Arizona Seizes Spotlight In U.S. Immigration Debate State's Aggressive Stance Is Spurred by Newcomers; 'We're Being Overrun'
By MIRIAM JORDAN February 1, 2008
PHOENIX -- Arizona is at the heart of what many say is the biggest, angriest storm over immigration to hit the U.S. in nearly a century.
Efforts to combat illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America are popping up across the state, fueled in part by an influx of immigrants of another sort: Americans from the North and East.
The collision of these two groups has helped turn Arizona into a laboratory for new ways to crack down on illegal immigrants. Employers here can lose their licenses if they hire undocumented workers. English is now the state's official language. And the latest idea being floated in the state legislature would bar U.S. citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.
Immigration has become one of the most hotly contested issues heading into Tuesday's presidential primaries. Arizona Sen. John McCain was an architect of the defeated U.S. Senate bill last year that included a guest-worker program and a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants. He is now the Republican party's front-runner, but the issue has hurt his standing among some voters. Among the remaining Democrats, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton support comprehensive immigration reform.
Tensions are palpable in greater Phoenix, home to two-thirds of the state's population. Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County headline-grabbing sheriff whose jurisdiction includes Phoenix, recently unveiled a hotline for citizens to report suspected illegal immigrants. The hotline is advertised on the side of the sheriff's vehicles with a big red "Do Not Enter" sign and the word "Illegally" scrawled over it.
Mr. Arpaio has also given his deputies new authority to arrest illegal immigrants in the course of duty -- taking on a job normally reserved for federal agents. In the past year, he says they have arrested hundreds of people as a result.
The sheriff's actions have turned him into a household name in the Latino community. Many say they avoid leaving the house except to go to work or to buy groceries, for fear of arrest. Spanish-language radio and television report frequently on locations where deputies appear to be stopping drivers. In some extreme cases, people are crossing back over the border to Mexico. "Isn't it great to spread fear so they follow the law," said Mr. Arpaio in an interview.
Politicians and law-enforcement officials say they are responding to the sentiment expressed by residents like Bill Seaber. Mr. Seaber moved to Phoenix from Pittsburgh about a decade ago to settle a community called Paradise Peak West. "We're being overrun by illegals," Mr. Seaber says. "We need to do whatever it's going to take to get rid of them."
Isolationist Sentiments
Hostility toward immigrants has waxed and waned throughout U.S. history. At the turn of the 20th century, restrictionists denounced Italian and Eastern European immigrants as crime-prone, diseased and unable to assimilate. After isolationist sentiments flared during World War I, nativists in Congress pressured President Warren G. Harding into signing the first immigration Quota Act in 1921. The law effectively ended the open-door policy that had allowed millions of foreigners to settle in the U.S. in the previous decades. The National Origins Act of 1924 further stymied the flow, and the impact lasted for decades -- the stanched flow of immigrants to the U.S. did not pick up again until the 1960s.
Today's debate is partly a reaction to the fact that the U.S. is now home to more than 35 million immigrants, an all-time high in absolute numbers, scholars say. The density of the foreign-born population -- almost 13% of the total -- is approaching the 15% peak reached in the last massive wave of immigration from the 1880s to 1920s, according to scholars who study immigration. "In the last two years nativism has become as intense as it was during its last peak, the 1920s," says Gary Gerstle, an immigration historian at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
The current wave of immigration has reached pockets of the country untouched by immigration for decades, and the fact that a huge number of the immigrants -- 12 million -- are here illegally further inflames passions.
Nationally, more than 1,500 pieces of legislation were introduced in state houses last year related to illegal immigration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Coming from all but four states, 244 of them became laws -- three times as many as were passed in 2006. Arizona is one of the top states in terms of enacted laws last year, with a total of 13. The proposals typically tackle employment, law enforcement, drivers' licenses and public benefits. Many of them are facing legal challenges; others are yet to be enforced.
Perched on Border
Perched on Mexico's border with the U.S., Arizona was long accustomed to the presence of Spanish speakers who moved back and forth between the porous borders. But the harsh desert terrain along its 340-mile-long border meant that most illegal immigrants tended to cross over the Texas or California border instead. Arizona only became ground zero in the immigration debate after the federal government began beefing up enforcement along the other two states in the 1990s. Today, Arizona is considered to be the main passageway for Latin Americans sneaking into the U.S.
For years, most undocumented workers just passed through Arizona on the way to other destinations. But as the economy boomed, many chose to stay in the bourgeoning Valley of the Sun, as the Phoenix area is known to locals. They were drawn by cheap housing and job opportunities fueled in part by the arrival of Americans from other states. All told, the population of greater Phoenix grew at the rate of 18,000 a month between 1990 and 2000, adding more than two million people in a decade, to reach 3.1 million, according to the Census Bureau. Today, Phoenix is the fifth-largest city in the country.
Over time, the newcomers settled into an uneasy coexistence. Arizona residents were inundated with a steady stream of news about migrants dying in the desert, border patrol chases on highways and illegal immigrants held hostage by smugglers in drop houses. In day-to-day life, Latino immigrants and their children became increasingly visible -- in stores, schools and hospital emergency rooms. Arizona's foreign-born population surged to 900,000 in 2005 from about 270,00 in 1990, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. More than half are believed to be illegal immigrants.
"We're a border state that has always had Mexicans," says Arizona state historian Marshall Trimble. But, he adds, "a lot of these people who moved here in the last few years are uncomfortable when they see so many folks who are brown-skinned and speak another language."
A particularly rancorous part of the debate involves the question of whether illegal immigrants are a burden on the state's schools, health-care system and other public services. Dueling economic-impact surveys have done little to settle the argument. Some researchers say immigrants' contributions outweigh their cost because they help stimulate the economy with their labor and by consuming goods and services. Others say unauthorized workers depress the wages of legal workers, especially among low-skilled laborers.
Much of the recent legislation has addressed economic concerns. Proposition 200, for example, a ballot measure passed in 2004, halted all nonfederally mandated assistance, such as state health care, to illegal immigrants.
"Immigrants who had been contributing to the economy by doing jobs no one else wanted felt under attack," says Joe Rubio, lead organizer for the Phoenix Industrial Areas Foundation, a coalition of local faith-based groups that fights nativist measures.
In 2006, about three-quarters of all Arizonans voted in favor of four more ballot measures aimed at illegal immigrants, including one that bans undocumented immigrants from receiving in-state residency tuition for college and other benefits. Another denies an award of punitive damages in any civil court to an illegal immigrant.
Republican state legislator Russell Pearce, who speaks of an "invasion" from Mexico, has launched at least a dozen bills to combat illegal immigration.
"In the face of federal government inaction, Arizona has become a laboratory for how to deal with illegal immigration," says Janet Napolitano, the state's governor, referring to a series of failed federal immigration reforms and lack of enforcement at the border.
The nonstop legal volleys reflect the immigrant-related conflict raging across the state. In a working-class neighborhood in central Phoenix, a handyman named Ken Adams, 40 years old, says, "At one time Mexicans were a minority. Not anymore." For a supervising job in construction, for example, "you have to speak Spanish to deal with employees who just speak Spanish," Mr. Adams says.
Mr. Adams and his wife, Suzi, are home-schooling their two daughters, 13 and 14, partly because they believe the quality of education has deteriorated due to the influx of Spanish speakers. Ms. Adams remembers attending the school across the street from their home when the student body was overwhelmingly white. Now, like most schools in the area, the students are mostly Latino. "My biggest problem is the culture thing," she says. "They come here and disrespect our culture...by not learning English."
It is the future Hispanic face of the state that has propelled many anti-immigrant forces into action. At Lela Alston Elementary School, which opened six years ago, 95% of the 380 students are Hispanic and 78% come from homes where English isn't the dominant language. Virtually all the children are entitled to free meals because their families live at or below the poverty line.
In one kindergarten class, Carrie Bergum teaches 22 students -- only one is not Hispanic -- how to read. "They come to us not knowing anything," says Ms. Bergum, but "most of the kids pick up English within two months, some of them in less time." On a recent afternoon, almost all the kindergarteners, including newcomer Michael Garcia, spelled cat, box and jet correctly. "We winners!" declared the 6-year-old boy, flashing a grin. Last year, the elementary school in the heart of a Latino neighborhood won a "highly performing school" designation from the state as a result of its students' performance on standardized tests and attendance record.
Kent Scribner is the superintendent of Phoenix's Isaac School District, where 95% of students are Latino. He says the immigrant crackdown is driving some families out of state. "We have requests for student transcripts from schools in Utah, Colorado, Texas and New Mexico," he says, adding that about 5% of these students didn't return for the second semester of the school year that began last month.
Diana and Adrian Arce moved to Phoenix 15 years ago from Guadalajara, Mexico, to "seek a better future for our children," she says. Her husband held a steady job as a painter, and she cleaned houses. They saved enough to make a down payment on a house and buy two cars. Two years ago, their eldest daughter graduated from high school and won a full scholarship to a community college.
After the employer-sanctions bill passed last year, Mr. Arce lost his job, which paid $14 an hour. He scrambled to find another job until finding one that paid only $7.50. Because he is an unauthorized worker, "the employer knew he would take the job," says Mrs. Arce.
