform would shed light on them, revealing their worth.
As these new Americans are recognized, wages, working conditions and health benefits must be addressed. This will challenge farmers and the old ways of doing business. Agriculture has openly acknowledged the need for labor: We also must accept responsibility for these workers.
I farm with a social contract -- a network of honorable, mutually supporting relationships that contribute to the quality I seek. My work can't be done by machines. I want to grow "face food," produce with faces and their stories, keeping alive the legacy of good, authentic food.
Undocumented workers are part of this food system. We all have a stake in immigration reform, and the need to recognize the important role of all food workers. We need to support farming that contributes true flavors to life.
Farmer David Mas Masumoto of Fresno, Calif., is a Kellogg Foundation Food and Society Policy Fellow. He has written several books, including "Epitaph for a Peach: Four Seasons on My Family Farm." He wrote this comment for the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan.
The immigration issue has entangled Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic candidate for president, seen here in his office in Santa Fe, N.M.
By ADAM NAGOURNEY Published: May 24, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 23 "” Of all the candidates running for president, none have weathered more crosscurrents of the immigration battle than Gov. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Democrat.
Mr. Richardson, whose mother is Mexican, is the governor of a border state with the highest percentage of Hispanics in the country. He has been entangled in the issue at home and a player in the ongoing struggle in Washington over rewriting the nation's immigration laws. He is the first Hispanic to seek the Democratic presidential nomination.
Mr. Richardson initially said he would support the immigration compromise announced earlier this week. But on Wednesday, he said that after reading it in detail, he had decided to oppose it, saying the measure placed too great a burden on immigrants "” tearing apart families that wanted to settle in the United States, creating a permanent tier of second-class immigrant workers and financing a border fence that Mr. Richardson had long opposed.
"This is fundamentally flawed in its current form, and I would oppose it," he said. "We need bipartisanship, but we also need legislation that is compassionate. I'm not sure that this is."
Mr. Richardson said he did not want to be pigeonholed as the immigration candidate, but the moment is forcing him to take a stand on a volatile issue that carries major risks for all the presidential candidates. In aligning himself with the view that the bill is insufficiently compassionate, he is in agreement with a key segment of his party, including many Hispanic voters, that want more focus on reuniting families.
At the same time, though, Mr. Richardson risks identifying his candidacy with the efforts in Congress to ease strictures against immigrants who are in this country illegally, exposing himself to the strong anti-immigration currents that have been unleashed by this battle.
He is the first major Democrat to call explicitly for defeat of the bill in its current form, a decision that he said would no doubt echo across the presidential playing field and in Washington. And his is a voice that carries particular weight: he grew up in Mexico, but went on to became a state governor who once declared a state of emergency in response to turmoil and violence on the border caused by illegal immigrants.
Mr. Richardson said he wanted his candidacy to be identified with other issues "” an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, a national health care program "” rather than immigration. Revealingly, he addressed just four sentences of a 365-page political autobiography he wrote in advance of the presidential campaign, "Between Worlds: The Making of An American Life," to immigration.
Still, Mr. Richardson said he realized that might be difficult in this political environment in which the immigration debate was stirring so many passions across the country. He said he had to speak out against what he suggested was an anti-immigrant fervor, be it from television news hosts like Lou Dobbs or Republican candidates for president.
"I was just very disheartened by all the Republican candidates at the debates," he said. "They were trying to overtake each other over who could be the most anti-immigrant. That is not going to help them in a general election: It might help them in a primary."
"I'm going to be speaking out on this issue, given that I'm a border governor and my heritage," he said. "Maybe it won't help me nationally "” but I believe it is my responsibility to do that and not take a mushy position. I notice everyone else is taking murky positions."
Mr. Richardson's personal history illustrates the struggles that families endure to obtain citizenship in the United States. In November 1947, when his mother was pregnant with him, Mr. Richardson's father, an American banker who wanted his son to be a United States citizen, sent her on a train to Pasadena, Calif., where she gave birth. The mother then went back with her newborn to Mexico City, where Mr. Richardson remained until he returned to the United States at age 13.
Mr. Richardson made mention of this aspect of his life earlier this week when he formally announced his candidacy in Los Angeles; at the time he said he was beginning his campaign there because he thought the state's substantial Hispanic population made him a strong contender to win its Feb. 5 primary. "I was born here because my father, an American citizen, wanted me to be born in America," he said.
Mr. Richardson has over the years been identified with many sides of the immigration debate. He drew a storm of criticism from Hispanic groups two years ago when he declared a state of emergency at the Mexican border, warning that illegal immigrants were jeopardizing the safety of his state.
