Why don't you focus your thesis in the word ILLEGAL....How long would an american last in Mexico ?? being illegal there ?????????

COFFEE WAR BREWING IN TIJUANA
STARBUCKS TO COMPETE WITH D'VOLADA CHAIN

By Diane Lindquist
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
July 29, 2007

TIJUANA – The world's richest man is bringing Starbucks to Tijuana, setting up a possible coffee war between the world's largest coffeehouse chain and the popular local chain D'Volada.

The conglomerate associated with Carlos Slim Hel̼ Рthe Mexico City billionaire who recently edged out Bill Gates as the wealthiest person on Earth Рplans to open the first Starbucks in this city Friday in the Plaza Rio Tijuana shopping center, Tijuana economic development director Octavio Corona said.

STARBUCKS
Headquarters: Seattle
Founded: 1985
Number of stores: 12,000 in 11 countries


D'VOLADA
Headquarters: Tijuana
Founded: 2000
Number of stores: 64 in Mexico and two in San Diego County

It's the first of several Starbucks expected to open this year in Tijuana, Mexicali, Ensenada and Rosarito Beach, he said.

"They have a lot of plans to expand in Baja California," Corona said. "They plan to expand in the short and medium term. They'll create an initial 10 this year."

A sign posted at the Plaza Rio shopping center touts the Starbucks opening there Friday, but the company is saying little.

"Starbucks Coffee Co. is excited about the great opportunities that Tijuana presents to the company. We currently have 125 stores in Mexico and look forward to bringing the Starbucks experience to Tijuana later this summer," Starbucks spokeswoman Bridget Baker wrote in an e-mail.

She declined to provide further details, including when and where the Baja California shops will be located or how much the coffee drinks will cost.

"Those are all great questions, but unfortunately I can't share any further information or details with you now," she wrote.

Corona said one of the businesses under Grupo Carso – the Mexican conglomerate created by Slim – wields control of Starbucks outlets in Mexico.

Slim's influence over the telecommunications industry in Mexico and much of Latin America through his Teléfonos de México (Telmex), Telcel and América Móvil companies, as well as a number of other businesses, recently propelled him to the top rank among the world's wealthiest people, according to Mexican financial Web site Sentido Comun.

Recent gains in the América Móvil group boosted Slim's wealth to an estimated $67.8 billion, compared with $56 billion for Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said Eduardo Garcia, who does the calculations for the Web site.
Slim opened the U.S. headquarters of Telmex in San Diego in the late 1990s but moved it to Houston several years later. Attempts to contact Slim and Grupo Carso to comment on the Starbucks plans were unsuccessful.

The Starbucks move into Baja California puts the chain with 12,000 locations in 11 countries in competition with D'Volada, a Tijuana-based operation that has just begun its own expansion north of the border in San Diego. It has modern franchises in 64 locations in Mexico, including 43 in Tijuana, as well as new shops in San Diego County.

D'Volada's shops introduced the Starbucks-like concept to the northwestern region of Mexico. With their light wood, Ralph Lauren-hue colors, glass pastry showcases, paper cups and friendly young baristas, the shops do resemble Starbucks outlets.

But there are important differences between the two chains, D'Volada Chief Executive Ricardo Gallegos said. D'Volada coffee has a strong body like that served in Starbucks but a milder taste to appeal to Mexican palates, he said.

Mexicans traditionally have not been considered big coffee consumers. According to a poll taken four years ago, 70 percent of those who drink coffee preferred the instant variety.

But the growth of coffee shop franchises has been significant in the past several years. Companies such as Yellow Cafe, the Coffee Factory, Cafe Moretto and Starbucks have had limited success in the interior of the country.

This allowed D'Volada to gain a hold on coffee drinkers along the border. In the past year it has added two outlets on the U.S. side of the border – one in Chula Vista and another in San Ysidro – and is in the process of opening shops in Los Angeles.

"We've only been in business seven years," Gallegos said. "We're moving along as fast as we can."

Tijuana newspaper La Frontera recently asked readers which coffee shop they would choose: 42.3 percent said D'Volada versus 19 percent for Starbucks. The remainder were undecided in the Internet poll.

Gallegos said he is not concerned about the competition that Starbucks might pose to D'Volada.

"I'm not trying to compete. I'm just here offering good products at a good price," he said.

Price might be the issue that D'Volada chooses to emphasize as it goes head to head with the larger Starbucks chain. Starbucks announced last week that it will raise the price of its drinks by an average of 9 cents, following a 5-cent increase last fall. It blamed rising costs for dairy products, energy and fuel.

The latest increase applies only to U.S. company-owned stores, but the affiliated Starbucks shops in places such as airports often raise prices at the same time.