State Tuition
When the proposition banning undocumented students from paying in-state tuition went into effect last year, the Arces' daughter lost her scholarship and had to withdraw from college because the family can't afford to pay the $360 out-of-state fee per semester. Their second daughter, who is 19, works at a fast-food chain and has postponed plans to attend college. Their 18-year-old son is hoping to get a soccer scholarship at a private university. Only their youngest daughter is a U.S. citizen.
Mrs. Arce, who earns $12 to $15 an hour cleaning houses for "puros americanos who treat me very well," says families for whom she has worked more than a decade recently asked whether she is here legally. "I tell them I am a citizen," she says. "Or they'll fire me immediately."
On her way to work recently, Mrs. Arce conferred with her friends by cellphone about where Mr. Arpaio's deputies might be stationed and changed her route accordingly. The family restricts its outings to a minimum, she says. "We used to like visiting the park and the library," says Mrs. Arce. In the last year, "everything has changed," says Mrs. Arce. "We're thinking of moving to another state but it's hard to start from scratch."
Second-Class Citizens: Speak English or prepare to be fired -- without benefits. Sounds loco, Virginia.
Washington Post Editorial Posted on 2008-01-28 Monday, January 28, 2008; A20
VIRGINIA SEN. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax) has introduced a piece of immigrant-bashing legislation that is meant to ease the way for bosses to fire workers who don't speak English. But the bill is so closed-minded and foul-tempered that it is too much for Mr. Cuccinelli himself. It would victimize employees who fail "to speak only English at the workplace," a formulation even the senator now allows is a bit harsh; who knows, maybe his own ancestors were known to utter a phrase or two in their native Italian on the job. So he has decided to remove the word "only" from his bill. Nice, but it doesn't help.
The senator, long regarded as among the more intolerant lawmakers in Richmond, has outdone himself. He says glibly that the bill responds to a growing problem of employees who are unfit for their jobs because they speak English poorly. The rub, he says, is that employers cannot fire them without risking higher taxes to pay unemployment benefits. His evidence? Well, says the senator, an employer complained to him about it. And who was that employer? Mr. Cuccinelli can't recall.
The senator's porous memory notwithstanding, his legislation highlights a few pertinent facts about the immigration debate:
First, xenophobia. Despite their protestations, the anti-immigrant crowd tends to blur the line between legal and illegal immigrants and tar them with the same brush. Although Mr. Cuccinelli spent much of his campaign for the state Senate last fall bashing illegal immigrants, this bill would apply only to legal immigrants, since illegal immigrants are already ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Second, overzealousness. Mr. Cuccinelli's bill rates poor English as an offense on a par with substance abuse, lying about past criminal convictions, missing work and committing infractions that cost an employer his business license -- all of them equal grounds for denying unemployment benefits to a fired worker. That's absurd on its face.
Third, blame-shifting. Clearly, it is an employer's responsibility to hire workers whose skills match the job. Yet Mr. Cuccinelli's bill would perversely penalize workers, not employers. This is grossly unfair.
Immigrant-bashers, even some who pay homage to America as a nation of immigrants, have a rich and ugly history in this country. Today, a venomous new chapter is being written in that history by lawmakers of Mr. Cuccinelli's ilk, for whom the very presence of people whose language, culture and values are different is a firing offense.
La memoria porosa del senador a pesar, su legislación destaca algunos hechos pertinentes sobre el discusión de la inmigración:
Primero, xenofobia. A pesar de sus protestations, la muchedumbre del contra-inmigrante tiende para velar la lÃnea entre los inmigrantes y el alquitrán legales e ilegales ellos con igual cepillo. Aunque Sr. Cuccinelli pasó mucha de su campaña para el senado del estado que golpeaba el otoño pasado a inmigrantes ilegales, esta cuenta se aplicarÃa solamente a los inmigrantes legales, puesto que los inmigrantes ilegales son ya inelegibles para los subsidios de desempleo.
En segundo lugar, celo excesivo. Los ingleses pobres de las tarifas de cuenta de Sr. Cuccinelli como ofensa en una igualdad con abuso de la sustancia, mintiendo alrededor más allá de las convicciones criminales, del trabajo que falta y de las infracciones que confÃan que cuestan a patrón su licencia del negocio -- todas igualan los argumentos para negar subsidios de desempleo a un trabajador encendido. Eso es absurdo en su cara.
Tercero, culpa-cambiando de puesto. Claramente, es responsabilidad de un patrón emplear a los trabajadores que habilidades emparejan el trabajo. Con todo la cuenta de Sr. Cuccinelli perversely penalizarÃa a trabajadores, no patrones. Esto es grueso injusto.
On Virginia House Panel, a Stampede Against Illegal Immigration
Eager to send the message that Virginia is not for illegal immigrants, lawmakers have loaded the General Assembly's session with all manner of ways to make the state unappealing to foreigners who don't have permission to be in the country.
If all the bills pass, illegal immigrants would be banned from enrolling in public colleges, barred from getting a mortgage on a house and liable to be fired if they don't speak English at work. There's even a resolution, by Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II, the Fairfax Republican, to ask Congress to initiate a change to the 14th Amendment so that citizenship would no longer be granted automatically to anyone born in the United States. At least one parent would have to be a citizen before a child could be eligible for citizenship at birth."
More States Refusing Illegal Migrants IDs
The road for illegal immigrants in the U.S. is getting shorter, literally. More states are refusing to issue drivers' licenses to undocumented aliens, while 4 of 5 states that still allows illegal migrants to drive are thinking of changing course.
Oregon will no longer issue driver's license to illegal migrants starting Monday, following Michigan which halted the issuance last week. Maryland will get tough with undocumented foreigners by 2010."*
ICE to illegal immigrants: ˜We are coming after you' - Los Angeles (tough headline - tough message)
Immigration officials expect to ramp up their crackdown on criminal and fugitive illegal immigrants in Los Angeles over the next year - including raids Monday in the San Fernando Valley - saying they're already on track to break last year's record arrest numbers.
"The message here is that if you are an individual that has entered the country illegally, who has been ordered removed and not departed, we are coming after you," said Brian DeMore, deputy field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's detention and removal operations.
"And if you are a criminal who has committed crimes against our citizens, we are going to come back after you with more vigor.""
How would bill on immigration add up for Hoosiers?
Whether the work is picking tomatoes on a farm or pounding nails at a construction site, Indiana relies on cheap and plentiful immigrant labor "” legal and illegal "” to do business.
But what would happen if those workers suddenly disappeared? As Indiana lawmakers debate a tough new illegal immigration bill this week, that's a question they are being asked.
While the legislation is welcomed by some as a way to crack down on illegal immigration, others say the loss of up to 85,000 undocumented workers would have a far-reaching impact on Hoosiers."
Farmers Branch bans illegal immigrants from renting houses - Houses added to ban for illegal migrants; foes say courts will step in again
City officials whose previous attempts to keep out illegal immigrants have been blocked by the courts took another shot Tuesday, adopting an ordinance that would not only ban them from renting apartments but also from renting houses.
The City Council unanimously approved Ordinance 2952, which would require all renters to pay a $5 fee and claim U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status to obtain an occupancy license from the city."*
Round Two: Farmers Branch Vs. Illegal Immigrants
The immigration debate is back in the spotlight in North Texas. The City of Farmers Branch will once again take up the issue of renting homes and apartments to illegal immigrants.
Although voters in May approved an ordinance to stop landlords from doing so, a judge's ruling has prevented the law from taking effect.
"Now they're changing the rules of the game. Now they're penalizing everybody. This not only penalizes immigrants, it also penalized home owners and non-Hispanics who have to go through the process," said Hispanic activist Carlos Quintanilla of ACCION America."*
Restaurants, nurseries and other Oregon employers are jumping into the state's roiling immigration debate, bringing pro-business credentials to the fight against proposals seen as hostile to foreign-born workers and their families.
The Oregon Essential Worker Immigration Coalition is planning a February launch of its research, public-relations and lobbying efforts "” all meant to add the voices of employers to a debate that's largely pitted illegal-immigration opponents on one side, and Hispanic and immigrant-rights activists on the other."*
Rising health care costs put focus on illegal immigrants
Juan Perez had stomach pains for a month before deciding to visit a health clinic here that is open Thursday nights so migrant farmworkers don't miss a day working in the fields.
As an illegal, uninsured immigrant, Perez has had problems in the past "” not only with his health, but with navigating the U.S. health care maze. In Michigan, there was no interpreter at his local health clinic, the bills had to be paid in installments, and co-workers warned that a visit to a doctor could lead to deportation. In North Carolina, he's found a health care home at Tiffany Revels' weekly clinic "” providing he can hitch a ride there.
"The biggest concern is getting sick, because you don't have anyone here," Perez says after Revels, a family nurse practitioner at the federally funded clinic, prescribes two antibiotics and Pepto-Bismol tablets for his bacterial gastritis. "You are here by yourself.""*
A Republican state senator from Fairfax County has introduced a proposal that would allow a boss to fire employees who don't speak English in the workplace, which would make them ineligible for unemployment benefits. -Virginia
Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II said the law is needed because a growing number of employers in Northern Virginia are frustrated that some immigrants never learn English, although they said they would when they were hired.
