MINNEAPOLIS (AP) "” A lawsuit filed Tuesday claims that federal immigration agents who raided a meatpacking plant detained Hispanic workers, hurled racial epithets at them and forced the women among them to take off their clothes, while white workers were spared the harsh treatment.
The federal lawsuit was filed by Centro Legal, an immigrant rights group, on behalf of 10 workers at Swift & Co.'s Worthington plant who are in the U.S. legally. More than 200 illegal immigrants in Worthington were arrested Dec. 12 as part of a six-state raid of Swift plants that netted more than 1,200 undocumented workers.
The plaintiffs, all of whom were working at the Worthington plant when it was raided, claim they were detained and searched or interrogated without being advised of their constitutional rights, the lawsuit claims. None was charged with a crime, said Gloria Contreras-Edin, Centro Legal's executive director.
Federal agents "insulted, abused, and humiliated the plaintiffs on account of their race" and ordered female Hispanic workers to disrobe in front of federal agents, the lawsuit claims. White workers, meanwhile, were allowed to move about the plant freely during the raid and weren't subject to unlawful conduct on the part of agents, according to the lawsuit.
"This is about upholding the basic constitutional rights and freedoms of Americans "” whether they are black, white or Latino," Contreras-Edin said.
The lawsuit claims civil rights violations, abuse, discrimination, unlawful search and unlawful detainment. It seeks unspecified damages and a court ruling barring ICE from conducting similar raids.
Tim Counts, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Tuesday that government lawyers hadn't reviewed the lawsuit. But he said agents did nothing wrong during the raid.
"The worksite enforcement operation at the Worthington plant was done lawfully and in full accordance with ICE policies and procedures," Counts said. "Each person encountered was treated with respect and has been given full access to due process under the laws."
Worthington is a city of about 15,000 residents near the Iowa border.
Centro Legal has also sued on behalf of Hispanic residents in Willmar who claim agents broke into their homes and illegally detained them during a sweep in April. Many Hispanic immigrants in that west-central Minnesota community work at a poultry processor owned by Austin-based Hormel Foods Corp.
ICE has also claimed its agent acted properly in that raid, which led to the arrests of about 50 people.
Fact: There is no violent crime wave in America caused by illegal immigrants. Keep that in mind the next time you read sensationalized news stories of illegals involved in horrific crimes, such as the recent execution-style slayings of three students in New Jersey, allegedly by an illegal immigrant from Peru.
Shocking, yes -- but in the immigrant population, such stories are the exception, not the rule, according to a 2007 study by the Immigration Policy Center.
Contrary to popular myth and stereotypes, the vast majority of undocumented aliens are here to work, not commit crimes, according to the study. In fact, illegal immigrants are far less likely to commit serious crimes than legal citizens of any ethnicity.
Consider:
"¢ Although the undocumented population has doubled since 1994, to an estimated 12 million, violent crime during that period fell 34 percent and property crimes decreased 26 percent.
"¢ The majority of illegals here are Mexican nationals between the ages of 18 and 39, with little formal education -- a demographic you'd expect to drive a high crime rate. But native-born males in that age group were incarcerated at rates five times greater than foreign-born men, the study found.
Partly that's because Hispanic males who are in the United States illegally are a highly motivated group who are here to work and stay out of trouble.
An article in Tuesday's Eagle noted that one-fourth of inmates in federal prisons are illegal immigrants. But almost half of those offenders are in jail for immigration (a federal crime) or drug violations, not violent or property crimes.
In fact, increased immigration, whether legal or illegal, arguably is driving down crime rates in America, according to the study's authors.
Several studies of immigrant populations in the early 20th century reached similar conclusions. As the Dillingham Commission reported in 1911, "immigrants are less prone to commit crime than are native Americans."
That's why, instead of acting as immigration agents, it's more important for police to gain the trust of members of the Hispanic community so they'll come forward when real crimes are committed in their neighborhoods.
That's been the approach of the Wichita Police Department and many other urban police forces. Local police must put their limited resources where they will do the most good. And immigration enforcement is a federal issue.
Granted, there are some serious career criminals in the illegal population -- and when found, they should be deported, not set loose to reoffend. There can be no "sanctuary" for hard-core criminals.
Just beware of emotional arguments equating immigrants and crime.
There are many problems caused by illegal immigration. A crime wave isn't one of them.
NEW RULE WOULD PUT ONUS ON BOSSES TO PURGE ILLEGALS
What: The Social Security Administration is poised to send out letters to thousands of employers who have workers with Social Security numbers that do not match the appropriate names.
When: A federal judge has delayed any action on the letters until at least October in a case where the AFL-CIO sued to block them, claiming the documents violate workers' rights and would unfairly burden employers.
Why: With the apparent death of comprehensive immigration reform, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is using the information from the Social Security Administration to crack down on businesses employing illegal aliens.
For more information, visit www.ice.gov or call the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Investigations at (800) 421-7102.
New rule would put onus on bosses to purge illegals
BY DEVONA WALKER Herald Tribune Sarasota Forida September 05, 2007
With comprehensive immigration reform dead, the Social Security Administration is poised to send out controversial "no match" letters to thousands of employers, notifying them of the serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
The letters would target employers who have workers with Social Security numbers that do not match the appropriate names.
It requires an employer to inform the employee, and for both to remedy the problem within 90 days.
The move represents the latest in the national crackdown on illegal immigrants and the businesses that employ them.
It now appears that the letters -- which have drawn scorn from a wide range of industries and labor players -- will not go out before October. Last week, a federal judge in San Francisco granted a temporary restraining order blocking the letters from being mailed Tuesday as planned.
But in Florida's seminal industries -- agriculture, construction and hospitality -- employers worry the government's move could translate into astronomical worker shortages.
With the 90-day deadline, those shortages could come at a critical time of year -- the height of the growing season and the beginning of tourism season.
"It's an enormous issue, and that's not an exaggeration," said Lisa Lochridge, a spokeswoman for the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. "Because Congress did not enact comprehensive immigration reform, this is the consequence that agriculture is going to pay.
