IMMIGRATION REFORM DRAWS MIXED REACTIONS FROM GROWERS, FIELD WORKERS: PART 2





VANESSA BURCH
FALLON STAR PRESS
Posted: 8/17/2007

Editor's Note: Part 1 of this two-part story appeared in the Aug. 10 issue of the Fallon Star Press. The following is Part 2:

Salvador Alanis, a local field worker whose wife and nine children live in Mexico, said that in the United States, he earns three times the amount of money for the same work he does in Mexico.

Salvador, who works at Workman's Farms, spends four to six months working in the U.S., and returns to Mexico to perform the same work for the duration of the year.

"I miss my family and would like to be with them but I can't," said Salvador."They have to eat."

The money he makes in the U.S. supplements his income from Mexico, allowing him to help his family get by each year.

Salvador works seven days a week while in this country and stays in the Workman's Farms H-2A approved bunkhouse with another fieldworker.

"It sleeps about 21 people and there are several bathrooms and a big kitchen," said Wade Workman, co-owner of Workman Farms.

According to Workman, many field workers in Fallon live in trailers around town with their families. The employees contracted through H-2A visas live in housing provided by the farm owners.

"It's a good house and there's enough space," said Salvador. The only thing missing in Salvador's life here is his family.

Workman said some of the workers who live in these trailers may not have permission to work legally in the U.S. but run the risk of having their families here anyway because they cannot spend several months without them.

In the mid-1980s, Workman's Farms recognized not only the economic but social problems these workers experienced. They also knew first-hand the legal pressures surrounding contracting migrant workers.

"Workman's Farms helped all their workers get legalized in 1986," said Rick Lattin, co-owner of Lattin Farms. This was the same year the H-2A program began.

1986 also marked the year of the Immigration Reform and Control Act signed by President Ronald Reagan. Among other reformations, this act offered the legalization of migrant workers who entered the U.S. before Jan. 1, 1982 and applied within 18 months for such status (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

Unfortunately for Workman's Farms, several of the field hands to whom they helped grant citizenship left, said Workman. "As soon as they got the papers they were gone."

Workman's Farms did not just lose that round of workers over 20 years ago; they continue to lose more to fields like construction even today.

"We can't compete," he said, in regard to the higher wages paid in fields like construction.

Lattin agreed. "We can't afford to pay what construction pays and it makes it difficult for agriculture," he said since "our work is seasonal and it's very difficult labor."

Lattin also attributes the lack of money available for growers to pay their employees to the fact that, "The American public does not value agricultural products," he said.

In June of 2007, it was estimated that Americans spend 9.9 percent of their income on food, which may be the lowest percentage of any country worldwide (http://www.time.com/).

Fortunately for Lattin, in staying competitive in today's market, "The 1986 bill worked," he said, "because most workers working for us were legalized. We have three generations from that (act)."

The first of these three generations was Refugio Alanís, who worked as Lattin's crew chief for many years and returned to his own farm in Mexico during slower seasons.

Refugio's daughter Concha was second generation. She "grew up in Mexico, came to the U.S. for a better life," said her son and Refugio's grandson Cuquito Alanis.

Cuquito, who recently graduated from Churchill County High School, has worked at Lattin Farms since he was about 12. He helped gather the harvest with his grandfather who passed away last year. The families and workers Cuquito knows come to this country to work because "they need it," he said.

"They have families to take care of. The laws are different over there (in Mexico) and the pay is bad--it's terrible there. It's better living here," said the 18-year old.

The Alanís family's work ethic is something that Lattin has a hard time finding in U.S. workers when it is time to harvest produce. "No one else wants to work in the fields," he said. "I don't think the United States realizes that we're raising a generation of people not capable of doing the work."

"In a society where we haven't been taught that work ethic, some feel they (the migrant workers) are stealing their jobs," said Lattin. "I think there's some resentment," he added in regard to some U.S. citizens' opposition to granting migrant workers citizenship.

Stemming from U.S. opposition was the passage of The Secure Fence Act of 2006 which is currently underway. This act allows for hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the U.S./Mexican border (www.whitehouse.gov).