"The point here isn't to be mean; the point is to allow circumstances to give employers their own ability to hire and fire people who may not speak English," Cuccinelli said."*
New Generation Casts Votes on Immigration, Economic Issues
By Peter Whoriskey Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 30, 2008; A06
MIAMI, Jan. 29 -- It has become a highly stylized ritual: Political candidates drop by the Versailles restaurant in Little Havana, slurp a cafecito, condemn Fidel Castro and loudly affirm, " Viva Cuba libre!" Television cameras capture it all.
The Republican primary in Florida this year was no different. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee stopped by, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney went a step further by donning a guayabera for his appearances in the area.
But as iconic as those moments at the Versailles have become, their symbolism may have been lost in a presidential election campaign less about the Cuban past than this nation's present, with a new generation of Cubans providing the decisive edge McCain needed against Romney. Cuban voters sided with McCain over Romney 5 to 1, not because McCain presented himself as the stronger bulwark against communism but because he was the moderate, pro-immigrant candidate they wanted.
"There's been a generational shift in Florida's Latino community," said Cecilia Mu¿oz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino group. "Cuban children are not from the refugee experience."
Dario Moreno, a professor at Florida International University and an expert in Cuban American politics, said that Cuban American voters were initially inclined toward McCain and Giuliani because of their strong stands on national security and moderate positions on other issues. When the Giuliani campaign seemed to lag, Cuban Americans switched to McCain, rolling up big margins for him.
"It was strategic voting," he said. "It lead to a bandwagon affect. People began to vote with a probable winner."
Republican candidates did not seem to see it coming. As usual, they strove to adopt the fiercest anti-Castro rhetoric, even as other issues -- the U.S. economy, the Iraq war and health care -- were the higher priorities of many Cuban American voters.
"Cuban Americans are voting on the same issues that other Floridians are voting on," Moreno said. "There is a lot of middle-class angst."
McCain was aided by the early support of South Florida's three Cuban American House members, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario and Lincoln D¿az-Balart. McCain also received the endorsement of Florida's Republican senator, Mel Martinez, who is also Cuban American.
On Tuesday, as contemporary Latin music played outside Precinct 418 here, voters explained that they have heard get-tough-on-Castro promises from Republican candidates before and those promises have not amounted to much.
"They always come and say 'Viva Cuba libre!' " and 'next year,' " said Jorge Chao, 51, a dry-cleaning manager who came to Miami from Cuba in 1980. "But it's been 51 years, and nothing has changed."
"I live here, not in Cuba," said Caridad Calzadilla, 53, a real estate agent. "The most important issue is the economy."
For Calzadilla and her husband, the top issues are taxes, home insurance and health coverage.
"I have relatives in Cuba," she said. "But I have to be a little bit selfish. I have to worry about myself."
About two-thirds of Cuban American voters are registered Republicans, though that number has been slipping. For years, politicians have courted them by opposing the Cuban president and promising aggressive bans on trade and travel to the island nation. In a debate at the University of Miami, the Republican candidates followed that line.
"The only thing they didn't promise was that the 82nd Airborne would be at the disposal of the Cuban American community," said Joe Garcia, former director of the Cuban American National Foundation and now director of NDN's Hispanic Strategy Center.
After the disputed presidential election in Florida in 2000, many voters thought that President Bush would recognize the loyalty of the Cuban Americans in South Florida who helped him win the state.
"Some in the Cuban American community thought we were owed something after 2000," said Allen Zaldivar, 27, a pharmacist whose parents came from Cuba. "But even since then, nothing has changed."
Under the Bush administration, enforcement of U.S. restrictions on Cuba travel has increased, and restrictions on travel and on private remittances to Cuba have been tightened, according to a Congressional Research Service report. But many Cuban Americans, particularly those most recently arrived, say that the trade and travel bans, though aimed at Castro, have hurt others instead.
"It's the people who suffer from the embargo," said Jose Canavaciolo, 31, a painting contractor who came here from Cuba in 1994. "Castro -- he was fine."
And then there was the immigration issue. Florida did not prove to be the cauldron of anti-illegal immigrant sentiment that Romney may have thought. About 58 percent of Republican voters told exit pollsters on Tuesday that illegal immigrants should either be offered a chance to apply for citizenship or allowed to stay as temporary workers -- positions roughly in line with McCain's. And those voters went for McCain by substantial margins. Forty percent said illegal immigrants should be deported, and that minority went for Romney.
"Every other Republican candidate is poison on that issue," Garcia said. "Most immigrants realize that the immigration debate is not about immigration. It's about xenophobia at best and racism at worst."
By KEVIN FREKING,AP Posted: 2008-01-31 23:11:12 Filed Under: Politics News
WASHINGTON (Jan. 31) - President Bush's 2009 budget will virtually freeze most domestic programs and seek nearly $200 billion in savings from federal health care programs, a senior administration official said Thursday.
Overall, the Bush budget will exceed $3 trillion, this official said. The deficit is expected to reach about $400 billion for this year and next.
Bush on Monday will present his proposed budget for the new fiscal year to Congress, where it's unlikely to gain much traction in the midst of a presidential campaign. The president has promised a plan that would erase the budget deficit by 2012 if his policies are followed.
To that end, Bush will propose nearly $178 billion in savings from Medicare over five years"” nearly triple what he proposed last year. Much of the savings would come from freezing reimbursement rates for most health care providers for three years. An additional $17 billion would come from the Medicaid program, the state-federal partnership that provides health coverage to the poor.
The budget for most domestic programs funded by Congress will look similar to last year's, according to the official, from the Office of Management and Budget.
"It's a very small increase," he said. "Very small."
A second administration official said domestic discretionary spending would increase by less than 1 percent under Bush's proposal.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget has not yet been released
In his State of the Union address Monday, Bush said his budget envisioned a surplus in 2012. "American families have to balance their budgets, and so should their government," he said.
The federal government is expected to spend about $650 billion on Medicare and Medicaid in 2008. It represents more than $1 out of every $5 spent by the federal government.
The OMB official said the president views the budget as a final opportunity to slow the growth of entitlement programs but recognizes that Congress probably won't go along.
He said spending on Medicare would increase under Bush's new budget, but not as quickly as had been expected. "Medicare will grow at 5 percent. It just won't grow over 7 percent," he said.
Savings also would come by charging wealthier people higher monthly premiums for Medicare's drug program.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the Bush budget would project the 10-year cost of the program, from 2008 to 2017, at $915 billion. That's $117 billion less than what had been forecast last summer. The agency attributed the lower estimate to smaller increases in the cost of medicines, and better deals negotiated between insurers and drug manufacturers.
The agency said 25.4 million people were now enrolled in a Medicare drug plan.
Bush last year asked Congress for nearly $65 billion in Medicare savings over five years. Congress refused to go along.
Independent experts have warned that the government needs to address the rising cost of health care for businesses to stay competitive and for the government to be able to pay for other important programs in the decades ahead.
"In fact, if there is one thing that could bankrupt America, it's runaway health care costs. We must not allow that to happen," David M. Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, told lawmakers Tuesday during a congressional hearing.
But Democrats said Bush's budget targets the wrong health care providers for cuts. They said insurers subsidized to provide Medicare coverage are being overpaid.
"The president is proposing to once again slash health care coverage for seniors and low-income working Americans," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said. "The president's cuts are exactly the wrong medicine when the cost of health care and the number of uninsured continue to rise and families are feeling economically insecure."
Health care providers said the president's recommendations would make it harder for them to meet expenses, which would continue to rise as a result of inflation, even as their reimbursement rates were frozen.
"That level of reduction is so outrageous that it will be summarily rejected by members of both parties in Congress," said Tom Nickels, senior vice president of federal relations for the American Hospital Association. "I don't think it will be taken seriously."
*If they stop paying for illegal alien births, anchor baby welfare payments and rescind the 14th Amendment that will save us gazillions. Take away the freebies and they will leave.
Stop the Hate - Stop The National Council of La Raza's attempt to silence the voice of American opinion
Posted in Politics & Government, Illegal Aliens & Immigration Reforms on February 1st, 2008 by MorningStar
Before the United States Congress can seriously undertake the debate over this nation's very serious problems with immigration, the proponents of every side of that issue need to be able to express their opinions freely, offer what substantiation they have for their beliefs and be heard by all who would listen, however, this essential requirement for free and Democratic debate cannot be fulfilled if racist organizations like the federally funded National Council of La Raza, who use the American tax payers hard earned dollars to lobby against any American citizen who speak ill of their irresponsible agenda, are allowed the unprecedented preferential authority to silence opposing perspectives with entirely self serving fabricated allegations of "hate speech."
The National Council of La Raza has done everything possible to turn the legitimate debate of this nation's immigration laws into a one sided racial issue where they, and only those who agree with them, are allowed to speak. Silencing the voice of the opposition with entirely contrived accusations of social inequity may be standard operating procedure in third world countries where tyranny is the expected norm, but in the United States of America, all men have the right to express themselves in Democratic debate, and for the American people to allow the ignorant and the manipulative the right to censor the thoughts and opinions of those who oppose them would be a true disservice to all men and women who hold this nation's welfare dear to their hearts, and to the Democratic traditions upon which this republic is founded.