"It's making an already bad situation worse."
Labor attorneys, immigration experts and growers estimate that thousands of workers will be affected by the rule, and the Department of Homeland Security -- no longer satisfied with monetary penalties for knowingly hiring unqualified workers -- is pledging to push for even more criminal charges.
"It puts good employers in a very untenable position," Lochridge said. "If they comply with the rule, they risk losing a very large portion of their work force. If they do not comply, they face penalties and fines. It basically puts them in the position of enforcing a tax regulation, and it's just not the answer."
Publication of the "no match" final rule was delayed for a year as the Bush administration waited for Congress to pass reform. A few months ago, all hopes of passage was scrapped -- with many watchers doubtful it will even be brought up again until after the 2008 presidential election.
The final rule was published Aug. 15. But last week, a coalition headed by the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit against Homeland Security, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Social Security Administration, attempting to block the rule permanently.
The suit contends that the Department of Homeland Security rules outlined in the letters threaten to violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers.
Homeland Security has no plans to make any changes.
"There are no plans to modify it. This is nothing new. It's been out there for a year. It's already been vetted," said Pat Reilly, a Homeland Security spokeswoman who was aware of the lawsuit and said that it has no merit.
"We see work site enforcement as a vulnerability in national security. If we do not know who is in our community or who is in our workplace, how can we protect it?"
The consequences
An estimated 7 million undocumented workers pay about $7 billion to the Social Security Administration each year, and provide about $1.5 billion for Medicare, the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform reports.
More than $519 billion in wages has been reported to Social Security that cannot be matched with workers.
That total is presumed to reflect the large number of the undocumented working in the United States who are using fake Social Security cards.
About two-thirds of undocumented workers are believed to be "working on the books" and paying into Social Security as well as paying federal taxes.
"From a revenue perspective and a fairness and justice perspective, it's crazy," said Jennifer Hill, staff attorney for the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center. "You're going to drive people into the underground economy, where records are not kept and where workers are exploited and where taxes are not paid."
Hill contends that enforcing "no match" is not the function of the Social Security Administration, and that the rules will hurt an agency already struggling.
"The Social Security Administration now has staffing levels lower than what they were in the '70s. It's overtaxing an under-resourced bureaucracy with a task it's not intended to perform," Hill said.
"It puts us as farmers in a very difficult position, as essentially being policy police," said Billy Heller, chief executive officer of Palmetto-based Pacific Tomato Growers Ltd. "This is like building a home without a foundation."
Homeland Security pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, but the Social Security Administration has, until this point, resisted the requests to share information.
But Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security, said his agency was pushing for the names of employers and employees receiving the "no match" letters so that they could be used in work site enforcement.
"That's a legal issue we are currently addressing," Chertoff said recently.
"We have asked Congress to make it clear that this kind of sharing can take place, and they have not yet stepped up to the plate.
"It would be very helpful for us, but it's not yet a tool we have available to us."
Sunshine State implications
Opponents of "no match" enforcement said that the federal government's actions will broadly affect some of Florida's biggest industries.
"This is not just an issue that affects agriculture, but it goes to the heart of the three-legged stool in Florida -- agriculture, hospitality and construction," said Lochridge, the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association spokeswoman. "That's what the Florida economy depends on."
The Florida Department of Agriculture estimates that farming is a $97 billion economic machine, employing 390,184 workers and paying $2.85 billion in taxes.
But Reilly, the Homeland Security spokeswoman, said immigration enforcement should not be an economic debate.
"I've heard that argument -- everyone has heard that argument about how devastating this will be economically," Reilly said.
"But we have also seen unemployment rise. I believe you can find legal workers. What we're doing is taking away the employers' ability to say, 'Oh, I didn't know.'"
Work site enforcement has more than tripled in the last year. Penalties for working in the United States illegally, and for employing undocumented workers have resulted in hundreds of criminal arrests.
Last week, 25 people were arrested and charged with identity fraud in North Carolina, as a result of work site enforcement. On the same day in Ohio, 160 workers at a Koch Foods Inc. chicken plant were arrested in work site enforcement.
Criminal fines and restitution so far this year have topped $30 million, Reilly said.
"Work site enforcement is a priority. We have been given more money to investigate and given encouragement to step up enforcement."
A federal judge has delayed any action on the 'no match' letters until at least October in a case where the AFL-CIO sued to block them, claiming the documents violate workers' rights and would unfairly burden employers.
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) "” A lawsuit filed Tuesday claims that federal immigration agents who raided a meatpacking plant detained Hispanic workers, hurled racial epithets at them and forced the women among them to take off their clothes, while white workers were spared the harsh treatment.
The federal lawsuit was filed by Centro Legal, an immigrant rights group, on behalf of 10 workers at Swift & Co.'s Worthington plant who are in the U.S. legally. More than 200 illegal immigrants in Worthington were arrested Dec. 12 as part of a six-state raid of Swift plants that netted more than 1,200 undocumented workers.
The plaintiffs, all of whom were working at the Worthington plant when it was raided, claim they were detained and searched or interrogated without being advised of their constitutional rights, the lawsuit claims. None was charged with a crime, said Gloria Contreras-Edin, Centro Legal's executive director.
Federal agents "insulted, abused, and humiliated the plaintiffs on account of their race" and ordered female Hispanic workers to disrobe in front of federal agents, the lawsuit claims. White workers, meanwhile, were allowed to move about the plant freely during the raid and weren't subject to unlawful conduct on the part of agents, according to the lawsuit.
"This is about upholding the basic constitutional rights and freedoms of Americans "” whether they are black, white or Latino," Contreras-Edin said.
The lawsuit claims civil rights violations, abuse, discrimination, unlawful search and unlawful detainment. It seeks unspecified damages and a court ruling barring ICE from conducting similar raids.
Tim Counts, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Tuesday that government lawyers hadn't reviewed the lawsuit. But he said agents did nothing wrong during the raid.
"The worksite enforcement operation at the Worthington plant was done lawfully and in full accordance with ICE policies and procedures," Counts said. "Each person encountered was treated with respect and has been given full access to due process under the laws."
