Texas Guardsmen took van loads of immigrants for cash, officials say
11:55 PM CDT on Monday, June 11, 2007 By DEREK KRAVITZ / The Dallas Morning News dkravitz@dallasnews.com The Associated Press contributed to this report.
"u wanna do 1 2mrw? they suplyin da van," read one text message.
"tell them ill only do 1 run @ no more than 20 people @ $150 a person and i want 2 leave @ 1930 hrs and ill go 2 San Anto if they want," came the response.
Those text messages and a routine traffic stop hours later resulted in the arrest of three Texas National Guardsmen who were assigned to help secure the border but, federal authorities say, were instead smuggling illegal immigrants for cash – some of them all the way to Dallas.
Sgt. Julio Cesar Pacheco, 25, was accused Monday of smuggling illegal immigrants from his hometown of Laredo, Texas, with the help of two other guardsmen, Pfc. Jose Rodrigo Torres, 26, of Laredo, and Sgt. Clarence Hodge Jr., 36, of Fort Worth. The men were arraigned in Laredo federal court.
A man answering the phone at Sgt. Pacheco's house in Laredo on Monday said he was not available to talk to the media. Attempts to reach Sgt. Hodge and Pfc. Torres were unsuccessful.
It was unclear if any of the soldiers have lawyers.
According to a criminal complaint filed Monday, Pfc. Torres told federal authorities that he had driven seven carloads of illegal immigrants from the border town. He was supposed to leave Laredo on Thursday night and arrive at an undisclosed location early Friday.
But Border Patrol agents stopped the white Ford passenger van Pfc. Torres was driving late Thursday near Cotulla, 68 miles north of the border. Inside were 24 illegal immigrants, agents said. Pfc. Torres was still wearing his Guard uniform. The van was leased by the National Guard.
The guardsman turned over his cellphone, where authorities said they found a series of text messages documenting the soldiers' smuggling operation, from how many immigrants would be transported to how much each soldier would get paid.
The day before last Thursday's scheduled trip, Sgt. Pacheco wrote to Pfc. Torres: "okay it sounds pretty good but we need to take 24 people to make that happen and you will get 3500 does that sound good."
Pfc. Torres responded: "24 will b tuff 2 fit but ill try."
Two of the immigrants interviewed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents said they paid $1,500 and $2,000 each to be taken from Laredo to Dallas.
Officials did not answer questions beyond what was in the federal complaint, including whether they suspect the smuggling ring extended beyond the three soldiers.
The three are volunteers assigned to Operation Jump Start, President Bush's initiative to place thousands of National Guard troops at the border to augment local and federal authorities.
The operation, in its second year, has about 1,500 Texas National Guard volunteers stationed along the border. Those numbers are expected to drop significantly by the fall as the program nears its completion, said Col. Bill Meehan, a Texas National Guard spokesman.
"We've had 33,000 soldiers patrol the four border states. And, with that, some of these incidents may happen. But it's still disappointing," Col. Meehan said.
The U.S. attorney's office says this is the first case of its kind to be prosecuted.
"While this situation is disturbing, it doesn't diminish the outstanding contributions of the National Guard to protect our borders," said Nancy Herrera, executive assistant U.S. attorney in Houston.
Sgt. Pacheco, who apparently led the alleged smuggling scheme, is a noncommissioned officer in charge of troops serving at the Interstate 35 immigration inspection station. He is accused of recruiting the other soldiers.
Sgt. Hodge is accused of helping Pfc. Torres pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint undetected by acting as if the two soldiers were performing official business. Pfc. Torres then sneaked past inspectors via a service lane.
Sgt. Pacheco, in an interview last July with the American Forces Press Service, said he was proud of his work as an officer at the border inspection station, referencing a recent incident when Guard soldiers found 11 illegal immigrants hidden under pallets and boxes on a rental trailer.
"They wouldn't have made it," Sgt. Pacheco said, according to the report. "We're here to support the Border Patrol agents. We felt like we did our job because we're saving people's lives."
Pfc. Torres told immigration agents that he was paid between $1,000 and $3,500 by Sgt. Pacheco to transport vanloads of migrants into the U.S, according to the criminal complaint. One of the smuggled immigrants, Martha Nidia Carrillo-Rodriguez, identified Pfc. Torres as the driver who told passengers to "stay down, not to move and to be quiet," according to court documents.
Five of the illegal immigrants have been named material witnesses and will remain in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, Ms. Herrera said.
The three soldiers are being held by U.S. marshals on $75,000 bond each. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for June 19 in Laredo. Texas military forces will determine whether the men will be charged under military justice as well.
This is not the first time that National Guard soldiers from the Texas-Mexico border have gotten into trouble.
In September, three guardsmen were charged with firing weapons in front of a house crowded with people in a neighborhood near the border city of Eagle Pass.
U.S. Rep. John Sullivan says everyone stopped by police should verify their legal status. Tulsa OK mayor disagrees
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau 5/25/2007
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. John Sullivan and Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor disagreed Thursday whether all individuals stopped by a police officer should have to verify their legal status.
Sullivan, R-Okla., believes they should to help crack down on illegal immigrants. Taylor, a Democrat, thinks such a policy would spark fear among law-abiding Tulsans.
Taylor and members of the City Council reached an agreement this week for police to check the immigration status only of those arrested on suspicion of felonies. That issue was expected to be acted on at Thursday's council meeting.
Sullivan, in an effort to pre-empt that action, wrote a letter to Taylor expressing concern that officers were not verifying the legal status of others who might be pulled over for other offenses.
"I have been contacted by several of my constituents who are concerned about your recent proposal to change TPD's current illegal immigration policy," he wrote.
Sullivan said he shared their concerns that the new proposal would limit the criminal offenses for which Tulsa police officers can report to federal officials.
"By only requiring officers to report illegal aliens who commit felonies, your proposal would prohibit the ability of TPD officers from reporting immigration violations of individuals involved in offenses such as DUI's, hit-and-run accidents, simple assault, carrying a concealed weapon, or shoplifting, just to name a few," he wrote.
In an interview, Taylor said current policy already requires the immigrant status to be checked on everyone who is booked into jail.
"We are going to keep our citizens safe," she said.
Taylor rejected Sullivan's request and said she was concerned it would infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens and require Tulsa police officers to go beyond what those in other major cities are doing.
"Police officers have to have probable cause for an arrest," she said.
"What we don't want to do is develop a sense of fear among law-abiding citizens that they might be wrongfully detained if they can't prove their citizenship.
"Where does it stop?"
The two also differed on the significance of the arrest figures for illegal immigrants in Tulsa.
Sullivan said the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement repeatedly has told him the Tulsa area has low numbers of such apprehensions because proof of citizenship often is not asked for and not reported to ICE.
"By allowing TPD to report all immigration violations to ICE during every incident with illegal aliens, this will bolster our case for a permanent ICE office in Tulsa and help alleviate the strain on our communities, and local law enforcement budgets," he wrote.
Taylor questioned Sullivan's claims.
"I don't know where that came from," she said. "The fact is, we are doing more than most cities are doing."
Taylor said ICE has never indicated to her that Tulsa figures on apprehensions of illegal immigrants were low.
It is unusual for a member of Congress to jump into local issues in such a public way.
Sullivan has made immigration a priority since entering Congress, and at times he has been very critical of federal officials. He also has pushed for an ICE office in Tulsa.
In his letter to Taylor, he reminded her of his efforts and then informed her that members of her party rejected consideration of an amendment that would have allowed state and local governments to be eligible for reimbursement of expenses associated with training on immigrant issues.
Taylor had raised the issue of funding in a May 24 letter to Sullivan.
She also used that letter to remind Sullivan that the authority of the security of the country's borders and the revision of effective immigration laws lies with Congress and the president.
"Congressman," Taylor wrote, "the continued lack of comprehensive and consistent federal policies related to this issue has resulted in local governments being forced to deal with this issue to the best of their ability."
Jim Myers (202) 484-1424 jim.myers@tulsaworld.com
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS Associated Press 6/12/2007
He'll push Senate Republicans to revive the measure, which faces wide opposition in the party.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is putting his influence within his own party to the test Tuesday as he pleads personally with skeptical Senate Republicans to resurrect his immigration bill.
Despite his confident tone Monday about the measure's fate, Bush is facing a hostile audience that has shown little appetite for following his lead on the contentious issue.
Bush left no room for the possibility that his bid to legalize up to 12 million unlawful immigrants while tightening border security -- among his domestic priorities -- might die. "I'll see you at the bill signing," he said while traveling in Bulgaria.
Still, weakened by his sagging poll numbers and a sense within GOP ranks that he has lost touch with his core supporters on immigration, Bush may well lack the clout he would need to persuade Republicans to back the measure, say lawmakers and strategists.
Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster, said Republicans overwhelmingly favor enforcing current laws over giving unlawful immigrants a path to citizenship, putting Bush on the wrong side of an issue that unites the party.
Bush's campaign for the broad immigration measure "is certainly not helpful, particularly with the base," Fabrizio said. "This issue right now is the most glaring one where there is almost unanimity on the other side of (Bush's) position."