But he has vehemently opposed construction of a fence on its border with Mexico. He supported letting illegal immigrants obtain driver's licenses and legislation that would permit their children to obtain college scholarships.
Mr. Richardson said he supported some sort of immigration bill that would permit people who entered the United States illegally to become citizens, and particularly opposed anything that would divide families, echoing a main criticism by opponents of the current bill. But he sounded like one of his Republican counterparts when asked if he would use the word "amnesty" to describe what should be granted people who had entered the country illegally.
"I don't use that word "” no, no, no," he said. "I want a legalization program that does not provide amnesty."
Mr. Richardson said he felt closest to the stance of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and another presidential candidate "” or at least where Mr. McCain was two years ago in drafting an immigration bill with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.
F. Chris Garcia, a University of New Mexico political science professor who has followed Mr. Richardson's career, said the governor's position on the bill in Congress reflected what he described as the often nuanced positions Mr. Richardson had taken in running New Mexico. Professor Garcia noted that Mr. Richardson had said that he did not want to be defined as simply a Hispanic politician, and suggested that the governor's outspokenness now could work against that effort.
"Governor Richardson has to be particularly careful because this is a very controversial issue and he doesn't want to be branded as taking a position that would draw attention to his ethnicity," he said.
But Brian Sanderoff, the head of a New Mexico polling firm, said Mr. Richardson had handled the issue adroitly in New Mexico, presenting himself as both tough and compassionate. Mr. Sanderoff said that might serve Mr. Richardson well as he tried to navigate this more complicated national terrain.
"This is typical Bill Richardson," he said. "Bill Richardson tends to take a middle of the road empathetic position with an act of toughness with it. That's Bill. He's hard to pigeonhole as being definitely anti-immigration or pro-immigration. He's going to take a middle stance where he'll seem to have positions on both sides of the fence."
Immigration reform plan's points system doesn't add up, critics say Businesses fault the Senates bill's point system, saying it can't keep pace with the changing economy
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske and Jim Puzzanghera, Times Staff Writers May 24, 2007
- Point by Point
WASHINGTON "” Two immigrants apply for a green card and the government has to choose: Who gets it?
"Ray," 45, is a computer programmer from Singapore with a graduate degree. He speaks fluent English and has never worked in the United States, but he has a job offer from a U.S. company.
"Carla," 29, is a hospital orderly from Mexico with a high school equivalency diploma. She knows enough English to have passed the government's citizenship tests in English and civics and has worked for six years in the United States, where she lives with her stepfather and her mother, a legal resident.
It sounds like a word problem from a high school textbook, but it's from a congressional staff summary of the new Senate immigration bill, which is using simple math to offer a solution to long-standing philosophical divides over who should be granted a green card, which signifies legal permanent residence.
By assigning points for quantitative factors, including education, employment, English fluency and extended family, a bipartisan group of senators hopes to calm the passionate immigration debates of the last 40 years.
But as details emerge, the same businesses and legislators the formula was designed to reconcile have started picking it apart "” determined to either rewrite the formula to suit their needs or scrap it altogether.
Randel Johnson, vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, called the formula a "Rubik's Cube" that pitted businesses against each other.
"We see a need in both skilled and unskilled types of jobs, and we do have a concern that it favors the skilled over the unskilled," Johnson said.
Companies that depend on high-skilled labor don't like the plan either.
"What they want to do is create a whole new layer of bureaucracy and expect that [it] is going to keep pace with the changing economy,'' said Robert Hoffman, vice president of government and public affairs for Oracle Corp.
The point system would mark a radical departure from current immigration policy, which largely favors family ties in distributing about 1.1 million coveted green cards a year.
Under the new system, the number of green cards allocated to relatives of either a U.S. citizen or a current green card holder would fall from 87% to 62%, while those based on occupation would nearly triple, from 13% to 38%.
Applicants awarded at least 55 of the 100 points possible under the proposed system would probably get green cards, although that "pass mark" could be adjusted with changing demand for higher- or lower-skilled workers, congressional staff members said. They could also receive up to 10 points for having extended family living legally in the U.S. "” but only after accumulating 55 points based on their education, employment and English fluency.
Under the congressional summary of the proposed formula, Carla would score 24 points for working in a high-demand healthcare job and 10 points for having worked in the U.S. more than five years. She would receive 6 points each for her employer's recommendation, high school equivalency diploma, passing score on a government English and civics tests, and being the adult child of a legal resident, plus 3 points for being between the ages of 25 and 39.
Carla's total: 61 points.