Worthington is a city of about 15,000 residents near the Iowa border.
Centro Legal has also sued on behalf of Hispanic residents in Willmar who claim agents broke into their homes and illegally detained them during a sweep in April. Many Hispanic immigrants in that west-central Minnesota community work at a poultry processor owned by Austin-based Hormel Foods Corp.
ICE has also claimed its agent acted properly in that raid, which led to the arrests of about 50 people.
I had to read this twice. The reputation of ICE is sinking deeper and deeper. If the article is reporting the truth, think about human rights violations. They are going after all Hispanics, legal or not. I hope they are slapped with serious lawsuits. It is bully tactic and a senseless display of authority! Perhaps our Senators and Congressman will soon realize what a mistake they made letting the immigration reform bill drop dead on the floor! You think?
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement are now responding every time Valley police call them for assistance with illegal immigrants.
Vinnie Picard with ICE explains how they are doing it. "We kind of shifted our policy and said, 'you know, it makes more sense for this Office of Dentition and Removal Operations - DRO - to do this initial uniformed response,' so we put that responsibility in their lap last year and its really paid off volumes."
ICE has arrested more than 6,000 illegal aliens this year alone. Picard said they strive for a 100-percent response rate and are fairly close to it.
By Domenico Maceri New America Media Posted September 5, 2007.
One tenth of the U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq have been immigrants. But not all of their parents have qualified for green cards. Tools
Three years after U.S. Army Private Armando Soriano, 20, died fighting in Haditha, Iraq, his father is facing deportation. Soriano is now buried in Houston, Tex., his hometown, where his parents, undocumented workers from Mexico, are currently living.
Before his death Soriano had promised his parents he'd help them get green cards. He only succeeded partially before losing his life. Although his mother was able to obtain a green card, his father did not qualify and is on the verge of being deported.
Enrique Soriano, Armando's father, is not the only person to have lost a son or daughter in the Iraq war and face deportation. There are more than three million people born in the U.S. with parents who came into the country illegally. Those born in the U.S. are automatically citizens and have all the rights and duties enjoyed by Americans. That includes military service with the possibility of losing one's life.
Losing a son or a daughter is always tragic. To try to compensate the families the U.S. government makes efforts to help. In the case of individuals with family members needing immigration help, officials assist them to obtain green cards. That's what happened with Soriano's mother. But in spite of governmental flexibility, certain rules prevent some people from qualifying.
Enrique Soriano had been formally deported in 1999 when he returned to Mexico for a brief visit. That makes him ineligible for any immigration benefits. Enrique Soriano is not alone.
Although exact figures are difficult to come by, many parents with sons and daughters who died in Iraq have been deported.
Official statistics show that more than 68,000 foreign-born military individuals are serving the U.S. How many of these individuals have relatives who do not have a legal right to be in the United States is not known. Figures from the National Center for Immigration Law show that one in 10 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq have been immigrants.
One estimate claims that five percent of those serving in the American military are illegal immigrants who joined with false papers. The military does not recruit illegal immigrants. Yet, given the shortages of volunteers, meeting quotas may put pressure to close some eyes. Illegal immigrants may feel that joining the military will help them and their families obtain legal papers in addition to other benefits.
Inevitably, some die in the process. The first soldier to die for the United States in the Iraq war was in fact Marine Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala.
Enrique Soriano's case is also complicated by the fact that the rest of his family has a legal right to be in the U.S. His wife has a green card, three of their four kids are U.S. citizens, and another born in Mexico has applied for a green card. If Enrique is deported, the family will have to make the hard choice of going back or separating.
"I think it would be a travesty for these parents to be deported after their son died in Iraq fighting for his country," stated Congressman Gene Green, D-Houston. The congressman introduced a bill in the House, which would help Enrique Soriano obtain a green card. Nothing has happened yet.
Earlier this year President George Bush commuted the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. In so doing, the President spared Libby two and a half years in prison for his conviction for lying to federal investigators. The President cited Libby's "exceptional public service" and prior lack of a criminal record as explanation for his action. He concluded that Libby's sentence was "excessive" and the punishment "harsh."
In light of the sacrifice made by Armando Soriano, one wonders whether deporting his father is a far more "excessive" and "harsh" punishment?
MEXICO CITY - The Mexican government said Tuesday that it is talking with U.S. officials about whether a deported illegal migrant could return to the United States.
Elvira Arellano was arrested and sent back to Mexico last month after taking refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid a deportation order.
Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa Cantellano said she approached U.S. authorities on Arellano's behalf after the activist asked Mexican President Felipe Calderon to help her return to the United States as a "peace and justice" ambassador.
Espinosa did not say whether Mexico planned to give Arellano the diplomatic post but said officials are trying to determine whether there is any way she could go back to Chicago. Arellano's U.S.-born 8-year-old son, Saul, is a U.S. citizen. He flew to Mexico on Friday.
Mexico has yet to receive an answer, Espinosa said at a news conference Tuesday. "The government in the receiving country has to authorize diplomatic posts. It has to grant the visa," Espinosa said.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
DEPORTED ENTRANT WANTS TO RETURN TO U.S. AS MEXICAN AMBASSADOR
The Associated Press Tucson, Arizona | Published: 09.05.2007
MEXICO CITY "” The Mexican government said Tuesday it is talking with U.S. officials about whether a deported illegal entrant and activist could return to the United States.
The entrant, Elvira Arellano, was arrested and sent back to her native Mexico last month after taking refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid a deportation order.
Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa said she approached U.S. authorities on Arellano's behalf after the 32-year-old activist asked Mexican President Felipe Calderon to help her return to the United States legally as a "peace and justice" ambassador.
Espinosa did not say whether Mexico planned to give Arellano the diplomatic post, but said officials were trying to determine if there was any way she could could go back to Chicago.
Arellano's U.S.-born 8-year-old son, Saul, is a U.S. citizen. He flew to Mexico on Friday to be reunited with his mother, and plans to stay here indefinitely, although he was expected to return briefly to the United States this month to participate in an immigrant-rights march.