The price increases, effective Tuesday, will vary by region and type of drink. They don't affect bottled drinks.

No information was available on what Starbucks will charge at the Baja California coffee shops. D'Volada's prices for all drinks are less than $4 on both sides of the border. In the Chula Vista and San Ysidro D'Volada shops, a large, regular coffee is about $1.45, compared with $1 in Tijuana.

"People are afraid of their (Starbucks) prices in Mexico," Gallegos said.

He plans no major strategy moves, besides D'Volada's more affordable prices, to compete with the $7.8 billion coffee chain.

Retail analyst George Whalin says pricing has long been a complaint about Starbucks, but it hasn't seemed to hurt the Seattle-based company.

"Anybody who operates a coffee chain has one eye on Starbucks," said Whalin of Carlsbad-based Retail Management Consultants. "There are a fair number of consumers who don't like Starbucks, but (their coffee shops) are very popular.

"Starbucks seems to have a magic formula, and wherever they go, from China to Europe, they seem to be successful."

LangeTwins Vineyard partner Brad Lange, right, discusses the new DHS no-match regulations with vineyard foreman Jose Ceja at a LangeTwins vineyard in San Joaquin County.

DHS RELEASES SOCIAL SECURITY 'NO-MATCH' RULE

California Farm Bureau Fed.
August 15, 2007
By Christine Souza
Assistant Editor

Much speculation, confusion and concern has been circulating among agricultural employers as to what the Department of Homeland Security's final Social Security number no-match rule would contain. Now with its release by the Bush administration, California's agriculture sector reports the regulation is a dilemma for many employers.

"While DHS frames its new rule as giving employers a helpful and optional safe harbor, many who receive no-match letters from the Social Security Administration are concerned both about using and not using the rule's action steps," said California Farm Bureau Federation President Doug Mosebar. "If he uses them but can't resolve discrepancies, an employer would have to fire the employees in question. If that were to happen during harvest and he couldn't quickly find replacements, he'd lose his crop and face financial ruin.

"On the other hand," Mosebar continued, "if he doesn't use the safe-harbor steps and continues to employ persons who turn out to be illegal, then DHS could claim the employer broke the law because the letter gave the employer constructive knowledge that the employees aren't work-eligible. Both situations are very disturbing."

The DHS rule, "Safe Harbor Procedures for Employers who Receive a No-Match Letter," was first proposed in June 2006. It is part of the Bush administration's series of reforms announced last week to address border security and immigration challenges. The no-match rule is expected to take effect Sept. 12.

The rule affects employers who receive so-called no-match letters from SSA. A no-match letter states that the combination of name and Social Security account number submitted by the employer to SSA for an employee does not match SSA records.

In the rule's summary, "DHS acknowledges that an SSA no-match letter by itself does not impart knowledge that the identified employees are unauthorized aliens," Rather, the summary states an employer's receipt of a no-match letter, "when combined with other evidence known to the employer," may cause the employer to have "constructive knowledge" that an employee identified in the letter is not work-eligible. In other words, the discrepancy revealed in the letter, plus one or more other suspicious factors known to the employer, "'would lead a person, through the exercise of reasonable care, to know' that the employee is not authorized to work," according to the summary. The summary and rule state that by continuing to employ such a work-ineligible person without taking "reasonable steps," the employer may be breaking the law.

The rule does not unconditionally require an employer receiving a no-match letter to take any action. It does provide, however, that if the employer takes certain steps (see accompanying box), then DHS cannot use the no-match letter as evidence of constructive knowledge of the employee's work ineligibility.

While the regulation does not say an employer must discharge an employee for whom a mismatch is not resolved, its summary states: "If the discrepancy referred to in the no-match letter is not resolved, and if the employee's identity and work authorization cannot be verified using a reasonable verification procedure... then the employer must choose between: taking action to terminate the employee, or facing the risk that DHS may find that the employer had constructive knowledge that the employee was an unauthorized alien and therefore, by continuing to employ the alien, violated (the law)."

Farm Bureau Associate Counsel Carl Borden confirmed that "the law prohibits you from employing a person you know is not work-eligible. But you don't have to actually know that; constructive knowledge is enough.

"For example," he said, "suppose an ICE officer tells you he suspects an employee's work-authorization document is fraudulent." Especially when coupled with a no-match letter, you could be found to have constructive knowledge of the employee's lack of work authorization, at least where you failed to make reasonable inquiry into the suspicious information."

But Borden said the rule does not require an employer to act in response to a no-match letter. Rather, "it says that if the employer takes the specified safe-harbor steps, then DHS cannot use a no-match letter as evidence of the employer's constructive knowledge of work ineligibility.

"As much as DHS might like to require employers to take those steps and perhaps not even give them safe harbor for doing so, it can't," Borden said. "Only Congress through legislation could do that."

