INVISIBLE WORKERS' LABOR HELPS YOU YOUR LIFE WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT WITHOUT THEM
Chicago suntimes.com September 3, 2007 Editorial
They're America's invisible workers. They bus the tables in restaurants and clean bathrooms in people's homes. They patch roofs and sweep superstore floors in the early a.m. hours. If you notice them, much less exchange words with them, it tends to be on a superficial level. You don't know, and may not care, whether they're undocumented or what country they come from. However much attention you pay to these background workers, your life would be very different -- and more expensive -- if they weren't here to fill such low-paying jobs. You think things cost a lot now? Take a moment to consider how much more you would pay to dine out, to shop, to stay in nice hotels, to keep that lawn green without America's invisible work force performing these labor-intensive tasks.
Consider the impact on businesses if they weren't able to rely on minimum wage earners to do jobs that other members of the American work force are unwilling to perform -- or at least unwilling to perform at such low wages.
In this year of seismic emotion on the immigration issue, Labor Day no doubt will spark some heated discussions about undocumented workers and their positive and negative impact on the economy. People will argue over their char-grilled burgers and hot dogs whether illegals should be deported or given some kind of amnesty.
In Chicago, Elvira Arellano may re-enter the conversation, now that the deported former queen of sanctuary is petitioning the president of Mexico to make her "peace and justice" ambassador so she can return to the United States. We opposed Arellano using a church as her shield to avoid deportation, and we would oppose her re-entering this country unless it was sanctioned by the United States. Arellano's case was just one among an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, and we think there are better cases to rally behind than hers.
But on this most relaxing of holidays, which unofficially marks the end of summer, we'd rather take a break from those nuts-and-bolts issues and focus on human interest more than politics. Labor Day, the Department of Labor tells us, was established as "a tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity and well-being of our country." The department's emphasis is on "the American worker," which is to say the worker born and raised in the U.S.A.
But 115 years after the first Labor Day holiday was celebrated, our strength, prosperity and well-being also owe a great deal to millions of workers who may aspire to U.S. citizenship but face obstacles in trying to attain it. Some are here on visas and green cards while others are here illegally. They are not only from Mexico, but also places such as Poland and Russia and Central America and Asia. Some speak English well and others speak it hardly at all.
Whatever their status or origins, they work hard for their money. A sizable chunk of their earnings goes into the American economy -- an estimated $30 billion annually. Don't feel bad if you haven't sorted out your feelings about the legal status of undocumented workers. Congress hasn't been able to after all these months, either. You should feel bad, though, if you so take America's invisible workers for granted that you look right by them. Their labor benefits you far more than you may realize.
Your life would be very different without them
Consider how much more you would pay to dine out, to shop without America's invisible work force.
ABC 7 News www.wjla.com September 06, 2007 - Manassas, VA
The Ku Klux Klan has added a new twist to an already rancorous debate over illegal immigration in northern Virginia, distributing anti-immigrant fliers that have drawn condemnation from people on both sides of the issue.
The Compton, Ark.-based Ku Klux Klan, one of many groups that uses the name, left the leaflets in front of homes in one Manassas neighborhood over the weekend.
The fliers, which were wrapped around an old issue of a Klan newspaper, warned of "gangs, drugs and ****ography" brought by immigrants, said Travis Pierce, the group's national membership director.
The literature arrived two months after Prince William County, which surrounds Manassas, passed a resolution that seeks to deny many public services to undocumented immigrants and boost the immigration enforcement powers of county police.
Pro-immigrant activists say the Klan leaflets show that local efforts to curb illegal immigration had created a "hostile environment" toward immigrants and minorities.
Greg Letiecq, the head of the anti-illegal immigration group Help Save Manassas, says the action is over the top and something that citizens will universally condemn.
They also are planning a work stoppage next month.
The group that has been leading the protests, Mexicans Without Borders, said the leaflets showed that the resolution had created "an environment that is hostile to people of color."
"Over the last few months anti-immigrant rhetoric has been spewing from the mouths of citizens and politicians alike, and has opened the door to racist organizations that share their goals," the group said in a statement.
But Greg Letiecq, leader of the group Help Save Manassas, which pushed for the Prince William resolution, said the Klan occasionally showed up in the area long before his group was formed.
He called the group's message "goofy."
"When news reports go out there that groups on the far left are making a lot of noise, it's invariably going to draw the kooks on the far right to come out," Letiecq said.
"People in Prince William County don't want to have anything to do with the Klan," he added.
Letiecq said he found it odd that the fliers were distributed on Weems Road, which he called "a culturally and ethnically diverse street."
"A number of African Americans ended up getting those fliers," he said.
Tim Neumann, a spokesman for the Manassas Police Department, said one complaint was filed about the fliers, but police could not do anything because no laws were broken.
Pierce, the Klan official, said the fliers were distributed in many parts of Virginia and in West Virginia by members who live in the region.
The text of the flier, as provided by Pierce, warned: "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!"
The flier instructed people to send a $10 check to the Klan for more information.
Friday, September 7, 2007 By PAUL COLLINS - Bulletin Staff Writer
Virginia Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell on Thursday discussed the need for better federal enforcement of existing laws on illegal immigration, the need for additional federal laws or rules, and the need for the federal government to give Virginia more authority and resources to help deal with the problem.
He said it is a major public safety issue that needs to be a top priority for Congress.
