Driver to be charged with capital murder in smuggling chase

July 10, 2007

SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- A man accused of trying to smuggle more than a dozen Central American men in a sport utility vehicle was expected to face capital murder charges following a deadly high-speed chase.

The driver, a native of Cuba, was among the 12 people hospitalized early Monday when the SUV rolled while being tailed by San Antonio and Natalia police. Three other men who were thrown from the vehicle died at the scene, according to a San Antonio police report.

The driver, whose identity has not been released, will be charged with three counts of capital murder in the deaths, said San Antonio Police Sgt. Gabe Trevino.

Police say the injuries of the 12 hospitalized ranged from minor to critical.

All the vehicle's occupants were men and most were believed to be from Guatemala and Honduras. They were apparently being smuggled to Houston, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.

The Medical Examiner's Office in San Antonio was working to identify the three dead and notify their families via the consular offices.

Four of the SUV's occupants weren't injured. They were being held by ICE pending further investigation.

Authorities say the driver led a state trooper and police from three departments on a high-speed chase that covered more than 100 miles.

Initially, Texas Department of Public Safety trooper Nick DeLeon tried to pull the vehicle over in Frio County on suspicion of speeding. The SUV sped away, ran a stop sign and headed back to Interstate 35, DeLeon said.

The trooper followed the SUV for about 10 minutes, during which speeds reached 105 mph. But he ended the chase after realizing there were more people in the car. State police protocol bans chases when suspected undocumented immigrants are involved to keep from posing a danger to the people in the vehicle and the public.

A Natalia police officer later pursued the SUV, said Natalia police Lt. John Johnson. Lytle police also briefly pursued the vehicle.

San Antonio police eventually joined the chase to backup the Natalia officer, Trevino said.

One of the San Antonio patrol cars pulled alongside the SUV and the driver swerved to try to ram the unit, Johnson said.

It's unclear if the SUV's tires blew before the vehicle rolled, Trevino said.


Information from: San Antonio Express-News, http://www.mysanantonio.com

Thelma and Louise and Cheech and Chong...

July 5th, 2007

The ultimate "man bites dog story"...

comes from Silvia Guerrero in El Mañana (Nuevo Laredo). Two women were detained at the Ignacio Zaragoza International Bridge in Matamoros, smuggling 14.4 Kg of marijuana, and turned over to the local prosecutor. Marijuana smuggling at the border? Normally anything under about 200 Kilos isn't even going to make the papers, but this smuggling operation was a little different... Soledad Alejandra Martines and Ofelia Zavala de Martínez were smuggling the devil's weed INTO Mexico.

Tete-a-tete: A citizen's note on immigration

May 2nd, 2007

Lorena Diaz de Leon "” though she still hasn't been able to get this "wordpress thing" straightened out (she's not the first one to have trouble with it) "” sends this May Day missive along:

The view in our nation is at odds as to who should obtain the right to enjoy the liberties of our nation; these very laws are propounded by a democratic nation where the ambiguity of the path to citizenship and the non-existent immigration laws have left a bitter taste in Americans' mouths. Who is right? Are the people, screaming of the strain immigrants place on the economy and the danger they pose as being "undocumented", right? Or, are the people, hollering for legalization so that they could benefit from the privileges of natural citizen, right?

There is one fact amidst this burgeoning chaos. The twelve million illegal immigrants residing in our nation will not be easily hoarded on a bus, which is the current "raid" technique employed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (also known as ICE, a funny sort of acronym giving illusions to the recent, cold force if you will, of the heavily armed agents in the recent Chicago raid). Yes, I agree that citizens should be protected within our borders, but, by no means should inhumane tactics arise on the sole basis that one is "illegal".

In the Chicago raid, for instance, was it really necessary to conduct the raid in a manner mimicking an army ready to conduct war? Those that disagree with the proposition of the raid's purpose as an intimidation tactic could beg to differ, but, sorely lose when attempting to explain the logic behind the tactics applied. According to the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, raids do not impact migration patterns, rather they definitely violate constitutional and civil rights by utilizing physical, verbal and psychological abuse"”and, evidently, have resorted to racial stereotyping. This data was compiled from the reports of 235 raids conducted in thirty one states, and these facts can be found in Jorge Ramos book, The Other Face of America

Jorge Ramos, a respected television correspondent for Univision, sees the immigration conflict in terms of "supply and demand", in other words, as long as there are jobs in the U.S. and as long as there are willing immigrant workers, they will fill those positions. Ramos provides interesting particulars about American society: Immigrants in the United States comprise almost 11 percent of the population; this, surprisingly, has not been the highest peak in immigration for in the years 1870 and 1910, the percentage hovered around 14 percent. Let us remember: it is the eleven percent of immigrants that not only contribute to the economy but, who will as Ramos exclaims, "During a crisis, immigrants will defend the United States as if were their birth country...And, as has been the case in most wars America has participated in, a large percentage of soldiers are named Salinas and Perez and Rodriguez."

In writing this piece, I tried to gain all perspectives of this controversial debate that has politicians boiling over with confusion. I sought the anti-immigration sentiment and came across (no surprise, of course) Lou Dobb's commentary, Big media hide truth about immigration, posted on CNN's website on April 25. Dobb's is notable for his raucous attacks on immigration. His commentary left me on a desert island, without any fresh water to take refuge in, confused as if I were stuck on a bad episode of Gilligan's island with other politicians.

The following is taken from his commentary:

Too often, the language of the national media describes illegal immigration as "migration" and illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants," even though many of them have lots of documents, most of which are fraudulent or stolen. Some media outlets have taken to calling illegal aliens "entrants." Whether such language is meant to engender sympathy or to intentionally blur the distinction between legal and illegal, the mainstream media are taking sides in this debate. There's no question this type of mass immigration would have a calamitous effect on working citizens and their families. Professor Carol Swain, professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University and author of "Debating Immigration," would like to see more people speak up for the sectors of society most affected by illegal immigration. To address the first point, no matter how you paint a word, whether one chooses to call them "undocumented", "illegal", "entrants", the fact remains the same that they are immigrants, moreover they are "humans""” a shocking revelation, I know. The media is multifaceted, there is a venue for all sides, and whether a reporter chooses word A or B, probability lets us know that another will choose just as effectively another word to convey their point.


The second point is over-used and untrue. The National Academy of Sciences reports that immigrants add about ten billion a year to the nation's economy; immigrants contribute more than they take! The only calamitous effect that would be seen is when immigrants stop supplying their workforce.