Mexico has yet to receive an answer from U.S. officials, Espinosa said at a news conference Tuesday.
"The government in the receiving country has to authorize diplomatic posts. It has to grant the visa," Espinosa said.
Arellano said she would not back down from her request and was angered that Mexico was seeking a U.S. visa, adding that the Mexican government should not have to ask permission to send her north of the border.
"I'm not asking for any visa," she said. "I want a diplomatic post as ambassador of peace and justice, and I won't accept anything less."
CHICAGO (AP) "” The 8-year-old son of a deported illegal immigrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year plans to travel to Mexico on Friday to visit his mother and try to renew his U.S. passport.
Saul Arellano, a U.S. citizen, will visit his mother Elvira in Mexico for several days, the Rev. Walter Coleman said Thursday.
Elvira Arellano was in the U.S. illegally for several years before taking sanctuary at Chicago's Adalberto United Methodist Church, where she lived with her son for a year in defiance of a deportation order.
She left the church earlier this month to attend rallies in Los Angeles and was arrested by immigration authorities and deported to Tijuana, Mexico, hours later.
Arellano, 32, has said her son will remain in Chicago so he can attend school and she will stay in Mexico to continue fighting for others in her situation.
"We want to reunite them," said Coleman, Adalberto United's pastor. "They need to be together right now."
Saul cannot renew his U.S. passport without his mother present, Coleman said.
Arellano, who has become a symbol for illegal immigrant parents with children who are U.S. citizens, has asked the Mexican government to help with a visa so she can enter the United States.
"They're going to continue to struggle," Coleman said.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
ARELLANO DEPORTATION HIGHLIGHTS ECONOMIC INSECURITY FOR MILLIONS
By Francis Calpotura, AlterNet. Posted August 28, 2007.
Until we prioritize the economic security of working families throughout the hemisphere, we leave little choice but for millions to migrate to provide for their loved ones. Tools
For the millions of immigrants who have left their countries due to the failed economic policies of the past twenty-five years, this week's arrest and deportation of Elvira Arellano and resulting separation from her only child is nothing new. It is only the most recent example of families being broken up by a corporate-driven globalization model that couples harmful economic policy with unjust immigration policy.
The fundamental reality of immigration is that migration is a necessity, not an option for millions around the world. Individuals weigh the severity of leaving their families behind against taking the gamble of earning a living in a richer country with more economic opportunities.
Ms. Arellano made that difficult decision to provide economic security for herself and her loved ones. But the flawed economic and immigration policies of corporate-driven globalization that forced her to look outside of Mexico to find a better living in the first place, led ultimately to her deportation.
Unfettered trade (e.g., under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA), privatization of state-run industry and services, and the triumph of investor rights over labor rights have not only failed to reduce poverty or create economic growth, they have made conditions worse. NAFTA precipitated the loss of 1 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and the displacement of 3 million farmers in Mexico.
Rather than acknowledge the failures of NAFTA, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada discussed the expansion of these failed trade and economic policies this week at their Security and Prosperity Partnership summit. Their final statement called NAFTA "a tremendous mutual success" and planned to "build on NAFTA's success and reduce unnecessary trade barriers."
In reality, these policies have failed, forcing people to transfer labor and capital by migrating away from their families to work in rich countries and send money transfers, or remittances, back to their loved ones in impoverished communities around the world. The World Bank estimates these remittances are now bigger than official development assistance and foreign direct investment in impoverished countries. Inflows from Mexicans living abroad, for example, represent the country's second largest source of foreign income behind oil exports.
An immediate challenge faced by immigrant communities is the high fees incurred when sending money. Spending billions to send money back home for food, urgent medical care and education is a major economic security issue. Studies show that if money-transfer fees were cut in half, 33 million people could be lifted out of poverty in the developing world. Immigrant workers spend up to a week's wages to pay these yearly fees; for families in their home countries, the fee represents almost two month's worth of wages.
This is why immigrants have joined the Transnational Institute for Grassroots Research and Action to pressure the global money transfer giant, Western Union, to lower fees and prioritize community reinvestment in sustainable development. Such a move would make the money transfer industry more accountable to its customer base: immigrants who often work low-paying jobs with little regulation. This scenario is grounded in economic reality; wire transactions cost less than $5 to a company that charges more than $20.
Until we prioritize the economic security of families like Elvira's, we leave little choice but for millions to migrate to provide for their loved ones. As the laws in place continue to disrespect and disregard these economic realities, people like Ms. Arellano will continue to cross borders and face subsequent deportation. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from Birmingham jail forty-years ago: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
If we want to move beyond such injustice as a society, we must broaden efforts that work to make migration a choice and not a necessity while holding financial institutions accountable to immigrants. Shifting focus from simply border security to economic security is the first step.
Originally from the Philippines, Francis Calpotura is the Executive Director of the Transnational Institute for Grassroots Research and Action (TIGRA), a national network of more than 100 immigrant organizations.
AMERICAN FAMILIES UNITED: FAMILY UNITY IN 2008 KICK-OFF ACTION ALERT
Since the defeat of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate earlier this year, we have kept up the lobbying efforts with the House of Representatives and met with significant support for our cause. The 110th Congress, which is in session through the end of 2008, is a very real and exciting opportunity for us to reunite millions of spouses and children and address processing delays that keep people from visiting family abroad.
With the lobbying effort well underway, it's up to us to continue our momentum at the grassroots level. And we are up to the challenge! Members are organizing in New York, Philadelphia, Raleigh, Chicago, San Jose, Detroit and Houston, with more new members every day as word spreads.
Our First National Action: October 1st Visit to Washington, DC To bring our message directly to our Representatives in Congress, we are organizing another lobby day on Monday, October 1, 2007. American Families United members, volunteers and constituents will travel to Washington, D.C. to meet directly with key House members.
We will bring our message of Family Unity in immigration to Congress and seek support for legal immigration reform. You can sign up to join with us by registering online at:
On our last lobby day we garnered the support of the leading presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton. Initial results from early announcements of our lobby day are that this lobby day will be even more impressive than our first.