Bush, who helped shape the bipartisan immigration compromise that collapsed last week in the Senate, returned to Washington on Monday evening. He will huddle with Republicans over lunch Tuesday, aiming to persuade them to give the measure another chance.
The bill exposes deep divisions among both parties, but it was solid GOP opposition that stalled it when all but seven Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to put it on a fast track to passage.
Senate Democratic leaders wrote Bush on Monday saying that it was up to him to lean on Republicans to back the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would be willing to bring the bill back to the Senate floor in coming weeks if he could be assured that enough Republicans would support it.
Proponents gathered Monday evening to plot strategy. They are working to agree to a limited list of Republican-sought changes that could be considered before moving ahead with the bill.
"Things have changed," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., an architect of the bill. "We're going to put Humpty Dumpty back together."
So far, however, Bush's efforts to give the bill a personal boost -- most visibly in his harsh criticism of its opponents in speeches during Congress' Memorial Day break -- appear to have had the opposite effect.
Some Republican supporters of the bill said those remarks -- when Bush accused those who dismiss the measure as amnesty of trying to frighten the public -- cost him sway among Republicans.
When the measure faced a critical test last week, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Bush should stay out of the debate.
On the other side of the Capitol, some Republicans say that on immigration, Bush lacks the strong influence that helped him muscle through other signature initiatives that divided the GOP.
Oregon plant raided after probe into illegal hiring
Ore. plant raided after probe into illegal hiring
Associated Press - June 12, 2007 4:23 PM ET
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Federal agents have raided the offices of a food processing plant in Oregon that's suspected of employing hundreds of illegal workers.
According to an affidavit filed by a special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, only 48 of nearly 600 employees at the Fresh Del Monte Produce fruit and vegetable processing plant have valid Social Security numbers.
Authorities say workers used Social Security numbers that belonged to other people or were made up.
An official with the Department of Homeland Security says about 100 workers have been placed under administrative arrest to be processed for possible deportation.
Prosecutors say a federal grand jury has indicted three people on criminal charges, but the indictment remains under seal.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN The Associated Press Tuesday, June 12, 2007; 4:13 AM
NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- City officials urged federal authorities to halt additional raids targeting illegal immigrants, saying an operation last week violated the law.
New Haven Mayor John DeStefano said Monday he is filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and seeking an investigation into a raid Wednesday that led to about 30 arrests, including many in immigrants' homes.
DeStefano said Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents failed to notify local authorities about the operation and lacked search warrants.
"They pushed into homes without warrants," he said. "This was just very aggressive intervention."
The city plans to forward witness statements to federal officials describing how parents were arrested in front of their children, DeStefano said. Agents refused to identify themselves and told people in the houses to shut up, according to the statements.
Authorities took those arrested to facilities around New England, officials said. Bond hearings are planned later this week in Hartford.
DeStefano said the operation raised concerns about racial profiling because most of those arrested were Hispanic.
Bruce Chadbourne, field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said officers had permission to enter the homes and acted professionally. He said the agency notified New Haven police weeks before the operation about executing warrants and denied engaging in racial profiling.
However, Chadbourne said he would temporarily suspend the specific operation the city complained about because of the publicity.
Connecticut Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman and Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro also asked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for clarification about the way in which the raid was conducted and its timing.
"Several aspects of the enforcement operation have raised concerns for us, the mayor of New Haven, and many residents in Connecticut," the lawmakers wrote in a letter.
The operation came two days after the city approved a program to make municipal identification cards available to immigrants. City officials said the raid appeared to be retaliatory, but ICE officials have said the raids had nothing to do with the city's approval of the ID program.
Michael Wishnie, a Yale law professor who is representing most of those arrested, said there were deportation orders for four of 32 people arrested.
What America Owes It's 'Illegals' Barbara Ehrenreich
Rush Limbaugh has been expecting liberals to start "whining" about the $5000 fine undocumented immigrants will have to pay to gain citizenship under the new immigration bill, but most liberals have been too busy chortling about the immigration-induced split in the GOP to make their own case against the bill. So let a mighty whine rise over the land: Undocumented workers shouldn't be fined; they should get a hefty bonus!
All right, they committed a "crime"--the international equivalent of breaking and entry. But breaking and entry is usually a prelude to a much worse crime, like robbery or rape. What have the immigrants been doing once they get into the US? Taking up time on the elliptical trainers in our health clubs? Getting ahead of us on the wait-lists for elite private nursery schools?
In case you don't know what immigrants do in this country, the Latinos have a word for it--trabajo. They've been mowing the lawns, cleaning the offices, hammering the nails and picking the tomatoes, not to mention all that dish-washing, diaper-changing, meat-packing and poultry-plucking.
The punitive rage directed at illegal immigrants grows out of a larger blindness to the manual labor that makes our lives possible: The touching belief, in the class occupied by Rush Limbaugh among many others, that offices clean themselves at night and salad greens spring straight from the soil onto one's plate.
Hence no doubt the ease with which some prominent immigrant-bashers forget their own personal reliance on immigrant labor, like Nevada's Governor Jim Gibbons, who, it turns out, once employed an undocumented nanny. And as the Boston Globe revealed late last year, Mitt Romney's lawn in suburban Boston was maintained by illegal immigrants from Guatemala.
The only question is how much we owe our undocumented immigrant workers. First, those who do not remain to enjoy the benefits of old age in America will have to be reimbursed for their contributions to Medicare and Social Security, and here I quote the website of the San Diego ACLU:
Undocumented immigrants annually pay an estimated $7 billion more than they take out into Social Security, and $1.5 billion more into Medicare.... A study by the National Academy of Sciences also found that tax payments generated by immigrants outweighed any costs associated with services used by immigrants.
Second, someone is going to have to calculate what is owed to "illegals" for wages withheld by unscrupulous employers: The homeowner who tells his or her domestic worker that the wage is actually several hundred dollars a month less than she had been promised, and that the homeowner will be "holding" it for her. Or the landscaping service that stiffs its undocumented workers for their labor. Who's the "illegal" here?
Third, there's the massive compensation owed to undocumented immigrants for preventable injuries on the job. In her book Suburban Sweatshops: The Fight for Immigrant Rights, Jennifer Gordon reports such gruesome cases as a Honduran who died from inhaling paint while sanding yachts in Long Island and a Guatemalan worker whose boss intentionally burned him with hot pans of oil for not washing dishes fast enough. "Death rates for Latino workers," Gordon reports, "have risen over the past decade even as workplace fatality rates for non-Latinos have fallen."
When our debt to America's undocumented workers is eventually tallied, I'm confident that it will be well in excess of the $5000 fine the immigration bill proposes. There is still the issue of the original "crime." If someone breaks into my property for the purpose of trashing and looting, I would be hell-bent on restitution. But if they break in for the purpose of cleaning it--scrubbing the bathroom, mowing the lawn--then, in my way of thinking anyway, the debt goes in the other direction.
New Haven has become an epicenter of the nation's immigration debate in the past week, beginning with the approval of a first-in-the-nation municipal ID program and then, several days later, the arrests of dozens of city residents in federal immigration raids.
On Monday, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. released a six-page document arguing that the June 5 raids "” in which about 30 undocumented immigrants were arrested in the city's Fair Haven neighborhood "” were retaliation by the Department of Homeland Security for the city's planned municipal ID program. But a Department of Homeland Security spokesman denied the charge Tuesday, calling the mayor's allegations "attempts at making political hay."
DeStefano said the early-morning arrests were marred by constitutional violations, a "traumatic impact" on young children, racial profiling and a failure to "follow protocol." The mayor called on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to suspend any future raids planned for the city.
As of Tuesday afternoon, DeStefano appeared to be making progress in his fight against the federal government: An U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field director told the Associated Press that field operations would be temporarily halted so as to not put officers in harm's way during a period of anti-ICE sentiment in the city.
But Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Kanocke said ICE was not giving up its efforts in response to DeStefano's criticisms.
"Secretary Chertoff strongly supports the men and women of ICE and the work that they're doing in enforcing our nation's immigration laws, and I can tell you that under no circumstance will this department ... back down from enforcing the rule of law "” period," he said Tuesday night. "When you have a local official that makes the suggestion that an enforcement action is somehow correlated to the political views or policies of a community, it's just bogus. That's not at all how it works, and it's not even close to grasping the sophistication and the planning that goes into an ICE enforcement action."
Kanocke, speaking generally, said IC E consults the "relevant" officials in a city before conducting a raid. DeStefano says neither he nor any police officers were contacted before last week's raid in New Haven.
The raids last Tuesday came less than 36 hours after the Board of Aldermen approved a municipal ID program in a nearly unanimous vote. The prevalent mood among immigrant rights advocates went from ecstatic to somber after the raids, and three rallies have been organized to protest the arrests.
DeStefano, for his part, said the city will continue to focus on the public safety of immigrants in the absence of national immigration reform, which stalled in Congress this week. Supporters of the munical ID program said it will protect immigrants by giving them a way to save money without having to keep cash on their persons or in their homes.
"New Haven's been built by immigrant's vision and work," DeStefano said. "When you talk to these folks, you just get a strong sense of how hard they work and the values that they share about seeing their families do well."