On a last note: With the spirit of American hope and diversification, thousands gathered across the nation to garner support for the reform of immigrant legalization. The rallies provide an outlet for unification and send a powerful message to our leaders: Immigrants need to be protected against racist tendencies seen in some sectors of our society. Immigrants should be granted a fair law to aide on their path to citizenship. And, the U.S. must work with the Mexican government to provide a consensus on immigration flow and safe border patrolling. The rallies also send a message to all citizens: We must embrace our commonality and what it is truly to be an American, a citizen of a multi-cultural society.

Illegal immigrants find refuge in holy places
Liliana, 29, is an illegal immigrant from Mexico who has been given sanctuary at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Long Beach, Calif. Behind her, Julia Wakelee-Lynch, associate rector, holds Liliana's 4-month-old son, Pablito.

Facing deportation, Liliana left a young daughter and son at home in Oxnard, Calif., with her husband.

By Emily Bazar
USA TODAY
July 9, 2007

LONG BEACH, Calif. "” Five immigration agents rapped on Liliana's front door one morning in May. "We've come for you," she recalls them saying.
Liliana, a 29-year-old factory worker from Mexico who crossed the border illegally in 1998, begged and pleaded. "What about my children?" she asked. "I have a baby. I'm nursing."

The agents softened when they heard Pablito crying, she says, and gave her a reprieve. They ordered her to report to a detention center five days later to be sent back to Mexico.

Instead, Liliana hid at the home of a Catholic deacon and his wife. Last month she emerged from hiding and took up residence at St. Luke's Episcopal Church, which has pledged to protect her from deportation.

St. Luke's and Liliana are central characters in the New Sanctuary Movement, a small but growing coalition of churches, synagogues and other houses of worship that is challenging the immigration system, despite legal risk, as the nation debates how to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA.

The congregations say the immigration system mistreats immigrants and breaks families apart. They want to end raids of job sites that have led to the arrest of thousands of undocumented workers, and they're lobbying for policies that would help keep the families of illegal immigrants together and in the USA.

Drawing on the tradition of sanctuary, in which churches declare themselves safe havens for those fleeing violence or prosecution, congregations from New York to San Diego have begun to view supporting illegal immigrants "” and occasionally sheltering them from deportation "” as a moral and religious duty.

"We don't accept a broken law that causes separation of families," says Richard Estrada, an associate pastor at Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church in Los Angeles. "We will protect families, those in danger of being separated. ... We're doing what we think is the right, moral thing to do."

Congregations in about 50 cities have joined or expressed interest in the sanctuary movement, says Alexia Salvatierra, a Lutheran pastor and one of the national coordinators. Churches in Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Chicago and New York are helping and housing immigrants, and congregations in Miami, Kansas City and Phoenix plan to start soon, she says.

Salvatierra and others acknowledge their protection is mostly symbolic because the government has the legal authority to send agents into a church and detain immigrants. But they're betting the government won't.

"It doesn't make good press for the government to go into churches," says Julia Wakelee-Lynch, associate rector at St. Luke's. "Many media outlets have called and said, 'Please call us the minute something happens.' "

Groups: No one above the law

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff agrees that immigration officials want to avoid "a media circus and a confrontation." Even so, his department must enforce immigration laws "whether people are happy or unhappy" with them.

"We reserve our options, and we take the action that we feel is appropriate," Chertoff says. "We don't give people assurance that they have a sanctuary, nor do we necessarily indicate when we're going to do something. They're on their own if they're going to defy the law."

The sanctuary movement is drawing criticism from groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which promotes limits on immigration. Dan Stein, president of the group, calls the family separation argument "ridiculous" and says the movement acts like it's above the law.

"You leave your family behind when you make the decision to come (to the USA), and then you break the law to do it," he says. "If people come illegally, they're taking certain risks."

Jose, a 43-year-old undocumented immigrant from Mexico, moved into Our Lady Queen of Angels in May. Two of his four sons were born here and are citizens.

Jose first crossed the border illegally through Tijuana in 1989. He has been battling immigration officials since 2002, he says, when they discovered he worked at Los Angeles International Airport. Last year, they told him he had to leave the USA by November. He didn't.

Jose is appealing his case, Estrada says, but fears he will be deported and his family split. At the church, Jose's second-floor room opens to the balcony pews. "I'm very close to God," he says in Spanish.

Hundreds of immigrants have sought help from the church movement recently, but congregations typically give sanctuary only to those who fit a profile. They seek immigrants facing deportation who have children, parents or other close relatives in the USA legally, to emphasize immigration laws' impact on families. Such immigrants must be willing to speak publicly to draw attention to the cause.

So far, eight immigrants across the nation are getting financial, legal and other help from the movement. Four of them, including Liliana and Jose, are staying in church buildings. Most speak to reporters on the condition their last names not be publicized, for fear their families would be harassed.

Sanctuary can take various forms. Congregations supply lawyers or medical care, provide financial assistance or offer moral support at immigration hearings. Immigrants who seek shelter "” not all want it, and not all congregations involved can provide it "” never leave church grounds.

Church leaders usually make a three-month sanctuary pledge to the immigrants but acknowledge it may last much longer. The immigrants say they will remain cloistered until their legal cases are resolved or until Congress approves a plan to help lead to their legalization. Among those receiving help:

"¢Joe, 28, and his wife Mei, 26, came to the USA from China using fake passports. He came in 1996; she in 2000. They applied for asylum but it was denied, Joe says.

Authorities discovered them in the country illegally in late 2005, when the Brooklyn residents were in a car pulled over for speeding. They now face deportation.

They have two children, 2-year-old Crystal and 4-month-old Jeffrey, who are U.S. citizens because they were born here. The couple fear they would be punished in China for violating the government's population-control policy that limits many families to one child.

Members of the three Lutheran churches in Brooklyn that have "adopted" Joe and Mei attend immigration hearings with them. The couple have declined physical sanctuary so far but say they may seek shelter if they lose their appeals.

"¢Marco Castillo, 25, came from Mexico with his mother and two sisters when he was 4 to join his father. They crossed into this country legally with a visitor's visa in 1986 but stayed after it expired.

They applied for legal residency and got bad legal advice, he says. Castillo, his mother and one sister "” the other married a citizen "” signed papers saying they would leave voluntarily without realizing what they were doing, he says. Their case is being appealed.

Castillo was senior class president at San Diego's Crawford High School, where he graduated in 2000. He worked his way through San Diego State University as a janitor, cashier, busboy and restaurant manager. Now a graphic designer in San Diego, he gets financial and moral support, but not shelter, from Quakers.