A Job Worth Doing Right To win Family Unity in 2008, we need to do things right. And to do things right we need to raise $150,000. It sounds daunting, but already with local efforts, and with the support of recurring donations, we have raised over $2,000 already. But more importantly, we have numbers. Our strength is in the thousands. If you help us with a donation of $100, we can meet this goal tomorrow:
THE MOVEMENT THAT SPAWNED ELVIRA ARELLANO HOPES THAT SHOWCASING A FEW INDIVIDUALS WILL ILLUSTRATE THE PLIGHT OF MILLIONS.
By Grace Dyrness and Clara Irazábal LA Times September 2, 2007
Before Elvira Arellano was arrested by federal immigration officials on Aug. 19 outside Our Lady Queen of Angels Church in Los Angeles, few Americans were aware of the New Sanctuary Movement and its efforts to shelter illegal immigrants in this country.
Arellano had taken refuge in a sanctuary church in Chicago about a year earlier, after a judge ordered her deported -- making her the first immigrant to do so since the 1980s. But Arellano's story was mostly ignored by the Spanish- and English-speaking media until she was arrested and subsequently deported to her native Mexico. (She had decided to risk arrest by appearing in public in L.A.) Her personal plight -- she left behind her 8-year-old U.S.-born son in Chicago -- spotlighted one of the movement's key issues: the separation of families because of deportation. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 3.1 million children of the country's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens by birth.
Arellano's case has served as a new rallying cry for immigration reform and has brought the New Sanctuary Movement into the forefront of the immigration debate.
The movement's roots go back to the 1980s, when civil wars ravaged many countries in Central America. Nearly a million victims of kidnapping, rape and other violence sought refuge in the United States, the majority of them arriving here illegally. Politicians in Washington resisted calls by human rights groups to give the displaced people protected status or to classify them as refugees so they could remain temporarily in the U.S. until the situation improved in their homelands. In protest, civic and religious groups -- St. John of God Catholic Church in San Francisco, the Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson and Wellington Avenue Church in Chicago among them -- organized a grass-roots movement to shelter immigrants in churches on the assumption that federal authorities would not arrest people inside a church. Called the sanctuary movement, it became one of the most important organized acts of resistance in the latter part of the 20th century.
From its beginnings in 1982, the movement grew to include more than 200 churches, temples and synagogues, including Dolores Mission, Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church and the Proyecto Adelante of the United Methodist Church inLos Angeles. While only a small number of immigrants actually took refuge at religious sites, the public debates sparked by the sanctuary movement helped bring about several significant changes, including the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and the 1989 Central American Studies and Temporary Relief Act. These laws gave Central American refugees certain protection from deportation and created opportunities for them to legalize their status and become citizens.
In the 1990s, social and economic inequities in Mexico and other Latin American countries continued to push people north. Unable to find well-paid work at home or in maquiladoras along the U.S.-Mexico border, millions of immigrants risked capture by illegally crossing the border to find a better life. Their presence in this country has fueled an ever more strident anti-immigrant backlash, which helped scuttle Congress' attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform this summer. Since then, border enforcement has been stepped up, workplace raids have increased and deportations have more often been carried out in inhumane ways.
Even before the latest crackdown, representatives from 18 cities, including Los Angeles; 12 religious traditions; and seven denominational and interdenominational organizations met in Washington in January to form the New Sanctuary Movement. More than 50 churches, synagogues and temples have joined the coalition, at least 35 of them in Southern California. Among the more prominent local churches are Immanuel Presbyterian Church, St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Long Beach, Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church, Echo Park United Methodist Church and Angelica Lutheran Church. These institutions pledge to harbor undocumented people and to contribute resources to churches actually sheltering them. The idea is to move the immigrants from church to church to share responsibility, minimize risk of arrest and bear witness within different communities.
Such community-based organizations as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of L.A., the Korean Immigrant Workers Assn. and Hermandad Mexicana also have joined the movement to educate undocumented immigrants about their rights, provide legal support and offer counsel to employers.
Seven undocumented people have taken refuge in sanctuary sites, five of them in Southern California.
The New Sanctuary Movement was not formed to provide refuge for all unauthorized people. Rather, by showcasing the circumstances of a few individuals who voluntarily come forward to claim sanctuary, it hopes to call attention to the plight of the millions of immigrants who live in fear of arrest and separation from their families. By appearing in public, as Arellano did in Los Angeles, these individuals risk arrest and deportation.It takes courage and a willingness to serve a larger cause to play this role. Although immigration is more frequently debated in economic and political terms, the New Sanctuary Movement seeks to spotlight the human, ethical and moral dilemmas it poses.
Some worry that the movement risks tarnishing its moral authority by embracing Arellano, who was convicted of identity theft in the U.S. But movement leaders insist that she and others like her still have basic human rights and that the right to keep their families together is paramount among them.
Last weekend in Los Angeles, hundreds of people marched in support of immigrant rights. Organized primarily by the New Sanctuary Movement, the event was a protest against the deportation of Arellano and also served to draw attention to the increasingly heavy hand of immigration enforcement. We asked a boy of about 9 who was marching down Broadway why he was there. This march, he said, is "for my mom and dad to get papers. . . . The police are going to get them and send my parents to Mexico. . . . I'm scared."
His and other immigrants' cries have galvanized religious leaders who believe that everyone, regardless of their legal status, has basic rights, among them due process, respectful treatment and, in the case of children, the right not to be separated from parents.
As Moises Escalante of the Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights said, Arellano's deportation woke them up. Church leaders are now talking about justice from their faith perspective. "These people whose voices were never heard began to be heard," Escalante said.
Grace Dyrness is an adjunct professor in USC's School of Policy, Planning and Development. Clara Irazábal is an assistant professor of urban planning and design in the school. Both are studying the New Sanctuary Movement in Los Angeles.
