BAD AXE -- Operators of a Thumb dairy farm came under federal scrutiny after agents arrested a dozen illegal immigrants in a raid there.
About 9:15 a.m. Tuesday, 30 agents from the Detroit office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement executed search warrants at the Aquila Dairy Farm, 3201 Soper in Huron County's Colfax Township.
"Several of (the suspects) had been arrested before and were awaiting deportation hearings," said State Police Detective Sgt. Mark Krebs of the Bad Axe Post.
Krebs said federal officials had advised the farm owners, Johannes and Anthonia Verhaar, not to employ unregistered immigrants after a May 8 raid at the farm ended in the arrests of 12 employees, whom authorities deported to Mexico.
Police thought that was the end of it but said the June 20 drowning of a teenager in Saginaw Bay cast doubt on that assumption.
Jose Martin Lopez Cruz, 17, drowned after he and two friends jumped into the bay from the Port Austin breakwater. Two other men had accompanied the trio.
"When they were interviewed through an interpreter, four of them claimed to be employed at the Verhaar dairy farm and the other one claimed he was just living in the house the Verhaars supplied for the farm help," Krebs said.
ICE agents took the men, 16 to 33, into custody and transferred them to Detroit, where authorities put them on an airplane back to Mexico.
"When ICE agents realized that these aliens had recently been employed by the Verhaars to take the place of the original 12 illegal aliens, they decided to come to Bad Axe and perform an unannounced search of the dairy farm," Krebs said.
Tuesday, authorities re-arrested five people, Krebs said.
Agents took seven others to Detroit for arraignment on charges that could result in their deportation.
The farm operators could face charges of harboring and employing unauthorized aliens, Krebs said.
The Verhaars are citizens of the Netherlands who have temporary visas to work in the United States, Krebs has said.
The farm sustains about 2,500 head of cattle. v
LaNia Coleman covers law enforcement. You may reach her at 776-9690.
By RUBEN NAVARRETTE Washington Post Writers Group 7/26/2007
SAN DIEGO -- In the Old West, outlaw gangs would sometimes try to sidestep the criminal justice system by busting someone out of jail. Today, that role is being taken up by some members of Congress.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing into the case of ex-Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The two men were convicted last year of shooting and wounding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, an unarmed drug smuggler, along the U.S.-Mexican border and then covering it up by destroying evidence and falsifying reports. Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively.
That's too long a stretch in the opinion of Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and John Cornyn, R-Texas. After the hearing, they sent a letter to Bush asking him to commute the sentences.
Bush should afford the request the consideration it deserves, all three seconds' worth. Then he should crumple up the letter. When will Congress learn that presidential pardons and other forms of clemency are matters for the executive branch?
Last week, at a town hall-style forum in Nashville, Bush was asked whether he would pardon Ramos and Compean. The president refused to make such a promise and instead described as "a dear friend" and "an even-handed guy" U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office tried this case and who hasn't had a moment's peace since. Then Bush reiterated, as he has done on previous occasions, that "these men were convicted by a jury of their peers" and that "people need to look at the facts."
The facts of the case haven't changed. On Feb. 17, 2005, Ramos and Compean were on patrol on the U.S.-Mexico border near Fabens, Texas, when they spotted a suspicious van. When they approached, they discovered Aldrete-Davila, who began running toward the Mexican side of the border. The agents opened fire.
Nor has there been any change in the law under which Ramos and Compean were tried, convicted and sentenced. It's still a crime for officers to shoot an unarmed suspect and then lie about it.
In fact, arguably, the only thing that has changed since the ex-agents began serving their sentences six months ago is the political climate. Many of those who want to curb illegal immigration feel empowered now that they have had a hand in defeating immigration reform, and they want to flex those muscles by trying to get elected officeholders to spring Ramos and Compean.
Ironically, these are the same folks who talk about the rule of law and how we mustn't go around rewarding lawbreakers. Their allies include politicians such as Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a quixotic GOP presidential candidate who has introduced legislation calling for a pardon of Ramos and Compean. Hunter opposed what he called "amnesty" for 12 million illegal immigrants, yet he wants amnesty for two former Border Patrol agents.