"So, lacking the authority to require employers to take those follow-up steps, DHS did the next best thing," Borden continued. "It cleverly structured the rule to provide an evidentiary safe harbor and presented it as a benefit to employers who choose to take the action steps.

"Of course, the threat is that if you don't take them after getting a no-match letter and DHS catches you employing persons identified in the letter who aren't work authorized, you'll be very sorry. DHS wants to scare you into believing it will introduce in its case against you the no-match letter as evidence of your constructive knowledge of your employees' lack of work authorization. And, it undoubtedly would do just that," warned Borden.

"But even without the new rule, DHS could and would take the same position in prosecuting employers," Borden said. "After all, the summary says the rule describes an employer's current obligations under immigration laws and merely clarifies current standards related to constructive knowledge."

"One might ask then," Borden acknowledged, "Why did DHS issue this rule, especially one that includes a safe harbor?" Borden said DHS likely had at least one reason for doing so.

"It shines a bright light on the issue," said Borden. "The media have been all over this lately, and their descriptions of the rule have sent shockwaves of fear through segments of the employer community that rely heavily on foreign labor. That seems to be what DHS wants, to induce employers into taking these extra investigative steps and purging suspected illegal aliens from their workforces, probably in recognition that DHS doesn't have enough resources to do that on its own."

That assessment is in line with remarks made Friday by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff at a press conference.

"Receiving a no-match letter puts the company on notice that there is a discrepancy or a problem with the records pertaining to a particular employee," Chertoff said. "What the company may not do is simply ignore the problem. And if the company does nothing to resolve the problem or doesn't act in good faith, that company can be held liable for employing an unauthorized worker and could face stiff penalties or sanctions."

"This is an area where experience shows deterrence really works marvelously," Chertoff responded to a reporter's question. "We are starting to see employers on their own beginning to check their work force because they see what's coming and they don't want to take the risk of liability. So I think it's like the tax laws. We rely on a lot of self-policing with our tax code. And I think this is an area where we're going to get a lot of that self-policing as well."

Borden said he is unsure how deeply the new rule will affect agriculture.

"Each employer will have to decide whether to take the safe-harbor steps when it gets a no-match letter. Again, the rule clearly states it's the employer's option to do so," Borden said. "But if DHS catches an employer who ignored a no-match letter with illegal aliens identified in the letter still in his employ, the employer can count on DHS using his receipt of the letter as evidence against him."

Borden concluded, "I think DHS will soon launch some high-profile enforcement actions to further alarm employers into opting to use the safe-harbor steps. But what will really matter in the long run is whether DHS is sincere about getting tough by targeting and prosecuting enough employers on an ongoing basis to make its message stick."

Brad Lange, partner in LangeTwins Vineyard Management Co. in Acampo, said he will follow the no-match regulations and do what he has always done and make sure that he is not knowingly hiring illegal aliens.

"We employ between 75 and 100 people. If those key employees happen to turn up not having correct documentation and we are forced to terminate them, we would be crippled in our operation, not only from an everyday point of view, but the ability to harvest our crop," Lange said. "These employees are very important to the everyday operation of our farm and some of them have been with us for 25 to 30 years."

The DHS no-match regulations, Lange said, could ultimately cause farmers to move their operations outside of the United States where workers are willing to work in agriculture.

"I'm in the vineyard business. I have a permanent crop. I cannot just move somewhere else. Certainly, vegetable and other growers have the ability to move, and already have. They have voted with their feet and moved their farming operations," Lange said. "San Joaquin County brings in $1.5 billion every single year at the farm gate. If that agricultural economy begins to wane what will the lack of those funds do to our local economy? I don't think people realize how strong of a contributor agriculture is to our local economy."

The Bush administration's border-security reform package also calls for streamlining the existing H-2A program by requiring DHS to review the regulations implementing the program and institute changes that will provide farmers with an orderly and timely flow of legal workers.

"Farmers and ranchers want to know that the people they hire are legally available to work," Mosebar said. "This makes it even more urgent for Congress to pass comprehensive reform of the immigration laws and meaningful reform of the H-2A temporary worker program."

In response to Bush administration reforms to tighten border security, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., highlighted the ongoing need to pass legislation to address the agriculture worker shortages. Earlier this year, senators Feinstein and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, introduced AgJOBS legislation that would ensure a stable, reliable supply of agricultural workers.

"There is not an administrative solution, and tinkering with regulations is not going to solve the problem. Therefore, we must pass a law that enables agricultural workers to continue working legally if they stay in agriculture for the next three to five years and meet other requirements. This is what AgJOBS does," Feinstein said.