Workers harvesting broccoli on one of several Central Mexico farms that comprise VegPacker de Mexico. (Janet Jarman for The New York Times)
U.S. FARMERS GO WHERE WORKERS ARE: MEXICO
By Julia Preston Published: September 4, 2007 International Herald Tribune | Americas
CELAYA, Mexico: Steve Scaroni, a farmer from California, looked across a luxuriant field of lettuce here in central Mexico and liked what he saw: full-strength crews of Mexican farm workers with no immigration problems.
Farming since he was a teenager, Scaroni, 50, built a $50 million business growing lettuce and broccoli in California's Imperial Valley, relying on the hands of immigrant workers, most of them Mexicans and many probably in the United States illegally.
But early last year he began shifting part of his operation to rented fields here. Now, about 500 Mexicans tend his crops in Mexico, where they run no risk of deportation.
"I'm as American red-blood as it gets," Scaroni said, "but I'm tired of fighting the fight on the immigration issue."
A sense of crisis prevails among American farmers who rely on immigrant laborers, more so since legislation in the U.S. Senate failed in June and the authorities announced a crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants. According to growers and lawmakers in the United States and Mexico, an increasing number of farmers have been testing the alternative of raising crops across the border, where many of the workers are.
Growers, an association representing farmers in California and Arizona, conducted an informal telephone survey of its members in the spring. Twelve large agricultural businesses that acknowledged having operations in Mexico reported a total of 11,000 workers here.
"It seems there is a bigger rush to Mexico and elsewhere," said Tom Nassif, the Western Growers president, who said Americans were also farming in countries in Central America.
Precise statistics are not readily available on American farming in Mexico, because growers seek to maintain a low profile for their operations abroad. But Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, displayed a map on the Senate floor in July locating more than 46,000 acres, or about 18,500 hectares, that American growers are cultivating in just two Mexican states, Guanajuato and Baja California.
"Farmers are renting land in Mexico," Feinstein said. "They don't want us to know that."
She predicted that more American farmers would move to Mexico for the ready work force and lower wages. Feinstein favored a measure in the failed immigration bill that would have created a new guest worker program for agriculture and a special legal status for illegal immigrant farm workers.
In the past, some Americans have planted south of the border to escape spiraling land prices and to ensure year-round deliveries of crops they can produce only seasonally in the United States. But in the past three years, Nassif and other growers said, labor uncertainties have become a major reason why more farmers have shifted to Mexico.
While there are benefits for Mexico, as American farmers bring the latest technology and techniques to the rich soil of its northern regions, economists say that thousands of middle-class jobs supporting agriculture are being lost in the United States. Some lawmakers in the United States also point to security risks when food for Americans is increasingly produced in foreign countries.
Tromping through one of his first lettuce crops near Celaya, an agricultural business hub in the state of Guanajuato, Scaroni is more candid than many farmers about his move here. He had made six trips to Washington, he said, to plead with Congress to provide more legal immigrants for agriculture.
Without legal workers in California, he said, "I have no choice but to offshore my operation."
The Department of Labor has reported that 53 percent of the 2.5 million farm workers in the United States are illegal immigrants, though growers and labor unions say as much as 70 percent of younger field hands are illegal.
As the American authorities have tightened the border in recent years, seasonal migration from Mexico has been interrupted, demographers say. Many illegal farm laborers, reluctant to leave the United States, have abandoned the arduous migrant work of agriculture for year-round construction and service jobs. Labor shortages during harvests have become common.
Some academics say warnings of a farm labor debacle are exaggerated. "By and large, the most dire predictions don't come true," said Philip Martin, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis.
"There is no doubt that some people can't count on workers showing up as much as they used to," he said. "But most of the places that are crying the loudest are exceptional cases."
However, some recent studies suggest that strains on the farm labor supply are real. Steve Levy, an economist at the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto, compared unemployed Americans with illegal immigrant workers in the labor market. "The bottom line," he concluded, "is that most unemployed workers are not available to replace fired unauthorized immigrant workers," in part because very few of the unemployed are in farm work.
Scaroni said he had started growing in Mexico reluctantly, after seeing risks to his American operations. At peak season, his California company, Valley Harvesting and Packing, employs more than a thousand immigrants, and all have filled out the required federal form, known as an I-9, with Social Security numbers and other identity information. "From my perspective everyone that works for me is legal," he said. But based on farm labor statistics, he surmises that many of his workers have presented false documents.
Transferring to Mexico has been costly, he said. Since the greens he cuts here go to bagged salads in supermarkets, he rigidly follows the same food safety practices as California.
Scaroni expects recover his start-up costs because of the lower wages he pays farm workers here, $11 a day as opposed to about $9 an hour in California, although Mexican workers are less productive in their own country, he said.
"It's not a cake walk down here," he said. "At least I know the one thing I don't have to worry about is losing my labor force because of an immigration raid."
OUTSOURCING FARMING IMMIGRATION LAWS DISTORT THE LABOR MARKET, BUT THE MARKET FINDS A WAY
Today's editorial: Orange County Register Editorial Thursday, September 6, 2007
We can testify that many Americans and Californians have powerful feelings about illegal immigrants and desire both stronger enforcement of existing immigration laws and ways to identify and if possible deport as many as possible of those workers who are here without proper legal authorization. Thus there is considerable support for the Bush administration proposal to push hard to require employers to fire workers who do not have valid Social Security numbers.
A program to identify people who are using somebody else's Social Security number and thereby creating problems in the official records and/or credit history of others might have some good consequences. But would it really be a good idea to require all those people to be fired? Some inconvenient truths suggest otherwise.
As Stephen Levy, an economist and director of the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto, explained to us, there are simply not enough unemployed native-born workers to replace all the illegal workers, "even if their geographical location, education, occupation and pay requirements were a match."
Mr. Levy's research shows about 7.8 million "unauthorized" workers in the country in 2006 (other family members bring the total number to about 12 million) and 7 million unemployed native-born Americans. But most unemployed Americans had been unemployed less than 15 weeks or were new to the labor force and concentrated in professional and sales or office jobs. Meanwhile illegal immigrant workers were concentrated in service, construction, production and agriculture. So if all those illegal immigrants were suddenly fired, it would be unlikely that native-born unemployed people would flock to take those jobs.