It makes you wonder, is Hunter the hard-liner going soft? Or is it just that his principles aren't as firm as he claims them to be?
This is not the first time that the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has shown his sensitive side. When his buddy and fellow Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- or, as he is now known, federal inmate No. 94405-198 -- came up for sentencing, Hunter wrote a letter to U.S. District Judge Larry Burns asking for leniency.
Cunningham collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antiques and other bribes. Hunter's plea notwithstanding, the former congressman was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison.
Hunter hopes he'll have better luck in seeking clemency for Ramos and Compean. He and other champions of the former agents always seem to steer the conversation toward Aldrete-Davila -- a bad actor who received immunity in exchange for testifying against the agents, and was given a government-issued "humanitarian pass" to cross the border for medical treatment. According to Drug Enforcement Administration documents, Aldrete-Davila allegedly used the pass to bring in more drugs.
Shocking. We already knew this guy was slime. Here's the really sad part: The ex-agents took the stand in their own defense, and yet the jury that convicted them apparently found their testimony to be less credible than that of the drug dealer.
Bet you won't hear that from the members of the Ramos and Compean Fan Club. That's why they have no credibility. And members of Congress who buy into their narrative -- of hero agents who were railroaded into prison -- risk their credibility as well.
FEWER SOLDIERS ASSISTING ALONG THE BORDER The Associated Press July 25, 2007
Things are starting to wind down for National Guard troops deployed across the U.S. and Mexican border.
Next month, the number of National Guard troops along the border will be cut in half from 6,000 to 3,000 nationally.
In Arizona, troop reductions will fall from 2,400 to 1,200, said National Guard Capt. Kristine Munn. The pullout started July 1 and is scheduled to be completed by Sept. 1.
Since the troops took up their positions along the border, they have helped agents get back to patrolling the border.
During their time at the border, guard members have manned radios, repaired vehicles and helped build roads and fences. National Guard troops have also served as an extra set of eyes and ears at border observation posts.
Cutting the ranks of National Guard troops will be detrimental to the Border Patrols efforts to slow illegal immigration, said agency officials, the local union and a former agency supervisor.
If the feds are going to cut the number of National Guard troops working along the border, it will mean there are fewer bodies out there to deter and observe and report intrusions, said Dave Stoddard, a former Border Patrol supervisor who retired in 1996 and lives in Bisbee.
Not everyone is upset about the troop pullout.
The presence of National Guard troops has increased the militarization of the border and forced illegal entrants to try crossing more remote and hostile areas, said Jennifer Allen, director of Border Action Network, a Tucson-based immigrants rights organization.
Allen said they are glad the number of troops is decreasing, but it would be even better if there was no National Guard presence on the border.
President Bush ordered the troops to provide temporary relief along the border while the Border Patrol worked toward adding 6,000 new agents to reach a total of 18,000 by the end of 2008.
Originally posted by explora: Credibility Of Convicted Border Guards Is Murky
By RUBEN NAVARRETTE Washington Post Writers Group 7/26/2007
SAN DIEGO -- In the Old West, outlaw gangs would sometimes try to sidestep the criminal justice system by busting someone out of jail. Today, that role is being taken up by some members of Congress.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing into the case of ex-Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The two men were convicted last year of shooting and wounding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, an unarmed drug smuggler, along the U.S.-Mexican border and then covering it up by destroying evidence and falsifying reports. Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively.
That's too long a stretch in the opinion of Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and John Cornyn, R-Texas. After the hearing, they sent a letter to Bush asking him to commute the sentences.
Bush should afford the request the consideration it deserves, all three seconds' worth. Then he should crumple up the letter. When will Congress learn that presidential pardons and other forms of clemency are matters for the executive branch?
Last week, at a town hall-style forum in Nashville, Bush was asked whether he would pardon Ramos and Compean. The president refused to make such a promise and instead described as "a dear friend" and "an even-handed guy" U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office tried this case and who hasn't had a moment's peace since. Then Bush reiterated, as he has done on previous occasions, that "these men were convicted by a jury of their peers" and that "people need to look at the facts."