Ray would receive 28 points for his graduate degree in software engineering, 15 points for scoring above 75 on a standardized English proficiency test and 6 points for his U.S. job offer.
Ray's total: 49 points.
High-tech companies, which currently recruit immigrants with specialized skills and then sponsor them for either temporary visas or a separate pool of 140,000 annual employment-based green cards, argue that they need workers like Ray. Although they could still recruit workers under the proposed system, they say there is no guarantee that the new formula will deliver the specific ones they want.
"We don't understand what it is that's so inefficient about employers selecting the talent rather than the point system doing it for us," said Hoffman, the Oracle official who also heads Compete America, a coalition of companies and business groups that opposes the proposal.
With point values written into federal law, Hoffman said, it would be difficult to adjust the system to reflect rapidly changing needs at companies like Google, which in 2004 saw demand spike for mathematicians to develop search algorithms.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill that permits illegal immigrants to stay.
By Kathy Kiely and David Jackson, USAToday May 24, 2007
McLEAN, Va. "” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday said Republican conservatives working to block an immigration bill risk endorsing a "silent amnesty" by insisting on deportations that are "not going to happen."
Chertoff also leveled criticism at liberal immigrant rights advocates, saying they could prolong the anguish of immigrant families by withholding support for legislation that could make them legal.
OUR VIEW: Bill is credible start to formidable task OPPOSING VIEW: No amnesty for illegals
His warnings came in an 80-minute appearance he and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez made before the USA TODAY editorial board. The two men's appearance is a preview of a media blitz by the Bush administration as Congress prepares to go on a week-long Memorial Day recess that will give both sides in the emotional debate a chance to sway senators on a bill President Bush wants as part of his legacy.
The Homeland Security secretary said he canceled an overseas trip to help. In addition, the president is expected to stump for the bill next week and a "rapid response" team is countering critics, not only in the conventional media but, for the first time, on Internet blogs, said White House communications director Kevin Sullivan. The president's press secretary, Tony Snow, already has debated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and TV commentator Lou Dobbs, both critics of the bill.
Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill that permits illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said: "We are bowing to reality."
He dismissed the argument of Republican conservatives, such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who argue that illegal immigrants will leave if strict enforcement of U.S. laws makes it impossible for them to find a job.
"You're not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they're currently doing," Chertoff said. "If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical."
Bilbray said his idea hasn't worked because "there's been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law."
Chertoff, whose department has staged a number of recent raids that have resulted in mass roundups of illegal workers and sharp protests from religious groups, warned there will be more if the workers don't get a chance to become legal. "We're going to enforce the law," he said. "People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported."
Both he and Gutierrez warned that major changes could kill the compromise bill.
Kevin Appleby of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected what he called the "take it or leave it" argument. "The groups who represent those who don't have a voice in the debate want to get the best deal possible," he said.
Gutierrez addressed another controversial aspect of the immigration bill, a program to expand the number of foreigners who can work temporarily in the U.S. The Senate on Thursday voted to reduce the number of guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000 a year, a move Gutierrez called "a bit concerning."
The U.S. needs more foreign workers as baby boomers retire, the Commerce secretary said. His department's figures show the population aged 25-54 growing at 0.2% a year while the workforce is growing at 1.2% a year.
"The reality is, we don't have enough people," said Gutierrez, adding that many of the United States' economic competitors, such as France, Germany, Japan and China, will be facing a similar demographic shift. "The big challenge of the 21st century is: who gets the people? Who gets the immigrants?" he said. "We don't appreciate today that these people are coming in for free."
WASHINGTON "” The so-called "Gang of 12" lawmakers shepherding the latest immigration bill through the Senate on Thursday said they believe their proposal can weather further attacks from both Democrats and Republicans while still keeping the most important provisions in the law.
"We had an avalanche of objections to the bill before there was a bill. ... And now that we're moving ahead, I think we're in about the right position. We see essentially no enormous road blocks or no poison pills or no killer amendments ahead that we can't deal with," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a news conference "” even as the measure's supporters narrowly defeated potentially fatal challenges.
Specter is one of the dozen lawmakers doing their best to keep the bill afloat among heavy opposition in some camps throughout Capitol Hill. The bill under consideration would tighten the borders and toughen standards for businesses hiring immigrants, in an effort to make sure the employees are legal residents.
The bill also would create a legal path to citizenship for some of the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country, as well as offer a merit-based system for future immigrants, under which officials would assign more points to those with higher skills, and prioritize employment over family ties.