Local fears
Two days after the raid last week, more than 1,000 supporters and residents crowded into the St. Rose of Lima Church, children clamoring onto laps in order to make room for more people. The mass, conducted almost entirely in Spanish, was followed by a rally "” and the influx of another 200 residents "” on the steps of the church.
Holding signs reading, "Para dios no hay extranjeros" "” "For God There Are No Strangers" "” residents were joined by city officials to protest the ICE raids. Rally-goers were asked to sign up for municipal ID cards as an act of defiance, and by the end of the night, many applications had been filled out, some with more than one name crammed into a space because so many people sought to sign up.
In an interview the day after the raids, "Las Americas" convenience store owner Oscar Muralles said that it had been a "dead day," as many immigrants stayed indoors because they feared they would be detained by immigration officials.
"It reminded me when I was standing outside 16 years ago," he said. "I had just arrived and there were only black people and Puerto Ricans on the street. In the past five years many Central Americans and Mexicans came, but today no one's walking on Grand Avenue except for black-Americans and Puerto Ricans. We're waiting to serve people and they're not coming. I don't blame them."
Alberto, a city resident hailing from Mexico who declined to reveal his last name, said through a translator that he left for work in the morning and returned to find his five housemates on Warren Place gone.
"He's scared," said the translator, Eduardo Solis. "He's going to lose where he lives."
A team from Yale Law School has been assembled to defend the immigrants detained in the raids, with help from other local pro bono organizations such as the ACLU.
But Lydia Rivera, who is Puerto Rican and lives in Fair Haven, said she did not have a fundamental problem with the arrests because the immigrants were allegedly here in the country illegally..
"I feel sorry for these people because they come out here to look for a better life, but instead of doing it the right way, they do it the wrong way," Rivera said.
The scene that would later transpire at the church was reminiscent of the immigrant rights rally and march that took started on the New Haven Green on May Day when ralliers shouted "Si se puede" and held up signs calling for universal human rights. But this time, the crowd was more somber. Rather than cheer, the audience applauded; rather than smile, faces remained stone-faced.
National reactions
The raids in the city have also garnered national attention, prompting responses from politicians "” including 2008 presidential candidates "” and Americans from around the country.
"The people targeted in [the] raid are hard working and productive," former New Mexico Governor and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson, who is half-Mexican, said in a statement last week. "They have families and they don't have criminal record. The tactics reportedly used by agents "” taking suspects away in front of family members, including young children "” are extreme and uncalled for. This is another clear example of why Congress must pass comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible."
Connecticut Senators Joe Lieberman '64 LAW '67 and Chris Dodd, a Democratic candidate for president, and U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro, whose district includes New Haven, sent a letter to Chertoff calling for answers to questions over the nature of the raids.
But in e-mails to lawmakers, some Connecticut "” and non-Connecticut "” residents are questioning the mayor's stance.
"For shame!" Wethersfield, Conn., resident Leigh Standish wrote in an e-mail to Ward 1 Alderman Nick Shalek. "You have performed a grave disservice to the residents and taxpayers of New Haven, as well as to the rest of the State and Nation. You "¨have lowered the bar on criminal activity and legitimized illegal behavior. Your statement is that it's okay to break the law."
In another e-mail to Shalek, Betty Dobson asked, "What's wrong with you people? ... Have you forgotten about the three illegals who wanted to kill our military at Fort Dix?"
"It is people like you who are responsible for home-grown terrorists because you allow them to fester like a cancer in your city," she said.
Shalek said he has also received a number of e-mails from residents, including Yale students, who are supportive of the ID cards and outraged over the raids. He said it is now time for Yalies, if they are bothered by the events, to assist. Students have at least three options, he said: Contacting DeLauro, Lieberman or Dodd; making donations for the bond that will be required to release the immigrants who have been detained; and attending a "Stop the Raids" march planned for Saturday, June 16.
Yet however much DeStefano and city officials attempt to appeal for compassion in the coming days "” his spokeswoman's initial reaction after the raids was to call for help for the children who would return to parentless homes "” the Department of Homeland Security is unlikely to bend in its conviction that arresting undocumented workers comes down to what it views as a basic responsibility: enforcing federal law.
For Immediate Release: 06/06/2007 Contact: Pahl Shipley 505.982.2291 | pshipley@richardsonforpresident.com
Governor Bill Richardson Calls Connecticut Immigration Raids "Extreme and Uncalled For"
SANTA FE, NM -- New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson criticized today's federal roundup of illegal immigrants in Connecticut and renewed his call for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
"The people targeted in today's raid are hard working and productive. They have families and they don't have criminal records," said Governor Richardson. "The tactics reportedly used by agents -- taking suspects away in front of family members, including young children -- are extreme and uncalled for. This is another clear example of why Congress must pass comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible."
Governor Richardson urged Congress to continue working to fix the immigration bill currently being debated in the US Senate.
"This legislation makes a good start toward re-securing our southern border, including 18,000 new Border Patrol agents -- new technology to aid interdiction, a system for employers to verify job applicants are here legally, and penalties for those employers who don't. It also begins to address the application backlog that hurts those immigrants who have followed the rules and waited in line.
The 12 million illegal immigrants already here should meet tough requirements -- keeping a clean record, maintaining good employment histories, and waiting eight years before applying for permanent resident status," stated Governor Richardson. "But there needs to be a reasonable, humane path to earned legalization and ultimately citizenship.
While our country should always look to make our workforce globally competitive, we should be careful not to tear apart America's families. The stability that a family provides to a new citizen is a strong guarantor of long-term success -- success that often comes in the form of the next generation. The new bill diminishes the role of family in the immigration process, and that is something I cannot accept.
I also cannot support the proposed guest worker program as it stands now, which cannot be designed to only meet the needs of employers, and forget to protect the basic dignity and rights of these low-skilled workers. But I remain optimistic that these concerns can and will be addressed through vigorous debate and serious legislative deliberation."
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary June 8, 2007
Best of the Immigration Fact Check: Top 10 Common Myths
White House News In Focus: Immigration
1. MYTH: This is amnesty.
FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status.
FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.
FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants.
2. MYTH: This proposal repeats the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.
FACT: The 1986 Act failed because it provided amnesty for 3 million immigrants, did not adequately secure borders, did not include a workable employer verification system, and created no legal avenue to meet the labor needs of the American economy.
FACT: This proposal addresses every one of the shortcomings from 1986:
No Amnesty: Illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law and pay a fine to be eligible for a Z visa.
Border Security: Border security benchmarks must be met before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect. These triggers include miles of fencing and vehicle barriers at the border and increasing the size of the Border Patrol.
Employer Verification System: An Employment Eligibility Verification System must be established and in use before any temporary worker or Z visas are issued.
Temporary Worker Program: A temporary worker program will relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy.
FACT: The 1986 Act offered green cards after just 18 months, but under this proposal, green card applicants must meet a number of responsibilities – something which will take most candidates more than a decade.
3. MYTH: DHS has only one day to complete background checks for illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
FACT: To obtain probationary status, illegal immigrants must come out of the shadows to acknowledge they have broken the law and pass a preliminary background check. There is a provision in the bill that says DHS has one day to find a "disqualifying factor," but that is not the end of the process. That is a very short term way of ensuring that if someone comes out of the shadows and admits their illegality, they will not be deported while the process is ongoing and can continue working while the full background check is completed.
FACT: Illegal immigrants may not obtain probationary status without applying for the Z visa. Probationary status may be revoked at any time if a worker is found ineligible for the Z visa, fails to maintain a clean record, or fails the background check required for obtaining a Z visa.
FACT: To remain in the United States, Z visa holders are subject to updated background checks on criminal and security history and must maintain a clean record.
4. MYTH: The temporary worker program is bad for American workers.
FACT: The temporary worker program relieves pressure on the border and meets our economic needs by allowing workers to enter the country to fill jobs that Americans are not doing.
FACT: The program protects American workers by requiring U.S. employers to advertise the job in the United States at a competitive wage before hiring a temporary worker.
FACT: To ensure "temporary" means "temporary," workers are limited to three two-year terms, with at least a year spent outside the United States between each term.
FACT: A cap of 200,000 is set on the program.
5. MYTH: The government will not and cannot meet its promise to crack down on the hiring of illegal workers.
FACT: Before any temporary worker or Z visas are issued, an Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) must be established and in use to prevent unauthorized workers from obtaining jobs in the United States.
FACT: Employers will be required to verify the work eligibility of all employees using the EEVS, and all workers will be required to present stronger and more readily verifiable identification documents. Tough new anti-fraud measures will be implemented to restrict fraud and identity theft.
FACT: Employers who hire illegal workers will face stiff new criminal and civil penalties. For example, the maximum criminal penalty for a pattern or practice of hiring illegals will increase 25-fold, from $3,000 per alien to $75,000 per alien.
6. MYTH: Illegal immigrants will come out of the shadows and on to the welfare rolls.
FACT: Z visa workers are not entitled to welfare, Food Stamps, SSI, non-emergency Medicaid, or other programs and privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens and some Legal Permanent Residents.