The picture is more dramatic in California and Texas. California had about 1.85 million illegal immigrant workers and 872,000 unemployed residents. Texas had about 1.1 million illegal immigrant workers and 600,000 unemployed native residents. Illegals are more concentrated in agriculture in California and Texas than in other states.
That is part of the explanation for the fact that, as a story in the Register noted yesterday, an increasing number of California farmers are renting land in Mexico and farming it there. Hard figures are difficult to come by, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein says there are 46,000 acres she has been able to identify. Western Growers did an informal survey showing a dozen large-scale U.S. growers operating in Mexico and employing about 11,000 people.
The reason? As Steve Scaroni, who built a $50 million agriculture business in the central valley put it, "I'm tired of fighting the fight on the immigration issue." He dreads having immigration raids disrupt his California operations so he's moved much of them to Mexico.
Thus the market responds to government-created distortions. But is outsourcing food production really beneficial to the California economy?
By Bill Turque Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 6, 2007; Page A01
The Town of Herndon announced yesterday that it would close its 21-month-old day-laborer center next week instead of complying with a judge's ruling that the site must be open to all residents, including those who might be illegal immigrants.
The decision to close the site, which became a flash point in the national debate over immigration, was reached late Tuesday by Mayor Stephen J. DeBenedittis and the six-member Town Council after a 2 1/2 -hour closed-door session. It brings the western Fairfax community virtually full circle in its attempts to regulate -- critics say drive out -- its large population of Latino day laborers. The center was established in late 2005 as an alternative to the streets for laborers and prospective employers to come to terms.
Herndon's experience with the day-laborer center was a bellwether for towns across the country wrestling with national immigration issues. As other jurisdictions try to pass measures targeting illegal immigrants, yesterday's actions in Herndon indicate that courts, and not legislators, might have the ultimate say.
DeBenedittis said that the town has other means at its disposal, such as zoning and traffic ordinances, to accomplish its goals.
"There is no longer a need for the town to support a regulated day-labor site," he said.
Immigrant advocates said yesterday that after the center closes Sept. 14, they expect a return to the chaotic morning scenes in locations such as the 7-Eleven on Herndon's main street, where scores of laborers gathered to try to find work, many seeking construction jobs along the busy Dulles International Airport corridor.
"It was a system that worked really well," said Bill Threlkeld, director of Project Hope and Harmony, an affiliate of the nonprofit group Reston Interfaith, which operated the center for the town. "Now it's all crumbled, and we're back to where we were."
At issue was an ordinance the council approved in 2005 as a legal companion to the day-laborer center, barring workers and motorists from striking deals for employment on the streets. The courts have generally required that communities barring public solicitation for work -- a form of speech -- must provide an alternative venue for that speech, such as a hiring site.
As the town enforced the anti-solicitation ordinance, many residents grew resentful of the center. Reston Interfaith, a group of religious institutions operating under a grant from Fairfax County, did not require workers to document their immigration status. Opponents of the center said the town was essentially abetting illegal immigration.
In 2006, voters unseated Mayor Michael L. O'Reilly and two council members who pushed for the center as an alternative to the informal job centers such as the 7-Eleven on Elden Street. DeBenedittis and the new council began searching for a site operator who would check workers' immigration status but could not find anyone.
The town's plan began to collapse last year when a Reston man, Stephen A. Thomas, ticketed for hiring a laborer in the parking lot of the Elden Street 7-Eleven, challenged the law on First Amendment grounds.
A district court found in favor of the town, but Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Leslie Alden ruled for Thomas on Aug. 29. Alden said the anti-solicitation ordinance fell short not only on First Amendment grounds but also under the equal protection requirements of the 14th Amendment. She said the Herndon center was not sufficient to make up for the ban on job solicitation because the town intended to bar illegal immigrants from the site. Alden said the Supreme Court has ruled that the equal protection provision applies to noncitizens as well.
Alden's ruling left DeBenedittis and the Town Council in a dilemma. An appeal could take months, even years. With no one available to operate the center according to its wishes, the town would have to take over the facility. But to preserve the anti-solicitation ordinance, the town would have to open the center to those who might be in the country illegally -- violating a core campaign promise.
On Tuesday night, DeBenedittis and the council decided to pull the plug on the center. DeBenedittis said the town would try to keep informal job sites from popping up by relying on zoning and traffic ordinances.
The council's decision is unlikely to quell debate over the site, which has roiled local politics since it was proposed in 2005.
No one knows how many of the people who use the center -- an average of 120 a day -- are in the country illegally. Some predict friction among police, immigrants and their advocates.
"I think it was a mistake," said former council member Richard Downer. "They're going to force the police department to do things that could create new legal issues. There's a fine line between harassment and enforcement."
Ann Null, a council member who opposed opening the center before she retired in 2005, said she hoped its closing would induce illegal residents in the town to leave the country.
"There's a construction boom in Panama," she said. "They can find jobs in a country where they don't have to learn the language."
VICTIMIZED IMMIGRANTS MAY GET VISAS PLAN COVERS SUBJECTS OF CRIME WHILE IN U.S.ILLEGALLY
By Vanessa Colón / The Fresno Bee 09/06/07 04:49:49
Illegal immigrants who are victims of serious crime would gain temporary legal status and eventually be allowed to apply for a green card, under a federal proposal announced Wednesday.
Under the proposal, which won't become final for at least two months, an illegal immigrant who qualifies could stay in the United States for up to four years and obtain a work permit. The proposal would apply to illegal immigrants who are victims of such crimes as rape, kidnapping, incest or assault and who are willing to help law enforcement agencies investigate the crime.
The program would offer up to 100,000 visas each year, and would establish a waiting list if the limit is reached. Applicants would have to pay $80 for a photo and fingerprints, but they could ask for a fee waiver.
"People will be more willing to give testimony and help law enforcement out," said Sharon Rummery, a spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which proposed the rules. "They don't have to be so afraid of coming forward."
Several Valley law enforcement agencies said they were unaware of the proposal. But one law enforcement official said he thought it could help in some cases.