The facts of the case haven't changed. On Feb. 17, 2005, Ramos and Compean were on patrol on the U.S.-Mexico border near Fabens, Texas, when they spotted a suspicious van. When they approached, they discovered Aldrete-Davila, who began running toward the Mexican side of the border. The agents opened fire.
Nor has there been any change in the law under which Ramos and Compean were tried, convicted and sentenced. It's still a crime for officers to shoot an unarmed suspect and then lie about it.
In fact, arguably, the only thing that has changed since the ex-agents began serving their sentences six months ago is the political climate. Many of those who want to curb illegal immigration feel empowered now that they have had a hand in defeating immigration reform, and they want to flex those muscles by trying to get elected officeholders to spring Ramos and Compean.
Ironically, these are the same folks who talk about the rule of law and how we mustn't go around rewarding lawbreakers. Their allies include politicians such as Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a quixotic GOP presidential candidate who has introduced legislation calling for a pardon of Ramos and Compean. Hunter opposed what he called "amnesty" for 12 million illegal immigrants, yet he wants amnesty for two former Border Patrol agents.
It makes you wonder, is Hunter the hard-liner going soft? Or is it just that his principles aren't as firm as he claims them to be?
This is not the first time that the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has shown his sensitive side. When his buddy and fellow Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- or, as he is now known, federal inmate No. 94405-198 -- came up for sentencing, Hunter wrote a letter to U.S. District Judge Larry Burns asking for leniency.
Cunningham collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antiques and other bribes. Hunter's plea notwithstanding, the former congressman was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison.
Hunter hopes he'll have better luck in seeking clemency for Ramos and Compean. He and other champions of the former agents always seem to steer the conversation toward Aldrete-Davila -- a bad actor who received immunity in exchange for testifying against the agents, and was given a government-issued "humanitarian pass" to cross the border for medical treatment. According to Drug Enforcement Administration documents, Aldrete-Davila allegedly used the pass to bring in more drugs.
Shocking. We already knew this guy was slime. Here's the really sad part: The ex-agents took the stand in their own defense, and yet the jury that convicted them apparently found their testimony to be less credible than that of the drug dealer.
Bet you won't hear that from the members of the Ramos and Compean Fan Club. That's why they have no credibility. And members of Congress who buy into their narrative -- of hero agents who were railroaded into prison -- risk their credibility as well.
Explora, Some of these same Senators had a hand in helping Scott Libby get his sentence commuted and now want Ramos and Compean free as well. For the Democrats, they might want the two free in exchange of support from the Border Patrol union. Personally, neither Libby nor these two should be set free until their sentence is served in full. President Bush made the mistake of friendship to Libby and Cheney for Libby to go free. He should not make the same mistake for Ramos and Campeon.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre
Originally posted by explora: AP NEWSBREAK: JUDGE STRIKES DOWN HAZLETON'S TOUGH NEW ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW
By Michael Rubinkam Associated Press Writer July 26, 2007
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) -- A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton's tough anti-immigration law, which has been emulated by cities around the country. The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
U.S. District Judge James Munley declared it unconstitutional Thursday and voided it based on evidence and testimony from a nine-day trial held in March.
The city will almost certainly appeal.
Hazleton's Republican mayor pushed for the laws last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. Mayor Lou Barletta argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000, overwhelming police and schools.
Immigrant groups sued, saying the laws usurp the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and federal housing law.
Hispanic immigrants began settling in large numbers in Hazleton several years ago, lured from New York, Philadelphia and other cities by cheap housing, low crime and the availability of work in nearby factories and farms.
The city, 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, estimates its population increased by more than 10,000 between 2000 and 2006. Testimony during the trial put the city's illegal immigrant population at between 1,500 and 3,400.
Hazleton's act was copied by dozens of municipalities around the nation that believe the federal government hasn't done enough to stop illegal immigration. Munley's ruling does not affect those measures.
I will wait until the appeal process is completed before I start celebrating. However, I like the decision.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre
JUDGE BLOCKS CITY'S ORDINANCES AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
By Darryl Fears Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 27, 2007; Page A02
A federal judge issued a permanent injunction yesterday against restrictive anti-illegal-immigration ordinances in Hazleton, Pa., a city described by its mayor as "the toughest place on illegal immigrants in America."