To view the no-match rule online, go to www.dhs.gov.
How to get safe-harbor protection
To get safe-harbor protection under the new DHS rule, an employer receiving an SSA no-match letter must take these steps:

1. The employer must check its records to see if the mismatch was due to a record-keeping error by the employer. If it was, then the employer must correct the error, inform SSA of the correct information, and verify with SSA that the corrected name and number match SSA records.

The employer should document that verification and store that documentation with the employee's Form I-9. The employer must do all of this within 30 days after it received the no-match letter.

2. If it determines the mismatch was not due to its record-keeping error, the employer must promptly ask the employee to confirm that the name and number in the employer's records are correct. If the employee says they are incorrect, then the employer must do the things specified in step 1.

If the employee says they are correct, then the employer must promptly ask the employee to resolve the issue with SSA and advise the employee of the date on which the employer received the no-match letter and to resolve the mismatch within 90 days of that date

3. If the employer within those 90 days cannot verify with SSA that the employee's name and number matches SSA records, then the employer and employee must within 93 days after the no-match letter receipt date complete a new Form I-9 for the employee without using the suspect number and instead using a document presented by the employee that contains a photograph to establish only identity or both identity and employment authorization.

The rule also applies where DHS notifies an employer of a problem with an employee's employment-authorization documentation. The employer has 30 days to try to resolve the issue with DHS. If it cannot do so within 90 after it got the DHS notice, then the employer must re-verify the employee's identity and work authorization as specified in step 3.

(Christine Souza is a reporter for Ag Alert. She may be contacted at csouza@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item. Top

PRESIDENT RON PAUL DEPORTED UNDER RON PAUL'S NO AMNESTY LAW

Posted by admin on 2007/6/28 8:16:32 (3326 reads)
By Ion Zwitter, Avant News Editor
Washington, D.C., March 29, 2009

President Ron Paul was deported this morning to his ancestral home of Krakpotka, Ukraine, under the terms of the controversial Ron Paul's No Amnesty, No Welfare for Illegal Aliens Act. The law, a linchpin of President Paul's platform that pundits have credited with sparking the popular xenophobic groundswell that clinched the election last November for the fringe Republican, has already resulted in the deportation of over 22 million purported "citizens", including, now, the president himself.

"When we crafted the No Amnesty law, what we were trying to do was to weed out every one of the millions of illegal immigrants in this country who were parasitizing America's bounty," Gilbert Spork, White House chief of staff, said. "So we made it as rigorous as we could and put in just about everything President Paul wanted, including mandatory deportation and the retroactive abolition of birthright citizenship. I think it might be that one that snagged him."

The phrase "birthright citizenship" indicates the privilege of American citizenship that is granted to any child physically born in the United States, whether or not the parents are American citizens. During his candidacy, President Ron Paul was a leading opponent of the practice.

Former President Ron Paul on his return to Dnipropetrovsk Airport, Ukraine "The researching and revocation of all birthright citizenship grants for the preceding four generations was a genealogical task of unprecedented proportions," Wevern Shimp, a supervisor of the True American Database Project, said.

"But that was the only way to ensure that all American citizens are pure Americans, deserving of all the inalienable rights American citizenship has to offer, such as welfare-to-work programs, parochial educational vouchers, color-coded terror charts, and so on. We found that once you go back a generation or two, the numbers are simply staggering."

The True American Database Project, a section of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of the Department of Homeland Security, tracked the paperwork on every man, woman and child living in the United States, documenting their lineage backward through parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents. The data were collected in a 32 terabyte database maintained by the Bureau of Large Lumps of Data at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.

"Unfortunately for President Paul, we found that his maternal great-grandparents, Sasha and Dmitri Potchichuk, who owned a small lard shop in Krakpotka, Ukraine, emigrated to the United States illegally in 1873," Mr. Shimp said. "Paperwork on President Paul's grandfather, who immigrated from Germany under questionable circumstances, is also pretty iffy, but that doesn't really matter. You only need one bad apple."

"What that means," Mr. Shimp explained, "is that every succeeding generation in the Ron Paul family has been basically composed of a bunch of job, welfare and education-filching illegals, and under Ron Paul's tough no-compromise policy, which I for one really admire, that means he's history. So, for that matter, is everyone in his family. I'm sure they will all be thrilled to finally get back to their real home of Krakpotka, where the weather is supposed be fairly pleasant soon."

President Ron Paul was summarily stripped of his illegally-acquired American citizenship upon his deportation, rendering him ineligible for the presidency. A doctor barred from practicing in the Ukraine due to the country's repressive laws regarding local accreditation, Dr. Paul, according to a spokesman, plans to resume his family's lard packaging operations if he is lucky enough to be granted a deportee business ownership waiver by the Ukrainian government.