There are mixed feelings about the construction of this wall.

"There are a lot of good, honest people who lose their lives in the desert or the swamps," said Cuquito's father Adrian Alanis, of those trying to cross the border. "We need something better for them and the government can change that by giving permits to work."

Adrian, who owns Esperanza Maintenance in Fallon, feels people coming to this country to work should be "given the chance," but that the wall will help keep "bad people" out.

Cuquito agrees with his father, and mentioned specifically the increasing amount of Mexican drug lords. As far as keeping these people out, Cuquito said the wall "could be a good thing, but it's going to be hard on the people trying to work here."

"A lot of farmers need more workers. People need to be here because they need work and money," Cuquito said. The U.S. government "should tell them they can work here for a certain time and after a couple of years, give them a permanent visa or a temporary visa."

"I think it would be better for the U.S. because there would be a lot more workers," said Cuquito.

Salvador is an example of a worker who would appreciate the visa Cuquito mentioned. As much as he misses his family, he said he would still be interested in living and working permanently in the U.S. "When we cross the border, Immigration said someday we'll get residency, but we still haven't," he said.

"I would prefer to be a resident," said Salvador, who "would have to return to see my family during vacations."

Lattin said that he personally sees the migrant workers in the U.S. falling under one of two groups.

"There are the people who want to work here, send money home and go back and there are the folks that want to migrate here," said Lattin. "We've got to provide a path for legality for them."

In Lattin's opinion, it boils down to this. "We have to decide if we need them as citizens or (just) legal to work," he said.

"Bringing them out of the shadows and controlling the border--knowing who's here by having a way to track them," and if necessary "return them home" is what Lattin said may be a solution to the current immigration problems.

He also said that any laws that are to be passed, should be done so "for the right reason and not because we're a bunch of xenophobic racists."

HERNDON KEEPS DAY-LABOR CENTER OPEN
WORKERS REQUIRED TO SHOW IDENTIFICATION

UPDATED: 7:57 am EDT
August 16, 2007

HERNDON, Va. -- The city of Herndon voted Wednesday night to keep the day-labor center in the city open but made it a rule to check workers' identification before allowing them to work.

Workers won't necessarily need a driver's license, but they will have to be able to prove they can legally work in the U.S.

Immigration advocates said that defeats the purpose of a day-labor center.

The local vote passed 6 to 1. It was watched and heard on a national stage.

Herndon became a flashpoint and made national headlines when it opened a day-labor center in 2005.

Immigration advocates said immigrants who are legally able to work in the U.S. are only a small fraction of the undocumented immigrants in the country.

"I think the Town Council has basically positioned themselves with some options still open," day-labor center operator Bill Threlkeld said. "We're not particularly happy with some of the conditions that we were fighting to have in place."

In 30 days, the contract expires for the group that runs the center now. They said it was not their job to check identification or legal residency.

Wednesday night, council members made their position clear. They said if they can't find another group to enforce their policy, the town will run the facility itself.

"I don't believe, personally, that taxpayer money should be used to provide employment or any other services for illegal aliens," Herndon Vice Mayor Dennis Husch said.

Herndon's vote is the latest in a string of resolutions passed by counties and cities that target undocumented immigrants. Each has been met with protests and rallies, and some people have threatened to boycott businesses who are anti-immigrant.

Immigration advocates said the vote was not only a loss for themselves and immigrants, but also for the city of Herndon. They said because there is a demand for undocumented immigrants in day-labor centers, they will be forced back onto street corners.

Spain's Bluster Masks An Immigration Crisis

American Thinker
By Soeren Kern
August 16, 2007

Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero deserves a special award for transatlantic chutzpah. During his recent visit to Mexico, he attended the state dinner held in his honor by toasting Mexican President Felipe Calderón with a sterling example of the post-modern pontification for which Spanish leftists are so famous: "There is no wall that can obstruct the dream of a better life," Zapatero proclaimed.

The "wall" that Zapatero is so worried about is, of course, the anti-illegal immigrant fence that, if everything goes as planned, will one day run along parts of the 2,000 mile (3,200 km) border between Mexico and the United States...and not the twin razor wire-topped fences that separate the Spain's north African colonies of Ceuta and Melilla from those people in Morocco and the rest of Africa who have dreams of a better life in Spain.