"If you had a victim of a violent crime and [the victim] was deported, how would you prosecute the case?" said Capt. Dahl Cleek of the Tulare County Sheriff's Department.
Cleek said the department does not treat victims differently based on their residency status. Deputies tend to ask about someone's immigration status only if they are suspects in a crime, he said.
Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer and Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth Egan could not be reached for comment.
Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims said she was unaware of the proposal but said it would help victims be more forthcoming.
But Mims worries some people might wrongly accuse someone of a crime to obtain the benefit of legal status.
"I would want there to be safeguards to keep someone from falsely claiming a crime. ... Some crimes will be clear-cut such as murder, [but] blackmail and extortion are hard to prove," Mims said.
Some nonprofit groups that work with immigrants say the program will help many residents and boost confidence in police.
"In cases of domestic violence, there's women who are afraid to report it because they are in the country illegally. It may help them and motivate them to report it," said Rufino DomÃnguez Santos, general coordinator of the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations, a nonprofit cultural and social service group in downtown Fresno.
But some Valley residents who oppose illegal immigration said they don't approve of offering legal status to illegal immigrants even if they're victims of violence.
"What will happen is, we will have programs for this or for that. When will this end?" said Yolanda Muñoz Palmer of Fresno.
Muñoz Palmer said she doesn't sympathize with crime victims who are in the country illegally.
"That was their fault when they came here. God wants us to do the right thing. When you come in illegally, you go against God's will," Muñoz Palmer said.
Under existing rules, illegal immigrants can stay in the country if they were victims of human trafficking or witnesses or informants of criminal organizations, Rummery said.
The proposed expansion stems from the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act passed by Congress in 2000. The act was meant to help law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute cases such as domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking.
According to an immigration document, drafting of the rules was delayed by the complexity of the issue and the formation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, which absorbed responsibility for immigration services.
the Ku Klux Klan distributed leaflets in Virginia warning "Mexico is invading the United States and soon will demand we cede the southwestern states to their control, they already wave the flag of Mexico in our faces! They are not here to assimilate, they are here to form their own nation. And unless we get busy right NOW they will succeed!"
Clearly, white supremacist groups are using the anxiety over immigration and confusion about the undocumented to advance their own reprehensible and racist agenda. What is not as clearly known is that the primary target of the white supremacists is not Joe Public, but ICE and CBP officials. What the racists really seek is training and intelligence from those within law enforcement who can be duped into assisting them.
Thankfully, FBI and others who watch over the white supremacists are on to this, but the numbers are getting so large that some may slip thru the FBI cracks.
CHERTOFF WARNS LEGAL ACTION AGAINST "SANCTUARY CITIES"
"WILL NOT TOLERATE INTERFERENCE" IN LEGAL STATUS CHECK
By Audrey Hudson The Washington Times
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff yesterday told a House panel that his agency will not tolerate interference by so-called "sanctuary cities" when it comes to hiring illegal aliens.
Mr. Chertoff said his agency will enforce the Basic Pilot Program that requires businesses to check the legal status of new employees by matching Social Security numbers and information in Homeland Security Department databases.
Mr. Chertoff told the House Homeland Security Committee: "I certainly wouldn't tolerate interference" by cities who attempt to block the program.
"We're exploring our legal options," Mr. Chertoff said. "I intend to take as vigorous legal action as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of interference."
Mr. Chertoff stopped short of threatening "sanctuary cities" by withholding government funding.
"I don't know that I have the authority to cut off all Homeland Security funds if I disagree with the city's policy on immigration," Mr. Chertoff said. "And of course, I have to say the consequence of that might be to put the citizens at risk, you know, in the event of a natural disaster.
"I don't want to put people's lives at risk, but I do think where the law gives me the power to prevent anybody from interfering with our activities, we will use the law to prevent that interference," Mr. Chertoff said.
Sanctuary cities are those that have adopted policies banning police officers or other city employees from asking about immigration status. Some sanctuary cities have gone further: The city of New Haven, Conn., now issues identification cards regardless of legal status.
Other "sanctuary cities" include the District, Baltimore, New York City, San Francisco, Dallas, Minneapolis, Miami and Denver.
MEXICO INCONSISTENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Jurist Legal News & Research PAPER CHASE NEWSBURST Brett Murphy Wednesday, August 08, 2007
[JURIST] Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan [AI profile] said Tuesday that although Mexico has played a large role in advocating for human rights in the international arena, the country has failed to adequately address rights abuses at home.
Amnesty International [advocacy website] completed its High Level Mission to Mexico [press release] Tuesday, finding that "flaws in the public security and criminal justice system in Mexico currently allow for arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment, denial of due process, unfair trials, political interference in the administration of justice, and widespread impunity." Khan said that the purpose of the mission was to ensure Mexico's commitment to upholding human rights. Following the meetings, Amnesty said that:
Amnesty International's meetings with the Mexican government were open and constructive. President Calderon acknowledged Amnesty International's contribution to the development of human rights in Mexico and expressed his own commitment to upholding human rights. He was open to receiving recommendations from Amnesty International on his reform initiatives. The real test will be how the President reflects and implements human rights in his forthcoming legislative and policy reforms. Amnesty International calls on the President to show clear and visible leadership.
One area in which Amnesty believes Mexico could take such leadership is a universal moratorium on the death penalty, where "Mexico should play a prominent role."
Last week, Amnesty urged the Mexican government to initiate a probe into alleged abuses by government authorities during the 2006 uprising in the Mexican state of Oaxaca. In May, the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) [official website] issued a report criticizing the federal government's response [JURIST report] to the Oaxaca uprising, saying that the government's intervention was "unjustifiably delayed for more than a month and half," which allowed protesters to occupy the state capital for five months after state authorities overwhelmed. The CNDH received 1,352 separate human rights complaints and found hundreds to be credible, including complaints that police officers tortured at least 13 protesters while they were being transported to detention facilities. Last October, a UN human rights expert expressed concerns over rights violations in Oaxaca [JURIST report].
Add to del.icio.us
KU KLUX KLAN ADVANCES
