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").