It could be that Zapatero was just trying to divert attention away from a ****ing report by the New York-based Human Rights Watch that accuses Spanish authorities of mistreating and neglecting hundreds of migrant African children at holding centers on the Canary Islands. Or perhaps he was still fuming that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, during her recent six-hour stopover in Madrid, did not extend the long-awaited invitation for Zapatero to visit the White House.

Whatever the case may be, the fact is that the United States and Europe are facing many of the same challenges on the issue of immigration. But within Europe, few countries have a more troubled-indeed contradictory-approach to illegal immigration than does Spain.

By any measure, Spain is a magnet for immigration: During the past ten years, the number of immigrants in Spain has skyrocketed nine-fold to 4.5 million; immigrants now make up a whopping ten percent of the total population of Spain, a country that for much of the last century was an exporter rather than an importer of immigrants.

Up until early 2005, half of all immigrants in Spain were undocumented, a problem that Zapatero decided to "fix" by granting the largest blanket amnesty in Spanish history to nearly one million of them. But while the politically correct prime minister regularly boasts that his "humane" approach to immigration has added a multitude of new contributors to Spain's financially unsustainable social security system, he has been less willing to acknowledge that his leniency has triggered an avalanche of uncontrolled immigration.

In fact, official statistics confirm that today (just two years after Zapatero's amnesty) there are now more than one million new illegal immigrants in Spain. Many Spaniards are asking themselves how this could happen, but the answer is obvious. By rewarding illegal immigrants with Spanish (and thus European) documentation, Zapatero has unleashed what is known as the "call effect" to people as far away as Kashmir who now believe that Spain is an easy gateway into Europe.

And indeed it is. Because according to Spanish law, if an individual enters Spain legally on a three-month tourist visa, overstays that visa for 24 months, and then presents the immigration authorities with a labor contract, that person automatically becomes legal.

Why is Spain so lenient? One reason is because Spaniards are getting rich on cheap immigrant labor. In fact, hundreds of thousands of low-paid immigrants are the fodder that fuels two of Spain's most important industries: agriculture and construction. And it is above all a construction boom that has transformed Spain into one Europe's fastest growing economies.

Another reason is because at 0.7 children per woman, Spain has one of the lowest birthrates in the world, and studies show that to keep the Spanish pension system from bankrupting, immigrants will have to make up 20 percent of Spain's population by 2030. Spain's demographic crisis is so troubling that Zapatero has just promised to pay a 2,500 euro ($3,400) "baby bonus" for every newborn child as an incentive to boost the birthrate.

Combine these factors with Zapatero's never-ending populist rhetoric about the need for "solidarity" with developing countries and it comes as no surprise that would-be immigrants in Africa and elsewhere perceive (correctly) that Spain is deliberately lax on illegal immigration. So masses of people who dream of a better life in Europe keep coming and coming...by the hundreds day in and day out. Some 25,000 "economic migrants" have arrived in the Canary Islands so far this year alone.

But many of them do not arrive alive. The waters separating Spain from Africa are notoriously turbulent and the corpses of would-be migrants are washing up on the shores of Spain's prized tourist beaches almost daily. Up to 3,000 migrants are estimated to have drowned this year alone, a gruesome spectacle which, more than anything else, has created a public relations nightmare for the Spanish government.

In the face of a public outcry over the government's inaction, Zapatero now senses the political need to appear tough on illegal immigration. But because Spain's immigration problem has spiraled completely out of control, Zapatero now says the problem is a European problem and as such he has tried to put the onus on other EU member states to find a solution. He wants the EU to dedicate a substantial part of its 2007-2013 frontier control budget to the southern border, for example.

