Border: Fence Flub

Albuquerque Tribune

Perhaps you've seen that ginned-up photo of the completion of the nation's first continental railroad at Promontory Summit, Utah, in 1869. The two tracks - one from the East Coast, the other from the West Coast - are finally about to meet, but their alignments are off. Usually, some caption to the effect of "It's a really bad day" accompanies it.

The United States had such a Promontory moment recently, when it was discovered that part of its controversial new fence along the U.S.-Mexico border in New Mexico was accidentally built in Mexico. Not a good day.

The errant barrier, just west of Columbus, is reported to have been erected about two years ago by the National Guard.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who recently was informed of the blunder, has written to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Ralph Basham demanding the bad fence be torn down - but not before a new fence is set up, the better to preserve national security.

Bingaman and other officials note the mistake is a serious one, partly because it is a symbol of intrusion into the sovereignty of Mexico. What troubles us as well is whether the mistake also is a symbol of how carefully Homeland Security projects are being undertaken in general.

Let's get it right.

June 28, 2007, 2:58PM

Senate blocks Bush's immigration bill

By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON "” In a stunning setback for President Bush and other advocates of a proposed immigration law overhaul, the Senate voted today to block a final vote on the legislation, almost certainly dooming any further effort at reform in Congress this year.

On a vote of 46-53, the Senate fell 14 votes shy of the 60 needed to cut off an inevitable filibuster and move to a final vote on the bill, which had been cobbled together in recent months by a bipartisan alliance of about a dozen senators working in concert with the Bush administration.

Both Republican senators from Texas "” Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, who had battled for weeks to make the bill more conservative "” voted, as expected, to bring it down, bucking their president on his chief domestic policy priority.

The vote represented a moment of high drama for the Senate, with neither side entirely sure of where the votes were as senators headed into the showdown.

"I don't know. People are going to vote their conscience, their constituents," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who led the charge to defeat the legislation.

In the end, a bill that was fully embraced by no one and criticized by just about everybody imploded amid entrenched conservative opposition, distrust between both parties amid incredibly high political stakes and the sense that too many compromises had to be made to keep the fragile deal together.

The so-called "grand bargain" knitted together three major concepts: Legalization for most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, significantly beefed-up enforcement at the Southwest border and within the United States, and a temporary worker program designed to address America's labor needs.

It also proposed a historic reordering of legal immigration, de-emphasizing the decades-old focus on family reunification in favor of bringing in more highly skilled foreigners to enhance U.S. competitiveness in the global economy.

While the business sector, organized labor, immigrant-rights groups, religious institutions and others preached the need for a comprehensive overhaul addressing all aspects of a dysfunctional immigration system, very few of them offered full-throated support for the bill and lobbied to change many of its key underpinnings.

Business interests from Silicon Valley to the hospitality industry complained that the legislation offered too few green cards for foreign workers. Immigrant-rights activists and the Roman Catholic Church worked to block the legal immigration changes even though more than 50 percent of green cards still would have gone to relatives. Organized labor fought the temporary worker program designed to bring in 200,000 workers a year, viewing them as direct competition to Americans.

The conservative grassroots, amplified by a vocal talk radio campaign, rebelled against what they immediately labeled as an amnesty for lawbreakers, rejecting the contentions by Bush and others that illegal immigrants were not getting a free handout and instead would have to pay fines and back taxes, learn English and wait for years before they could consider applying for legal permanent residence.

Conservatives also denounced the bill as weak on enforcement, even though it would have created a mandatory employment verification system, provided an immediate $4.4 billion infusion for enforcement, and added thousands more Border Patrol agents and detention beds.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and other architects of the bill pleaded unsuccessfully with colleagues to recognize that the measure, though flawed, represented the best chance at reform perhaps for years to come.

"This is hard. This is very hard politics," Graham said. "But the day it ends without resolution, you wake up the next day and your country has got a mess on its hands. Not only does it have a broken immigration system, it's got a broken Congress."

While the senators' inaction doesn't necessarily tie the House's hands, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear she'd wait to see what the Senate did before deciding whether to commit to bringing an immigration bill up in the House.

With immigration a volatile topic that could badly split her caucus and expose vulnerable Democrats to tough votes, Pelosi may well decide to shelve any action this year.

michelle.mittelstadtchron.com

Day laborers from the Washington area gathered in the Senate to wait for the results of the immigration cloture vote.