Former President Ron Paul would traditionally have been succeeded by the Vice President, former actor Fred Thompson, had not the latter already been deported to his great-grandparents' native Finland.

The presidency of the United States will thus, under the rules of succession, be taken up by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whose documents, according to a spokesman, are impeccable. The official swearing-in will take place in the White House rose garden later today.

Nursery owner Mark Chamblee said he may be forced to fire workers with suspect Social Security numbers to avoid getting fined.

CRACKING DOWN ON ILLEGAL WORKERS
EMPLOYERS TO FACE FINES FOR VIOLATIONS

By Hernan Rozemberg
SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS

August 4, 2007

Arguing that for too long that U.S. employers have been able to shrug off the consequences of hiring illegal workers, the Department of Homeland Security will unveil a new policy next week making employers responsible for knowing the immigration status of their employees.

The new policy will help Homeland Security prosecute employers who have been notified by the Social Security Administration that employees on the payroll don't show up on Social Security rolls.

"There's going to be no more excuses for employers who have blatantly violated the laws and sought to game the system," said Russ Knocke, the department's press secretary.

The Social Security Administration sends out "no-match" letters when workers' Social Security numbers don't correlate with the agency's records. The policy, in practice since 1979, was created to assist the Internal Revenue Service in tax collection. The cause for the discrepancy can range from people getting married or divorced to clerical errors, but it's widely accepted that most cases lead to illegal workers.

Under the new policy, Homeland Security will be able to seek the no-match information from employers already being investigated by the agency.

If employers get Social Security letters or a notification from Homeland Security, the managers will have to prove they tried to solve the problem, including firing workers who failed to comply.

"The regulation will make it perfectly clear what needs to happen for employers to show they're following the law," Knocke said. "They will have a paper trail showing they acted in good faith."
The government will go after employers who received the letters but failed to resolve the problem within two months.

Companies found in violation will face fines starting at $250 but that could rise to $10,000 per violation.

Various trade groups, representing industries ranging from restaurants to landscaping and agriculture, have opposed the federal government's move, speaking apocalyptically of the expected economic hit.

The change is not a new law. It's tweaking existing tax policy to clarify what employers must do when they're notified that their payrolls show workers whose identities don't match information listed by the government.

The modifications were proposed a year ago, but were shelved as leaders in Washington launched an ill-fated quest to overhaul the entire immigration system.

"For us, this is not very ****. It's about wage reporting," said Social Security spokesman Mark Hinkle, noting that about 140,000 letters are dispatched per year.

Not firing workers who don't produce documents showing they're in the country legally also would be grounds for investigations.

Even before hearing word of the regulation change, at least one large national company headquartered in Texas decided not to take any chances.

Pilgrim's Pride, a large chicken processor based in Pittsburg, Texas, began firing workers last month at several area plants. Community activists said about 50 workers were being fired each week.

The company would not comment on the number of workers fired but said workers being fired were given ample time to rectify the problem after receiving no-match letters.

Pilgrim's Pride was trying to follow all laws, spokesman Ray Atkinson said, because hiring illegal workers is not allowed.

Employers also risk violating the law by asking for workers' immigration status, which is a violation of their civil rights.

That's the crux of the problem in trying to verify workers' status, employers said. Asking too little means trouble, but asking too much means trouble as well.

The new Homeland Security provision risks adding to the confusion by forcing employers to turn into de facto immigration agents, business groups said.

If Homeland Security is serious, it should get ready to ask Congress for the increased funding it will need to enforce the new regulations, said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

MEXICAN CONSULATE STAYS OUT OF THE FRAY


People wait for services inside the busy Consulate of Mexico, in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood.

KEN LAMBERT
THE SEATTLE TIMES

The Mexican flag hangs from a nondescript brick building nestled among offices, condos and restaurants in a leafy block in Belltown.

Every now and then, someone walking past does a double-take, as if surprised to see a foreign flag hanging here.

On most days, Mexican immigrants "” strollers in tow, toddlers in arms "” crowd the building's small lobby, spilling out beyond a wrought-iron gate and onto the street.

Behind a glass partition inside, a handful of people work frantically, issuing passports and identification cards and registering the births of children born in the U.S. to Mexican nationals.

At a time when immigration is among the issues dominating American politics "” with Mexican immigrants playing a key role "” the Seattle Consulate of Mexico keeps a low profile, all but invisible to most non-Mexicans here. It is one of five full foreign consulates in the Seattle area "” and by far the busiest, with between 150 and 200 cases a day.

Among other things, the consulate issues visas to non-Mexicans and generally serves the interests of Mexican nationals in Washington and Alaska, regardless of immigration status.

It must refrain from interfering in the domestic policies of the United States.