The National Council of La Raza is a Hispanic supremacy organization that, thanks to this nation's more self-serving Democratic and Republican politicians, has been provided with a sufficiently dangerous level of political weight in our nation's capital. The National Council of La Raza have used their questionable influence and their federal funding to sow the seeds of racial unrest, to undermine the immigration laws of the United States, to disrupt the legislative process of our country, and to further their own divisive agenda to the detriment of American society, and now they want to silence the voices of those who speak out in opposition to the cowardly refusal of our elected representatives to effectively deal with the uncontrolled invasion of our nation by hordes of parasitic criminal aliens who hold our nation's laws in utter contempt. In a society that struggles to remain free and Democratic, the manipulative efforts of The National Council of La Raza can not be condoned and should not be tolerated.
John Stuart Mills wisely stated that, "there is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism." To ensure the sanctity of American freedom the censure of political opinion must never be allowed because, as Mill's goes on to explain, "the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
If The National Council of La Raza has a legitimate argument for the continued lack of border enforcement by our federal officials, if The National Council of La Raza can logically justify allowing the unprecedented invasion of our country by as many as 8,000 illegal aliens every week to continue unobstructed, and if The National Council of La Raza can demonstrate any compelling reason why this nation should favor the more than 20 million criminal invaders now residing here with rights and benefits at the expense of the American tax payers, then they are free to express their opinions, voice their arguments and elaborate their justifications. If the immigration proposals expressed by The National Council of La Raza propose are truly in the best interests of this nation and the people who legally reside here, the logic of their arguments will be evident to all, and the American people will be well favored by the opportunity to exchange the erroneous opinions now held by the majority for a newfound truth that is both obvious and compelling. On the other hand, if the logic of what The National Council of La Raza proposes is flawed and their substantiation is weak in direct comparison to arguments of their opponents in this debate, then that too will be made evident, and again, all Americans will benefit from the "clearer perception and livelier impression of truth."
The right of all men to express their opinions in debate is fundamental to American liberty, and any American citizen, who comprehends the importance of safeguarding the liberty that has made this nation the envy of the entire world, should easily understand the serious degradation of American freedom that would result if manipulative special interest groups are allowed the privilege of silencing their opponents with entirely contrived allegations of racism.
The freedom to express one's opinion is an inalienable right, given to all men by an authority much higher than any government established here on Earth, and that right, granted by the almighty, is not subject to the capricious whim of manipulative political operators like The National Council of La Raza. http://fungazi.com/wordpress/?p=461
Conflicting data on crime, immigration presented at legislators' public hearing
At UTD, legislators get conflicting data on crime, immigration
08:59 AM CST on Saturday, February 2, 2008 By DIANNE SOLÃS / The Dallas Morning News dsolis@dallasnews.com
A public hearing Friday on immigrants in Texas jails and prisons shed light on holes in the criminal justice pipelines, state and local, and the lack of information on the legal status of those behind bars.
G.J. McCARTHY/DMN
A sign cautioning people not to be disruptive was affixed to a door at Friday's public hearing at the University of Texas at Dallas, which was conducted by a pair of state House committees. The Texas House Committee on Corrections and the Committee on County Affairs held the all-day hearing at the University of Texas at Dallas to attempt to determine:
"¢Whether the state has a problem in the prison system.
"¢What the dividing line is between state and federal authorities.
"¢The cost for people who are arrested and charged with felonies and convicted of felonies.
"¢Whether state agencies are coordinating with one another.
More than 200 people turned out Friday. And as expected, emotions ran high on illegal immigration and alleged racial profiling of Hispanics, amid readings of statistics and contradictory reports.
Some even questioned why the hearing – the first of several around the state – was held.
Others urged legislators not to be soft on crime committed by those in the U.S. illegally.
"Texas legislators must step up and become more accountable," said Jean Towell, president and co-founder of Dallas-based Citizens for Immigration Reform. Those in the U.S. illegally who have committed nonviolent crimes should not be given early release and they should be deported as well, Ms. Towell said.
"We must make Texas a safer place," she said.
Legislators were presented with two contradictory studies on crime and immigration. One study, co-authored by Ruben Rumbaut of the University of California at Irvine, looked at incarceration rates among young men and showed those rates to be the lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.
Another, authored by Carl Horowitz, of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., research center, said that criminal gangs with ties to immigrant communities are a problem "understated" in crime statistics and that immigrants are less likely to report crime, according to a presentation by one speaker.
Taking a break after six hours of testimony, Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson, said that there are problems in the notification of federal immigration officials and problems in getting documentation on the foreign-born.
"So that is clearly one of the areas we will look at," said Mr. Madden, chairman of the Texas House Corrections Committee.
The Texas Legislature meets in regular session every other year; its next regular session will begin in January 2009.
One issue that particularly bothered Mr. Madden was testimony from a state probation official that a criminal offender who received several thousand dollars of counseling had later been targeted by federal immigration officials for potential deportation.
"We spent $15,000 of taxpayer dollars on someone who is going to be deported," Mr. Madden said incredulously.
At least one state lawmaker was troubled by the hearing altogether.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston and a member of the House County Affairs Committee, questioned whether his colleagues were using the issue to gain political leverage.
"I would rather that you arrest a guy who is a murderer ... than a person over here who is trying to find work," he told his fellow legislators.
Mr. Coleman said that he believed the hearing wouldn't have been held if the discussion focused on Irish immigrants.
Outside the university chamber hall, Mr. Coleman said there was a distinction between criminal law and immigration law, and that arresting people on immigration violations wasted resources.
Illegal immigrants are being deported when caught for Class C misdemeanors, such as traffic violations, Mr. Coleman said.
"It's not about black people anymore," he said. "It's about ***s, Mexican-Americans and Latin Americans."
Speaker after speaker addressed procedures by local police and county probation officers.
Repeatedly, they raised the role of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. ICE is the prime agency authorized to place a hold on those held at a jail or state prison or on probation, speakers noted.
"Why aren't they here?" asked state Rep. Jim McReynolds, D-Lufkin.
A spokesman for ICE, Carl Rusnok, said Homeland Security policy prohibits ICE from testifying at state hearings. But he added that ICE "makes every effort to ensure that state legislators have information about ICE and our operations."
Brad Livingston, executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said that of the 155,000 prisoners in the Texas Prison System, about 6 percent to 7 percent are foreign-born. But it is ICE's job to determine the citizenship status of those foreign-born inmates and whether they are in the U.S. legally, he said.
Within the more than 200 jails in Texas, statistical record-keeping is not as precise.
Adan Muñoz, executive director of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, said there were no definitive numbers on the foreign-born or the percentage of illegal immigrants in local jails.
State Rep. Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas, repeatedly questioned whether lines are blurred even further during arrests and even during ICE holds. Mr. Alonzo said he knew of a case in which a U.S. citizen was placed on an ICE hold.
Some in the audience were pleased by stepped-up law enforcement by local authorities.
Sue Richardson, a leader of a Republican club in Irving, praised the collaboration of Irving police with ICE in a program known as the Criminal Alien Program, or CAP.
"Never lose sight of the fact that you're to protect citizens of state, not illegal aliens," she said.
Authorities have to do something about the drug traffickers and terrorists living illegally in the country, she said, prompting a member of the committee to ask how many of the illegal immigrants in Irving are drug dealers or terrorists.
"I don't know what they are," she said. "You'd have to ask our police."
Republican candidates tone down harsh immigration rhetoric
GOP hopefuls try to stand firm without alienating Latino voters
08:42 AM CST on Saturday, February 2, 2008 By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News wslater@dallasnews.com
LOS ANGELES – When the Republican presidential hopefuls made their pitches on immigration to California voters this week, Harry Pachon thought he heard something new.
A certain sensitivity.
Beyond the standard call to secure the border, Mike Huckabee cautioned "not to be cruel." John McCain urged "a humane and compassionate approach."
Mitt Romney, who earlier in the primary season talked about deporting people in 90 days, said in Wednesday's GOP debate that students should be allowed time to finish their school year and families to make arrangements before returning to Mexico.
"There's a new language of qualifying the rhetoric, of toning it down," said Mr. Pachon, who heads the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute at the University of Southern California. "They finally woke up to realize immigration might be the third rail of politics in the Latino community."
Republicans seeking votes in next week's 21-state Super Tuesday are walking a tightrope: They must appeal to a party base that demands a get-tough approach on illegal immigration but not alienate Latino voters who might be willing to support them.
A recent California Field Poll of GOP voters found that illegal immigration ranked among the highest on the list of election issues important to Republicans. California Democrats listed health care on top.
California, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico are among the Super Tuesday states with large Hispanic populations. While Latinos tend to vote Democratic by a margin of 2-1, President Bush was able to win a much larger share, a key part of his successful electoral coalition.
In Texas, which holds its primaries March 4, Hispanic voters will be crucial on the Democratic side but also could be important as a marginal source of support if the fight for the GOP nomination is ongoing.