"It's spiritual sanctuary," he says.

"¢Juan, 38, came to the USA in 1992 to escape poverty in Guatemala. He says he paid a smuggler $1,600 to sneak him into the USA through Nogales, Ariz.

He went from making $1 a day cutting bananas in Guatemala to owning a landscaping business in Southern California with 40 customers. Juan sought legal residency but missed a meeting with immigration officials because he couldn't read a notification letter in English. He was ordered deported in 2004.

In May, Juan moved into a Lutheran church in North Hollywood, Calif., because he feared immigration agents would show up at his home.

His daughters, 1-year-old Michelle and 6-year-old Yanette, visit him each day. The children, who were born here, are citizens. Their mother, Juan's common-law wife, is in the country illegally.

Members of the congregation bring food and some fill in for him on his landscaping rounds, says Father Richard Zanotti of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, one of five churches helping Juan.

A Christian tradition

The tradition of sanctuary dates to the first centuries of Christianity, when churches were considered places of peace, says Daniel Maguire, professor of moral theology at Marquette University in Milwaukee. In 11th-century Europe, the "Truce of God" formalized the concept, he says, giving legal protection from the authorities to those who sought sanctuary in churches.

"If you could get yourself onto a church property ... you were safe," Maguire says.

Today, sanctuary offers no legal protection from the government, including immigration agents. "If they have a warrant for an individual's arrest, whether they are in a church or a shopping mall, they have a right to enter and enforce" it, says Carlina Tapia-Ruano, past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Still, some churches feel a moral obligation to offer sanctuary during crises. In the 1980s, U.S. churches smuggled and hid Central American refugees they said faced persecution and death squads at home.

"This is what we are called to do by our Christian principles," says Reginald Swilley, a former associate pastor at Maranatha Christian Center in San Jose, Calif. His congregation soon may offer sanctuary, including shelter, to an immigrant.

It is illegal to harbor illegal immigrants or shield them from detection, says Charles Kuck, president-elect of the immigration lawyers group. Penalties include stiff fines and prison sentences. Providing shelter to an illegal immigrant could be interpreted as breaking that law, he says. "If I were going to advise a church, I would tell them not to do this."

But Peter Schey, the lawyer advising the sanctuary movement and president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles, says the churches are within the law. He advises congregations that they're not guilty of harboring if the immigrants aren't in hiding and have active cases pending to legalize their status.

Church leaders say that if U.S. agents arrived with a warrant to take an immigrant into custody, they would not block them. "That's what we call the worst-case scenario," Wakelee-Lynch says. "I don't anticipate we would resist."

Elvira Arellano, 32, became the first face of the emerging sanctuary movement when she moved into Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago with her son on Aug. 15, 2006, the day she was supposed to report for deportation.

Arellano never leaves church grounds, but 9-year-old Saul, who was born here and is a citizen, goes to school and other activities, says church pastor Walter Coleman.

"We fear God more than we fear Homeland Security," Coleman says.

A Haitian's story

The sanctuary movement isn't only for illegal immigrants. Jean Montrevil, 38, came here from Haiti in 1986 and is a legal resident.

But a 1989 drug conviction, which sent him to prison for 11 years, qualified Montrevil for deportation and landed him in detention for six months in 2005. He reports monthly to immigration officials. The Brooklyn resident is married to a U.S. citizen. The couple have four children.

Two Manhattan churches have written letters on Montrevil's behalf and send members with him to immigration hearings. If his legal options fail, he says, he could leave his family or take them to Haiti, which he fears is unsafe because of poverty and political instability.

He's unlikely to choose either, he says. "The entire family probably will go into sanctuary," he says. "We really want to stay together as a family to face the consequences."

Behind church doors

Across the country, 4-month-old Pablito naps at St. Luke's to the sound of Latina music star Marta Sánchez. The room that the church hastily converted from an office is filled with furniture donated by parishioners, including a bed, a refrigerator and a kitchen table.

Pablito is still nursing, so Liliana keeps him with her. She left 4-year-old Susi and 7-year-old Gerardo Jr. at home in Oxnard with her husband. They and their father, who are U.S. citizens, visit on weekends.

Her deportation order stems from 1998, when she was caught trying to get into the USA with a fake U.S. birth certificate. She says she didn't realize that would thwart her chances of becoming a legal resident. She later hired a smuggler to sneak her into Arizona.

When immigration agents ordered her to report for deportation in May, she says she couldn't do it.

"I understand it was a serious responsibility to appear, but my obligation to my kids was bigger," she says in Spanish. "I will stay in sanctuary as long as it's necessary."

Bi-estupida y bi-intellegente
July 8th, 2007

Texas State Senator Debbie Riddle, who thinks public education "comes straight out of the pit of hell" (or at least Moscow) is going soft.

Now she just worries that a proposal to teach San Antonio school children in both Spanish and English (as opposed to just Spanish or just English, or taking one of the two Texas languages as the "foreign" one) will limit a child's chance to perform surgery while flying a plane... and suing someone. Or something like that:

Riddle said she fears the project will dilute the need for students to master English, which is the international language of aviation and a requirement if children want to become lawyers or physicians.

"I think we are worshipping at the feet of diversity," Riddle said. "There's nothing wrong with diversity, but to minimize English as the primary language of this nation is a mistake, and I think it's a mistake for our kids. Kids need to master the English language, period.

At least she doesn't claim its a plot to rob children of their precious bodily fluids. Anyway, Debbie...learning to speak two languages is going to keep them from speaking English how?

Senator Riddle (R-etro early 1950s) was one of the two State Senators to vote against House Bill 2814, which creates a six-year pilot program that will test a dual-language program in up to 10 Texas public school districts and 30 campuses. The bill is designed to help Anglo kids learn a second language, according to sponsor Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio. "They will learn Spanish or some other language, becoming bilingual and bi-literate. When they are little, you can do that."

Initiative effort on illegal jobs continues Backers gathering signatures fear new law will be 'gutted'

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona
07.10.2007

PHOENIX "” Backers of an initiative to punish businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants intend to continue gathering signatures, even though the governor has just signed a new employer-penalty law.

Don Goldwater, who chairs the Legal Arizona Workers initiative drive, said Monday that many of those involved in the campaign simply don't believe the measure signed into law last week will ever take effect.

Goldwater pointed out that Gov. Janet Napolitano already has said she wants some changes in the law. In fact, the governor is pushing for a special legislative session before the end of the year.

Napolitano said the changes she wants include such things as exempting hospitals, nursing homes, power plants and other essential services from the risk of being shut down, even temporarily, even if it turns out the operators did knowingly hire workers in this country illegally.