But the EU's response has been tepid. Indeed, most EU countries believe that Zapatero started the crisis with his indulgent immigration policies and, as such, he should find the solution as well. In the words of French President Nicolas Zarkozy:

"We see the damage caused by the phenomenon of massive regularization. Every country which has conducted an operation of massive regularization finds itself the next month [in a position that] does not allow it to master the situation anymore."
This unfortunate reality provides some of the political context for Zapatero's concern with the US-Mexico border. The Spanish prime minister, who like so many other European leftists is religiously fixated on building a post-modern multicultural utopia, seems blinded to the fact that runaway immigration combined with socialist mismanagement has had disastrous consequences. Much easier, it would seem, for Zapatero to criticize America than to acknowledge his own shortcomings.

Meanwhile, more than a dozen would-be migrants have been killed and many more injured by rubber bullets or beatings in their bids to climb over the ten foot (three meter) fences around the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. Zapatero's response? He has just built a third perimeter fence to obstruct the dream of a better life in Spain. Spanish leftists are consistent in one thing: they are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

Soeren Kern is Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

U.S. IMMIGRATION REFORM
"LIKE TRYING TO NAIL JELLO TO THE WALL"

Until border is secure, any other efforts are really moot points

The Moultrie Observer
August 15, 2007

Ever heard the expression "like trying to nail Jello to the wall?" Well, that's an analogy that is appropriate in the overview of our illegal immigration issue.

Many years ago, illegals became a part of our economic infrastructure. That immigration benefited a lot of people and our economy has formed around that labor force to some large extent. You might say a portion of our economy was "tooled" around the illegal factor. And everyone who's ever run a business or has studied industrial science knows that "retooling" is a costly experience.

We have to admit that guarding our southern border has only been token. It's ludicrus to suggesti that a nation that whipped Hitler can't stop illegals from crossing the Rio Grande, given that we have military establishments stretching from Pensacola to San Diego. That is, if we really want to do it.

Perhaps it is as simple as a declaration that securing the border is a matter of national defense that should involve our military. Other countries have done this quite well. And while some will maintain that using our military on the border seems un-American in a land built by immigrants "” then that's where the resolve and definitions must first come. Times have changed.

With a constant back and forth of illegals, trying to come up with a strong policy on this issue is really a moot point. First, the flow must be stopped. Once the flow is stopped, then there is a known (or at least better known) population that must be dealt with in some fashion, whatever that may be. It would also help, should we reach this resolve, to pass a constitutional amendment that would no longer grant automatic citizenship to a child born on U.S. soil of illegal parents.

Again, there are those who will shout "un-American", but it's a policy that has encouraged illegal immigration. We have a lot of soul searching to do and a lot of philosophy to ponder on who we are and what our future will be in this regard.

It is very difficult to establish what legal immigration will be in the long haul until we have a much stronger resolve about illegal immigration today.

First secure the border. Then disallow the birth of a child from illegal parents to automatically be granted citizenship. For those remaining, the devil will be in the details of authenticating legals and establishing guest worker or temporary visa provisions.

It's really difficult to nail Jello to the wall. It makes much more sense to put in a bowl and place it in the refrigerator. One might even say it's logical.

VIRGINIA

STATE DATABASE PROPOSED ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS


The Journal Press
August 15, 2007

Albert Pollard, in reaction to recent news reports that federal immigration officials are failing to pick up illegal immigrants who are being held in state and local jails, today announced a plan for a state database for illegal immigrants.

The database, voluntarily accessible to potential employers, would be of a forensic mark (fingerprint) for all illegal immigrants who have served jail time for their state offense and released because federal authorities have failed to pick them up.

"Clearly, this is not a perfect solution," said Pollard, "but having a state database which is accessible to employers would shield them from the liability of hiring criminals and drive away those illegals who present fake papers. The technology is cheap and readily available."

Pollard explained that the system would be a central database accessible through the internet. Employers could access the database when hiring new employees by making them swipe their fingerprint into a readily available electronic finger print reader. Such technology is available off the shelf.

"Most employers want to do the right thing. A central database would let them know if a potential employee has presented false documents to state or local authorities – or failed to present documents at all."

"Obviously, the best solution would be to actually have the Federal Government work with state and local law agencies and start deportating those we know are breaking laws and are residing here illegally. Sadly, the Federal Government seems incapable of even this most basic task. Until then, I think this database is worth a try."