By ROBERT PEAR and CARL HULSE
Published: June 29, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 28 "” President Bush's effort to overhaul the nation's immigration policy, a cornerstone of his domestic agenda, collapsed Thursday in the Senate, with little prospect that it can be revived before Mr. Bush leaves office in 19 months.

The bill called for the biggest changes to immigration law in more than 20 years, offering legal status to millions of illegal immigrants while trying to secure borders. But the Senate, forming blocs that defied party affiliation, could never unite on the main provisions.

Rejecting the president's last-minute pleas, it voted, 53 to 46, to turn back a motion to end debate and move toward final passage. Supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to close the debate.

Mr. Bush placed telephone calls to lawmakers throughout the morning. But members of his party abandoned him in droves, with just 12 of the 49 Senate Republicans sticking by him on the important procedural vote that determined the fate of the bill.

Nearly one-third of Senate Democrats voted, in effect, to block action on the bill.

The vote followed an outpouring of criticism from conservatives and others who called it a form of amnesty for lawbreakers.

The outcome was a bitter disappointment for Mr. Bush and other supporters of a comprehensive approach, including Hispanic and church groups and employers who had been seeking greater access to foreign workers.

Supporters and opponents said the measure was dead for the remainder of the Bush administration, though conceivably individual pieces might be revived.

The vote reflected the degree to which Congress and the nation are polarized over immigration. The emotional end to what had been an emotional debate was evident, with a few senior staff members who had invested months in writing the bill near tears.

"The bill now dies," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who helped write the measure.

The outcome also underscored the challenge that Mr. Bush faces in exerting authority and enacting an agenda as members of his party increasingly break with him and Democrats no longer fear him. Having already given up on other ambitious second-term plans like overhauling Social Security, the administration has little prospect of winning any big new legislative achievements in its final months.

The collapse also highlighted the difficulties that the new Democratic leadership in Congress has had in showing that it can address the big problems facing the nation. In this case, Democratic leaders asserted that the failure of the immigration bill reflected on Mr. Bush, and not on their party.

Senator David Vitter, the Louisiana Republican who helped lead opposition to the bill, said: "The proponents did not get even a simple majority. The message is crystal clear. The American people want us to start with enforcement at the border and at the workplace and don't want promises. They want action. They want results. They want proof, because they've heard all the promises before."

In voting to end the debate, the 12 Republicans were joined by 33 Democrats and one independent. Voting against the motion to end the debate were 15 Democrats, one independent and 37 Republicans, including the minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"I had hoped for a bipartisan accomplishment," Mr. McConnell said. "What we got was a bipartisan defeat."

Among the Democrats voting no were several up for re-election next year, including Senators Max Baucus of Montana, Tom Harkin of Iowa and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said he spoke to Mr. Bush after the vote and thanked him for his work in support of the bill.

But, Mr. Reid said, "There just was not enough Republican support for the president's approach."

Mr. Bush, in Rhode Island for a visit to the Naval War College, said: "Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress's failure to act on it is a disappointment. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."

In the end, many groups that had supported segments of the bill urged the Senate to pass it in the hope that it could be "improved" in the House.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who is chairwoman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, said: "The Senate vote effectively kills comprehensive immigration reform for this Congress. It's a vote for the status quo, which most Americans are not satisfied with."

Supporters of the bill agreed with opponents on one point, that many Americans believe that the government lacks the ability to carry out the huge responsibilities it would have had. "People look out and they see the failures of government, whether it's Hurricane Katrina or the inability to get enough passports out for people, and they say, ˜How is the government going to accomplish all of this?' " Mrs. Feinstein said.

Opponents of the bill were elated.

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said: "The American people won today. They care enough for their country to get mad and to fight for it. Americans made phone calls and sent letters and convinced the Senate to stop this bill."

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, a leading opponent of the bill, said talk radio was "a big factor" in derailing it.

Supporters of the bill wanted to pass it quickly, "before Rush Limbaugh could tell the American people what was in it," Mr. Sessions said.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, chief Democratic architect of the bill, said many senators "voted their fears, not their hopes."