But Goldwater said initiative backers fear changes that go much further.
"They're very concerned that the start of the next legislative session, if not sooner, that the Legislature will convene to basically gut this program," he said.

"People aren't ready to let this thing go," Goldwater added. "They don't have a lot of trust in the Legislature or the Governor's Office to uphold the bill."

Also supporting continued signature-gathering is state Rep. Russell Pearce, the Mesa Republican who crafted the measure signed by Napolitano.

But Pearce said his concern is not limited to legislators who may have second thoughts in the face of business-interest lobbying. He noted that the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and some legislative Democrats already have vowed to try to have the new law overturned even before it takes effect.

"You can't trust those folks," Pearce said.
"Or maybe you can trust them," he continued. "You can trust them to be very dishonest and spend a lot of money trying to destroy the best tool we have in terms of dealing with the illegal-labor work force and the illegal businesses."

The initiative actually would be stricter than the new law: It would require a judge to permanently revoke any state licenses a business has to operate in Arizona after just one conviction of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant.

By contrast, the legislation says a judge may, but is not required to, suspend a business's license for a first offense of knowingly employing someone not authorized to be in this country. Only on a second offense within three years would a license be revoked.

Pearce said this optional punishment means there is no need for the kind of exemption that Napolitano wants.

Only if a company is convicted of an intentional violation would a judge be required to suspend a license for at least 10 days.

And Pearce said any company that checks job applicants through a federal database has a built-in defense against being convicted.

"Nobody who tries to follow the law is at risk," he said, adding the law will hurt "only those that are trying to game the system, figuring out how to get around and still hire illegal aliens."

But Pearce's fears go beyond what his colleagues might do. He pointed out that attorneys for Democratic legislators as well as for the state Chamber of Commerce and Industry already are threatening to ask a federal judge to block implementation of the law.

"I'm willing to let the bill work," he said. "They ought to be willing to let the bill work too before we start messing with it."

Backers need 153,365 valid signatures on petitions by July 3, 2008, to put the measure on next year's ballot.

Sonora chief: No hard feelings on entrant law

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona 07.11.2007

HERMOSILLO, Sonora "” The governor of Sonora said he does not blame his Arizona counterpart for signing what is probably the toughest law in the U.S. to crack down on employment of undocumented workers.

"There are some things she has to do by law," Gov. Eduardo Bours said. Approval of the measure by the Legislature left Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano no real choices.

The law, set to take effect in January, allows a judge to suspend state licenses of businesses that knowingly hire someone not legally permitted to work in the United States. A second offense within two years means mandatory loss of the ability to do business in Arizona.

"I think it's wrong," said Bours who, along with Napolitano, participated in a daylong conference on regional economic competitiveness here.

"At the end of the day, I don't think it's a good idea," he continued. "But she had to do it."

Bours also said he does not believe Napolitano agrees with the new law. But the governor's own statements, at least in the U.S., suggest otherwise.

"I have said for a long time you can't deal with immigration simply by border walls and border security measures," Napolitano said last week when she signed the new law.

"You must deal with the underlying labor migration," she continued. "What we're trying to do here in Arizona is to shut down the businesses that, not once but twice, are found to have intentionally hired illegal labor."

On Tuesday, Napolitano said her decision to sign the law has had no impact on her relationship with Bours.

Border Patrol finds 2 bodies in separate locales on reservation

Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona
07.11.2007

U.S. Border Patrol agents discovered the bodies of two men Monday on the Tohono O'odham Nation, an official said.

One of the deceased men is believed to be an illegal entrant; the other has not been identified, said Senior Border Patrol Agent Dove Haber, a Tucson Sector spokeswoman.

About 3:20 p.m., a Border Patrol agent talked to an illegal entrant who said he'd left his brother behind in the desert, Haber said.

The illegal entrant then led the agent to his brother, who was dead when they arrived.
The body was found about 10 miles west of Sells north of Arizona 86.

The man was about 30 years old and from Puebla, Mexico, Haber said. The Border Patrol report did not say exactly where the body was found.

The Mexican Consulate was notified of the death, and the deceased man's brother will return to Mexico, Haber said.

In the second death, just before 6 p.m. Monday, another Border Patrol agent came upon a decomposing body during a standard patrol, Haber said.

The body had no identification, and it's unknown whether the man is an illegal entrant, Haber said.

The body was found about three miles southwest of Vamori, which is south of Sells and about 70 miles southwest of Tucson.

The investigation was turned over to the Tohono O'odham Police Department.

I never thought explora was releasing good stuff
she really knows what she´s
talking about

Feds Arrest 81 Illegal Immigrants in Pa.

The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 20, 2007; 11:18 AM

EAST STROUDSBURG, Pa. -- Federal agents arrested 81 illegal immigrants during a raid at a manufacturing plant in the Poconos.

All the workers arrested Tuesday at Iridium Industries Inc.'s Artube division have been placed in removal proceedings for eventual deportation, said Ernestine Fobbs, a spokeswoman with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

She declined to say what led to the raid. The company makes plastic tubes for lotions and other consumer products, according to its Web site.

The arrested immigrants are from Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia and Ecuador and were taken to detention centers for processing, Fobbs said.

Federal agents have carried out several similar raids in recent months as part of a national effort to crack down on illegal hiring.

Last week, federal agents raided a food processing plant in Oregon and detained more than 165 workers on immigration, illegal document and identity theft charges. In December, more than 1,200 immigrant workers were arrested at Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in six states.

Immigration and Customs agents arrest 31 camp workers

July 10, 2007

GILBOA, N.Y. (AP) _ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested 31 workers at a children's summer camp Tuesday in the Catskills.

ICE officials said the construction workers were illegal aliens, mostly from Central America. They were employed by two companies working as subcontractors at a camp in Gilboa, 38 miles southwest of Albany.

The workers will be charged with being illegally present in the United States and will be detained pending immigration proceedings.

State Police and officers from the Delaware County and Schoharie County Sheriff's Offices were also involved in the arrests.


Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

Pr. William Passes Resolution Targeting Illegal Immigration

Stricter Aspects of Original Plan Are Softened

By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Prince William County supervisors voted unanimously last night to approve a resolution that targets illegal immigrants by attempting to curb their access to public services and increasing immigration enforcement by local police.

But the resolution approved last night significantly weakens a previous proposal, removing or altering several of its toughest measures but asking county employees to look for ways to lawfully deny services to illegal immigrants.