So people who called its offices to inquire about immigration rallies and protests on Seattle streets last year and earlier this year, for example, were told the office was not involved in the events.

Nor can the consulate save its constituents from deportation "” something desperate immigrants facing removal quickly learn.

"If someone runs a red light up the street, they can't come running to us," said Salvador Tinajero, the consulate's director of community outreach. "We can't protect people who have broken the law."

While some immigration advocates criticize the consulate for not doing more to help those facing deportation, critics on the other side of the immigration debate say the consulate goes too far in the other direction whenever it issues the "matrícula consular" ID card, which people from Mexico use as identification to open bank accounts and rent apartments and to help obtain driver's licenses.

"If you are a legal resident of the United States, you have a Social Security number and you have the papers you need to be living here," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for immigration enforcement.

"You don't need the services of the Mexican consulate to set you up. Clearly the intent is to facilitate people living illegally in the United States."

All kinds of help

The Mexican Consulate opened in Seattle more than 30 years ago, at a time when most of those it served were concentrated east of the Cascade Mountains. It is one of 47 Mexican consulates nationwide, the largest network for any country.

The Census Bureau estimates that 80 percent of the more than 540,000 Latinos in the state of Washington are of Mexican origin. They turn to their consulate for all kinds of help "” from returning home the remains of dead family members to going on Spanish-language radio earlier this year to warn people about a scam involving promises of amnesty.

When a young Mexican was beaten up by a group of men in Tacoma recently, the consulate, acting on the request of his family in Mexico, picked him up and arranged his flight back to Mexico.

Hilary Stern, executive director of Casa Latina, an immigrant-services organization that moved to a nearby space 10 years ago, has watched the office expand.

"There are so many people who come for service; we see them every day," she said. "I think they play an important role, and I'm really glad they're here."

The consulate also provides a wide range of assistance in areas of education and health and helps smooth the path for people looking to relocate to Mexico.

Each day, representatives from local banks "” U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Plaza Bank, the first Hispanic-owned bank in the Northwest "” visit the office to promote their services. Seattle and King County health officials come weekly to outline their services.

Once a month, the consulate takes its services on the road to Eastern Washington and Mount Vernon "” and twice a year to Alaska "” making it more convenient for people living there to get documents.

In June, when immigration officials picked up a mother of four in a raid at her Burien home and later deported her to Mexico, the consulate made arrangements for her two U.S.-born daughters to join her there.

While the mother had the option of taking her children back with her on the government-paid flight, Gilberto Alonso Gómez, who heads the consulate's protection-services division, said she chose instead to have them fly commercially so they wouldn't have to live with the image of her deportation.

"We try to keep ourselves as close to the community as possible, but we don't get involved in immigration policies," Tinajero said. "Regardless of the status of Mexicans here, we want to ensure that their human rights are respected.

"Obviously it matters, the status of Mexicans here. But that's an issue for [Congress], not for us."

Too much, or too little?

But Jorge Quiroga, an organizer with Comité Pro-Amnistia General y Justicia Social, (Committee for General Amnesty and Social Justice) which organized many of the immigration rallies, believes the consulate should be doing more to help those about to be deported find a way to remain in this country.

"They are very quick to tell people to sign up and go with voluntary deportation," Quiroga said.

Mehlman, the advocate for tougher immigration enforcement, thinks Mexican consulates go too far in helping constituents. He pointed out that consulates in California and Arizona became deeply involved in immigration in years when measures intended to crack down on illegal immigrants went before voters in those states.

"The Mexican government seems to see the role of consulates as advocates for Mexicans living in the U.S. "” legally or illegally."

Gómez conducts regular visits to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, where he meets with Mexican nationals detained there, reviews their cases and discusses their options with them.

The consulate can't represent anyone, though it keeps a list of immigration attorneys and programs it can refer them to.

He said people are either eager to talk with him because they hope he can help them or flatly refuse because they know he can't. "We can't force anyone to talk to us."

"Usually, once people realize there's no chance for them to stay here, they want to get out as quickly as possible."

Seattle Times news researcher Gene Balk contributed to this report.



Salvador Tinajero, left, director of community outreach, and Gilberto Alonso Gómez, head of protection services for the Consulate of Mexico in Seattle.


Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

IMMIGRATION DEBATE NEEDS HONESTY

Ruben Navarrette
August 15, 2007

The national dialogue over immigration reform is like a delicate negotiation -- one that works only if both sides deal in good faith. Which explains why the debate stalled. Neither side has been honest about what they really want and don't want.

We already knew that those on the right were being deceitful. They insist that border security is all they care about, when much of what drives them is a nativist impulse to reverse what they see as the "Mexican-ization" of the United States complete with taco trucks and Spanish-language billboards.