Referring to opponents, Mr. Kennedy said: "We know what they don't like. What are they for? What are they going to do with the 12 million who are undocumented here? Send them back to countries around the world? Develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows? What's their alternative?"

Without a new immigration law, Mr. Kennedy said, "The situation is going to get worse and worse and worse."

As the vote was conducted, several House members of Hispanic descent gathered on the Senate floor, and tourists in the gallery listened to the final arguments with rapt attention.

A bipartisan group of 12 senators working closely with the administration wrote the bill in closed sessions over three months. After two weeks of debate, it appeared to die on June 7, when the Senate voted, 50 to 45, against ending debate.

Mr. Reid pulled the bill off the floor, but later agreed to return it under a procedure that bundled 27 proposed amendments into one package.

Opponents and some supporters said Senate leaders had made a mistake in taking the bill directly to the floor without hearings or review by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Not just conservatives voiced reservations. Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine who is running for re-election, said: "I just don't think the bill struck the right balance. People were troubled by the proposed solution for the 12 million people here illegally. We did not get that part right."

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a co-author of the bill, said a majority of Americans supported it when told of other provisions like increased money for border security, a new employee verification system, a guest worker program and a new merit-based system to select immigrants.

But Senator Harkin said, "The bill, as a whole, has evolved into an unworkable mess, and I cannot support it."

Guest workers could drive down wages for Americans "on the lower rungs of the economic ladder," Mr. Harkin said, and under the employee verification system, some citizens could have been denied jobs "because of errors in a government database."

Among important early backers who fell away was Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, who said he received two calls from Mr. Bush in recent days. Mr. Domenici said the secrecy surrounding the bill's drafting had left people confused and "caused it to flop."

Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska and another recipient of a call from Mr. Bush, concluded that the bill was beyond repair after having backed efforts to advance it.

"This bill is not only hopelessly flawed, it is unsalvageable," Mr. Nelson said. "We have to start over."

Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic rights group, predicted that "the growing and increasingly energized Latino electorate" would hold lawmakers accountable for failing to pass a comprehensive bill.

Published Thursday, June 28, 2007

Immigrant Workers Robbed At Home

By PATRINA A. BOSTIC
New York Times Regional Media Group

ENGLEWOOD - A masked man armed with a gun barged into the Englewood home of five Mexican workers in a crime that authorities say further proves that immigrants are targeted by robbers.

"I was very scared," Martin Flores-Juarez recalled Tuesday evening, using a mixture of English and Spanish.

He said a masked man charged into the apartment in the 2000 block of Willow Avenue through a sliding lanai door Monday night and yelled "give me the money, give me the money."

"I told him I have nothing, I have nothing," Flores-Juarez said, but the man hit him in the head with the gun. Flores-Juarez ran into a bedroom and barred the door.

None of the five immigrants was seriously injured, he said, although his 16-year-old nephew also was hit with the gun.

Investigators were searching for three suspects. Authorities say immigrant workers become targets because there is a general belief that they keep cash because they do not trust banks or are not eligible to open accounts.

"A lot of them don't put money into a bank because they are not here legally," said Bob Carpenter, public information officer for the Sheriff's Office.

Flores-Juarez, 39, said he and his roommates, all relatives, keep their money in the bank but know immigrant workers are sometimes staked out and watched.

Dave Bristow, spokesman for the Manatee County Sheriff's Office, said he has run into immigrant workers who did not have bank accounts and he has encouraged them to open accounts.

"If you walk around with a lot of cash or if you keep a large amount of cash in your home, someone will know it and the end result will not be good," he said.

Beatriz Ibarra, an analyst for the National Council of La Raza in Washington, D.C., the largest Hispanic civil rights organization in the country, said banks are encouraged to allow customers to open accounts with a taxpayer identification number from the Internal Revenue Service and an identification card issued by the Mexican consulate.

"Not only will it help (immigrants) financially, but it could save their lives," Ibarra said.

The home invasion Monday night was the second in about a month in Englewood. In May, one man was beaten in the head with a pistol and two others were kicked repeatedly, according to a report. Two of the men were treated at a local hospital. They were robbed of about $1,500.

Flores-Juarez said those victims were friends of his. He said he and his roommates work at jobs including house painting and landscaping and send money to their families in Mexico.

Patrina A. Bostic writes for the Herald-Tribune in Sarasota.