In a strongly worded opinion handed down at the U.S. District Court in Scranton, Pa., Judge James M. Munley ruled that federal law "prohibits Hazleton from enforcing any of the provisions of its ordinances," which impose a $1,000-per-day fine on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, revoke the business license of any employer who hires them, declare English as the official language and bar city employees from translating documents to another language without approval.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called the program an essential screening tool. (AP)
Civil liberties organizations sued on behalf of illegal and legal immigrant plaintiffs, including the Hazleton Hispanic Business Association, saying that the city infringed on the federal government's sole authority to regulate immigration.
The groups hailed the ruling as a historic victory for the city's Latino residents, as well as a warning to state and local governments that copied Hazleton's ordinances and to opponents of illegal immigration, who Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said "dupe local officials into adopting bad public policy that won't stand up in court."
But the opponents vowed to appeal the decision and to continue the fight to the Supreme Court, if necessary. "Attorneys have already drafted appeal briefs," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Seeking to severely restrict immigration, the group strongly supported Hazleton's ordinances.
In a statement, Hazleton Mayor Louis J. Barletta said: "This fight is far from over. I have said it many times before: Hazleton is not going to back down. We are discouraged to see a federal judge has decided -- wrongly, we believe -- that Hazleton and cities like it around the nation cannot enact legislation to protect their citizens, their services, and their budgets."
Hazleton made national headlines last year by passing some of the nation's strictest ordinances against illegal immigration, saying that illegal immigrants were draining city coffers but without producing evidence. About 100 similar measures were passed nationwide, some of which have been successfully challenged by immigration supporters, civil rights advocates said.
More recently, state legislatures such as those in Virginia, Oklahoma and Colorado have joined in the lawmaking, passing laws that allow police officers to question suspects about their immigration status, put illegal immigrants in jail without allowing bail and penalize businesses that hire them.
Munley struck at Hazleton's efforts with plain language, writing that the city's ordinances "disrupt a well-established federal scheme for regulating the presence and employment of immigrants in the United States." The judge said the ordinances "penalize landlords, tenants, employers and employees without providing them the procedural protections required by law." In the end, he said, "Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of [immigrants], as well as others in the community."
Prince William County Board Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan) said the Hazleton decision will not give pause to county lawmakers now seeking to deny county services to illegal immigrants and to increase local police enforcement of immigration laws.
Unlike Hazleton, Prince William County is not trying to levy fines or punish landlords, Stewart said.
The measures in Hazleton and elsewhere sprang up in the wake of unsuccessful efforts to pass a comprehensive change to immigration law on Capitol Hill.
Rudy Espinal, a business owner in Hazleton, said the ordinances "turned this town upside down" and created "an incredible amount of division." The few people he spoke with after the judge's decision "were happy," he said.
Stein said they should prepare for a fight. "We're committed to it. We've got support for it. People are willing to fund it," he said.
By Al Kamen The Washington Post Friday, July 27, 2007
The Constitution, as everyone knows, gives complete, unfettered power to the president to pardon criminals. But now Congress is trying to get into the act, working to issue "Get Out of Jail" cards, good for one year, to people it deems wrongly incarcerated.
The House on Wednesday night passed an amendment to an appropriations bill that would deny any money to "enforce" the conviction and the sentences of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively, for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler and covering it up. That would mean the Bureau of Prisons couldn't keep them in prison, where they've been since January pending appeal.
Anti-immigration groups have championed their cause and the amendment, by GOP Reps. Ted Poe (Tex.), Tom Tancredo (Colo.) and Duncan Hunter (Calif.). If passed by the Senate and signed by President Bush, it would free the pair for at least the next fiscal year. (The amendment would have to be passed each year thereafter.) The goal, we're told, is to get the agents out of jail pending what the three members hope will be a successful appeal.
The White House has not opined on the measure, a House source said. But Bush may see it as a way to placate part of his base, which is furious at him over his immigration policies and has demanded a pardon.
Of course Bush also might see this move as a serious infringement on the executive branch's law enforcement powers. But then he would have to veto the entire bill. (What happened to that line-item veto thing?)