FACT: In order to apply for Z visa status, workers must be employed; in order to maintain Z visa status, they must remain employed
FACT: CBO estimates increased revenue from taxes, penalties, and fines under the bill will offset any estimated increases in mandatory spending, such as emergency Medicaid, and produce a net fiscal surplus of $25.6 billion over 10 years. This surplus will be used to cover costs of implementing the bill, including a significant portion of the costs of better securing our borders and improving interior enforcement through additional Border Patrol and ICE agents.
7. MYTH: Illegal immigrants may stay in probationary status for years without having to apply or meet requirements for a Z visa.
FACT: Illegal immigrants may not obtain probationary status without applying for the Z visa, which requires coming out of the shadows and passing a background check.
FACT: Probationary status is valid only while a Z visa application is pending – it may be revoked at any time if the applicant is found ineligible for the Z visa, fails to maintain a clean record, or fails the background check required for obtaining a Z visa.
FACT: If a worker is deemed eligible for a Z visa, probationary status terminates, and the worker must transition to a Z visa or leave the country. Transitioning to Z status will require the worker to pay a $1,000 fine for head of household and $500 per dependent; up to $1,500 in processing fees per applicant, including heads of household and dependents; and a $500 state impact assistance fee.
FACT: To remain in the United States, the worker is subject to updated background checks on criminal and security history and must stay employed, maintain a clean record, and meet accelerated English and civics requirements by set deadlines. In addition, Z visa holders must pay processing fees of up to $1,500 every four years in order to renew the visa. Z visa holders are not entitled to welfare, Food Stamps, SSI, or non-emergency Medicaid. 8. MYTH: Illegal workers who remained in the country after they were ordered deported by an immigration judge are eligible for Z visas.
FACT: Illegal workers who ignored deportation orders are not eligible for the Z visa program, except in exceedingly rare cases in which they can demonstrate their departure would "result in extreme hardship."
FACT: The determination of what constitutes "extreme hardship" lies entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, who has no interest in allowing this exception to be abused.
9. MYTH: The bill allows dangerous gang members access to the Z visa program if they renounce their gang affiliation.
FACT: Any gang member convicted of any of a wide range of criminal conduct is not permitted in the Z visa program, whether he or she has renounced his gang affiliation or not. The list of crimes that disqualify Z visa applicants extends into the thousands and includes: Any felony. Any three misdemeanors. Any serious criminal offense. Violations of any law relating to a controlled substance.
FACT: Even if a gang member or other applicant has not been convicted of a crime, he or she is ineligible for the Z visa program if the Government concludes that he is sufficiently dangerous. This is true for all applicants, including gang members who have renounced their affiliations. For example, among those ineligible is any gang member (or other applicant): About whom there are "reasonable grounds" for regarding as a danger to the security of the United States; Who the Government knows or has reason to believe seeks to enter the U.S. "solely, principally, or incidentally" to engage in unlawful activity; or About whom there are reasonable grounds for believing has committed a serious criminal offense outside the U.S.
FACT: The bill would, for the first time, give the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) tools to keep certain aliens out of the United States solely on the basis of their participation in a gang. No conviction is required – if an individual has associated with a gang and helped "aid" or "support" its illegal activity, then he or she is not allowed to remain in the country – even if he renounces his gang affiliation. 10. MYTH: By providing an opportunity for citizenship to illegal immigrants already here, the bill will exponentially increase extended-family chain migration.
FACT: The proposal reforms our immigration system to create a new balance between family connections and our national interests and economic needs.
FACT: Green cards for parents of U.S. citizens are capped, while set-asides for the siblings of U.S. citizens and the adult children of U.S. citizens and green card holders are eliminated. FACT: To help keep our economy competitive, a new merit-based system similar to those used by other countries will give preference to attributes that further our national interest such as: job offers in high-demand fields, ability to speak English, and education.
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary June 12, 2007
President Bush Attends Senate Republican Policy Committee Meeting at U.S. Capitol United States Capitol
In Focus: Immigration
1:54 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: I just had a good exchange with my fellow Republicans. We talked about a lot of issues. I briefed them on my trip to Europe. We talked about -- they were very interested in the Ahtisaari plan for Kosovo. They were interested in my conversations with Vladimir Putin on missile defense. We talked about the energy bill. We talked about the appropriations process, and we talked about immigration.
Some members in there believe that we need to move a comprehensive bill, some don't, I understand that. This is a highly emotional issue, but those of us standing here believe now is the time to move a comprehensive bill that enforces our borders and has good workplace enforcement, that doesn't grant automatic citizenship, that addresses this problem in a comprehensive way.
I would hope that the Senate Majority Leader has that same sense of desire to move the product that I do, or the bill that I do and these senators do, because now is the time to get it done. It's going to take a lot of hard work, a lot of effort. We've got to convince the American people that this bill is the best way to enforce our border. I believe without the bill that it's going to be harder to enforce the border. The status quo was unacceptable. I want to thank those senators on both sides of the aisle who understand the time is now to move a comprehensive piece of legislation. The White House will stay engaged.
Senate Republicans Work $4.4 Billion Border Security Amendment
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
WASHINGTON "” GOP negotiators of an immigration reform bill are crafting a large border security amendment with mandatory, immediate funding that they hope will assuage concerns of both Republicans and Democrats, FOX News has learned.
The senators are looking at a way to please conservatives who are skeptical Congress will ever fund the bill's border security provisions, as well as keep Democratic negotiators on board in a last ditch effort to save the comprehensive reform bill.
It is a political tightrope fraught with peril, but the members know they need more Republican support to break through the logjam.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a principle author of the amendment with Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and Mel Martinez, says his amendment is designed to be "a confidence builder" to address members' concerns that ramped up border security provisions in the bill won't, in the end, get funded.
Graham hopes to provide $4.4 billion the day the bill is signed, through an estimate in fees and fines in the current immigration bill, to be used to beef up all the border security measures in the bill, with an additional $800 million for further measures, taking from measures put forward last year by New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg who called for more investment in capital infrastructure, like unmanned aerial vehicles and new Coast Guard boats.
"If you put the money into this bill, it goes a long way toward building confidence," Graham predicted.
Visa overstays will become a crime under the Graham-Kyl-Martinez amendment, and repeat offenders would face mandatory jail time, deportation, and a ban from ever re-entering the U.S. It is unclear what Democratic negotiators like Sen. Edward Kennedy will do. He has not supported this kind of stiff penalty in the past.
Graham would also forever bar employers from participating in the guest worker program if they have violated immigration laws repeatedly.
It is unclear if this approach can work. "They tell me it can be done," Graham said, but he added that his staff is investigating this now.
The negotiators met tonight to lay out amendments Democrats and Republicans must have. The intention is to have a list of "less than 20," according to aides, and this final list would be showed to Majority Leader Harry Reid Wednesday.
Earlier today, President Bush told Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill that failure to adopt a new bill will leave in place an "unacceptable" status quo.
Some of the lawmakers Bush met with "believe that we need to move a comprehensive bill, some don't. I understand that. This is a highly emotional issue," the president said after the meeting.
"We have got to convince the American people that this bill is the best way to enforce our borders. I believe without this bill, it's going to be harder to enforce the border. The status quo is unacceptable. And I want to thank those senators on both sides of the aisle that understand the time is now to move a comprehensive piece of legislation and the White House will stay engaged," Bush said.
Sen. Trent Lott said lawmakers offered several questions and comments to the president, who was anxious to work with the Senate to get the job done.
"The president made it clear to me and to others that he does not want just any bill, won't sign a bad bill, but he thinks this is an issue that needs to be addressed for the benefit of our country," Lott, R-Miss., said. "I hope that the majority leader will work with us in a way to get it up in a fair process to move it forward."
"We'll move on to immigration when they have their own act together," Senate Majority Leader Reid said in response.
Nonetheless, several Democrats and Republicans expressed their hope of saving the bill after the Senate voted 45-50 last Thursday to block an end to debate and prevent the Senate from moving to final arguments before a vote on passage.
Opponents said the bill still offers "amnesty" to millions of people who defied U.S. law and crossed the borders without permission. Still, most lawmakers recognize that many of those immigrants have since integrated into the workforce and many are raising their families in the U.S.
They have for the most part dropped calls for these illegals to be removed from the country, though the legislation does require heads of households seeking permanent resident worker status to "touch back" to their home countries to apply for legal work papers.
At the same time, lawmakers also recognize that the status quo cannot be sustained, with an estimated average 54,000 illegal immigrants entering the U.S. each year.
"We think that there's going to be a strong support on final passage when the bill is brought up and finally they've concluded the debate," White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the president's meeting. Snow noted that Republicans killed the bill only after Democratic leaders denied them the opportunity to amend the legislation.
Anticipating Bush's arrival, Kennedy said he was hopeful the president, who has made immigration reform his top domestic priority, would help make the difference.
"Like the president, many of us are very determined to get the job done and get it done now. The center is holding together: last night we met to discuss the options for moving it forward and today we'll continue that work. We share the sense of urgency that this important issue deserves," Kennedy said in a statement.
Kennedy's statement follows a letter to Bush penned by Senate Democratic leaders urging him to lean on Republicans to back the measure.
"It will take stronger leadership by you to ensure the opponents of the bill do not block its path forward," the letter said. "Simply put, we need many more than seven Republicans" to support the bill.