The largest board meeting crowd in 20 years showed up for the vote at the county government complex, turning Prince William into a microcosm of a debate playing out in communities across the country in the wake of Congress's failure to reform immigration laws.

"How are we supposed to survive here?" asked Gregorio Calderón, a legal U.S. resident from El Salvador who said he worries that police will harass him because of his ethnicity. "They're going to pull me over just for being Hispanic."

The previous resolution would have required officers to check the residency status of anyone who breaks a law, no matter how minor. The measure approved yesterday directs officers to check the status of anyone in police custody who they suspect is an illegal immigrant.

The changes were made after county attorneys, police and supervisors expressed concerns about the legality of some of the measures. The new resolution would not deny access to schools and other legally mandated services. Another measure that would have allowed residents to sue the county for providing services to illegal immigrants was also stripped out.

But the measures still place Prince William at the forefront of Virginia jurisdictions that are trying to check illegal immigration.

"This resolution does have teeth and changes county policy immediately," said board Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan).

Protests before and after the vote and the unusually large crowd outside the board chambers created a charged atmosphere. More than 100 people addressed board members, delaying the vote. Hundreds of others watched on big-screen TVs in the lobby and were reminded to refrain from applauding or booing. One speaker was removed.

When Supervisor John T. Stirrup Jr. (R-Gainesville) introduced the resolution last month, he said its goal was to deny all public services to illegal immigrants and order local police to check the residency status of anyone caught breaking the law. The altered version charts a more cautious course.

Stirrup's resolution had said that illegal immigration is causing "economic hardship and lawlessness" in Prince William and that county agencies may be encouraging illegal immigration by failing to verify immigration status as a condition of providing public services.

The measure "is the first step towards taking back our community," he said

Pr. William Passes Resolution Targeting Illegal Immigration
The new version gives county workers 60 days to help board members determine which public services can be lawfully denied to illegal immigrants. Unlike the previous resolution, it specifies that services such as emergency medical care and other benefits mandated by law cannot be restricted. At the request of the county's attorneys, language was added to several sections to avoid violating federal and state laws.

A roughly equal number of speakers appeared to support and oppose the resolution. One was removed after berating Stirrup for a joke he made to Stewart at a previous meeting in which Stirrup suggested a "Hispanic flag" could be flown in Woodbridge, which has a relatively large Hispanic community.

Many speakers said they were Hispanic immigrants.

Immigrants "have built our homes; they have built our roads," said Hank Azais, who owns a tax preparation service catering to Hispanics in Manassas.

Others said they were worried about damage to the county's reputation. "Prince William County does not have to become the racist capital of America," said Harry Wiggins, a Lake Ridge resident.

Many Stirrup supporters told the board they applauded the measures and saw the effort as a last stand against rising crime, overcrowding and the failure of Hispanic newcomers to adapt to American culture.

"If we turn our heads and permit illegal entry into our county without making any effort or identification, we are saying our language, our culture, our Constitution, our neighborhoods and our flag are inconsequential," said Sue Fleming, a member of the group Help Save Manassas. "It is a price I do not care to pay."

Others decried rapid cultural changes in their communities. "I'm tired of pressing '1' for English" on the phone, Woodbridge resident Chris King said.

One element of Stirrup's resolution was noticeably absent from the amended version. It would have given residents the ability to sue county agencies if they suspected them of providing services to illegal immigrants. County staffers and supervisors expressed concern about the time and expense the county would potentially spend to fend off litigation.

Privately, though, several supervisors had expressed doubts about the implications of denying public services to immigrants. But given the political climate surrounding the issue, they said they felt compelled to back Stirrup.

"It's a start, and Mr. Stirrup was very gutsy," Supervisor Maureen S. Caddigan (R-Dumfries) said.

This was the most interesting post from explora (albeit not sure how it correlates to the topic, but it was interesting, on it's own merit).

P.S. Above was in reply to article about fawns (apparently deleted by the time I clicked "Post Now").

"President Bush also said in his speech that immigrants have to learn English. The immigrants said, 'Hey, you first.'"

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

Questions Remain on Illegal-Immigrant Measure Agencies to Decide Which Services to Curb

By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 12, 2007; Page B02

Should illegal immigrants be allowed to borrow the latest Harry Potter book from the neighborhood library? Can the teenager working at the local pool check swimmers' residency status before allowing them into the water? Where should an illegal immigrant with a stomach virus go if he can't pay for a doctor?

These are among the questions and scenarios that Prince William County staff members will have to sort through in the coming months because of a resolution approved unanimously Tuesday by the Board of County Supervisors that aims to deny county services to illegal immigrants. The resolution gives agencies 60 days to decide what services can be lawfully restricted and to devise a system for county employees to verify residency status.

Buy This Photo

The Prince William County Board of Supervisors draws a full chamber as it debates a resolution targeting illegal immigrants, which it approved. The county must create a system to verify the legal status of residents. (By Tracy A. Woodward -- The Washington Post)

With Tuesday's vote, Prince William joined Tulsa; Riverside, N.J.; Hazleton, Pa.; and other jurisdictions that have recently enacted measures targeting illegal immigrants. More than 1,000 bills and resolutions related to immigration were introduced by state governments this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- twice the number as last year. Failed congressional efforts to change immigration law are widely cited for the surge.

Yet local efforts to block services have had limited success elsewhere, and many public benefits, such as food stamps, welfare and Medicaid, are already unavailable to illegal immigrants. It is not clear how far Prince William officials are willing to push legal boundaries to achieve their stated goal of purging the county of illegal immigrants.

"There's a lot of unfinished business," said board Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan).

"We have to figure out how to sculpt this thing, what services we will deny to illegal immigrants and what procedures to put in place for our police department to determine when they should be checking immigration status and what documents will be used to prove it," he said, noting the resolution's revision of police procedures.

That portion directs police officers to inquire about the residency status of anyone in custody if they have probable cause to doubt that the person is legally in the country. The county's police department has 60 days to create standards for determining probable cause, as well as the methods for residency verification. No other jurisdiction in Virginia has tried to play such a large role in immigration enforcement, and it is not clear whether federal authorities will be able to retrieve every illegal immigrant arrested in the Prince William.

Measures to limit or deny public services will be far trickier to implement, legal experts say. Supervisors have said they do not want to create undue burdens for county staff members or push costly, impractical policies. County park employees do not have access to federal immigration databases, for example.

"When you try to infiltrate federal immigration law into a state and local context, you're setting yourself up for lawsuits," said Kathleen Walker, national president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "There is no 'easy button' to figure out immigration status."