Alternatives sought after immigration bill's defeat

By Michelle Mittelstadt
Houston Chronicle
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.29.2007

WASHINGTON "” Even as the Senate dealt a likely fatal blow to President Bush's push to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, some Democrats and Republicans began talking about trying to pass narrower, less ambitious pieces.

Empowered by Thursday's 46-53 vote that effectively killed a bipartisan compromise bill dismissed by many conservatives as amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, many Republicans now are reverting to their key priority: increased enforcement at the
Southwest border and in the U.S. interior.
And Democrats, for their part, are considering offering the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship to illegal immigrant students.

And they are looking at ways to address acute labor shortages in agriculture by bringing in more foreign farmworkers and placing them on a path to legal permanent residence.

"We have to have a different approach," Sen.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said shortly after the Senate fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to keep the tenuous immigration deal alive. "It's clear from the vote that this bill was not the right approach."

Hutchison, who was among 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats and one independent voting to shelve the bill, is pressing for what she calls a "graduated approach."

Under her concept, Congress would first pass bills increasing border security and creating a temporary-worker program to fill unmet U.S. labor needs before turning to the most controversial aspect: what to do with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
Fellow Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who also opposed the bill, agreed.

"The one thing we have a consensus on that we need to do is to secure the border and to deal with the document fraud and identity theft that makes our current system so hard to enforce," he said.

But the political and legislative pressures that brought Democrats and Republicans to the table to craft a "grand bargain" on immigration could doom any effort to pass tailored bills.

With any immigration legislation needing bipartisan support to get through the narrowly divided Congress, Democrats could block enforcement-only legislation if their concerns are not addressed, or Republicans could tank any Democratic effort to liberalize legal immigration.

"It will be comprehensive if it's ever done. It will be bipartisan if it's ever done, and it will take political courage," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

It was a day of high drama and deep disappointment for backers of the immigration compromise, which collapsed after weeks of legislative intrigue.

"We will be back," said Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, the bill's lead Democratic architect. "This issue is not going away. And we will ultimately be successful."

Others were far less optimistic, saying the door appears slammed shut until after the 2008 elections.

"It's time to get real," said Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., a leading champion of the deal. "I don't see where the will is there for this issue to be resolved."

Bush, at a low ebb in clout with Congress, also offered no sign that he'd seek to revive his chief domestic policy priority.

"A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find a common ground. It didn't work," a grim-faced president said in Newport, R.I.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, sent by Bush to Capitol Hill for weeks of endless bargaining sessions to develop the bill, was equally glum.

"I'm disappointed about the fact that there were some necessary tools which we needed to be able to do more than we can currently do in enforcing the law that were left on the floor of the Senate today," Chertoff said.

The Senate's vote elicited mixed reactions from Southern Arizona immigrant-rights advocates and anti-illegal-immigration groups.

Border Action Network, a Tucson-based immigrant-rights group dedicated to reaching an accord on immigration-law changes, expressed disappointment, as did Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform.

"The Senate worked hard, and there was lot of effort to negotiate an agreement between the two parties and the factions," said Jennifer Allen, director of Border Action Network. "There was just too great of a split, too divergent of political ideology."

The Coalición de Derechos Humanos, an immigrant-rights group that strongly opposed the proposal; American Border Patrol, an anti-illegal-immigration organization; and Arizonans for Immigration Control all said they were pleased to see the proposal defeated.

"I'm ecstatic," said Wes Bramhall, president of Arizonans for Immigration Control.

Glenn Spencer, president of the Cochise County-based American Border Patrol, said the Senate had done the right thing. "The more they got into this bill and examined the elements," he said, "the more they realized it wasn't a good idea."

The defeat of the proposal offers an immigrant-rights community that was split on the proposals with an opportunity to reorganize around principles of reform and justice, said

Isabel Garcia, co-chair of Coalición de Derechos Humanos. The group hopes it will be able to stem the tide of anti-immigrant fervor created by the right wing and talk show hosts, she said.

In the end, a bill that was fully embraced by no one and criticized by just about everybody imploded amid entrenched conservative opposition, distrust between both parties and the sense that too many compromises had to be made to keep the deal together.