But last week, we learned that those on the left -- including open-border advocates, immigrant activists and Latino groups -- can be just as disingenuous. They insist that they support increased border enforcement as part of a comprehensive reform package, but when the enforcement comes a la carte, they cry foul.

These are some of the same people who also say we focus too much on the illegal immigrants and not enough on those who hire them. That's what I hear whenever I speak to Latino groups: that authorities should concentrate on the farms, restaurants, hotels and other businesses that depend on illegal immigrants to do the jobs that Americans pass up.

They have a point. It's just more sporting when government goes after people who have the resources to strike back. As it stands, most employers get a free pass. They have a long list of excuses, claiming that they didn't know a worker was illegal, that subcontractors do the hiring, that the documents presented looked real. And on it goes.

Yet when people make the argument that we focus too much on immigrants and not enough on employers, the implication is that they support cracking down on those doing the hiring.

Apparently not. Otherwise the left wouldn't be so upset over a new initiative from the Department of Homeland Security that aims to go after employers who repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. It's as if the left finally figured out that if the government cracks down on employers, the tactic could punish workers by putting them out of a job.

That's too bad. Neither the illegal worker nor the unscrupulous employer deserves much sympathy. Besides, if you don't attack the problem at the root, you'll never solve it.
The left's fury was aroused last week by the announcement that Homeland Security would target employers through "no-match" letters sent by the Social Security Administration.

Those letters go to employers informing them that the Social Security numbers of 10 or more workers don't match those on government records, a good indication that the workers could be in the country illegally. Under the new guidelines, once employers are notified that they have illegal workers, they would have to prove that the problem had been corrected even it that means firing the workers who provided phony documents. Employers who don't comply could face fines of up to $10,000 per violation.

The National Council of La Raza blasted the new policy as "an assault on the civil rights of all Hispanic Americans," according to a statement from NCLR President Janet Murguia. She said the new measures would result in "the racial profiling of all working Latinos."
The pro-immigrant National Immigration Forum predicted the new strategy would fail, with "disastrous, economic, security and civil rights consequences."

The New York Times editorial page called the crackdown on employers "infuriating and potentially dangerous" because of a 4 percent error rate with the database at the Social Security Administration. The newspaper also blasted the Bush administration for embracing an enforcement-only approach.

It's fine to oppose an enforcement-only approach as a wishful and ineffective strategy to curb illegal immigration. But that shouldn't stop you from supporting those elements that are fair and reasonable, such as cracking down on employers who repeatedly break the law.

Otherwise, folks might conclude that what you really want is an open border. That's not a logical position, but at least it's clear. And those who think we should go in that direction should just be honest and say so. Then maybe we can restart the negotiation.

HYPOCRISY IN HERNDON

THE ANTI-IMMIGRANT CAMP TURNS OUT NOT TO HAVE A BETTER IDEA

August 14, 2007

IN THE ABSENCE of workable national policy, the debate over illegal immigration is riddled with hypocrisy. That hypocrisy is now on lurid display in Herndon, the little town in western Fairfax County that became a flashpoint in the national debate on the issue when it opened a day labor center in 2005, triggering an apoplectic response from the Minutemen and other anti-immigration forces. Last year, local candidates who opposed the center (and illegal immigrants) won a close election, took over the Town Council and vowed to shut the facility. But guess what: It turns out they didn't really mean it.

Herndon's experience is a distillation of the collision between ideology and reality in the immigration debate. Herndon's Town Council members denounced the use of taxpayer money to fund the worker center. No matter that the center's orderly procedures represented an obvious improvement over the chaotic daily scramble for jobs in a 7-Eleven parking lot that preceded the center's opening; Herndon officials pretended that barring illegal immigrants from the center was the principled thing to do.

But when Fairfax County called Herndon's bluff recently and announced that it would cut off funding for the center early next month, Herndon buckled. In a letter to Fairfax officials, Herndon Mayor Stephen J. DeBenedittis, who campaigned against the center, pleaded for an "amicable" settlement that would restore its funding, at least for the time being. His fear is that a shutdown of the center would force scores of job-seeking immigrants onto streets and parking lots -- that it would reinstate, in other words, the conditions that made the labor center necessary in the first place. The reality is that those conditions are not about to change, given a dynamic local economy and the demand for immigrant labor.

Some members of the Town Council continue to insist that the center can bar illegal immigrants. Three times in the past year, they've sought a new operator that would screen out undocumented workers. So far, no suitable candidate has emerged. What's more, Herndon officials now acknowledge that closing the center or barring illegal immigrants may undercut the town's ability to enforce an ordinance prohibiting employers from picking up day workers on the street. Tonight, the council will probably vote to allow the center to continue operating in some guise.