But Republican opponents sent their own letter to Bush on Tuesday, urging his administration to follow through with the provisions of last year's immigration reform bill, which called for hundreds of miles of fence to be built along the U.S.-Mexico border.
"We respectfully ask that your administration enforce the border security laws that have already been authorized by Congress regardless of whether the Senate passes the immigration reform bill," the letter from nine Senate Republicans reads.
"The bill assumes that several critical border security benchmarks can be achieved within 18 months. These security triggers are already authorized under current law and can be completed without the immigration bill," the letter continues.
According to a FOX News-Opinion Dynamics poll released last week, a majority of those surveyed "” 58 percent "” said they want the federal government to enforce existing border security laws. Thirty-four percent said the entire immigration process needs to be scrapped and reworked. But support for allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States is 67 percent when conditions of paying taxes and obeying the law are met.
By George F. Will Washington Post Wednesday, June 13, 2007; Page A21
Harry Reid, the Senate's majority leader and resident Uriah Heep, affected 'umble and syrupy sadness about the Senate's inability to pass the immigration bill that he pulled from the floor last Thursday evening for a transparently meretricious reason. Saying the Senate's time was too precious to expend on what would have been limited debate on a limited number of Republican amendments to the bill, Reid vowed: "Everyone that's been home, there are two issues that are foremost in their minds: Number one is the Iraq war and number two are gas prices. We're going to deal with that as soon as we finish with this immigration legislation."
So the Senate took Friday off, wasted Monday in the predictable futility of failing to pass a nonbinding nullity, a resolution expressing constitutionally irrelevant lack of confidence in the attorney general, then debated lowering gasoline prices -- or cooling the planet, or something -- by spending taxpayers' money to raise food prices. It took up legislation to quintuple the mandated use of mostly corn-based ethanol, which already has increased Americans' food bills $14 billion in the past 12 months. For such silliness, Reid scuttled the bipartisan attempt to improve the eminently improvable immigration status quo.
Senators from both parties who are trying to resuscitate the bill surely read last weekend's Rasmussen poll recording public approval of Reid ( 19 percent) far below the president's pathetic 36 percent. Democrats who control this floundering and roundly disapproved Congress are paying a painful price for the pleasure of defeating everything that could be construed in any way as an achievement by the president.
Granted, Reid is just one reason for the immigration legislation's parlous condition. Another reason is that lessons from 14 years ago have been forgotten.
In his new biography of Hillary Clinton, " A Woman in Charge," Carl Bernstein recalls April 23-25, 1993, the 94th, 95th and 96th days of the Clinton administration, when the president and Mrs. Clinton attended a retreat with Senate Democrats in Williamsburg. It was already clear that the Clintons were not going to fulfill their promise to present "comprehensive" health-care legislation within their first 100 days. Bernstein reports that two of the most respected and, for Mrs. Clinton's purposes, most important senators, Pat Moynihan and Bill Bradley (both were on the Finance Committee, which would handle her legislation; Moynihan was chairman), were appalled by her highhandedness.
Bradley asked her whether the tardiness in delivering her bill would complicate passage by making the bill competitive with other legislative goals, and he suggested that some substantive changes in her proposal might be necessary. Bernstein writes:
"No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would 'demonize' members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration's plan or otherwise stand in its way."
Bradley and Moynihan heard this, Bernstein says, "with disgust and distrust." Her plan never even came to a vote in a Congress controlled by her party.
Like her plan, the recent immigration legislation had three handicaps. First, it was drafted in secret -- and unlike her bill, the immigration bill was not the subject of hearings that could have clarified such fundamental matters as whether immigrants are net drains on, or contributors to, the fiscal health of federal, state and local governments. Second, like many comprehensive "solutions" to large, intricate problems that are susceptible to incremental ameliorations, the immigration bill, like the Clintons' health-care bill, was presented as a package so finely calibrated and exquisitely balanced that any significant change would, as Shakespeare said:
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark! what discord follows.
Third, people skeptical about the legislation were, if not demonized, cast as bigots or, at best, people uninterested in doing "the right thing for America" (President Bush).
Perhaps Reid, in his rush to truncate debate, was being chivalrous toward Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Suppose Senate Republicans agree to expedited handling of the legislation so the Senate can get on with whatever folly Reid next considers urgent business. And suppose 60 senators can force a final vote on a bill that retains the most important provisions -- increased border security and electronic identity verification. Many businesses, which profit from being magnets for illegal immigration, think being part of law enforcement is an intolerable nuisance, which is heartening evidence that workplace enforcement might work.
If the Senate passes a bill, immigration then becomes a hot potato for the House, where 61 of Pelosi's Democrats represent Republican-leaning districts (Bush carried them). Hark! what discord will follow. What fun.
Database Is Tool in Deporting Fugitives Police Officers Find Illegal Immigrants In Warrant Searches
By Ernesto Londoño Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 13, 2007; Page A01
Hugo Vinicio Hernandez knew that immigration agents could detain him at any time for having disregarded a deportation order in 2001. But the Guatemalan man didn't think he would wind up in the custody of immigration agents as a result of a routine traffic stop.
He was deported after being pulled over by a Takoma Park police officer in January.
It's a fate that a growing number of illegal immigrants are facing as federal officials add hundreds of thousands of names of people with outstanding deportation orders into the FBI-run National Crime Information Center database, which police officers use to search for warrants.
In Montgomery County, about 60 people have been taken into custody by police officers on immigration warrants since last year. Officers elsewhere in the region, including jurisdictions with large immigrant populations such as the District and Fairfax and Prince William counties, said that they also enforce civil immigration warrants.
Although the numbers are relatively low, they are expected to increase regionally and nationally as more records are uploaded, which concerns immigrant advocates and some local police officials.
"It's very important for the local police department to develop strong relationships with the community," said Montgomery police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who has made reaching out to recent immigrants a priority. "That trust is being jeopardized."
Supporters of the effort say that enlisting the help of police officers to identify and remove the roughly 600,000 immigrants who are thought to have outstanding deportation orders is long overdue.
But two police associations have lobbied against the inclusion, saying that by acting on the warrants, departments risk alienating recent immigrants, a segment of the community that has historically had an uneasy relationship with law enforcement agencies. That, they say, is likely to hinder cooperation from witnesses and victims of violent crimes who are in the country unlawfully.
Separately, immigrant advocacy organizations are suing the government, saying that it had no legal standing to add administrative records to what has traditionally been a database for criminal warrants. Disregarding a deportation order is a violation of administrative, not criminal, law.
Because many outstanding deportation orders date back several years and in some cases don't reflect the person's current immigration status, some law enforcement officials and immigrant advocates say they fear that people could get picked up because of sloppy record keeping. The problem is compounded because some immigrants are ordered deported in hearings that can be held in their absence. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it screens records carefully before adding them to the database.
Since the government began adding immigration warrants to the database in 2002, authorities have identified more than 25,000 fugitives, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
The database "is an effective force multiplier that leverages the resources of law enforcement officers throughout the United States who, in the course of their daily duties, encounter criminal and fugitive aliens wanted by" the agency, said Michael Keegan, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman.
Manger and other area police chiefs have concluded that they are duty-bound to enforce all National Crime Information Center warrants, even at the expense of being perceived as an extension of the immigration bureaucracy.
Despite the relatively small number of arrests in Montgomery, immigrant advocates have told Manger that the unexpected deportations have torn families apart and sown fear among immigrants.
Hernandez entered the United States illegally in September 2000 through the Mexican border. He joined relatives in Hyattsville, found work as a welder and began dating a Guatemalan woman. Their two sons, a 5-year-old and a 10-month-old, were born in Maryland.
He was driving to work about 5:30 a.m. Jan. 30 when an officer pulled him over on New Hampshire Avenue after Hernandez changed lanes abruptly. Officer Michael Collins ran his name through the FBI database -- which is routine for traffic stops -- and found the immigration warrant. Hernandez was handcuffed and taken to a police station. When Brenda Cruz, his common-law wife, arrived at the station, she wasn't allowed to see him, she said.
Fuming, she says, she told Collins: "I hope this never happens to you. Today, my kids lost their father."
As the officer drove Hernandez from the police station to the county jail in Rockville, where he was to be picked up by immigration officers, Collins told Hernandez he took no pleasure in taking him into custody, Hernandez said recently from Guatemala.
" 'If you had told me from the start about your kids, I would have let you go,' " Hernandez said the officer told him. A Takoma Park police spokesman said Collins recalls the conversation differently.
"He did indicate that he regretted this, but he had to do his job," said Takoma Park police spokesman Cpl. Andrew John.
The database, by design, is a repository of criminal records. A few noncriminal records have been introduced, including missing-persons files and protective orders for victims of domestic violence. Congress authorized the inclusion of deported felons' records in 1996 to help authorities identify those who reenter the country illegally. Lawmakers have tried unsuccessfully in recent years to authorize the inclusion of civil immigration warrants in the database.
Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Department of Justice issued an opinion concluding that local law enforcement agencies have broad authority to enforce immigration laws, a departure from Justice opinions drafted in 1996 and 1989 that laid out a narrower role for police officers in enforcing immigration laws. The new opinion coincided with the inclusion of absconders' files in the database.