"I think we've made progress this week. We're under no illusion that there aren't some very difficult and challenging times ahead. But I think the American people have spoken this week when they said: We want the Senate to act. We want it to act responsibly. We want it to act now," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the chief Democrat on the negotiating team of 12 Democrats and Republicans.
The Senate on Thursday rejected on a 49-48 vote a proposal by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to end the temporary worker program after five years. The Senate also beat a proposal by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., that would have allowed authorities to greater power to question suspected illegal immigrants.
The victory on the Dorgan amendment vote apparently came after Kennedy leaned on Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. When asked later what he said to Akaka, Kennedy grinned sheepishly and downplayed any political leverage he might have exercised to a simple, "Hi. How ya doing? Long time, haven't talked to you," and a simple, "Can you help us out?"
It was "an exercise in pragmatic politics," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who voted for this sunset provision last year. "It's a central tenet of the bill for the Republicans, for the business community, holding the bill together," Feinstein said.
When lawmakers return from the Memorial Day break, another of the chief hurdles the bill will have to overcome is the fear by conservatives who say the bill would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Both the senators and President Bush emphatically argued that the bill would not grant amnesty, and would instead be a fair, but tough system for immigrants to earn citizenship rights.
Bush said, "This bill does not grant amnesty. Amnesty is forgiveness without penalty." Rather, he said, the bill requires illegal immigrants to acknowledge they committed a crime, pay a fine, undergo background checks, stay employed and maintain a clean record. He said it also is important to have strong document verification to make sure illegal immigrants are not being hired.
Bush also pointing to the underground trade of money for passage into the United States as one of the biggest problems the temporary worker program would solve.
"Good, hard-working, decent people pay pretty good-sized money to be smuggled into the United States of America," Bush said, responding to a reporter's question.
"There is a document forgery industry in America. There are people who are willing to stuff people into temporary shelter in order to evade the law. I don't think this is American. I think the whole industry that exploits a human being is not in our nation's interest," Bush said.
"The best way to deal with this problem is to say, if you're going to come and do jobs Americans aren't doing, here is a opportunity to do so, on a temporary basis. I would much rather have people crossing the border with a legitimate card, coming to work on a temporary basis, than being stuffed into the back of an 18-wheeler," Bush said.
Bush has argued for comprehensive immigration reform that would give the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the country a path toward citizenship, alongside a number of enforcement reforms including beefing up border security and employment verification.
"Immigration reform is a complex issue. It's a difficult piece of legislation, and those who are looking to find fault with this bill will always be able to find something, but if you're serious about securing our border and bringing millions of illegal immigrants in our country out of the shadows, this bipartisan bill is the best opportunity to move forward," Bush said.
The bill already has undergone a number of changes since the lawmakers struck the initial deal, including a reduction of the number of unskilled workers that would be allowed to visit annually, from 600,000 down to 200,000.
Another amendment agreed to Wednesday sought to toughen border security and workplace enforcement triggers, which under the change would have to be in place before the temporary worker program or the legalization of unlawful immigrants could go into effect.
A preliminary study of the immigration bill by the Congressional Budget Office, released late Wednesday, shows that the overall cost of the bill might not be a problem for supporters, but individual portions of the bill might overstep federal rules on costs to states, local governments and businesses.
While the bill would increase federal spending by as much as $17 billion through 2012, and as much as $38 billion through 2017, the federal revenues would nearly double the expected amount of costs "” primarily through Social Security payroll taxes. The CBO predicts an increase in revenues by as much as $19 billion through 2012, and as much as $75 billion through 2017.
The report notes that the bill could run into problems related to employment eligibility requirements, and federal law governing how much cost the federal government can force state and local governments as businesses.
CBO says the bill would likely overrun federal thresholds in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act for the private sector, which at 2007 levels would be $131 million.
"The most costly mandate would require all employers and other entities to verify the employment eligibility of workers. Based on the large number of individuals that employers and other entities would be required to verify under the bill, CBO expects .... costs of the mandates would exceed the annual threshold for private-sector mandates," the report says.
CBO says the law also would require no more than $66 million in federally imposed mandates on state and local governments to verify the work eligibility, but it's too soon to say how much the bill's requirements would cost because the regulations that would govern the program haven't been developed yet by the Department of Homeland Security.
CBO also said that a formal cost estimate was still in the works, and it would include projections for changes to the immigrant population, and more specific cost estimates an a number of federal programs.
While the bill's success is largely riding on whether the 12 leading senators are able to keep enough lawmakers happy "” they continue negotiations on amendments that pose the biggest threats to the compromise "” others lawmakers have expressed reservations about the group.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., derisively refers to them as "the masters of the universe."