Other jurisdictions have sought to limit access to housing and jobs by pressuring landlords and employers, tactics Prince William has not attempted. "If businesses can't hire and landlords can't rent, most will leave," Hazleton Mayor Louis J. Barletta said of illegal immigrants. "That will help hospitals, help school districts and other services burdened by the cost of illegal immigration." A ruling on the legality of Hazleton's measures is expected soon in U.S. District Court.

Some Prince William supervisors, emboldened by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggesting that the court has moved in a more conservative direction, say they would not shrink from legal battles.

For example, a 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe protects the right of illegal immigrant children to attend public schools, and supervisors have regularly blamed illegal immigrants for rising education costs in the county. The percentage of Hispanic students -- many of whom are not illegal immigrants -- enrolled in Prince William schools has nearly quadrupled in the past decade, from 6.6 to 24.2 percent.

"With this new Supreme Court, we have a real opportunity to overturn Plyler versus Doe," Supervisor W.S. Covington III (R-Brentsville) said before Tuesday's vote. "I'm not saying we should be the jurisdiction to do it. But the federal government ties our hands and doesn't look at what the costs are."

Other supervisors are not as comfortable with measures that would affect minors, regardless of their residency status. "You want children off the streets. You want them in a safe environment," Supervisor Hilda M. Barg (D-Woodbridge) said. "Will they have to prove they're legal citizens before they use the Boys and Girls Club?"

Legal scholars who have reviewed the Prince William resolution say its cautious language leaves little room for court challenges, and controversy probably will come later, depending on which public services the county tries to curtail.

"We'll just have to wait and see until there's something more concrete," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor.

Two Apply to Run Herndon's Day-Laborer Site

New Operator Would Be Under Instructions From Town to Check Workers' Legal Status

By Annie Gowen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 12, 2007; Page VA01

Herndon officials say they might name a new operator of their day laborer site, who would check the legal status of the workers, as early as Aug. 14, although when the change would take place remains unclear.

Town officials confirmed that they have received two applications from groups to run the center -- the subject of national furor and anti-immigration protests when it opened in 2005 -- but declined to release their names. Since launching the search for a new operator last fall, town officials have made it clear they want the new operator to check the legal status of workers. The site's current operator, Reston Interfaith -- a social service organization that manages the Herndon Official Workers Center under an agreement with the town and a grant from Fairfax County -- asks laborers to give just a name, address and telephone number.

The town was roiled by its decision to create the center and its practice of not ensuring that workers were legal, and a subsequent election favored officials who promised to change that.

Officials said they also hope the new operator can expand community services beyond the current outdoor pavilion and trailer and operate out of renovated rooms in the town's old police station.

Herndon resident and former Fairfax County vocational education instructor Dennis L. "Butch" Baughan has said he has applied and wants to create a workers center that will serve day laborers but also at-risk youths, high school dropouts, those with mental disabilities and men and women trying to move off welfare.

Baughan, 61, has 30 years of teaching experience, most of it in what became Fairfax's Education for Work program. He retired in 2001 and is now in real estate.

"I'm not going through a career change," Baughan said. "If anything, I'm going back to something that satisfies me in a way that real estate doesn't -- working with people to help them get a job. I think I have something to offer the community in that respect."

Baughan was a member of Help Save Herndon, which opposed the day-laborers site when it was proposed in 2005. He said he opposed the center because it served only a narrow part of the community. The scope should be expanded to include other workers' needs, he said.

"What I'm trying to do is to reach out and touch everybody in the community. . . . It certainly had nothing to do with Help Save Herndon," Baughan said. "I want to improve the center . . . not close it."

The immigration issue has raised tensions in the western Fairfax town of 23,000 people -- about a quarter of whom are of Hispanic descent -- since the Town Council voted to establish the day laborers center in summer 2005. By establishing a permanent place where the day laborers could find work, officials hoped to manage what had been an ad hoc and chaotic gathering of the laborers on busy Elden Street.

Since that time, Herndon has elected a mayor and two council members opposed to the idea of the center serving illegal immigrants. After establishing other measures aimed at curtailing illegal immigration, the new council began searching for an operator who would agree to check the legal status of the workers.

About 110 to 120 workers have been coming to the site each day in recent months seeking to be paired with business owners in construction and other fields, said Mary Supley Foxworth, communications director for Reston Interfaith.

"We're aware the town is looking for other providers. We know that's a possibility," she said. "We hope to continue operating."

Critics of the plan to replace Reston Interfaith with an operator that will check for legal documentation said it would force undocumented workers back to the streets and create other ad hoc gathering spots, such as the one on Elden Street that caused traffic backups and other headaches for neighbors.

"Common sense suggests that not very many of these workers are legal, and I fear they're going to be back on our streets," said Town Council member Harlon Reece, who opposes the idea of replacing Reston Interfaith. "I don't support illegal immigration, but as a Town Council member, my responsibility is to deal with the impact of illegal immigration on the town. I think I'm choosing pragmatism over ideology."

Vice Mayor Dennis D. Husch said that the town staff was evaluating the two proposals and that the council might vote to award the contract as early as Aug. 14. He said the move to begin checking legal status might temporarily put undocumented workers back on the streets, which would mean more work for police issuing tickets under the town's anti-solicitation ordinance. Eventually, the undocumented workers would simply stop gathering on the streets of Herndon, he said.

"It may be that way in the beginning, but I think people are fast learners," he said. "We shouldn't be using public property or public funds to support illegal aliens. It's as simple as that."

Voices of Montgomery
Letters to the Editor

Thursday, July 12, 2007; Page GZ04

Whose Voices Count Most On Immigratioon Issues?

The citizens of Montgomery County need to give thanks to Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger for standing up to Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery) and Gustavo Torres, director of CASA of Maryland [an immigrant advocacy group]. Under pressure from the dynamic duo, Manger stood by his decision to enforce the law and not, as demanded, have his officers ignore federal immigration warrants [Montgomery Notebook, June 28]. [Civil warrants for immigration violators come up on the FBI-run National Crime Information Center database when a county police officer runs a computer check during a routine stop.]

In a surprise move, Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett, the county's top advocate and financial supporter of CASA of Maryland and day-laborer centers, actually backed Manger's position on illegal aliens.

I'm saving my "half a cheer," however, as Manger is updating his 1998 police manual, including the section on federal immigration warrants. It's important for all law-abiding citizens to monitor Leggett and Manger to ensure that federal immigration warrants continue to be enforced.