A U.S. District Court judge in New York ordered the government to remove civil immigration records from the database in June 2004 after ruling in favor of a man who sued the government after the D.C. police department withdrew a job offer when it found an immigration record through the database.
After the government agreed to expunge the man's record, the judge backed down from ordering it to purge all other immigration records from the database.
A federal judge has dismissed another suit filed by the National Council of La Raza and other civil rights and immigrant rights organizations seeking to have the civil files purged, but that case is under appeal.
The database contains about 247,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement warrants, according to the agency. More than half are administrative warrants for people who have old deportation orders, and the rest are records of deported felons.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association have opposed the inclusion of noncriminal immigration warrants in the database. A handful of jurisdictions have devised policies regarding the immigration warrants.
In Houston, for example, officials reached an arrangement with the local U.S. attorney and immigration offices in which the police department agrees to arrest people on administrative immigration warrants only if federal authorities intend to file criminal charges against them.
At least two other jurisdictions, Chapel Hill, N.C., and New Haven, Conn., have decided not to enforce the immigration warrants, saying that acting on them would burden them with what is essentially a failed federal government policy and would potentially alienate victims and witnesses of crimes.
Brenda Cruz was a victim of a home invasion in 2002. She called the police in that case, which remains unsolved. Last month, after discovering that someone had broken into her van, she decided against reporting it.
"I haven't called them, because who knows how many questions they're going to ask," she said recently, sitting in living room of her mother's Hyattsville apartment, where she now lives.
In letters Hernandez wrote to Cruz from a jail in Salisbury, Md., before he was deported, he urged her to file their federal income taxes on time and asked her not to tell the children that he was getting deported. But the 5-year-old found out, Cruz said.
"He used to be a playful boy," Cruz said. "Now he doesn't want to leave the house. He's terrified of the police."
Cruz also came to the country illegally and is gathering documents to apply for a visa for victims of crime.
Weeks after Hernandez was taken into custody, his sister went to District Court in Rockville with his traffic citation in hand. She paid the $90 fee to relieve her brother of outstanding fines.
The officer hasn't submitted the citation to the court, according to court records, probably under the assumption that it would go unpaid.
The cashier's office accepted the payment anyway.
Staff writer Spencer S. Hsu contributed to this report.
Navarrette: McCain battles 'silent amnesty' Solution-free pandering amounts to doing nothing, he tells hopefuls
RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR. Tucson Citizen
True to his reputation as a maverick, Sen. John McCain is obviously fed up with the jabs he's taking from conservatives on the immigration issue. And he's hitting back - hard. It's about time. Since the beginning of this debate, McCain has been both correct and courageous. But now he has made it clear that he's not going to be anyone's punching bag.
McCain is correct about the need for comprehensive immigration reform as opposed to what's behind door No. 2: the "faith-based" enforcement-only approach of building walls, hoping illegal immigrants self-deport and calling it a day.
Congress did something similar with immigration reform in 1996, and - as Sen. Sam Brownback noted in the most recent presidential debate - all we have to show for it is a population of illegal immigrants nearly twice as large now as it was then.
And McCain is courageous for confronting the nativist fringe of his own party, telling voters what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear, and challenging other candidates to either lead or get out of the way.
If they don't like the bi- partisan Senate compromise he helped craft, they can suggest something better, McCain tells them - provided that whatever they have in mind can get through Congress.
McCain zeroed in on one of his most vocal critics, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. On immigration, as on other hot-button issues, Romney has held nearly as many positions as there are days in the week.
Recently, McCain told the Miami Chamber of Commerce that voters should come down hard on candidates who find it easier to criticize solutions of others than to offer solutions of their own.
While the Arizonan didn't mention Romney by name, the McCain campaign made clear it was Romney the senator was criticizing. "To want the office so badly that you would intentionally make our country's problems worse might prove you can read a poll or take a cheap shot, but it hardly demonstrates presidential leadership," McCain told the group.
"Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the problem, amounts to doing nothing. And doing nothing is silent amnesty."
Remember that phrase. Silent amnesty. McCain is right again.
If Congress ultimately fails to enact meaningful immigration reform, the world won't end for illegal immigrants. They'll still wake up at 4 the next morning and go to work just like the day before.
Nothing will change. No one will be fined or brought into the system, or held accountable in any way. That's amnesty.
And that's where we are now. The bill is all but dead, having stalled in the Senate.
The trouble began when senators approved - by one vote - a labor-friendly amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that put a five-year "sunset" on the plan to bring in 200,000 temporary guest workers annually.
That put at risk the support of business groups and may have played a role in unraveling the deal. If so, let the record show that the deathblow came not from the right as many expected, but from the left.
In addition to Romney, McCain also continues to jab at the incendiary Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., an illegal-immigration foe who has been tagged a nativist and a "know-nothing" by fellow Republicans. Let Tancredo talk, and you can see why.
Let me be clear. There is nothing inherently racist or nativist about opposing illegal immigration. There are plenty of good people who just want secure borders and who could care less about the culture or language of whoever is coming across the border.
Then there is Tancredo, who speaks "code" fluently and loves to hit cultural alarm buttons.
Whereas other opponents of illegal immigration stress that they have no problem with legal immigrants, not so Tancredo. The way he sees it, if you come to the United States from somewhere else - legally or illegally, skilled or low-skilled, from Mexico or Madagascar - you're the problem and you're not welcome, at least until we assimilate those who are already here.
As Tancredo said during the debate, he wants a moratorium on all immigration "until we no longer have to press 1 for English and 2 for any other language."
Gee, what "other language" do you suppose he's talking about?
McCain blasted Tancredo for that sort of rhetoric, describing it as "beyond my realm of thinking." Be grateful for that.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union Tribune. E-mail: ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com
Obama, Dodd spell out divisiveness of official language in plain English
RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.
Of all the questions fielded by the Democratic presidential hopefuls during last week's New Hampshire debate, at least one should never have been asked. In fact, to their credit, a pair of candidates had the good sense to reject it out of hand.
Moderator Wolf Blitzer wanted to know if any of the candidates believed that English should be the official language of the United States. He posed that question after a series of others on immigration and framed it as "related" to that issue.
It isn't. You might argue that language is part of the current debate because Congress is considering whether to require illegal immigrants to learn English on the road to earned legal status. But that wasn't the question. Declaring English the country's official language has absolutely nothing to do with immigration policy.
If your gripe with the status quo is that America's borders are insecure, or that illegal immigrants cost us a bundle in government services - or that, darn it, "these people are here illegally and what part of illegal don't you understand?" - none of those things are impacted one way or another by whatever language newcomers speak.
So the question that Blitzer fired off wasn't really "related" to the immigration issue.
Instead, it was wrapped up in what is driving much of the immigration debate - this ugly, xenophobic anxiety that many Americans are feeling over cultural change and demographic displacement as the Latino population in this country grows and grows, in part because of immigrants from Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
Let's be clear about that. Although President Bush took knocks from the nativists for saying it, he was on the money when he implied that much of the resistance to the bipartisan Senate compromise on immigration was driven by a fear of diversity.
In an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, Bush said that, growing up in Texas, he learned to "recognize the decency and hard work and humanity of Hispanics." But not everyone had that experience and so, he said, "a lot of this immigration debate is driven as a result of Latinos being in our country."
Bull's-eye. That may sting a little. But the truth will do that.
No wonder we keep getting detoured and convert so easily from talking about immigration to talking about language.
The Senate took that detour last year when, in the middle of debating immigration, senators suddenly felt the uncontrollable urge to pass a symbolic resolution declaring English the national language.
Still, I wish that Blitzer hadn't steered the Democratic debate in that direction - even if two of the candidates were willing to follow. Former Sen. Mike Gravel won applause when he noted that - while he speaks both English and French - yes, of course, "the official language of the United States of America is English."
And Sen. Hillary Clinton gave a dispassionate lawyerly answer defining the difference between declaring English the national language (which she supports) and the official language (which she doesn't).
Making English an official language, she said, might result in non-English-speaking people being denied services such as court translators or bilingual ballots.
Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd saw the question for what it was and refused to answer. Obama said, "This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us," and urged his colleagues to instead refocus their attention on coming up with a legal and sensible immigration policy.
When the immigration debate gets sidetracked by such questions, Obama said, "we do a disservice to the American people."
Dodd agreed the question was divisive and - noting that he speaks Spanish - made a pitch for more language training. "We have too few of our people in our country that can understand second languages."
Sounding a lot like President Bush, Dodd insisted that because we live in a global economy, "we need to encourage more diversity" instead of wasting energy arguing about whether we should designate one official language in this country.
In their responses, Obama and Dodd showed class, character and - given that most Americans support declaring the English the official language - courage. These are not bad qualities to have if you're seeking the nation's highest office.
Frankly, I don't care if presidential candidates speak Spanish or French or Swahili. But I want them to be fluent in common sense.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union Tribune. E-mail: ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com
Nolan Richardson exporting his deep basketball knowledge
By Marlen Garcia, USA TODAY
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico "” Nolan Richardson's close friend, Ricky Cardenas, a retired railroad repairman, hauls water bottles into the gym before Mexico's national men's basketball team begins practice on a college campus in this busy industrial city down the road from El Paso. A day earlier the team didn't have water during its two workouts, Cardenas says. Richardson, named Mexico's national coach in March, is incorporating his frenzied playing style dubbed "40 minutes of hell," and the exhausted players will need plenty of water.