The so-called "grand bargain" knitted together three major concepts: legalization for most illegal immigrants; significantly beefed-up border and interior enforcement; and a temporary-worker program to bring in 200,000 laborers annually. It also proposed a historic reordering of legal immigration, de-emphasizing the decades-old focus on family reunification in favor of bringing in more highly skilled foreigners.

While the business sector, organized labor, immigrant-rights groups, religious institutions and others preached the need for a comprehensive fix addressing all aspects of a dysfunctional immigration system, very few offered full support for the bill. And they lobbied to modify many of its key underpinnings.

Their muted support was countered by a conservative grass-roots campaign, amplified by a vocal talk radio campaign, pressuring senators with waves of calls, e-mails and letters to kill the bill.

"Every day we took a pounding," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who helped write the legislation. "About 20 percent of the population came alive very strongly against the bill."

While the senators' inaction doesn't tie the House's hands, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made no commitments Thursday to bring up the issue "” which could expose deep rifts in her own party and expose vulnerable House Democrats to tough votes.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who chairs the House immigration subcommittee, went further than Pelosi in making it clear that House action is not in the cards.

"The Senate," Lofgren said, "voted for the status quo, and its inability to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform effectively ends comprehensive immigration reform efforts in the 110th Congress."

● Star reporter Brady McCombs contributed to this story.

Immigration vote roll callImmigration vote roll call

The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.29.2007

The 46-53 roll call by which the Senate voted to block final action on a bill to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of the bill and a "no" vote was a vote to stop its progress. Supporters needed 60 votes to continue action on the bill.

Voting "yes" were 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and 1 independent.

Voting "no" were 15 Democrats, 37 Republicans and 1 independent.

Alabama
Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.
Alaska
Murkowski (R) No; Stevens (R) No.
Arizona
Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) No.
California
Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.
Colorado
Allard (R) No; Salazar (D) Yes.
Connecticut
Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) Yes.
Delaware
Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.
Florida
Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Georgia
Chambliss (R) No; Isakson (R) No.
Hawaii
Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.
Idaho
Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) No.
Illinois
Durbin (D) Yes; Obama (D) Yes.
Indiana
Bayh (D) No; Lugar (R) Yes.
Iowa
Grassley (R) No; Harkin (D) No.
Kansas
Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) No.
Kentucky
Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) No.
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) No; Vitter (R) No.
Maine
Collins (R) No; Snowe (R) Yes.
Maryland
Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.
Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) Yes; Kerry (D) Yes.
Michigan
Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) No.
Minnesota
Coleman (R) No; Klobuchar (D) Yes.
Mississippi
Cochran (R) No; Lott (R) Yes.
Missouri
Bond (R) No; McCaskill (D) No.
Montana
Baucus (D) No; Tester (D) No.
Nebraska
Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) No.
Nevada
Ensign (R) No; Reid (D) Yes.
New Hampshire
Gregg (R) Yes; Sununu (R) No.
New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.
New Mexico
Bingaman (D) No; Domenici (R) No.
New York
Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.
North Carolina
Burr (R) No; Dole (R) No.
North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) No.
Ohio
Brown (D) No; Voinovich (R) No.
Oklahoma
Coburn (R) No; Inhofe (R) No.
Oregon
Smith (R) No; Wyden (D) Yes.
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.
Rhode Island
Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.
South Carolina
DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) Yes.
South Dakota
Johnson (D) Not Voting; Thune (R) No.
Tennessee
Alexander (R) No; Corker (R) No.
Texas
Cornyn (R) No; Hutchison (R) No.
Utah
Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) No.
Vermont
Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) No.
Virginia
Warner (R) No; Webb (D) No.
Washington
Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.
West Virginia
Byrd (D) No; Rockefeller (D) No.
Wisconsin
Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.
Wyoming
Enzi (R) No.

WHAT'S NEXT

The House immigration overhaul proposal isn't officially dead, but Arizona Democrats Gabrielle Giffords and Raúl Grijalva said they are doubtful that the House will introduce a comprehensive bill this year.

Napolitano: More states will pass border laws

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.28.2007

States will continue to enact their own immigration and border security measures unless and until Congress steps in, Gov. Janet Napolitano warned Wednesday.

Napolitano, in Washington to speak at the National Press Club, said any national immigration reform measure likely will have provisions pre-empting states from enacting their own laws on the same subject. And that, she said, could make different state laws superfluous, including one she is weighing that would sanction companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers.