While in the House of Delegates, Pollard voted for a number of bills cracking down on illegal immigration including HB 637 and HB 570 which allowed the DMV and the State Police to cooperate with the Federal Government on immigration issues including detaining and deportation. He also voted to keep illegal immigrants from being allowed welfare and other state services (HB1798).

Pollard is running for the 28th Senate District seat held by Senator John Chichester, who has decided to retire after serving Virginia for 29 years. He represented the 99th House of Delegates District for six years and prided himself on working across party lines. The election will be held in November.

WHAT'S BEHIND PEOPLE'S FEAR OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?

The Bakersfield Californian
Martinez Column
BY LEONEL MARTINEZ
Wednesday, Aug 8 2007

IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE OR ETHNICITY.
IT'S ABOUT IMMIGRATION.

That argument, or a similar one, is one of the most frequently used defenses I hear of proposals aimed at clamping down on illegal immigration from Proposition 187 -- passed by California voters in 1994, but gutted by the courts -- to more recent and unsuccessful efforts by Congress to make felons of illegal immigrants.

Bakersfield City Councilman David Couch's recent proposals are in the same tradition. At a council meeting last month, Couch floated the ideas of officially declaring that Bakersfield will never be a refuge for illegal immigrants, research the possibility of denying services to these foreigners, and adopt English as the city's official language.

If passed, the measures likely will have no concrete effect, but they apparently enjoy strong support. Councilman Zack Scrivner said e-mails and phone calls to City Hall overwhelmingly backed Couch.

Yet there is an uncomfortable question that thus far has been largely ignored: Is support of these measures purely about illegal immigration as supporters contend, or is it about fear of the growing Latino population? In other words, how many back Couch's measures to take a stand against undocumented residents and how many do so as part of a backlash against the growing Hispanic population?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey, Hispanics made up 44.4 percent of Kern County's population, up from 38.4 percent in 2000.

That scares a lot of people.

And this fear has less to do with illegal immigration than it does with fear of the cultural shift that will occur as the size of the nation's Latino population grows larger.

Extremists take note: I didn't say it's inherently racist to take a hard-line stance on illegal immigration. Write your Congressman and suggest we build a 100-foot-tall and electrified fence along the U.S.-Mexico border with land mines surrounding it, and I'd call you barbaric, but not necessarily racist.

Still, it troubles me that a small but significant percentage of the hundreds of angry people I've debated with over the last four years -- via e-mail and on the phone -- quite comfortably blur the distinction between Latinos and illegal immigrants, jumping from one to the other as if they are synonymous or nearly so.

Listen carefully to these angry folks, and you will note that they're not just mad about too many people sneaking across the border. They're livid about too many speaking Spanish, flying Mexican flags and attending Cinco de Mayo events. They are furious about a culture and a people that are just too different and may transform the nation into one that more closely reflects those differences.

They fear this despite the fact that that's what immigrant groups have done since the birth of the country, and they have enriched the nation by doing it.

Two last questions: If the real bogeyman in Couch's proposals is illegal immigration and not this culture clash, what's the logic behind including a measure to make English the city's official language? Why link that with illegal immigration unless you were trying to make a point about something other than illegal immigration?

One wonders what that point could be.

Leonel Martinez's column appears every other Thursday. Readers may send comments or suggestions to lmartinez@bakersfield.com or leave a voicemail at 395-7631.

IMMIGRATION ACTIVIST LEAVES SANCTUARY


AP Photo/M. Spencer Green

Immigration Activist Leaves Sanctuary

By DAN STRUMPF
Associated Press Writer
August 18, 2007, 6:19 AM EDT

CHICAGO (AP) -- For the first time in a year, an illegal immigrant who took refuge in a church to avoid deportation has left the sanctuary to attend an immigration rights rally in Los Angeles.

Elvira Arellano left the church for the first time since seeking sanctuary there Aug. 15, 2006, and was traveling to California by car Friday, said Emma Lozano, head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras.

Arellano is accompanied by people close to her, Lozano said, including the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church where she and her son have lived for more than a year.

Lozano, who is in Los Angeles, declined to say whether Arellano's 8-year-old son, Saul, is with her.