In fact, with the question of federal amnesty for illegal aliens now a dead issue, the county police need to upgrade and enhance their procedures regarding federal immigration warrants. This enhancement would include undergoing specific federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement training to enable county officers to question, detain and arrest illegal aliens as well as assist in the deportation process.

I have a question for Leggett and Manger: Why are you having meetings with pro-illegal-immigration elected officials like Gutierrez and illegal-alien advocacy groups like CASA of Maryland? Why should these groups have special access and input to the county's policy on federal immigration warrants? For that matter, why do the Montgomery County police have special monthly meetings with Latino, African American and Asian groups but not with ordinary citizens concerned with illegal immigration and other public safety issues?

Why aren't Leggett and Manger having meetings with pro-legal-immigration citizen groups like Help Save Maryland, Citizens Above Party, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Maryland Minuteman Civil Defense Corps? As the U.S. Senate just found out, American citizens are no longer going to take a back seat when it comes to illegal-immigration issues.

Brad Botwin
Rockville
Director
Help Save Maryland
_____________________________________________
Voices of Montgomery Letters to the Editor

Subin's Remark Shows Bias On Matters of Immigration

In the June 28 Montgomery Notebook, [former County Council member] Michael L. Subin was quoted as saying, "Anyone who questions the honor of Chief Manger is questioning my honor. If you compare him to the Minutemen, you are calling him a racist and a fascist."

Apparently Mr. Subin is pro-illegal-immigration and believes that anyone who isn't is a racist and a fascist. I am of the opinion that Mr. Subin should not head up, nor be part of, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission due to his displayed biases.

Marshall Elbert
Rockville

Managing Illegal Immigration
Thursday, July 12, 2007

The July 8 editorial "Hounding Immigrants" said Prince William County's neighbors would be harmed by a crackdown on illegal immigrants and asked: "What would be accomplished by such a beggar-thy-neighbor policy?" I think the answer is obvious -- neighboring counties will see the quality of life in Prince William improve and see their own problems with illegal immigration increase.

Those counties will respond by passing similar measures, which will send illegal immigrants to other jurisdictions, which in turn will pass similar measures or suffer the consequences of more illegal immigration.

As a resident of Montgomery County, I will be watching the Prince William County housing market closely. My bet is that quality of life will go up and that housing prices will follow.

MICHAEL J. AMERY
Montgomery Village

In his July 8 op-ed, "Arizona's Border Burden," about illegal immigration, David Broder wrote that new state legislation "requires every Arizona business to verify the legal status of each new employee. That's also a requirement of long-established federal law, but the feds rarely enforce it."

If that requirement really exists under federal law, why isn't it enforced? The availability of jobs is a major part of the appeal for folks to enter this country, legally or illegally. If we discourage business owners from employing people who are in this country illegally, that would have a significant impact on the problem. This also raises the question of the viability of additional federal legislation: If the U.S. government does not enforce the current laws, why should we think that new laws will have any greater effect against illegal immigration?

CARL A. REBER
Annapolis

SICK TODDLER'S PARENTS FACE DEPORTATION

By JULIANA BARBASSA
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; 5:40 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- Seventeen-month-old Hazelle Roa has curly black hair in a pink lacy bow _ and a bright yellow feeding tube taped to her cheek.

That's the only way she can eat because of a little-known genetic abnormality that has kept her in a hospital much of her life. The condition also left her with a thyroid deficiency and a heart artery that is too narrow.

Victor and Maria Roa hope their daughter's life gets easier after delicate surgery Thursday to expand her constricted artery.

But they aren't sure what will happen to her two weeks later, when the couple is under orders to report to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with their bags packed for a one-way trip to Mexico.

Hazelle, who was born in the U.S., has parents who are illegal immigrants. Hundreds of thousands of families are split by their immigration status, but the Roas' case comes with a twist: Hazelle's rare medical condition, which her doctors contend will require a lifetime of specialized care.

"It's so difficult as a father to think of what will happen to her if we're detained and she's in the hospital," said Victor Roa, 41, who juggles jobs chopping vegetables in a restaurant and driving a truck on nights and weekends. "If a child is sick, you never want to separate from her. It's impossible."

Anti-illegal-immigration activists say the case argues against the policy written into the Constitution that grants automatic citizenship to everyone born in the United States.

"These people can sneak across the border, they have absolutely no connection with this country, and all of a sudden you have a brand new U.S. citizen on your hands that the rest of us become responsible for," said Ira Mehlman, with the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "Nobody feels good about saying no to a child, but the needs outweigh the available resources and difficult decisions have to be made."

What happens to American children of deportable immigrants _ whether they go with their parents or stay with relatives or the state _ is up to the family, said Lori Haley, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The Roas don't want to take their daughter away from the team of top-notch physicians at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center who have followed her case from the beginning. They don't have other relatives in the U.S., and they can't imagine leaving her behind.

The Roas crossed the border illegally in 1990, and following poor legal advice, entered a frivolous case for asylum. In November 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled they were in the United States illegally and gave them the option of leaving on their own, Haley said.

When they failed to go by the deadline, the request became a deportation order. In May 2007 they got a letter telling them to surrender to immigration authorities on June 26.

The couple despaired. Two weeks before the deadline, they found a new attorney, David Lunas, who employed a new strategy _ Hazelle's health. He argued that the removal order should be canceled under a rule that allows undocumented immigrants to stay if their departure would cause extreme hardship to an American citizen.

On the day before the Roas were scheduled to leave, Lunas requested a stay of deportation. It was rejected.

"They didn't find the condition the child is in, to be without her parents, results in real hardship," Lunas said.

After some discussion with immigration authorities, the Roas and their attorney went to the immigration enforcement office on July 3 to request a year's stay. Six hours later, they left with a new deadline _ July 26.

That allows the Roas to be by Hazelle's side through Thursday's exploratory heart procedure, when a thin catheter carrying a tiny balloon will open her artery, and a diminutive camera will tell doctors if she needs further surgery.

Hazelle's doctors have written letters in support of her family. They say the Roas are clearly a loving family and their toddler needs their care.

"She's firmly attached to her parents, and for her to tolerate being in the hospital, having procedures done, she needs to have her parents there," said Stephen Wilson, medical director for the pediatric unit at UCSF. "The world of a 17-month-old is her parents."

Wilson added that Hazelle probably wouldn't get the care she needs outside of a leading facility like UCSF. "This isn't a routine case of pneumonia or asthma, something any old physician has experience with," he said in an interview.

And they don't know enough about her condition to be able to say whether her health will improve or deteriorate over time, but they do know that with their care, she'll suffer less.