But the governor noted in an interview that the draft immigration bill being debated in the U.S. Senate is "a moving target." And even if it gains approval there, its future in the House is questionable.

"In the absence of strong federal legislation, every state is going to go its own direction on a whole host of elements involved with comprehensive immigration," Napolitano said.
That frustration, she said, is what is leading to bills on employer sanctions.

Most recently, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry signed a new law last month that, among other things, fines companies that hire people who entered the country illegally.

The measure on Napolitano's desk could suspend the state business license for up to 10 days for any company that knowingly hires an undocumented worker. A second violation in three years would put the firm out of business entirely in Arizona.

The governor would not say Wednesday what she will do with that legislation, which she must sign or veto by the end of the day Monday or it becomes law automatically. But she said what is happening in Washington won't be a factor in her decision.

"My evaluation of the bill on my desk is independent of what Congress does because, timing-wise, they will not have acted or completed acting before I must act," Napolitano said.

Napolitano also said she is aware a more severe version of the legislation is being circulated as an initiative.

That measure, which would go on the 2008 ballot, takes the business license of companies for even once knowingly hiring undocumented workers. She said that's "relevant" to whether she will sign or veto the measure.

"But it's not a dominant relevant," she said. "It's just another factor I need to take into account."

Napolitano said the other way some states are trying to address the problem is by making state law violations out of being in this country illegally.

Arizona lawmakers approved such a measure last year, allowing police to arrest illegal immigrants on charges of trespass.
Napolitano vetoed the idea, saying police departments did not want that authority "” or that responsibility.

Drug tunnel found in Nogales

ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.29.2007

Officials have found a cross-border tunnel of "significant" size in Nogales, Ariz., and have scheduled a press conference for Friday morning, said Virginia Kice, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman.

No futher details were available late Thursday.

Allan Wernick

No immigration bill hurts children, students, workers

Friday, June 29th 2007, 4:00 AM
NY Daily News

The death of the immigration bill kills an opportunity to reform a system that relegates millions of people to a life of illegal status and denies employers much-needed workers.

Close to 1 million New Yorkers will continue to work in substandard conditions, subject to exploitation. It's also bad news for illegal status and permanent residents, because the abuse of illegal immigrants drives down overall wages and working conditions.

Undocumented children will remain ineligible for most forms of financial assistance. It will be hard for them to attend college when they get older. And those lucky few who do manage to get a college degree still won't be able to get the jobs for which they're qualified.

The bill that died in the Senate had many flaws, including a way-too-complicated legalization program and Draconian penalties for status violators who arrived after the legalization cutoff date of Jan. 1, 2007. But at least it provided a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, most of whom will never get permanent residence under current law.

Because of restrictive rules enacted in 1996, even many close relatives of U.S. citizens have no way of getting legal status. Even the husband or wife of a U.S. citizen, if that person entered illegally, has little chance of getting permanent residence.

Also out of luck are the thousands of international students and employers of highly educated workers who hoped for an expansion of the H-1B program, which provides temporary work visas for people with special knowledge and skills.

This year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services received more that twice as many H-1B petitions than the 65,000 slots the law allows for four-year college degree holders. The 20,000 cap for applicants with U.S. master's degrees was reached a month later.

With no increase in the H-1B cap, if these highly educated students can't pursue their professions here, they will either return home or join the undocumented workers toiling in low-skilled jobs. Critics of overseas outsourcing such as CNN's Lou Dobbs should take note: If these college grads can't work here, the jobs will go abroad. Even some law firms are now shipping out work to India and the Philippines.

And what about the DREAM Act, the law that would have provided legal status for undocumented students brought here by their parents? Despite bipartisan support from a majority in both houses of Congress, it now seems that the DREAM Act too has fallen victim to the failure of broad immigration reform.

Some activists hope that now that broad reform efforts are dead, the DREAM Act can pass as stand-alone legislation. That's possible, but it's a long shot. Congress won't take another stab at providing benefits for undocumented immigrants before the 2008 presidential election.