She also declined to give specifics about when Arellano left the storefront church on Chicago's West Side, but Arellano's last public appearance there was Wednesday, when she announced plans to travel next month to Washington, D.C., in what many expected to be her first venture from the church.

"She's not alone and she's got a lot of company and on her way," Lozano said Friday night. "And she'll be here tomorrow, so we're really looking forward to that."

The Los Angeles march is set for Saturday morning. Arellano plans a press conference at La Placita, which Lozano described as a prominent Catholic church.

A message seeking comment was left late Friday night with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

On Wednesday, Arellano announced she would travel to Washington, D.C., to lobby for immigration reform and participate in a prayer meeting Sept. 12.

Lozano said those plans haven't changed.

Arellano came illegally to the United States to Washington state in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.

She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and later convicted of working under a false Social Security number. She was to surrender to authorities last August, but asked instead to take refuge at her church to avoid deportation and separation from her son, who is a U.S. citizen.

The 32-year-old has since become an international symbol of the struggles of illegal immigrant parents and a source of controversy, praised for her steadfastness and criticized as a scofflaw.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

BUSINESSES WON'T LET IMMIGRATION REFORM DIE
THE COALITION SOLDIERS ON TO REVIVE THE LEGISLATION

By Walter C. Jones
The Times-Union
Jacksonville FL
08/18/2007

ATLANTA - A coalition of Georgia businesses hasn't let up its campaign for immigration legislation despite seeing the issue bog down in Congress and criticism hurled its way.
sponsored links
buy a link here

The coalition of 21 individual businesses and trade associations, called Georgia Employers for Immigration Reform, argues that the state's economy depends on immigrant workers and that the jobs of native Georgians could be lost if federal law stops the flow of aliens. It suffered a defeat June 29 when the Senate failed to stop a filibuster resulting in no vote on a bipartisan reform bill the group supported.

And a video has been posted on the YouTube Internet site by someone calling for a boycott against Pilgrim's Pride Corp., the state's largest chicken company and a leader in the coalition.

Still, coalition members are looking forward to another debate on the floor of the Senate.

"We've have a couple of skull sessions, and we continue to follow what the Congress is doing," said spokesman Jay Morgan. "We know that there are a lot of people who are having, shall we say, voter's remorse. They really didn't want the issue to die without a resolution."

During Congress' August recess, coalition members have met with some representatives and senators. At the same time, they've urged their employees to buttonhole the members of Congress with the same message.

To get the public on board, or at least dampen some criticism in this staunchly conservative state, the coalition has also run an ad in a Macon newspaper and on some radio stations.

"If Georgia producers, poultry processors and contractors can't find workers, they can't survive," the ad states. "And if Georgia's No. 1 industry - agriculture - fails, other local businesses, from grocery stores to fertilizer and farm machinery suppliers, will suffer. And so will the Georgians they employ."

But advocates for stricter immigration policies oppose the coalition, like Americans for Immigration Control.

"I hope they're not facilitating greedy employers who just want cheap labor," Immigration Control spokesman Phil Kent said of the coalition.

Kent said it's insulting to American workers to say they're not willing to take poultry-processing or construction jobs in place of illegal immigrants.

Morgan, on the other hand, says it's unrealistic to expect the 12 million illegal aliens already in the United States to simply return home or be deported.

Despite the tension, Morgan said the employers would keep fighting.

"We are business people. We know that these things take time," he said. "We are maintaining the coalition and the conversation."

walter.jones@morris.com,

(404) 589-8424

--------------------------------
HITTING HOME

Here are the Georgia companies that belong to the Georgia Employers for Immigration Reform:

American Proteins

Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Georgia Branch

Coggins Farms & Produce, Inc.

Fieldale Farms Corporation

Georgia Crate & Basket Co.

Georgia Farm Bureau Federation

Georgia Green Industry Association

Georgia Poultry Federation

Georgia Sweet Corn Growers Exchange

Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Assoc.

Georgia Watermelon Association

Jet Farms Georgia, Inc.

Longleaf Ridge Farms

Magnolia Packing

McCorkle Nurseries, Inc.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation

Riverview Plantation

Southeast Dairy Farmers Assoc.