"Mexico isn't familiar with what you've got to have, things like Gatorade, water," says Richardson, the ex-Arkansas coach who led the Razorbacks to the 1994 NCAA tournament title.
Twenty minutes after practice, players head to the buffet line at their hotel. They aren't looking for food but need ice to numb their aches and pains. No ice was available at the gym, nor was an athletic trainer on site.
No one protests the modest accommodations. They are a long way from the luxuries afforded U.S. stars. But Richardson and his players are on the ground floor of a major rebuilding project, one they think could lead to a spot in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.
"This is a monster step," Richardson says of Mexico's commitment to upgrade its national program. Mexico hasn't qualified for the Games in men's basketball since 1976.
This also could be another storied chapter to Richardson's legacy, which is filled with poignant moments and a measure of controversy for his heavily publicized falling out with Arkansas administrators that led to his firing in 2002. After a 14-15 season, Richardson reacted to criticism by basically challenging the university to fire him, saying, "If they go ahead and pay me my money, they can take the job tomorrow."
He subsequently filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit, which was dismissed by a circuit court judge in 2004. The finding was upheld by an appeals court last year.
The El Paso native remains an icon in his hometown, where a middle school is named for him, and he is popular in Juarez, where he played against members of Mexico's national team in the mid-1960s.
"They always treated me as one of them," Richardson says.
Richardson endured segregation growing up in the South but says he escaped it whenever he crossed the border. Later, when Richardson coached high school and college teams, he opened his basketball camps in El Paso to boys from Juarez, a gesture that still resonates in the border area. His wife, Rosario, is Mexican, a link that raises their affinity for Mexico.
"This opportunity is a once-in-a-lifetime for Mexico," former Mexican national team member Rafael Holguin Rico says of the projected turnaround for the basketball program under Richardson. "Everyone has to take advantage."
Panama success paved way
In his final turbulent months at Arkansas, Richardson came across to some as arrogant and brash, traits that are inconsistent with his current down-to-earth manner.
Richardson, 66, unassumingly blends in with locals in El Paso and residents in Juarez, where he can turn a phrase in Spanish easily. Now and again he refers to a player or well-wishing fan as mijo, an affectionate term for son in Spanish.
He has lost about 20 pounds since departing Arkansas and his hair is mostly gray, but Richardson still has an aura about him on the basketball court. Players and assistant coaches say they want to soak up his knowledge, and they listen intently, whether he's preaching uncompromising defense or diagramming plays.
"Forty minutes of hell" translates in any language. Cardenas, also from El Paso, ordered T-shirts with "40 minutos de infierno" imprinted on them.
"With Coach Richardson being here, it helps us get over that hump," says Anthony Lever-Pedroza, an American-born team member who played for Oregon. His mother is from Sonora, Mexico, so he can compete for the national team. "It would mean the world to show, yes, Mexico has a presence in basketball," Lever-Pedroza says.
Richardson is cautious with his outlook. "There is a lot of work to do," he says. "You name the area, we have some work to do there."
Mexican federation officials approached Richardson after watching him two summers ago lead Panama to a berth in the 2006 FIBA world championships. In about 35 days he turned around a program that hadn't advanced to the world championships since 1986.
Richardson agreed to coach Panama for one summer; he didn't accompany the team last year to Japan for the world championships. Panama finished 23rd among the 24 teams. That notwithstanding, it was back on the basketball map.
"He's a person with a lot of tactical and technical expertise," says Eduardo Ottenwalder, executive director of Panama's basketball federation. "We were able to play fast and defensive (minded). We were very satisfied with his work. We regret we weren't able to hang on to him."
Mexicans hope Richardson can duplicate his international success this summer. Mexico has played several exhibition games and will play in a July qualifying tournament in El Salvador for the 2009 World Games to tune up for the FIBA Americas Olympic qualifying tournament in Las Vegas beginning Aug. 22. The top two teams earn Olympic berths, but others could get another chance to qualify through a tournament next year.
Mexico faces a much tougher road than Panama did because there are fewer berths this year. Mexico is 35th among 74 teams ranked on the FIBA website.
Mexico will get a boost if NBA players Earl Watson (whose mother is Mexican) of the Seattle SuperSonics and Eduardo Najera of the Denver Nuggets join the team. Najera's business manager told the Rocky Mountain News Najera is unlikely to play, but Watson says he plans to join the team.
Not ready to leave the game
The team's amenities are far from glamorous, but Richardson worked with less while with Panama. Facilities were hard to come by, and he says he once resorted to practicing in a hotel parking lot. Some players drove up to four hours to practice when the team didn't have housing.
"I was really proud of them to be able to do what they did," Richardson says.
He took several months to mull the Mexican federation's offer. Since leaving Arkansas, most of his summers have been devoted to charitable work and to the animals on his 155-acre ranch in Fayetteville, about a 15-minute drive from where he coached for 17 years.
He says he has returned to the university once "” for a matter relating to his lawsuit. He's occasionally in touch with Arkansas basketball coaches but says he has no desire to visit the school.
"I went into Arkansas with my head up," he says. "When I left, I had to get down in the bottom of an SUV "” hiding "” so I didn't have to answer questions and get followed."
He hasn't given up on the possibility of coaching again at a major-college program or in the NBA.
"When you do what I did, when you challenge the university and all its hierarchy and take them to court, you become a baggage carrier," he says. "I understand why a school would say, 'Nolan is too outspoken.' "
Nevertheless, he continues to leave his mark on the game. He's a consultant, offering input to coaches across the country.
Just when he thought opportunities to become an Olympic coach had passed him by, Richardson was given a chance to make history with Mexico and introduce his non-stop pressure, always-on-the-run schemes. Mexico assistant coach Angel Gonza*** hopes that style will spread through the country.
"For me, I'm learning a new system, one that we used to see only on television," says Gonza***, a coach in Mexico's professional league. "I'm learning how he prepares. Nobody plays like this."
Richardson says he feels right at home.
"Knowing the area, the people, that was the biggest reason for me to do this, and I wanted to do it because I had played over in places like Durango, Monterrey and Torreon with a traveling team."
He says he received assurances from Mexican federation officials that he had autonomy in picking the team, which ends a long-standing institutionalized practice of favoritism, according to veteran player Victor Mariscal, 35.
"There is a big difference when a coach decides," Mariscal says. "There had never been this kind of opportunity for young players. It means no one comes in with a sense of entitlement. Not me, no one."
Every player must pay his dues, as the coach has throughout his life.
"Here am I now, in my retirement years," Richardson says, "loving the game even more than when I was a young man getting started."
When you talk to people about this word, They make a funny face. They think it applies to only those, Who arrive from outer space.
Based upon the above, I thought I'd take some time. To explain this extraordinary term, With this basic, simple rhyme.
America's a great nation, built on liberty and justice for all. Equal opportunity for everyone, Disregarding race, creed, color, young, old, short or tall
Moral imperatives they guide us, Discerning right from wrong. We even sing about them now at ballgames, God Bless America is our song.
Necessity requires those who have, To be confronted with the choice to give away. To share this thing we call freedom, With those who have a sincere desire to stay.
Extends around the planet, The choices America will make. How we treat those within our own borders, Is what we say we stand for real or fake?
Specifically the choice before America, Might seem one only politicians are equipped to decide. Nothing could be further from the truth, Behind this one, you cannot hide.
To my beloved citizens of America, This nation's greatness is not something we can hoard or store. The only way to insure a limitless supply, Is to risk giving it away, when voices cry no more!
You as one of today's fortunate, Must not forget our past. You have the opportunity to hear the voices cry, Thank God Almighty we are free at last!
There's an interesting thing about freedom, Nation's that proclaim democracy, and equal opportunity for all. It's when we stop giving it away, That we begin to deteriorate, within the borders of our own cell wall.
Bill Dahl is a freelance writer and social justice advocate.
Contact Bill at: wsdahl@bendbroadband.com .
For the past fifteen years, Bill and his wife have been called to work with the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized as volunteer community youth workers. Bill is published in numerous professional publications, magazines, websites, newspapers and newsletters. Bill and his family make their home in central Oregon.
Walk in the desert proves insightful The life of Eulalio Guzman Hernandez will continue to live through me, as his life was lost crossing the Arizona desert.
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.12.2007
Hernandez will continue to live through me, as his life was lost crossing the Arizona desert.
I never met Hernandez, nor do I have any information about him. However, our roads connected after I picked up a cross bearing his name from a box that contained hundreds of other crosses with the names of others who died crossing the Arizona desert in order to possibly have a better life in a foreign land.
Through the efforts of several human-rights groups in Tucson, I was privileged to have the opportunity to participate in a 75-mile walking journey held once a year "” The Migrant Trail.
This trek is meant to show respect for those who died, many of whom are unidentified and never had a chance to say goodbye to their families and friends.
I keep myself in good shape. However, after the first day of walking 4.8 miles, I knew this trek was not going to be easy. The first day was hot. I twisted my ankle and got my first of many blisters. As I started to feel the effects of walking in the desert, I kept saying to myself: "How do they do it? Where do they get the willpower? Why do they risk their lives?"