In California, Latinos constitute 17 percent of the state electorate. The two GOP front-runners come to Latino-rich state with divergent positions – Mr. Romney opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and Mr. McCain favors a pathway to citizenship.
Conservatives have blasted Mr. McCain for sponsoring legislation that they considered amnesty for those already here illegally. Chastened by that, he now emphasizes border security before any other immigration changes are enacted.
Mr. McCain's advisers believe his experience in the military plays well with Latinos.
Don Sipple, a California political consultant whose clients have included George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, said Mr. McCain is better positioned on immigration among the state's moderate electorate than Mr. Romney. Mr. McCain leads Mr. Romney by 12 points in the Golden State in a late January poll.
Mr. Sipple said "the immigration issue is fraught with danger for Republicans," but GOP candidates can run on the issue by taking a position that has wide support.
For example, he said, Mr. Schwarzenegger campaigned against driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in 2003 in his successful run to replace the recalled incumbent, Gray Davis. He said the idea had support even among many Hispanic voters.
Jesse Miranda is an expert on Latino evangelicals, a swing-voter group potentially receptive to Republican candidates on education and conservative issues like abortion and *** marriage.
He said candidates should avoid a harsh tone that sends the message "you're not welcome" to Latinos.
"What may be missing is the history of the relationship between the two countries," said Mr. Miranda, who heads Alianza de Ministerios Evangelicos Nacionales. "We have 100 years of back and forth in what used to be migration. Suddenly, it's immigration."
Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, and the fractious debate over immigration reform could have a downside for the GOP in the future. "They have a clear example in California in 1994," Mr. Pachon said, referring to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's re-election bid in which he trumpeted opposition to state services for illegal workers.
"Two years after that, the Legislature changed hands from Republican to Democrat and every marginal [congressional] district went Democratic," Mr. Pachon said.
Mr. Bush got 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, and that carried over somewhat to other Republicans. But exit polls indicate that GOP candidates got just 30 percent among Hispanic voters in 2006, and more recent surveys suggest the anti-Republican trend continues.
A Pew Hispanic Center survey from December showed Latinos could be an important swing vote in the presidential election in November. Four of the six states that Mr. Bush carried by 5 percentage points or less in 2004 have large Latino populations.
Six of the 10 states with the highest estimated population of illegal immigrants will vote Tuesday. Here's a look at the top 10 states and the estimated populations. The Super Tuesday states are in bold.
Estimated illegal immigrant population
1. California 2.5 milllion-2.75 million 2. Texas 1.4 million-1.6 million 3. Florida 800,000-950,000 4. New York 550,000-650,000 5. Arizona 400,000-450,000 6. Illinois 375,000-425,000 7. Georgia 350,000-450,000 8. New Jersey 350,000-425,000 9. North Carolina 300,000-400,000 10. Virginia 250,000-300,000
08:19 AM CST on Thursday, January 31, 2008 By LAURENCE ILIFF / The Dallas Morning News liliff@dallasnews.com
MONTERREY, Mexico – The late Mary Kay Ash brought her pink Cadillac down to this industrial city two decades ago and set up a direct sales operation in a country where resellers had to go to a bank first to pay for their products, then pick them up at bus stations.
On Wednesday, Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert toured the Addison-based company's new distribution center, along a modern industrial corridor near Monterrey's international airport, and called it a model for economic cooperation between the "sister cities."
MONICA RUEDA/The Associated Press Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert (center) tours the new Mary Kay plant in Monterrey, Mexico, with Javier Garcia (left), vice president of the unit, and Ben Muro, a D/FW Airport board member. For example, 70 percent of Mary Kay's products sold in Mexico are made at a Dallas plant, and sales here are booming, creating a steady stream of jobs on both sides of the border.
"Those are the sorts of things we are working on, and we would love to have a lot more examples of that," said Mr. Leppert, who mingled with workers packing orders and asked plant officials plenty of questions. "Think of the jobs created in Dallas – distribution jobs, manufacturing jobs, etc. – because of the market in Mexico."
Mr. Leppert and a delegation of city officials and business leaders visited the sleek facility, inaugurated in December, as part of the mayor's first international trade mission, which began Monday in Mexico City.
"One of the reasons we're here is you have a huge market in Mexico and that market has opportunities for business in Dallas," said Mr. Leppert, adding that he wants Mexican companies to invest in North Texas.
Mexican firms, he suggested, could put their headquarters for U.S. operations in Dallas.
Those types of facilities – as with Mary Kay in Monterrey – create local jobs. In addition to its independent sales force, the Addison-based firm has 260 employees in Monterrey at its national distribution center and separate headquarters building.
The new plant
Anne Crews, Mary Kay's vice president of government relations in Dallas, saw the Monterrey plant for the first time Wednesday and said it is much like its sister facility in North Texas.
"It's fabulous," she said.
The $38 million distribution center occupies 144,000 square feet, is twice the size of the one it replaces and sits on a lot where it can expand, officials said.
And if history is any guide, that growth is likely.
The success of the cosmetics giant, company officials in Mexico said, is a result of closely following the values set out by Ms. Ash in her book Miracles Happen.
"The Mexican culture is deeply rooted in the same culture that Mary Kay operates within the company," said Paul Van der Linden, director of Mexico operations.
Rosy Guerra, vice president for marketing, summed up that philosophy as "God first, family second and career third. That has helped us a lot."
All-female force
Many of its all-female sales force are mothers who work in their spare time and appreciate the flexibility and extra income, Ms. Guerra said. And Mary Kay only sells to distributors, whom it calls consultants, who deliver products directly to their customers.
Mary Kay's business record in the Mexican market has been constant despite some real challenges.
Through Mexico's recurrent economic crises of the 1980s and 1990s – and into the Internet age – the company has increased sales every year it has been in Monterrey, Mary Kay officials said.
And over the last five years, sales have jumped 80 percent, Mr. Van der Linden said, making Mexico the fourth-largest market for Mary Kay after the U.S., China and Russia.
With 107 million people, Mexico is far smaller than any of those nations.
Mary Kay Mexico sold about $200 million in cosmetics to its 200,000-strong network of resellers last year. The total retail value of sales to consumers was twice that at $400 million, Mr. Van der Linden said.
Mary Kay is privately held and not required to reveal its financial details.
Mr. Van der Linden said he did not know the total number of Mexican customers, since the company deals directly only with its sales representatives. But he said they must number in the millions since some Mary Kay consultants have as many as 100 regular customers.
And the increased use of the Internet in Mexico makes the future promising, he said.
Mary Kay representatives now place 90 percent of their orders online, saving them time they can use on sales.
The firm is constantly introducing products, including some exclusive to Mexico, and has a strong promotional campaign, officials said.
"Word-of-mouth is the best publicity," Mr. Van der Linden said.
Mexico's differences
There are some differences between the U.S. and Mexican operations, however.
In the United States, the company cannot legally bar men from becoming sales reps. But in Mexico, it can – and does, said Rebeca Cornejo, director of special events in Monterrey.
But it's not discrimination, Ms. Cornejo said, so much as focusing on the original Mary Kay message of uplifting women .
The climate for women entrepreneurs in Mexico, though, is not so dissimilar from the early days of Mary Kay in the United States, Ms. Cornejo said.
"Men have a lot of opportunities in Mexico, so we don't want to give an opportunity to a man that we can give to a woman," she said.
Mary Kay's female sales representatives come from every walk of Mexican life, Mr. Cornejo said, "from women with a university degree to others who are just learning how to read."
The women make from a few hundred dollars to one who has made more than $1 million in a year.
Overachievers receive prizes from jewelry to pink Cadillacs imported from the United States.
Enforcement-only legislation will not solve illegal immigration
Joe Reyna sltrib.com 02/01/2008 08:19:02 PM MST
Utah elected officials must understand that illegal immigration is not just a domestic policy matter, but an economic phenomenon across borders where people migrate in response to labor market forces. The only way the United States will be able to manage, if not solve, the immigration problem is through cooperation and negotiation with Mexico and other countries.
Mexican politicians often argue that there is no bilateral relationship with the United States unless it pertains to America's territorial security. In today's global economy, cooperation is a must between our two countries.
Although most of the undocumented migrants come from Mexico, millions of people also come from Central and South America, Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa. As Mexican Ambassador Carlos De Icaza once stated, "Illegality is something that happens when immigration is left to market forces instead of regulating it through international cooperation."
We must understand that the American economy is 15 times larger than the Mexican economy. Each year, the American economy requires around 500,000 low-skilled workers, and the government only offers around 5,000 visas. How can this be? There must be a balance between the realities of the market and the security needs of the United States.
America has created a double standard with illegal immigration. On one hand, migration is encouraged by the labor markets; on the other, there is no legal way to meet the market demands, and the states are passing laws punishing the workers. Who are we kidding? We know that our businesses rely on migrant labor, including hotels, restaurants, resorts, offices, construction, transportation, service, farming, manufacturing and housing.
What American politicians have failed to recognize is that immigration is a shared responsibility, and that international cooperation is essential, especially between countries that are neighbors, friends and partners. Why does it have to be so complicated? Congress could give the market and the industries the capacity to manage their labor demands directly with the source of labor supply through the authorized federal channels.