And if the amendment does become law, then who would have standing in court to challenge this apparently unprecedented move? Turns out, no one would, says longtime Constitution observer Bruce Fein.
Fein said he "researched this a bit and can't find a time when Congress tried to nullify the effect of court sentence" and "tried to assume some of the pardon power of the president. The logic [of the amendment] could be extended to allow them to stop investigations into members of Congress, to allow Congress to give itself a special shield."
Yet, this legislation could have wonderful benefits for everyone. We might see increased political contributions on the Hill from folks who would like to buy congressional pardon insurance. Current members, such as Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-La.) would be out of danger and former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) would be looking to find a new yacht.
This has great potential as a whole new kind of earmark.
Perhaps the most toxic aspect of the immigration debate is the double standard that exists ["Nativism's Toxic Cloud," editorial, July 22].
When illegal aliens act out of self-interest and break our immigration laws, apologists for illegal immigration portray that as being noble.
When employers act out of self-interest and illegally hire low-wage illegal aliens, that's just the free market at work. But if ordinary Americans, motivated by self-interest, demand that laws against illegal immigration be enforced, that's called "toxic nativism."
Local jurisdictions such as Prince William and Loudoun counties have a right and a responsibility to institute and enforce laws that protect the interests of law-abiding residents and property owners. The impact of illegal immigration on education, health care and law enforcement is felt at the local level. There is nothing toxic or nativist about local governments deciding not to provide nonessential benefits and services to people who have no right to be in the community in the first place, or to crack down on employers who hire them.
These counties, like a growing number of local governments, are doing what the federal government should be doing. They are removing the incentives for illegal immigration, which is the only realistic approach to dealing with the problem.
DAN STEIN President Federation for American Immigration Reform Washington
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
Federal Judge Rejects Similar Ordinance, But Local Official Unbowed
12:00 AM CDT on Friday, July 27, 2007 By DIANNE SOLÃS and STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News
A federal judge on Thursday struck down a tough ordinance against illegal immigration in Hazleton, Pa., that has been copied around the nation, including in Farmers Branch.
CAROLYN KASTER/The Associated Press 'It is a bittersweet victory,' said Anna Arias of the Hazleton Latino Association. 'We should be spreading love and unity and not hatred and division as this has created.' The emphatic ruling, which mirrored language used by U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay in Dallas in granting a temporary injunction against the Farmers Branch ordinance, may not be a good sign for such laws, some legal experts said.
But Farmers Branch City Council member Tim O'Hare, the driving force behind that city's efforts against illegal immigration, said the decision in the Hazleton case wouldn't stop the fight for the ordinance voters adopted nearly 2-to-1 in a May 12 election.
The Associated Press
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta (right), with attorney Kris Kobach, is ready to appeal Thursday's ruling from a federal judge. "I think the city of Hazleton has planned on this happening from the get-go, with the idea in mind that they will appeal to the Supreme Court if they have to," he said. "I think Farmers Branch is looking at it the exact same way."
Nor will it deter Farmers Branch, a city of about 27,500, from considering other ways to make it harder for illegal immigrants to live and work in the city, Mr. O'Hare said.
Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs.
Farmers Branch Mayor Bob Phelps, who opposed his city's ordinance banning apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants, said he hopes the judge's ruling in the Hazleton case will be a wake-up call for the Farmers Branch City Council.
"I would hope that it would have us back up and consider what we're doing, rather than just throwing good dollars after bad," he said.
The mayor votes only if there is a tie on the City Council, and he has been the only member of the council to publicly speak against the ordinance.
The Hazleton and Farmers Branch dramas have played out in more than 100 communities around the nation as local governments attempt immigration policy in the face of what they term the failure of the federal government to fix a broken immigration system.
Ready to keep fighting
Both sides in Hazleton said they were prepared to take the issue to higher courts.
"In the short term, this may have a chilling effect, but in the long term, it may be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that has helped cities craft crackdowns against illegal immigrants.
Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, told the Philadelphia Inquirer the decision was a "knockout for the plaintiffs."
Even so, Dr. Spiro said it would not surprise him if an appeals court modified or reversed the ruling.