They failed the nation
This isn't going to just go away, N.Y.ers say

Allan Wernick

allanwernick@earthlink.net
Allan Wernick's immigration law column appears every Thursday in The Daily News. Prof. Wernick currently serves as chair of the Citizenship and Naturalization Project of the City University of New York. He has also served on the national Board of Directors of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and as chair of the Immigration Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. His book, "U.S. Immigration and Citizenship - Your Complete Guide," is the best-selling work on the subject. He is a professor at the Baruch College School of Business, and practices law as of counsel to the Law Office of Glenn H. Bank in New York City. His website is allanwernick.com.

Allan Wernick
NYDailyNews.com

Faster way to bring wife into country

Tuesday, June 26th 2007, 4:00 AM

Q What documents should I submit to bring my wife here on K-3 status? I am a U.S. citizen. My wife is abroad. I filed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, for her. The USCIS sent back a filing receipt, but has yet to approve the petition. I read in your column that my wife might get here more quickly if I get her a K-3 visa.

L., Queens

A K-3 status allows a spouse of a U.S. citizen to come to the United States while his or her permanent residence application is pending. Then, the spouse can apply for residence here.

You should use the I-129F, Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) form. The USCIS has yet to issue a special form for K-3 spouses. You send the petition to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, P.O. Box 7218, Chicago, Ill. 60680-7218. With the petition, include a copy of the USCIS filing receipt for the petition you filed for your wife. Having filed an I-130 petition is a precondition for getting her K-3 status.

Once the USCIS approves the petition, the agency will forward it to the Department of State National Visa Center. The center will forward it to the U.S. Consulate where your wife will interview for her visa. When the consul calls her for her interview, she'll need to present your marriage certificate, her birth certificate, proof of the termination of any prior marriages, a medical exam, local police certificates and, if the consul requests it, an affidavit of support (USCIS form I-134).

At her interview your wife also should present evidence of the bona fides (genuineness) of your marriage. That might include phone records, letters sent to and from your wife, and records of your travel to see her.



Not easy to change status

Q Can I change from undocumented to student immigration status? I came here as a visitor, but then stayed longer than allowed. I am enrolled at Bronx Community College, CUNY.

Peter Tabase, the Bronx

A Getting F-1 international student status is next to impossible for undocumented students. The USCIS will grant an out-of-status visitor student status only in rare and extremely compelling circumstances. I've heard of that happening in only a very few cases.

The alternative to a change of status is to apply for a student visa in your home country, but that would be very risky.

You would need to prove that you would return home after you complete your studies. Given that you have overstayed once already, that will be hard to do.

Fixing a minor offense

Q Will my conviction for petit larceny affect my application for permanent residence? I recently married a U.S. citizen and I have a 2-year-old son.

Keisha Solomon, Brooklyn

A It's possible that your offense is so minor that it won't bar you from getting residence. If you are subject to a bar, you might qualify for a waiver.

See an expert before applying for permanent residence.

Before consulting the expert, get a Certificate of Disposition and a Good Conduct Certificate. You get the Certificate of Disposition from the court clerk in the county where you were charged with the crime.

You get the Good Conduct Certificate at One Police Plaza − that's the red brick building near the Brooklyn Bridge in downtown Manhattan.

Go there anytime from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Bring a money order or certified check for $30 payable to the New York City Police Department.

Bring also a valid passport. For more information, call (646) 610-5541.

Allan Wernick

allanwernick@earthlink.net
Allan Wernick's immigration law column appears every Thursday in The Daily News. Prof. Wernick currently serves as chair of the Citizenship and Naturalization Project of the City University of New York. He has also served on the national Board of Directors of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and as chair of the Immigration Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. His book, "U.S. Immigration and Citizenship - Your Complete Guide," is the best-selling work on the subject. He is a professor at the Baruch College School of Business, and practices law as of counsel to the Law Office of Glenn H. Bank in New York City. His website is allanwernick.com.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Immigration bill dead

O.C. Republican legislators express satisfaction with outcomeBy DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register

WASHINGTON – Advocates of the comprehensive immigration bill that died on the Senate floor Thursday insist their issue is not dead. But they concede that it will likely be years before anything approaching the sweep of this year's measure is tackled again.

Those who succeeded in blocking the bill that would have allowed an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows, say what's needed now is for federal officials to enforce current law and build the fence Congress told them to last year.

"The Senate has effectively killed comprehensive immigration reform for the 110th Congress,'' said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who chairs the House subcommittee on immigration.