As we saw the multimillion-dollar cameras, sensors and convoys of the border-security personnel, it became really clear to me that, yes, we are at war with people who are simply carrying pictures of their families, a little food and no more than two gallons of bottled water.
How do they find their routes, I asked? Our trip was planned four months ahead of time. We had maps and experienced hikers. Yet on the second day of the walk, we found ourselves lost and walking in circles. Shortly after a small task force was sent to figure out the correct route, it encountered migrants who were lost for four days in the desert. All they pleaded for was a call to the Border Patrol to pick them up.
It is very easy to get confused in the desert.
When trouble arises, the decisions facing migrants crossing with family and friends become difficult. They must decide whether to stay with their spouse, children or parents, or take the chance to find help in no man's land.
I heard a story of a boy whose mom died in his arms. He had to leave her in order to survive.
I heard another story of a man who left his daughter in the desert to get help. After six weeks of searching for her with the help of friends, he finally recognized a little pink shoe that led him to his daughter's final resting place. He took her back home to her mother, as he had promised not to return without his daughter.
The harsh reality of these stories is that before they found their loved ones, the migrants found other bodies in the desert.
If the Border Patrol catches them, as we witnessed in one incident during the sixth day of our walk, they are sent back to their country and will most likely be worse off than they were prior to their journey.
After seven days of walking and countless aches and pains, we finally made it to our destination with hundreds of people cheering for us. In a few instances, some people gave us the one-figure salute in disdain for our mission.
I did not get upset. I just felt that this migrant issue needs to have more coverage from the "human" point of view. This is especially important in our region, where many people like Eulalio Guzman Hernandez start their journeys.
Despite a broken immigration system, migrants will continue to risk everything to come here. Some will make it, and some will not.
For Eulalio Guzman Hernandez, the least I can do is tell his story.
Write to Francisco T. Avalos at teissier@hotmail.com.
GOPers seek emergency funds as immigration bill languishes
Leading The News TheHill.com
By Manu Raju and Elana Schor June 13, 2007
Senior GOP senators are embracing an eleventh-hour plan to pass an emergency supplemental bill for more border security money as a strategy to win over Republicans who have balked at the bipartisan immigration bill languishing in the Senate.
But even as the emergency-spending approach gained momentum yesterday during President Bush's rare visit to the Senate, the immigration bill's strongest supporters warned that time is running out for an agreement to bring the measure back to the floor.
Bush made no commitments as to whether he would propose an emergency supplemental bill "” an idea floated by Georgia Republicans Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. The duo, lapsed members of the bipartisan team that crafted the immigration deal, candidly told Bush that voters could not trust his administration to enforce border-security laws.
"The lack of credibility the federal government has on this issue gives merit to the skepticism of many about future immigration reform," the Georgians wrote in a letter to the president.
Several Democrats questioned whether a weakened president could sway Republicans who have excoriated his immigration plan.
"It may be too little, too late," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who last week voted with his leaders to cut off debate on the bill despite serious qualms with the underlying legislation. "It's not clear to me that he has the capital and clout in his party to change minds."
Bush's visit to a Senate GOP policy luncheon "” his first since 2001 and 10th visit to the Capitol since he took office "” won praise from some Republicans. They called the president's message an emotional plea to pass the bipartisan immigration bill, which would combine new border-security measures with a plan to create a path for citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants.
He did not appear to win over hard-line Republican opponents, who told Bush to back off on an immigration overhaul instead of trying to broker a deal in the coming weeks.
"I did tell him that in there "” I thought we oughta let it cool off and rethink how to approach it," said Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who is holding a fundraiser in the state on Friday that Bush plans to attend. "I don't think it's smart to try to rush back up and force something through at this point."
Senate GOP Conference Chairman Jon Kyl (Ariz.), along with Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), said they supported the idea of pushing ahead with an emergency supplemental. While Chambliss and Isakson did not include a suggested spending level for their emergency supplemental bill, the price tag is certain to be steep.
At a minimum, aides said, the Republicans are seeking full funding for the border-security barriers and employer verification system authorized by this year's immigration bill; the border fence approved by last year's GOP-controlled Congress; and the thousands of new Border Patrol and customs enforcement agents authorized in 2004 but not yet paid for.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), another senior member in the immigration talks, said the proposal was well-received but noted that offsetting it would be crucial.
Bipartisan negotiations over the measure continued through yesterday, and aides and senators said they were nearing a dozen amendments to present to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in the hopes he would schedule floor time before the July 4 recess. Kyl, an influential emissary between conservatives and immigration negotiators, met late yesterday with a core group of allies to discuss a list of about a dozen desired amendments that Republicans could present to Reid.
The list, one Republican aide said, would cover "senators who needed to be heard and policy changes that appeal to our folks." Yet it remains unclear whether votes on those dozen changes would secure enough Republican votes to overcome continued objections from a few stalwart opponents of the bill.
Reid would not say whether he would support an emergency spending bill. He told The Hill yesterday that he would not bring the bill to the floor unless it appeared there were 60 votes needed to overcome any procedural hurdles. Last week, seven Republicans joined 38 Democrats in voting to shut down debate on the immigration bill, while 10 Democrats and one independent joined 39 Republicans to continue debating the measure, which would give 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
"What this all boils down to is the Republicans do not support their own president's bill, and that was proven on Thursday," Reid told reporters after the Democratic policy luncheon. "I hope they change."
As Bush descended on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested to reporters that if the Senate does not act "within the next couple weeks" the bill could be dead for the 110th Congress.
"As long as we can get the bill back up within a very short period of time, there is no harm done," said Chertoff, who said that the Georgians' funding plan was still on the table. "What we can't afford to do is let this languish beyond that period of time." Similarly, Bush challenged Reid to bring the bill back to the floor.
"I would hope that the Senate majority leader has that same sense of desire to move the product that I do "” or the bill that I do, and these senators do, because now is the time to get it done," Bush said in brief remarks to reporters.
WASHINGTON "” Warring factions in the House neared the end of a two-day imbroglio over how to handle thousands of requests by lawmakers for home district projects, as Democrats yielded to GOP demands for floor votes on offending "earmarks."
The development came Wednesday evening as leaders in both parties, not to mention rank-and-file lawmakers, became increasingly frustrated over the earmarks impasse that held up debate for a second day on the popular budget bill funding the Homeland Security Department.
The agreement has not been finalized, but under an outline described by both Democrats and Republicans, Democrats would largely abandon plans to bypass floor debates on earmarks, while Republicans would offer procedural help to move the 12 spending bills through the notoriously partisan House. Republicans cautioned that an agreement was not final.
Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., started an uproar by announcing earmarks "” those back-home projects lawmakers pepper into spending bills and other legislation "” wouldn't be added to spending bills until House-Senate negotiations.
Obey subsequently softened his position to offer GOP conservatives weeks to scrutinize the thousands of earmarks in spending bills, but until Wednesday evening was publicly willing to guarantee floor votes on questionable projects.
Obey said he was confident a final agreement would clear the way for the House to pass the $37.4 billion measure funding homeland security programs for the upcoming budget year. Chances were growing remote for passing three other bills by the weekend, though a vote of a veterans funding bill seemed likely.
Republicans skillfully exploited a political opening provided by Democrats, whose position ran counter to a campaign promises and reforms passed both this year and last.
GOP conservatives, with the blessing of GOP leaders such as House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, demanded the right to try to kill earmarks such as grants for after-school centers, roads and bridges and grants to local governments and nonprofit charities.
Such floor moves have never worked, and Republicans rejected a compromise bid by Obey aimed at letting rank-and-file lawmakers challenge rosters of earmarks to be released in a month or so.
Obey says staff aides and lawmakers simply haven't had enough time to sift through more than 32,000 earmark requests and decide which ones make sense. Now, some bills will be delayed as his colleagues and aides work double time to "scrub" earmark requests.
But Senate Appropriations panels have begun advancing bills containing earmarks, to the consternation of House lawmakers who fear the rival Senate will gain leverage in House-Senate negotiations this fall.
Senators even put several earmarks into their version of the homeland security measure, which was previously labeled as earmark free. As part of its $37.6 billion measure, the Senate Appropriations' homeland security subcommittee approved $16 million worth of projects "” evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats _
Democrats, who largely ceded the floor to Republicans on Tuesday, ramped up their protests that Republicans were stalling the politically popular homeland security bill, which has historically been kept mostly free of lawmakers' pet projects.
"We need to move this bill forward," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "We need to ... improve our safeguards against nuclear material getting into this country. We need to ensure that our cargo is protected."
For their part, Republicans kept up the attack on earmarks.
"The (Democratic) majority wants this Congress to operate behind closed doors,' said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
"You always complained about us "” now you're doing worse," said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.
Republicans distributed quotes by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made last year in which she promised an open, transparent process regarding earmarks.
Virtually none of the debate concerned the underlying bill, which would boost funding for homeland security programs by about 6 percent compared with Bush's February budget. Democrats sought to highlight increases for security at ports, mass transit systems and along U.S. borders, but their efforts were drowned out by the dispute over earmarks.
Add to del.icio.us