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is seeking far-reaching changes to the immigration measure and wants to remove the legalization program for unlawful immigrants.
"A lot of us don't feel like they're speaking for us, that this idea that we can't offer an amendment or it's going to blow up the deal is a bunch of nonsense," DeMint said.
"This is something that every member of the Senate should be participating in "” not a small group," DeMint said. "There's never been a more emotional issue for people back home. They feel betrayed and violated. They don't trust our Congress."
The approach, however, may be the only way to ensure the bill makes it through the Senate and has a chance of being signed by the president.
FOX News' Trish Turner and Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session 2007
Recent Votes
Vote Date Question Result Description
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session (2007)
Vote Date Issue Question Result Description
00189 06-Jun S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1267 Rejected Bingaman Amdt. No. 1267 As Modified; To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa.
00188 06-Jun S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1197 Rejected DeMint Amdt. No. 1197; To require health care coverage for holders of Z nonimmigrant visas.
00187 06-Jun S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1184 Rejected Cornyn Amdt. No. 1184, As Modified; To establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals.
00186 06-Jun S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1333 Agreed to Kennedy Amdt. No. 1333, as Modified; To increase the immigration-related penalties associated with various criminal activities
00185 05-Jun S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1176 Agreed to Feingold Amdt. No. 1176; To establish commissions to review the facts and circumstances surrounding injustices suffered by European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II.
00184 05-Jun S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1170 Rejected McConnell Amdt. No. 1170; To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person to present photo identification.
00183 05-Jun S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1231 Agreed to Durbin Amdt. No. 1231; To ensure that employers make efforts to recruit American workers.
00182 05-Jun S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1189 Rejected Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.
___________________________________________ 00180 24-May On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1157 Rejected Vitter Amdt. No. 1157; To strike title VI related to Nonimmigrants in the United States Previously in Unlawful Status).
00179 24-May On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1223 Agreed to Sanders Amdt. No. 1223; To establish the American Competitiveness Scholarship program.
00180 24-May S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1157 Rejected Vitter Amdt. No. 1157; To strike title VI (related to Nonimmigrants in the United States Previously in Unlawful Status).
00179 24-May S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1223 Agreed to Sanders Amdt. No. 1223; To establish the American Competitiveness Scholarship Program.
00178 24-May S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1181 Rejected Dorgan Amdt. No. 1181; To sunset the Y-1 nonimmigrant visa program after a 5-year period.
00177 24-May S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1158 Rejected Coleman Amdt. No. 1158; To amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to facilitate information sharing between federal and local law enforcement officials related to an individual's immigration status.
00176 24-May S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1186 Agreed to Akaka Amdt. No. 1186; To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas.
00175 23-May S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1169 Agreed to Bingaman Amdt. No. 1169; To reduce to 200,000 the number of certain non-immigrants permitted to be admitted during a fiscal year.
00174 22-May S. 1348 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1153 Rejected Dorgan Amdt. No. 1153; To strike the Y nonimmigrant guestworker program.
00173 21-May S. 1348 On the Cloture Motion Agreed to Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S.1348; Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
Business, Labor, Faith, and Immigrant Communities Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform and/or the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005
American Bar Association American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) American Jewish Committee (AJC); click here for letter to Senate The Anti-Defamation League Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) Archdiocese of Atlanta Arizona Interfaith Network (AIN) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) Church of the Nazarene Church World Service Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) Conservatives and Business Representatives Cook County (IL) Resolution Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM) Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) (click here for EWIC Senate letter) Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) The Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), AFL-CIO The Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce Heartland Alliance's Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center (MIHRC) Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) Hospitality Travel Tourism & Franchise Businesses Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) Immigrant Rights Network of Iowa & Nebraska Irish Parliament International Franchise Association Jesuit Conference and Jesuit Refugee Service USA Laborers' International Union of North American (LIUNA), AFL-CIO Lawyers' Committee for Civil RightsLeadership Conference on Civil Rights Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS) Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service & Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA) Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) NAACP National Alliance of Latin American & Caribbean Communities National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC) National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund National Council of Churches USA National Council of La Raza (NCLR) National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference National Immigration Forum National Immigration Law Center (NILC) National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC) - click here for Korean National Restaurant Association NETWORK New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) OCA PCUN, Oregon's farmworker union, and CAUSA, Oregon's immigrant rights coalition People for the American Way (PFAW) Seattle Mayor Service Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL-CIO UNITE HERE! US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) United Farm Workers (UFW) United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) U.S. Chamber of Commerce World Relief
Add to del.icio.us