"A lot of this is uncharted territory," he said. "In the context of failed immigration reform, an appeals court might be more amenable to upholding this sort of local law than the district court was."
But Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups challenging the Hazleton ordinance, said such laws are essentially unconstitutional.
"Such efforts are bad public policy, and they are divisive in local communities," he said. "They promote discrimination."
Illegal immigration is likely to be an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, especially in states close to the Mexican border.
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, a potential Republican presidential candidate, issued an e-mail saying local governments should enact their own policies instead of waiting for action from the federal government.
"It shouldn't come as a surprise that the governments closest to the people – municipal and state – are looking to take action. This is an entirely proper role for these governments," he wrote. "No doubt, this ruling will be appealed. And it should be."
In Irving
In Irving, where one out of three residents is foreign-born, Mayor Herbert Gears has tried to balance interests in the debate.
Irving officials stepped up cooperation with federal immigration agents in the surveillance of the city jail for detainees in the U.S. illegally. But they've also implemented a program to assimilate immigrant families by teaching parents English and city code rules and providing their children with computer classes.
"We have done our best to keep out of the courthouse," Mr. Gears said. "When you stay focused on what your responsibilities are locally, you can have a better impact."
The federal court decision stretched over 206 pages, and its pages were devoured by many attorneys. Hazleton's ruling was the first to go to a trial.
"One of the main themes of the ruling is that federal law preempts local and state immigration laws," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell Law school professor and specialist in immigration law.
U.S. District Judge James M. Munley wrote in his ruling: "Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the City could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not. The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public."
And the ruling cited a Texas case with Tyler roots that reached all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was the 1982 Plyler vs. Doe ruling in which four illegal immigrant families sued the Tyler school district for charging $1,000 tuition, essentially barring them from school. The Supreme Court ruling struck down the Texas law that denied a free education to illegal immigrant children.
In citing Plyler, the ruling said, "We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single illegal act."
Staff writer Katherine Leal Unmuth, The Associated Press and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.
Victors Used Tenth As Much Supporting Illegal Immigrant Measure
12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News ssandoval@dallasnews.com
Let the Voters Decide spent more than $95,000 in its failed bid to defeat a Farmers Branch ordinance that would ban apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, Support Farmers Branch spent less than one-tenth of that in support of the referendum in the May election on the ordinance that was approved by more than 2-1. The group also backed two successful City Council candidates who favored the ordinance.
Most of the money for the opposition camp, $80,000 out of the $95,306 spent, came from the attorneys representing plaintiffs in three lawsuits against the city, Bickel & Brewer Storefront. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas also contributed $5,000.
Support Farmers Branch spent $9,156 to win the May 12 election.
"I think it shows who was behind their efforts and who was behind our efforts," said City Council member Tim Scott, elected in May, largely on a campaign supporting the crackdown on illegal immigrants.
"Our efforts were regular citizens from Farmers Branch. Their supporters were well-heeled special interest groups that wanted to exert their will in our little town and got soundly defeated at the polls."
William A. Brewer, of Bickel & Brewer Storefront, said the money was well spent on an important message.
"We turned out an enormous vote count and had the issues debated fully," he said. Even though Let the Voters Decide wasn't successful in Farmers Branch, Mr. Brewer said, the issues brought up in Farmers Branch have been debated around the country.
"It's clear there is no other community lining up behind Farmers Branch. They're out on a limb all by themselves, and they've been unsuccessful at every stage other than the polling booth," he said.
Since the election, U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay issued a preliminary injunction halting the city from implementing the ordinance until the federal lawsuit challenging its constitutionality goes to trial or is otherwise resolved. In his order, he has said he preliminarily finds the ordinance violates the Constitution, in particular the supremacy clause that gives the federal government exclusive regulation over immigration.
Bickel & Brewer, as well as the ACLU of Texas and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, represent apartment owners and tenants in that suit.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he's floating a plan that would grant legal status to the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants, but offer no path to citizenship.
"It might be the equivalent of a green card," Specter said Thursday. "The main thrust is to bring the 12 million out of the shadows," and eliminate the fear of arrest or deportation.
Specter said conservatives who last month derailed a comprehensive immigration bill might accept his plan because it would not allow the 12 million to seek citizenship status.