An average of 125 workers per day use the center, which operates seven days a week. A lottery system helps match laborers and employers. English classes are held daily. Charitable groups distribute food and clothing there. Aside from some grumbles about immigrants cutting through neighboring property to reach the center, there have been few complaints. Railing against the immigrants who use the center helped get the Town Council elected. Governing turns out to be a bit more difficult.

ANOTHER VIEW: PROGRESS IS BEING MADE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

August 14, 2007

It will take courageous political leaders to pass legislation to deal conclusively with illegal immigration in the United States. That's really just another way of saying that we shouldn't expect anything to happen in the near future politically.

In the meantime, it's encouraging to see that the flow of illegal immigrants into this country has slowed and that existing laws are being enforced more often. It lends credence to those who have been saying all along that we already have the proper laws in place to deal with the problem.

Immigrants have contributed a great deal to this country, and that is still the case. Americans would be paying more for many goods and services if it were not for the availability of that source of cheap labor. But it is an inescapable conclusion that illegal immigration is a burden on our schools, medical facilities and legal system.

While the inaction of Congress and the president has frustrated many people, progress is being made. Members of Nevada's National Guard are at the border now, helping immigration agents. Gov. Gibbons, on a trip to the border and to Mexico, says it's making a difference. More agents and high-tech devices are also deterring people from sneaking across the border.

Now just imagine if employers began to be more diligent in making sure they're hiring legal workers with proper documentation ... it's not a difficult thing to do.

If that happened, by the time Congress got around to addressing the immigration issue they might just find there is no problem left to solve.

quote:

IMMIGRATION DEBATE NEEDS HONESTY

Why Ruben Navarette doesn't give a personal example of what he is demanding from others ?

FOR THE RECORD
AMNESTY ISN'T THE ANSWER

Aug. 14, 2007

Failed proposal wasn't a good way to deal with immigration problems U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., responding to an Aug. 10 editorial, "Angry, Here's why":

Your Aug. 10 editorial fails to recognize that amnesty is not needed to secure our borders.

The charges against illegal immigrant Jose Rivera for multiple rapes in Charlotte demonstrate the need for real border enforcement, not amnesty. Yet your editorial strangely attempted to place blame for these heinous crimes on senators who stood against amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Americans overwhelmingly rejected the comprehensive immigration bill because they saw that it guaranteed amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants while only promising border security.

Your editorial continues to push this same argument that failed so miserably during the immigration debate. The editorial claims we should have passed the flawed bill because it contained $4.4 billion in border funding. But America knows border security doesn't have to be held hostage for amnesty. In fact, the Senate recently passed this border security funding before it broke for the August recess, proving that amnesty is not needed to secure our border.

The recent crimes committed by an illegal immigrant in Charlotte should make people angry. But this outrage should be focused on a government that has promised but failed to enforce its immigration laws and on those who continue to call for amnesty as a way to secure our borders.

Dole: Don't repeat mistakes of 1986 law

From U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C.:

I am encouraged that The Observer acknowledges that we must strengthen border security to deal with the current immigration crisis. The newspaper's zeal for the twice-defeated amnesty bill, however, continues to cloud its judgment.

I reject the implication that I should have voted for a bill that included some border security provisions -- but in exchange, granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens! The reality is that bill would have repeated, not remedied, the mistakes of the 1986 bill, which granted 3 million people amnesty. Promises to secure our borders and enforce our laws were made then, but not kept, resulting in the mess we face today.

Your editorial praised an amendment to the immigration bill that would have allocated funding for border security. While I agree that we must increase these resources, this funding need not be coupled with highly contentious measures that further delay action on this front. For example, the Senate recently approved an amendment I cosponsored to the homeland security appropriations bill to provide $3 billion for border security and enforcement initiatives. This bill also included an amendment I introduced to require DHS to spend at least $5.4 million to facilitate 287(g) agreements. This program enables local law enforcement to receive authority from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to process illegal aliens who have committed crimes.

Law enforcement officers must have the tools to keep our communities safe. That's why I'm spending August meeting with our state's sheriffs to hear about the challenges they face when fighting crimes -- such as drinking and driving, drug smuggling and gang-related activity -- committed by illegal aliens. Officials say they're frustrated that federal agents lack the manpower to help, and they're fed up with the "catch and release" of dangerous individuals. I'll be talking with our sheriffs about using 287(g), and how I can assist them in their application process.

To address America's immigration woes, we should start where we have a consensus. Folks need to see a significant increase in the number of people deported when courts say they must be removed, a significant decrease in the number of overstayed visas, and a significant decrease in the number of illegal aliens crossing our borders. We must give the American people confidence that their government is serious about tackling this crisis with real proof, not just more promises.