Southern Nursery Association

Wayne Farms, LLC.

Winegrowers Assoc. of Georgia

Source: Georgia Employers for Immigration Reform

sponsored links

This may be the last immigration wave in history of America.

Next great waves will most likely head to other parts of the world, not Europe, nor North America.

Until then, and until this pressure of seemengly never ending immigration stops, it will be very difficult to pass anything resembling kind of immigration reform that immigrant advocates want.

VIRGINIA

LET'S DIVERT MILLIONS TO AFTER ILLEGALS

Steve Vaughn
Virginia Gazette
August 18, 2007

JAMES CITY -- Del. Phil Hamilton (R-93rd) stirred up the illegal immigrant chase this week with a provocative proposal.

Local officials, even one who has expressed alarm over illegals, don't like it.

Hamilton would remove certain law enforcement funding from local control by earmarking "599" state aid to target illegals.

He would require that one person with authority to enforce federal immigration laws be on duty 24/7 in each locality. That officer would be able to arrest, detain and ultimately deport illegals as a violation of federal immigration laws, something that local police and deputies can't do now.

The federal government offers a program of training by Immigration & Customs Enforcement to develop such agents.

The 599 money is named for the number of the House bill that supplements police funding.

"599 funds were the 'bribe' used to institute the moratorium on annexation," Hamilton explained in an interview.

He suspects the money is diverted.

"While the funding goes to localities with police departments, it goes to the localities' general fund, not [directly] to law enforcement."

By requiring that the funds be targeted for federal training, his bill would bring "truth in funding" to the 599 money.

Localities consider 599 revenue fungible. If it's put into their general fund, from which police are paid, it can be said to be supporting law enforcement. The General Assembly does the same thing with Virginia Lottery millions that are supposed to support public schools.

Statewide, 599 funds total $206 million this year. Hamilton is propos-ing to divert all or a portion to the federal training program.

Williamsburg gets about $450,000 a year and James City County about $1.65 million. In the recent dust-up over busting illegals, James City was found to have relatively few problems with illegals.

Hamilton thinks illegals pose a threat. "Because public safety is a primary function of state and local government, using existing 599 funds, which could be better used to protect citizens from illegal immigrants, many of whom have already been charged with committing crimes, seems most appropriate." Not so fast. "The 599 money should be used for whatever we decide we need it for," said James City County administrator Sandy Wanner. "If that's preventing gang violence or illegal immigrant training, fine. But we should make that decision." Williamsburg Police Chief Mike Yost agreed. "I'd like to see decisions on how to spend that money made here," he said. Phil Serra, the city finance director, said that if the General Assembly redirected the 599 money, he would have to make that revenue up from cuts or other revenue sources. Supervisor Bruce Goodson, who recently called for the county to look into how much money illegal immigrants cost James City, said he wanted to retain 599 as is. "That money is to compensate us for having a police department," he said. "If the state wants to give us grants to pursue the Immigration and Customs funding, as they do with some other things, that's something I'd definitely think we should look into." Goodson doesn't dislike Hamilton's idea on the training, just the funding source. If the state is willing to pick up the tab for the Immigration & Customs training, he's all for it. "I like Phil Hamilton. I support him. He's my delegate," Goodson said. But he feels the county should retain 599 control. "Of course, localities will be opposed to the dedication of currently undedicated state funds that they can use as they want," Hamilton replied. "599 funds are state funds that I believe the statehas a right to dedicate to address a growing problem in our state." Hamilton is running unopposed this fall.

RUSH QUOTE OF THE DAY


Rush Quote Of The Day
August 18, 2007
by Bob Parks
8/16/07
Rush Limbaugh Show

So here's Ruth Marcus writing about the SCHIP program in the Washington Post, and the title of it is: "Attack Ads You'll Be Seeing "” Here's an emerging line of attack you can expect to hear more of in the 2008 congressional campaigns "” especially if you live near a vulnerable Democratic incumbent: Democrats vote to give welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Or, even better: Democrats vote to take benefits away from deserving senior citizens to pay for welfare for illegal aliens. Ugly? Absolutely. Devastating? So Republicans hope. True?" Well, Ruth Marcus says, no, it's not. But it is.