There is no question that our economies have done well in large part because of the North American Free Trade Agreement. However, politicians from both sides forgot to include in NAFTA the human element of trade, which is the movement of labor that corresponds to market forces. Now, we are dealing with a huge problem that our inept Congress does not want to fix, leaving it to the states to find home "remedies."
Immigration issues have a lot to do with the laws of supply and demand of labor. Market forces do not recognize borders. The "invisible hand" does what it must to keep America's economic engine working. If the economy needs workers, it will find workers somewhere, whether they come from Mexico, China, or the Middle East.
Utah is a magnet for workers because of our strong economy. In our state, more than 50 percent of the estimated 60,000 undocumented workers (families) own their own home. If a mere 10,000 of these families own their home at an average of $180,000 price per home, their real estate market value contributes $1.8 billion to our economy, at a minimum. These payrolls translate into hundreds of millions of dollars in property, sales, local and state income taxes.
The Hispanic purchasing power in Utah is over $7 billion. Thousands of Utah businesses depend on Hispanic labor. If they suddenly lose their jobs, or are deported, the negative impact on the state's economy would be in the billions of dollars.
In 2005, for example, undocumented migrant workers contributed more than $7 billion to Social Security that went unclaimed. These contributions would have been useful for the welfare system. I often wonder why we worry about Social Security going bankrupt when we can rely on immigrant workers to help fund the retirement of the baby boomers.
If the United States is serious about facing the competition from Asian economies, we need to increase our ability to compete in the globalized market by strengthening our relationship with Mexico and Latin America. Instead of fences, let there be more bridges. Fences will not deter illegal immigration. Enforcement-only legislation will not solve the dilemma.
We cannot deny this fact: They will keep coming as long as there is a demand for foreign workers.
--- * JOE REYNA, a Utah banker and businessman, is the former chairman of the Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
The life of Estevanico is one of the most fascinating stories of American history. Estevanico was the first non-native person to visit the areas of Arizona and New Mexico. Known as Estevanico the Black or Estevanico the Moor, he was a slave who didn't fit the stereotype of a slave. He was friends with his owner, and he was at times given an great deal of responsibility and independence.
Estevanico was born in Azamor, Morocco. When he was a teenager, during the drought of 1520-21, the Portuguese sold many Moroccans into slavery. Estevanico was sold to Andres de Dorantes, and the two joined an expedition to the lands of Florida. It was to be a tragic expedition: Although they reached Florida in 1528, many on the expedition died of illness, injuries and attacks. Many fled by boat, reaching the Texas coast, where they were enslaved.
By 1534, only four were alive: Estevanico, Dorantes, Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca and Alonso del Castillo Maldonado. (The most famous of those is Cabeza de Vaca, whose writings are an important source of information on the Americans of the 16th century.)
The four fled. They lived with another tribe of natives who encouraged them to become medicine men. Apparently, they were quite successful. They were guided throughout much of Texas and northern Mexico. Estevanico was gifted in languages, and he became the explorers' scout and interpreter. He carried an owl-feathered gourd as a medicine rattle that became his trademark.
The four arrived at Mexico City in July 1536. The Mexican viceroy asked them to lead an expedition into Arizona and New Mexico; only Estevanico complied.
The party was under the command of Fray Marcos de Niza, a Franciscan friar. Estevanico went ahead of Marcos, and he had agreed to send back a runner with a small cross if he found a great discovery. When he saw the Zunis (a people of New Mexico), he sent back a cross the size of a man.
Unfortunately, Estevanico met his fate in New Mexico. His owl feathers were a Zuni symbol of death, and the frightened Zunis killed Estevanico. Marcos returned to Mexico City.
Estevanico is not well-known today. But there is one organization, The Estevanico Society, that is researching his life and travels.
FENCES (BIG ONES) MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS. Mexico's cartels now targeting judges
Cox News Service Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.02.2008
MEXICO CITY "” Judges have become the latest target of Mexico's drug violence, a sign that warring drug cartels are escalating their attacks on the Mexican government, analysts warn.
The northern Mexican city of Monterrey is reeling from last week's execution of a state judge who had handled cases against several dangerous drug traffickers, and death threats against at least three fellow judges. Three days earlier, a municipal judge in the state of Sinaloa was found tortured and executed.
The violence has sparked worry that Mexico's already weak judicial system could be coming under a Colombia-like onslaught. "Narco-traffickers are working to destroy the rule of law and it's obvious that judges, like police before them, are targets," said Michael Nunez Torres, a legal expert at the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon.
In response, Mexican lawmakers have proposed hiding the identity of judges, similar to what Colombia did during the height of that country's drug violence in the 1980s and '90s, when scores of judges were assassinated.
Jurists under-protected Many experts say that before Mexico takes that drastic step, which has been criticized by the United Nations and human rights organizations, Mexico needs to beef up security for its woefully under-protected jurists. Some analysts have proposed including protection of judges in wide-ranging judicial reform legislation expected to be debated by Congress this spring. "The protection for (judges) is very haphazard instead of being systematic," said Mexico City security analyst Ana Maria Salazar. "They all need bulletproof cars, work places that are safe from bombs and other attacks ... and ways to get out of the country quickly and easily if they do come under threats."
In the aftermath of the execution and threats, judges in the state of Nuevo Leon, home to the country's third-largest city, Monterrey, have been granted 24-hour protection. Officials would not say what the protection consists of or which judges would receive it.
Judges in Mexico have been relatively immune from violence, especially compared to their Colombian counterparts, which some attribute to the cartels' traditional preference to bribe rather than assassinate magistrates.
The attacks against Mexican judges follow a steady progression of violence against government officials that began with the executions of police, prosecutors and politicians.
Scores have been killed in recent years and hit men have begun targeting specific officers and agents involved in large drug busts or arrests.
The government of President Felipe Calderón has embarked on an unprecedented offensive against the dueling Gulf and Sinaloa cartels, sending tens of thousands of soldiers and federal agents to challenge traffickers, mostly along the U.S. border.
Play hangman and discover new words. Learning this way is much more effective than simply looking up words in a dictionary or filling in the gaps of boring exercises.
Hangman - El Ahorcado:
Topics - Temas: Birds - Aves The Weather - Clima The Car - Coche Colours - Colores The Body - Cuerpo Sports - Deportes The Family - Familia Flowers - Flores Furniture - Muebles Nationalities - Nacionalidades Countries - Paises
Chose a language: English Spanish French German Italian
El ahorcado Hangman for Spanish Students
Are you looking for a fun way to learn new words in Spanish? If so, try playing hangman games, known in Spanish as el ahorcado. (Incidentally, the name of the game in Spanish refers to the person hanged rather to the executioner.)
Dallas lawyer addresses the Catholic position on immigration
Dallas, Feb 2, 2008 / 01:22 pm (CNA).
With an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the United States, immigration is an unavoidable issue in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. Paul Hunker, a Dallas immigration lawyer with 15 years of experience in the area has written a summary of the Catholic Church's teachings on immigration policy.
In his synopsis, Hunker examines papal documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also Catholic social doctrine to support his findings on the dignity of human persons and the importance of welcoming the foreigner; balanced with the common good of society in regards to immigration.
Columns: Political Punch
First Principles of Immigration By Paul B Hunker III *
"Romney Targets Rudy on Immigration," "Edwards' Immigration Stance Muddled," Hillary Uses Flak Over Immigrant Issue as Rallying Cry" – these recent headlines show that immigration is a hot issue in the United States 2008 Presidential election. The estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and the hundreds of thousands illegally entering each year have made the issue acute.
Initiatives aimed at reforming our immigration law, including legalizing millions of illegal aliens and expanding the availability of temporary work visas, have been zealously promoted by the White House but zealously rejected in Congress. Passions runs deep on both sides of the issue.
Where do you begin in considering this complex issue? What are the first principles of immigration law and policy? One source of such principles is the social teaching of the Catholic Church. The social teaching provides principles derived from a considered reflection on the Gospel applied to immigration. But the relevant principles of such teachings also make moral and common sense.
Perhaps the broadest first principles of immigration are the following: Nations are "obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin."[1] Nations, "for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions."[2]
A nation has a duty to welcome the foreigner in search of security and livelihood. Why is that? One must consider it from the perspective of the immigrant. A person has a right to emigrate from his own country when conditions in such country do not provide what is necessary for basic human dignity.[3] The "right" to immigrate can be considered a specification of the "universal destination of human goods," a principle of social justice. "God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity."[4] Specifically, a person without the necessities of life for himself and his family in his own country has the right to seek those goods elsewhere.
Well, does this mean the borders are open? Does policing the border and removing aliens who jump the border violate social justice? Happily (in particular for those tasked with protecting the border), they do not. Immigration can and should be regulated according to the common good of each nation. The common good indicates "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."[5] Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."[6]
From this it is evident that the United States (and any country) can regulate immigration and protect its borders. This makes common sense. The United States has a particular obligation to care for its own citizens, now near 303 million persons.[7] Professor Mary Ann Glendon, recently nominated by President Bush to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, stated that "the nation-state, for all of its weaknesses, allows great numbers of peoples to live together in peace and freedom, with space allowed for the exercise of virtues which promote the common good." [8] An unrestricted influx of immigrants into the United States would greatly impede civil peace and well-being. Immigration should be restricted keeping the common good of the United States in mind.