"There's a likelihood that other problems will crop up. She'll need to be followed very closely," Wilson said. "It requires a team of physicians to get to know her well enough so adjustments can be made as they're needed."

Lunas is continuing to fight for a longer stay, or for the cancellation of the Roas' deportation order under the hardship rule.

"This is one of the provisions that's there for humanitarian reasons, one of the few compassionate provisions there are," Lunas said. "And theirs is the quintessential cancellation-of-removal case."

ICE officials say the agency reviews individual appeals case by case.

In the meantime, Hazelle's parents are left to cope with the uncertainty and financial burden of their complicated situation.

To cover their legal bills, they've sold many of their belongings, including furniture and shoes, in yard sales and to friends. Hazelle's medical expenses are mostly covered by state program that helps low-income children with chronic conditions.

"We want immigration judges to understand we're responsible parents, to look at our case and let us stay and take care of our daughter," said Maria Roa, 37. "No state agency is going to do the job raising her that we can do."

A Gift From Gandi
Frustrated Green Card Applicants From India Use Methods Of Master

By Xiyun Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page D01

Shyam Bindingnavale had spent years of anguish in pursuit of permanent residency, so when the government offered him an opportunity to apply for it and then abruptly snatched it away, he was furious and deeply disappointed.

Bindingnavale, 36, a Gaithersburg resident and financial analyst working here on an H1B visa for skilled technical workers, struck back the most effective way he could imagine: He sent flowers to Emilio Gonza***, the director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. So did about 200 other green card applicants, most of them professionals, natives of India and working legally in this country.

They did it because that's what Gandhi would have done.

Yesterday, their bouquets of purple roses, pink lilies and yellow daisies, which cost about $40 each and which were sent from all over the country, piled up on the immigration office's loading dock at 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, addressed to Gonza*** and stacked in columns taller than people.

The agency forwarded them to soldiers recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

"We know the reason behind it and understand the symbolism. We donated them in the same spirit in which they were provided to us," said an agency official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a lawsuit over the matter filed by an advocacy group.

The idea for the protest began with the Indian immigration community on the online forum Immigration Voice, a site devoted to issues facing skilled, legal workers seeking permanent residence in the United States. Their method was inspired by Mohandas K. Gandhi, who spent years campaigning nonviolently for India's independence from Britain.

Green card applicants were given hope on June 12, when the State Department posted a bulletin offering H1B visa holders who had been stuck in a bureaucratic logjam an opportunity to take that last step needed to apply for permanent residency.

Thousands of engineers, doctors and other educated foreigners began a mad scramble to file their applications before the July 2 deadline.

Vacations were canceled, and lawyers were called in. Elderly parents in far-flung corners of the world stood in line for hours to get copies of birth certificates and immunization records.

Then, on the day of the deadline, the State Department retracted the bulletin. The USCIS, which processes the applications, said it had already met its 140,000-person annual quota for employee-sponsored applicants.

Those who tried to apply were told they had to wait. Some new applications may be considered again starting Oct. 1, but others may have to wait for years. The wait has become even longer after a surge in green card applications, amplified by a provision in 2001 that allowed undocumented immigrants or immigrants who had overstayed their visas to apply for green cards. The problem was exacerbated by the increased FBI security checks required after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

A Gift From Gandhi
Frustrated Green Card Applicants From India Use Methods Of Master

By Xiyun Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page D01

Shyam Bindingnavale had spent years of anguish in pursuit of permanent residency, so when the government offered him an opportunity to apply for it and then abruptly snatched it away, he was furious and deeply disappointed.

Bindingnavale, 36, a Gaithersburg resident and financial analyst working here on an H1B visa for skilled technical workers, struck back the most effective way he could imagine: He sent flowers to Emilio Gonza***, the director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. So did about 200 other green card applicants, most of them professionals, natives of India and working legally in this country.

They did it because that's what Gandhi would have done.

Yesterday, their bouquets of purple roses, pink lilies and yellow daisies, which cost about $40 each and which were sent from all over the country, piled up on the immigration office's loading dock at 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, addressed to Gonza*** and stacked in columns taller than people.

The agency forwarded them to soldiers recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

"We know the reason behind it and understand the symbolism. We donated them in the same spirit in which they were provided to us," said an agency official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a lawsuit over the matter filed by an advocacy group.

The idea for the protest began with the Indian immigration community on the online forum Immigration Voice, a site devoted to issues facing skilled, legal workers seeking permanent residence in the United States. Their method was inspired by Mohandas K. Gandhi, who spent years campaigning nonviolently for India's independence from Britain.

Green card applicants were given hope on June 12, when the State Department posted a bulletin offering H1B visa holders who had been stuck in a bureaucratic logjam an opportunity to take that last step needed to apply for permanent residency.

Thousands of engineers, doctors and other educated foreigners began a mad scramble to file their applications before the July 2 deadline.

Vacations were canceled, and lawyers were called in. Elderly parents in far-flung corners of the world stood in line for hours to get copies of birth certificates and immunization records.

Then, on the day of the deadline, the State Department retracted the bulletin. The USCIS, which processes the applications, said it had already met its 140,000-person annual quota for employee-sponsored applicants.

Those who tried to apply were told they had to wait. Some new applications may be considered again starting Oct. 1, but others may have to wait for years. The wait has become even longer after a surge in green card applications, amplified by a provision in 2001 that allowed undocumented immigrants or immigrants who had overstayed their visas to apply for green cards. The problem was exacerbated by the increased FBI security checks required after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Dilip Tekkedil, 32, a software engineer from North Andover, Mass., is one of the frustrated applicants who came up with the flower idea.

"It was more peaceful," he said. "We don't trouble anyone else. A rally or something, you have to call law enforcement. It's too much trouble for other people."

They do not hold hard feelings against Gonza***. "I'd like to thank him for the job that he does. I know it's a thankless job," Tekkedil said. "I just hope that he could understand our plight as well."

Their uncertain status makes them fearful of notice. Anand Sharma, 35, a chip design engineer from Longmont, Colo., said she drives well under the speed limit on highways. "We are so scared. We just want to stay here."

But they are weary of how their lives have been frozen in time. They must retain the same job title and income they had when they began the application process, which can last for eight years.

Any reprieve won't come fast enough for Vishal Nanda, 31, an IT consultant who had moved to the United States in 1999. Employed at a subsidiary of Time Warner, he had waited five years for a chance to stay permanently, then was forced to begin his green card process over again because of a technicality, he said.

"There is too much uncertainty," he said. "I don't stand a chance in my lifetime to get a green card."

He is moving back to India next week to join his wife, a dental surgeon.