"We litigated amnesty and that lost," Specter said.
Specter's pitch comes as the Senate voted Thursday to add $3 billion to the homeland security appropriations bill for border security measures.
Specter said he has talked with President Bush and the bipartisan group of senators who crafted the last comprehensive bill.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who helped negotiate the failed comprehensive bill, suggested that he was skeptical of creating a class of workers with no opportunity to seek citizenship.
"Europe has paid a heavy price for that stuff," Graham said.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who led negotiations for the Democrats, said the senator was looking at Specter's proposal and meeting with his staff.
Ties to Mexico give ranchers different view from activists
02:19 PM CDT on Tuesday, July 10, 2007
By ALFREDO CORCHADO / The Dallas Morning News acorchado@dallasnews.com
Tony Rancich ERICH SCHLEGEL/DMN Tony Rancich says smugglers regularly cross through his pecan orchards.
TORNILLO, Texas – Tony Rancich believes that "in life you succeed through relationships."
That's been the family's mantra for years "because no matter how smart you are, ... you always need cooperation from your neighbors," says Mr. Rancich as he walks through his family's 1,700-acre pecan ranch along the U.S.-Mexico border southeast of El Paso.
Walls and fences are not the answer, he says.
Just outside his property line, Louisiana native Bob Masling is on patrol in his old SUV – a .45 pistol on his hip and high-powered weapons in the back seat.
"We're being invaded by wetbacks, and it's up to us to stop the invasion. We can't wait for Congress, much less our president, to take action," Mr. Masling said. Also Online
Tell Us: Share your thoughts on using walls and fences to deter illegal immigration.
He's also worried about drug traffickers and possible al-Qaeda terrorists streaming into the United States. If they're not here yet, they will be soon, assures Mr. Masling, a founder of the Texas Border Regulators, a group organized to protect the border.
To get his message across, Mr. Masling has posted half a dozen signs in Spanish and Arabic warning unwelcome visitors to stay out.
"This is West Texas; it isn't France and here we don't own any white flags," says Mr. Masling.
The two men illustrate the tension between those who want to preserve a culture of coexistence on the border and the politics of today that push a wall, be it virtual or physical. The government is lobbying wary Texas landowners along the border for cooperation and use of their land. The effort is part of President Bush's calling for a 700-mile wall – including 300 miles of fences in parts of South and West Texas.
Along some parts of the border, including Arizona, the federal government already owns much of the property.
But in Texas, much of the land along the Rio Grande remains in private hands, and some farmers interviewed don't want fences, though some praise the increased presence of Border Patrol agents in the area.
Growing danger
Ranchers acknowledge that the border has become more dangerous. More thugs roam the area, often heavily armed, trampling over their properties as they smuggle drugs and what seems like an endless flow of illegal immigrants.
Mr. Rancich says his pecan orchards, which stretch from the Rio Grande to Interstate 10, routinely serve as a cover for smugglers. He says he's comfortable with agents and their high surveillance tower on the banks of the Rio Grande directly behind his pecan fields.
But he doesn't want agents trampling through his pecans, much less "overzealous people using my property to hunt down" illegal immigrants and smugglers.
That's why he turned down Mr. Masling's request for access to his pecan fields.
The solution to border security, Mr. Rancich says, must be bilateral.
"The two countries must have input because long after the finger-pointing is over," Mr. Rancich says, "we will only have each other to depend on."
For generations, many ranchers in West Texas have built empires, cultivating everything from cotton to chile and pecans with the help of cheap Mexican labor, according to a study by Howard Campbell, an anthropologist at the University of Texas at El Paso.
They've done so, in part, by embracing their neighbors' customs, language, culture and even religion.
"More than the other border states, perhaps the Texas border has been the scene of a greater degree of Anglo-Mexican symbiosis, certainly asymmetrical, but still a permanent part of life along the Texas-Mexico border," Dr. Campbell says. "I think only in Texas we talk of Tex-Mex and Tejano as a kind of fusion of two cultures."
In Presidio, the Bishop family once harvested 2,000 acres of land, growing onions and cantaloupes with the help of Mexican migrants. But stricter immigration policies have contributed to a diminished workforce and, by extension, production.