"It might be the year 2015 before people have the courage to deal with this,'' said Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo, one the so-called "grand bargainers" who crafted the failed bill.

"One reason the Senate bill failed was that an amnesty would draw in millions of more illegal immigrants,'' said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Fullerton. "Now we should focus on really enforcing existing laws and building the border fence.''

Soon after the vote, the man whose department is charged with policing the nation's borders and enforcing immigration law said the Senate's inaction will make his agency's job even harder.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the tools his department needed to better enforce immigration law were left on the floor on the Senate on Thursday. "Nevertheless we will continue to enforce the law.''

Chertoff, who with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez spent weeks on Capitol Hill working with the bipartisan group, said his department now won't have a mandatory employment verification system or a tamper-proof card for illegal immigrants to present at the workplace. Penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers won't be increased. And the $4.4 billion added into the bill in the past week also won't be there to help DHS do its job.

Senators voted 46 to 53 to end debate on the bill. Proponents needed 60 votes to keep the measure alive.

Lofgren was waiting to see the outcome of the Senate vote from the back of the chamber along with a dozen other House members. She said had it passed the Senate, she was confident that a coalition would have been there in the House to successfully tackle the issue.

"It's really a vote for the status quo, which I don't think the country was hoping for,'' Lofgren said.

The bill's chances had been tanking in the days before the vote as senators who had hoped to see their amendments pass were disappointed and opponents continued to hammer away at provisions they said amounted to amnesty and that would not adequately secure the nation's borders.

Those who brought the bill down credited the American people.

"The message is crystal clear,'' said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the strongest opponents of the bill. "The American people want us to start with enforcement, both at the border and in the workplace.'' Opponents of the bill were particularly heartened that the measure not only didn't get the 60 votes necessary to end debate but that a majority of senators voted no.

"It appears that even the deaf ears in the United States Senate were able to hear the roar of outrage from the American people about the pro-immigrant invasion bill they were trying to foist on us,'' said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach. "The only hope we had was that the American people would hold their elected officials accountable and that worked."

But Sen. Edward Kennedy, who has been crusading for immigration reform for decades, likened this issue to such heady ones as civil rights.

"You cannot stop the march for progress in the United States," said Kennedy, D-Mass. "I have every hope and every expectation that we'll be ultimately successful.

Chertoff said despite the bill's failure, he will continue to ramp up the administration's efforts to enhance border and interior security.

He said employers can expect more raids on workplaces to find illegal workers. Communities along the southern border can expect to begin to see 370 miles of fence begin to be built and completed by the end of Bush's term.

"And I have to say,'' Chertoff said, "you will continue to see heart-wrenching examples of families being pulled apart because I have an obligation to enforce the law, whether it's painful to do or whether it's pleasurable to do.''

The jockeying for votes continued almost up until the vote, although Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she realized Wednesday night that the cause was lost.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., had been one of a dozen or so lawmakers whose vote was in doubt. In the end, she voted to allow the bill to reach a final vote, but by then the outcome was assured.

"It's hard to understand exactly what happened,'' a visibly distressed Feinstein, D-Calif., said at a news conference. She said she hopes to salvage the "Ag Jobs" part of the bill, which would legalize agricultural workers, and attach that to another piece of legislation.

That the bill went down is a defeat for President Bush, who had hoped to make an immigration overhaul bill his key domestic achievement of his second term. Bush, a former Texas governor, has long supported the building blocks of the measure the Senate rejected Thursday. The president was making calls up until the vote, trying to persuade senators to allow the bill to live.

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment,'' Bush said in a statement after the vote. "The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find a common ground – it didn't work."

The defeat for the bill climaxed two years of legislative wrangling over this issue. A comprehensive measure passed the Senate last year but failed to become law because House lawmakers did not take the matter up. This year, advocates of such a measure were buoyed by having Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

Besides legalizing undocumented workers, the bill would have enhanced border and interior security, and created a workplace verification program and a temporary worker program.

Lobbyists had camped out outside the Senate chambers trying to persuade senators to support the motion. During the vote, more than a dozen House members stood at the back of the Senate chamber as the debate came to a close.

Supporters from both sides of the aisle had taken to the floor the moment the Senate convened, imploring a yes vote even as the arm twisting continued.

"Thi