So Ruth Marcus actually writes this piece on the SCHIP program with the point being that Republicans are going to lie about it in attack ads against Democrats. So I did a little research. I went to our buddies at Redstate.com, Erick Erickson's bunch. They did a little looking into this, and in the dead tree issue of the Washington Post is a letter that they didn't put at the Washington Post on their website edition. But in the dead tree edition of the paper, there was a letter from Dennis Smith, who is the Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations.

"The conclusion in Ruth Marcus's Aug. 8 op-ed column, 'Attack Ads You'll Be Seeing Soon' "” that public benefits will not be provided to illegal aliens in consequence of recent legislation "” is incorrect. Under the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program passed by the U.S. House, unprecedented new eligibility rules would not only allow public benefits for illegal aliens but would provide incentives to states to open Medicaid and SCHIP to do so. Mark B. McClellan, former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was quoted as saying that an inspector general's report did not find problems related to citizenship status in the current program. However, the very protections in the Medicaid system that work to prevent fraud would be gutted by the House. States would be allowed to turn eligibility determinations over to new 'express lane' agencies that would make children eligible on the basis of scant information. Incredibly, families could refuse to provide or verify information provided to a state agency by an 'express lane' agency. A state would also be allowed to determine eligibility for benefits without even taking an application."

Now I don't want to belabor the point here, but there's so much illegal immigration in this children's health care bill. It's stealth and it's a way of getting what they failed to do in a comprehensive way by getting it done incrementally.

CHERTOFF: IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN MAY HURT ECONOMY

HOMELAND SECURITY CHIEF PREDICTS THAT NEW MEASURES TO CURB HIRING OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS MIGHT BE TOUGH ON MANY BUSINESSES

By Nicole Gaouette
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Saturday, August 11, 2007

WASHINGTON "” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff predicted painful economic fallout from the array of immigration enforcement measures the Bush administration unveiled Friday in an attempt to choke off the jobs magnet that draws illegal immigrants.

The changes, which would stiffen work-site enforcement, add border agents and increase penalties for employers, could cause havoc in immigrant-dependent industries such as agriculture, hospitality and health care, he said.

"There will be some unhappy consequences for the economy out of doing this," he said.

Chertoff said he had little sympathy for businesses that hire illegal workers, saying they should have seen the administration's crackdown coming after the Senate failed to pass changes to immigration laws.

"We have been crystal clear about what the consequences would be," he said.

Friday's formal announcement of the widely expected initiative, made by Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, was the Bush administration's first extensive explanation of how it plans to fight illegal immigration.

President Bush called the measures important and promised to take every possible step to strengthen the nation's "broken immigration system." The approach is aimed partly at placating GOP conservatives who are livid about the failure to enforce existing immigration laws and the president's support for a plan that would have allowed illegal immigrants to potentially become U.S. citizens.

But the move also could create a political climate that might lead to the comprehensive changes the administration has sought, including a guest worker program and some accommodation for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Chertoff said the provisions, some of which take effect in 30 days, could push corporate America to apply more pressure on Congress to reconsider broad changes.

"I'm not a lawmaker, but I presume, at some point, somebody's going to take a look and say we've got to find a way to address this problem, and that's probably going to require some legal changes," he said.

But he stressed that "this is not an effort to punish Congress."

Gutierrez framed the issue more starkly.

"We do not have the workers our economy needs to keep growing each year," he said. "Ultimately, Congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

Business groups, unions, immigrant advocates and religious organizations protested the provisions. But opponents of the failed Senate immigration proposal greeted the news happily.

"This is exactly what the American people were saying ... when they said why don't we start out by enforcing existing laws and prove that Washington will do the right thing?" said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif. "Once we reinstate confidence in the government, then we can come back and talk about the other stuff."

He compared ending U.S. economic dependency on illegal immigration to weaning an addict off drugs.

"If there's some pain, it's not because we didn't have amnesty, it's because we didn't enforce the law 20 years ago when we should have," he said.