One element of the common good of the United States is the "rule of law." The common good of our society thrives in part since people know that the laws are respected and enforced. Does it not hurt rule of law when aliens who illegally enter and reside in the U.S. are rewarded with amnesty and granted legal residence? This is relevant question to ask. But to the extent one concludes that the immigration laws of the U.S. should be reformed to more adequately promote a just immigration policy, such reform could include respect for the rule of law. For example, the failed immigration reform bill proposed by President Bush included provisions whereby illegal aliens would have to pay fines due to their illegal presence in the U.S, and/or return to their native country and then immigrate to the U.S. legally.
Nevertheless, the obligation of the United States is not limited simply to its own particular common good. "Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good."[9] For that reason, the United States immigration policy must also be concerned with what promotes the social conditions of all persons, even if they are not U.S citizens. Moreover, there is greater interdependence between the United States and certain countries, such as Mexico, given that we share a common border which brings with it greater social and economic ties.
Certainly, the United States' facilitating the admission of hard-working law-abiding immigrants, whose life in their own countries has little human dignity, promotes their social condition. When I drive through the security gates to fly out of Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport, it is often a person of Somali or Ethiopian descent who cheerfully hands me my parking receipt. Their cheerfulness strikes me. I wonder if their joy comes in part from appreciating their life in the U.S, compared to the horrors from which they fled.
However, concern for the dignity of non-United States citizen is not simply a matter between the United States and the immigrant. "Migration today is practically an expression of the violation of the primary human right to live in one's own country."[10] The point here is that people have the right to live in their own culture without having to flee because of persecution or poverty. (One need only watch a film such as El Norte to appreciate the truth of this statement.[11]) Foreign policy and immigration policy must keep in mind what promotes the economic and social development of foreign nations and the rights of persons to reside in their own nation and culture with human dignity.
A closely related principle to the principle of the universal common good is that of solidarity. This is a broad term; among other things, the principle recognizes "the bond of interdependence between individuals and peoples,"[12] and a desire for "the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all."[13] The principle is implicit in one of the more striking biblical exhortations regarding the alien – "The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt..."[14] A nation that does not seek to help people in nations less fortunate than itself does not recognize the common aspirations that all men have to further their own development and that of their families.
Finally, a key principle of immigration is family reunification. If someone can legally reside in the United States, his immediate family should be able to reside with him.[15] "The family is a divine institution that stands at the foundation of life of the human person as the prototype of every social order."[16]
The principles set forth above provide a starting point to consider just and effective immigration law and policies. It is in the nature of principles that they are fairly straightforward and abstract. Applying them is more challenging, in particular given the complexity of immigration and the variety of potential immigrants. But understanding the first principles must come first.
[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2241
[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2241
[3] See Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, paragraphs 25, 105. Under a subsection entitled "The Right to Immigrate," the Pope states that "when there are just reasons in favor of it, [a person] must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there." (paragraph 25). He does not describe what is "just reason." However, in 1969, the Holy See stated that "where a State which suffers from poverty combined with great population cannot supply such use of goods to its inhabitants, or where the State places conditions which offend human dignity, people possess a right to emigrate, to select a new home in foreign lands, and to seek conditions of life worthy of man." Instruction on the Pastoral Care of People Who Migrate, (1969), quoted in Terry Coonan, There are no Strangers Among Us: Catholic Social Teachings and U.S. Immigration Law, 40 Catholic Lawyer 105, n. 62 (2000).
[4] Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #171
[12] Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #192
[13] Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church #193
[14] Leviticus 19:33.
[15] See Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #298 ("The right of reuniting families should be respected and promoted."); Charter on the Rights of Families, art. 12. ("Emigrant workers have the right to see their family united as soon as possible."); Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for the 93rd World Day of Migrants and Refugees (2007) ("If the immigrant family is not ensured of a real possibility of inclusion and participation, it is difficult to expect its harmonious development.").
[16] Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, # 211
*
Paul Hunker practices immigration law in Dallas, Texas. He graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1992.
A grocery clerk queries a customer, "Are you legally in the country, or illegal?"
The customer is stunned by the candor, but replies cautiously, "illegal."
"OK, no taxes will be charged to you," the clerk replies. "Just pay the retail price for your groceries, nothing more."
This never happens. Everyone pays taxes on their purchases. Yet to hear some people talk, immigrants, especially the illegal ones, pay no taxes.
In reality, they do pay into the tax system in a variety of ways, at times providing the rest of us a little acknowledged cushion. Sales tax is just one way. Property tax paid through a rent fee is another.
Depending on the circumstances, illegal immigrants can both cost and contribute to the economy. Taxes are a good way to understand how this is true.
Some illegal immigrants have been busy scrambling lately like U.S.-born Americans, trying to file their taxes on time. This is a small percentage of the without-papers-crowd in the United States. But some do file in the hope of creating a paper trail to show they are willing to pay their share.
That is the immigrant hope for an amnesty. It is fruitless, as no such thing is in the works. A bigger undervalued amount they contribute is through false Social Security numbers.
People who are upset that illegal immigrants can easily buy fake Social Security numbers have a reasonable argument to fear identity theft, confusion with valid numbers. But realize this as well: The government does not care if the money is coming from a fake number or a valid Social Security number. The government gets its paycheck deduction either way.
By some recent government estimates; about $7 billion a year in Social Security taxes is gathered this way.
Illegal immigrants were responsible for 10 percent of the government's surplus in 2004. That is quite a tidy sum. And because they are not legally authorized to be a part of the workforce, the immigrants will not collect any benefits later, not that they are, or should be complaining.
The Social Security Administration tried to get a handle on the situation by alerting employers if their employees had numbers that didn't coordinate with government records. The effort caused people to switch jobs, or to be fired by understandably nervous employers.
The notices did not, however, affect the amount of money the government collected. That number keeps rising, along with the number of illegal people.
Other federal efforts to curb hiring of people not authorized to work increased the amount the immigrants paid to the government. The crackdowns encouraged employers to require Social Security cards on all workers, increasing the market for fake numbers.
Deciphering whether the people pay in enough to cover their costs is complicated. First, estimates about the numbers of illegal people are just that "” estimates. No one knows the real number. Depending on who is doing the guessing, 8 million to 12 million people is a common range.
Now factor in the economic value of their work, taxes paid on goods, in property tax as rent, emergency medical care costs, public schooling if they have children. Shake that through formulas for property values, federal funding, the economic cost or benefit locally of their workplaces.
Confused? Here is another scenario.
Picture the same clerk, same grocery, same question.
But this time, the person answers, "I'm a legal, U.S.-born citizen."
"For you, there is no tax," the clerk replies.
"Why?" the customer suspiciously asks.
Well, a group of illegal immigrants just came through here, buying several carts full of groceries. They paid a big sales tax.
But the people were only passing through, heading for jobs in another state. They won't be in the area long enough to benefit from the local tax base they just supported.
"It's OK," the clerk coaxes. "You don't have to tell anyone. But this time, you can have this tax-free, courtesy of the immigrants."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
Q. HOW DO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE U.S.? MALAYSIA AS AN EXAMPLE
A. The idea to answering that question is in Economics. Actually, the important concept is not about illegal immigrants contributing to the US, it's about how illegal immigrants from another country can contribute to any country. For example, illegal immigrants can contribute to US, and in another country like Malaysia, illegal immigrants can also contribute to that country. For this answer however, I shall refrain myself from using the word 'illegal', and just describe them as immigrants.
Since I am not very familiar with the US industry, I shall use the example of Malaysia. In Malaysia, most immigrants are working in construction industries, some of them are working as maids, and also other areas of industry in which the pay is lower. Immigrants can contribute to the economy, as it is cheaper to hire them, then to employ our own people living in Malaysia. For example, many immigrants come to Malaysia to work as a maid. It's impossible to hire another Malaysian to work as a maid. They will never work in this area, as the pay is too low.
Apart from that, Malaysians are better off doing something else, as the low pay doesn't match the skills they have. This means that if they
do take the job, there is a mismatch between skills and pay. For example, a doctor will never work as a maid, or an engineer will never work as a waiter. On the other hand, for the immigrants, they are satisfied with the low pay, and also sometimes poor working environement or poor treatment, as to compare with what they can get back in their country, the low pay or poor working environment is nothing. Hence, immigrants will normally fill in the employment positions in a country in which they have comparative advantage in. While the countries own citizen will need to move up the career ladder or industry ladder to focus on other industries.
Hence, immigrants help any country to fill in positions, which is too costly to hire the locals and also in industries where these immigrants have advantage in doing it. The economy can benefit from these immigrants a lot. In Malaysia for example, immigrants are mainly involved in constructions. Hence many building and roads are built with their involvement in it. However there can be some difficulties with immigrants in a country, in Malaysia for example, crime rates are often associated with immigrants coming in illegally. While in US, immigrants are often associated with the idea that they are robbing jobs from the locals.