They're decidedly against fences.
"We're Texans," farmer Terry Bishop says. "Here, even the cattle go across and come back."
Adds his father, Bill Bishop: "This part of the world, everybody is related to everybody else, and everybody is related to everyone on the other side of the border and share a common language."
Down the road, locals still recall fondly the funeral of Boyd Chambers, who raised cattle for more than 50 years in the area. Mr. Chambers employed Mexican workers.
Upon his death five years ago, Mexicans crossed the river illegally and helped dig his grave. They flocked to his funeral where Border Patrol agent-in-charge Simon Garza, a Mormon, presided.
After the service, the workers helped Mr. Chamber's sons bury the rancher near Candelaria.
"The outpouring of support was overwhelming," recalled a teary-eyed Teresa Chambers, a teacher in Presidio. "Dad would have been so proud."
As the nation turns to securing its southern border, the Chambers decry what they call the government's "my way, or the highway approach," says Johnnie Chambers, who as a child played with her friends on both sides of the border. "We should go back to where we were, where both sides did our own community policing."
Seeing need for more
Back in Tornillo, Mr. Masling, 54, applauds the increased security and wants more.
Devastated by the Sept. 11 attacks, he used his own money to create the Texas Border Regulators. He refused to join the "Minutemen," calling them "media-hungry egotists."
A truck driver who lives in nearby El Paso with his wife, Mr. Masling patrols the border on his own time. He believes his country is under attack by waves of immigrants who refuse to "assimilate into the United States of America. They have their own agenda."
On his days off, he drives along the banks of the Rio Grande, usually solo, hoping to deter any illegal immigrant, or possible terrorist from entering.
"The idea here is simple: protect American sovereignty," he says. "A country that cannot protect its border is no longer a country. It no longer has any sovereignty."
On this evening, as night falls over the big skies of West Texas, he waves at Border Patrol agents, whom he calls "America's heroes in the first line of defense." They've given him permission to roam the area with his weapons.
"They're hard-working people, and do great service to our country, but they need all the help they can get because they're simply overwhelmed," he says. "That's why we need fencing, walls. We need protection."
Mr. Masling says some of the ranchers in the area allow him on their property, but under limited conditions. He's not allowed to use his gun unless he's faced with a life-threatening situation.
For a year he's been trying to get permission from Mr. Rancich to use his property without success. Mr. Masling describes Mr. Rancich's rejection as "un-American, but I nonetheless respect him."
Reaching out
Mr. Rancich himself is partly descended from Croatian immigrants. At the turn of the century, the Rancich family settled in Arizona before moving to this region of West Texas, some 50 miles southeast of El Paso.
His father, George Rancich, loved the border.
He taught his children the importance of speaking two languages and embracing two cultures, emphasizing that cooperation was key to their future. He treated his workers, who came from all over Mexico, as family.
"There was a certain simpatico sentiment," Mr. Rancich says. "There was a feeling that you were working to benefit both sides."
Today, some of the veteran workers continue living in housing provided by the ranch. Some of the worker's children have continued in their footsteps. The two sons of Edmundo Jauregui, 81, still work and live on the ranch. Some of the workers, like Mr. Jauregui and Adan Ruiz, 76, receive a monthly pension as a reward for their service.
"We put in long hours in that ranch," says Mr. Jauregui, who worked at the ranch for nearly five decades. "But the work was very rewarding indeed."
Mr. Rancich, a longtime guitar player, has also turned parts of the ranch into a world-class recording studio, attracting some of the biggest acts in the music industry, including Billy Gibbons of ZZ Top, the Mexico City rock band Zoe and Intocable.
One of the workers, a part-time musician, Oscar Erives, 64, used the studio to record a personal CD that included a song paying tribute to the Rancich family.
"We have been blessed," Mr. Erives says. "That's why I wrote the tribute song for them. It came from the heart."
Inside his ranch, Mr. Rancich has little to say about Mr. Masling.
As he enters an old barn, he's haunted by memories of his grandfather – Riley Allison, a legendary pioneer in the Southwest who established major banks and the popular Sunland
Add to del.icio.us