The important thing to understand is that, it's not immigrants that are robbing the job, it's just cheaper to hire them. In business who wouldn't hire someone with a lower pay right ? Anyone should be aware that workers that can perform the same job, with a lower cost will definitely have more chance to be hired in these global and free market. Hope this helps. (cheong@bgymail.gd.cn)
[BOOK REVIEW] 'Paper Families' shines light on US immigration policy
Estelle Lau takes a balanced look at the US Exclusion Laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and at the lives of Chinese nationals who got around them
By BRADLEY WINTERTON CONTRIBUTING REPORTER taipeitimes.com Sunday, Feb 03, 2008, Page 18
PAPER FAMILIES By Estelle T. Lau 214 pages Duke
From 1882 to 1943 people perceived as being of Chinese origin were barred from immigration into the US under what have become known collectively as the Chinese Exclusion Laws. It remains the only exclusion based on race, rather than nationality, the US has ever enacted.
Even after 1943 it was all but impossible, at least on paper, for them to get in - a quota system established 105 as the total number of Chinese immigrants permitted, and even that minute number was not taken up, so stringent was the small print. Only in the mid-1960s, in the wake of a Civil Rights movement highlighting racially motivated discrimination generally, was the ban finally lifted.
Many continued to arrive after the ban, however, and many of them entered the country successfully. The way this was done was through a section in the laws that allowed entry to the children of US residents. Chinese who were already citizens therefore filed details with the authorities of children who had been born to them in China, but who in fact never existed, and then sold these "slots" to prospective immigrants via their agents.
The problem for the authorities was that in those pre-DNA test times there was no way of establishing for certain who these people waiting on San Francisco's wharves actually were. Were they really the children of US citizens they claimed to be? The only way to check, or attempt to check, was to question them at length on the families they said they belonged to, the villages they'd supposedly come from, and even the number of pigs the man living in the second house along in the third row of houses from the north possessed. Long accounts of these extremely detailed interviews still survive, together with "crib sheets" describing a huge range of just such information that the US residents provided along with their "slots." A study of these forms the basis of this book.
The focus of Chinese arrivals was California, where large numbers had arrived in the wake of the 1849 Gold Rush, both to pan for gold themselves and to work on the railroads. Even then state legislation was enacted against them - there was a tax specifically on Chinese gold miners, their queues were forcibly cut off, and they were denied the right to testify in court (which meant that the numerous assaults on them couldn't be prosecuted).
Yet even at its height before 1882, Chinese immigration had accounted for under 5 percent of all arrivals in the US. So what were the reasons for the discrimination? One was that the Chinese were willing to work for lower rates than their counterparts and so were seen as undermining wage structures. Another was that they appeared clannish and unwilling to assimilate - a strange view for San Francisco in the mid-19th century where polyglot adventurers from every part of the globe were congregated. On a more mythic level, their numbers were perceived as being virtually unlimited, and China was thought of as a fountain of would-be immigrants that nothing could exhaust.
But at root lay the ancient desire for a scapegoat. With so much tension in the air, and so much poverty for the majority (though riches for the lucky few), some group had to be found to blame for the many disappointments. In Europe in the 1930s this unhappy lot fell on the Jews. In California in the second half of the 19th century it was the Chinese.
You might think that deception of the authorities in order to obtain immigration rights might be viewed as a shameful history. Not by this author. Estelle Lau - an attorney whose parents came to the US in the 1950s when the exclusion laws had been relaxed, though not abolished - sees the Chinese immigrants of old as heroic individuals struggling against unjust laws put in place by a racially motivated state.
Yet she can be remarkably even-handed. Of the hard-pressed authorities she writes, "It is not surprising that the immigration regulators did not trust the Chinese - they were not paranoid, they just saw what was going on."
Today there are some 1,600,000 people of Chinese extraction living in the US, of whom nearly half were foreign-born. Asians as a whole account for less than one percent of the population but, following their economic success, are widely perceived as being "model minorities."
Would-be migrants from China are still trying to enter the US illegally, though they rank only 21st in the list according to country of origin. The wreck off New York City of the Golden Venture in 1993, with 260 migrants from China on board, many of whom drowned when trying to swim to shore, brought the problem before the public gaze once again. But with today's price for being smuggled into the country estimated at US$30,000, even those who succeed have to work for many years, usually in restaurants or the garment industry, to pay off their debt.
For their part, descendents of former Exclusion Laws-dodgers are still coming to terms with their history. Some have reverted to their original family names, but many have opted to remain with their adopted ones, even continuing to act as members of their paper families. For decades the pretense of consanguinity had to be kept up to deceive the ever-vigilant immigration authorities. "The fictions they created for immigration purposes," writes Lau, "became part of the lived reality of Chinese life in the United States."
It's the author's balance and lack of special pleading that makes Paper Families a sane and therefore agreeable book. There's even, surely, a wry joke concealed in her title. Mao Zed.ong (毛澤æ±) may have considered Western imperialists to be "paper tigers," but many American-Chinese were actually themselves members of "paper families." Perhaps Mao himself knew this. On balance it seems not unlikely.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
Civil rights group decries tenor of immigration debate
They take issue with words such as 'invaders,' 'swarms'
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY Copyright 2008 Hearst News Service Feb. 2, 2008, 11:06PM
WASHINGTON "” The nation's largest Hispanic civil rights group has launched an offensive against what its leader called "open and ugly" anti-immigrant "hate speech" by political candidates and commentators on cable news channels.
Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, said anti-immigration activists have inflamed the debate over the hot-button social issue by describing illegal immigrants as "swarms" of "invaders" who want to take over the U.S.
"Their rhetoric has been adopted by the mainstream media ... and too often welcomed by ... the presidential candidates," Murguia said Thursday. "We can't have that kind of language go unchecked and unfiltered any longer."
Wed site launched
La Raza, which boasts a network of nearly 300 community-based organizations in 41 states, launched a Web site, http:// www.wecanstopthehate.org, to document what Murguia said were the most inflammatory comments by TV commentators such as CNN's Lou Dobbs and anti-immigration advocates such as Jim Gilchrest of the Minuteman Project.
The organization also called on the heads of CNN, the Fox News Channel and MSNBC to tone down the rhetoric of its commentators and stop allowing appearances by some immigration foes.
Murguia said La Raza wanted executives at Fox, CNN and MSNBC "to take the hate and vigilante groups off the air." And, she asked for political candidates to pledge "to renounce hate speech and sever their ties with ... hate groups."
In particular, Murguia singled out:
"¢ CNN's Lou Dobbs, who she said "routinely provides a platform for vilifying immigrants on his 'Broken Borders' segment," a regular feature on Dobbs' nightly broadcast. "¢ MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan, who has written a book denouncing illegal immigration. "¢ Radio and TV personality Glenn Beck, who once described on-air a fake ad created by a listener about fuel made from the bodies of illegal Mexican immigrants.
Endorsement challenged
The National Council of La Raza also asked for Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to renounce an endorsement from Gilchrest, the Minuteman Project co-founder who proudly describes himself as a vigilante.
Calls to CNN's public relations department were not returned.
Dobbs has previously said on his show that he is trying to engage citizens in public discourse over an important topic "” border security.
Dobbs relishes pointed on-air debate with immigration advocates, lecturing them on his support for legal immigration while decrying the illegal kind as a threat to the nation's legal structure, social services and economy.
Stacy Burdett, the associate director of government and national affairs for the Anti-Defamation League, a group that works to combat anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds, said viewers are desensitized by harsh rhetoric about illegal immigration.
Burdett, who worked with the National Council of La Raza on their project, said the leaders of anti-immigration groups sometimes describe illegal immigrants as invaders, dehumanize them as "hordes," and claim they help spread disease.
For years, Congress has been deeply divided over the best way to combat illegal immigration.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have repeatedly stumbled in attempts to revamp the immigration system.
The closest they came to overhauling the nation's immigration laws was early last summer, when the Senate debated legislation backed by the Bush administration that would have strengthened security on the U.S.-Mexico border while creating a new temporary work program for foreigners with few skills.
The measure also would have allowed most of the more than 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. to remain in the country after paying fines, returning home and passing background checks.
The Senate debated the legislation for several weeks. But in a series of key procedural votes "” over whether to end debate and bring the bill to a final vote "” supporters failed to get the backing of the necessary 60 senators.
Add to del.icio.us
The National Council of La Raza has done everything possible to turn the legitimate debate of this nation's immigration laws into a one sided racial issue where they, and only those who agree with them, are allowed to speak. Silencing the voice of the opposition with entirely contrived accusations of social inequity may be standard operating procedure in third world countries where tyranny is the expected norm, but in the United States of America, all men have the right to express themselves in Democratic debate, and for the American people to allow the ignorant and the manipulative the right to censor the thoughts and opinions of those who oppose them would be a true disservice to all men and women who hold this nation's welfare dear to their hearts, and to the Democratic traditions upon which this republic is founded. 
The northern Mexican city of Monterrey is reeling from last week's execution of a state judge who had handled cases against several dangerous drug traffickers, and death threats against at least three fellow judges. Three days earlier, a municipal judge in the state of Sinaloa was found tortured and executed. 
The government does not care if the money is coming from a fake number or a valid Social Security number. 