McDonnell, who said he is concerned mostly with illegal immigrants who commit crimes, attended a reception in Martinsville for himself and fellow Republican Don Merricks, who is running for the House of Delegates in the Nov. 6 election.
On Wednesday, McDonnell sent a letter to President Bush and the Democratic leaders of Congress on the issues he discussed.
He wrote that the Virginia Crime Commission reported last week: "The percentage of likely illegal aliens in Virginia jails alone ranges from 6 percent to 10 percent, with approximately 39 percent of those aliens being charged with a felony. This is costing Virginia taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in prosecution and incarceration expenses, in addition to avoidable victimization."
McDonnell also wrote: "Congress has enacted laws which are not properly enforced due to the understaffing of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). At the same time, Congress has pre-empted enactment of state laws regulating employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, and largely precluded states from enforcing federal immigration violations."
McDonnell said he has asked Gov. Tim Kaine repeatedly to allow limited state enforcement of federal laws concerning illegal aliens who commit serious crimes, but the governor has declined to do so, saying, among other things, it is a federal duty and citing a lack of state funds.
"I don't know how we can afford not to do it," McDonnell said.
As a result, the attorney general said, he has issued an attorney general's ruling that local law enforcement agencies have the authority to enter into an agreement with ICE to address illegal aliens who commit crimes, and that a number of local law enforcement agencies have done so.
Among the other immigration issues McDonnell expressed concern about were confusion over exactly which crimes always trigger detention and deportation, and that the United States cannot deport illegal immigrants to a number of countries that receive U.S. foreign aid but that will not accept the deported immigrants.
He said the latter issue is costing this country tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars. He added that he thinks those countries should not get a dollar of foreign aid until illegal aliens can be deported there.
"Nationally, ICE has reported there are more than 632,000 illegal immigrants convicted of deportable offenses that have not been located, triple the number of just three years ago. ... A 2005 federal study of 55,000 incarcerated illegal immigrants showed most had multiple arrests and convictions. ... Enacting more effective detention and deportation proceedings will help shut this revolving door of injustice," he wrote in his letter.
McDonnell asked Congress to promptly pass legislation to deal with the illegal immigration problems, even if it means having a special session.
Merricks said he supported McDonnell's comments, and he thinks a statewide approach is needed to help address illegal immigration, particularly concerning those who commit crimes.
Although McDonnell said he is focusing now on his duties as attorney general and on campaigning with candidates such as Merricks, he said he does plan to run for governor in 2009.
Yahoo! News Opinion, Pat Buchanan Thu Sep 6, 3:00 AM ET
"Mexico does not end at its borders. ... Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico."
That astonishing claim, by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, in his state of the nation address at the National Palace Sunday, brought his audience wildly cheering to its feet.
Were the United States a serious nation, Calderon's claim that Mexico extends into the United States would have produced an instant demand from the U.S. ambassador for clarification. Failing to receive it, he would have packed his bags, and the United States would be on the verge of severing diplomatic relations.
In an earlier time, U.S. troops would be rolling to the border.
For this is not the first time an arrogant Mexican ruler has made a claim to extra-territorial rights inside the United States and, indeed, to U.S. territory. Mexico's presidents have gotten into a habit of suborning treason against the United States
In 1995, President Ernesto Zedillo told a Dallas audience of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent, "You are Mexicans, Mexicans who live north of the border." I.e., you owe loyalty to Mexico, not Uncle Sam.
In 1997, Zedillo brought a Chicago gathering of La Raza to its feet by exclaiming, "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders."
In 1998, Mexico changed its constitution to restore citizenship to Mexican-Americans who have taken an oath of allegiance to the United States and renounced loyalty to any other country.
Purpose: loosen their ties of loyalty to the United States, re-knit their ties of loyalty to Mexico, and persuade Mexican-Americans to vote Mexico's interests in the U.S.A. Put Mexico first, even if you have taken an oath of allegiance to the United States.
In June 2004, President Vicente Fox took the Zedillo road to the Mexican-American community in Chicago. There, he, too, declared: "We are Mexicans that live in our territories, and we are Mexicans that live in other territories. In reality, there are 120 million that live together and are working together to construct a nation."
President Fox was saying that the construction of his nation is taking place "” inside our nation. Is that not sedition?
In 2005, the head of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, Carlos Gutierrez, asserted, "The Mexican nation goes beyond the borders that contain Mexico."
What these Mexicans politicians are saying is that Mexico extends into the United States, and the first loyalty of all men and women of Mexican ancestry is, no matter where they live, to Mexico.
Mexico's rulers believe in a nation of history, blood and soil that pre-existed, and supersedes, any pledge of allegiance any Mexican may make to another country, especially to the United States.
Is George W. Bush vaguely aware of any of this?
At the Quebec summit, Bush mocked the idea of a merger of a North American Union as a fantasy of conspiracy theorists. "It's quite comical actually, to realize the difference between reality and what some people on TV are talking about."
Calderon laughed it off, too. "I'd be happy with one foot in Mexicali and one in Tijuana." But in his state of the nation, Felipe is talking about one foot in Mexico and one in Los Angeles.
Is Bush oblivious to what his friend Vicente Fox laid down in Madrid in 2002 as the long-term strategy of Mexico?
"Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as ... the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons. The new framework we wish to construct is inspired in the example of the European Union."
Fox is talking about the erasure of borders.
Whether Bush is aware of this really makes no difference. For the real issue is not what the Mexican regime has in mind, but whether we can stop it, or whether we have passed a point of no return.
Today, already, there are 45 million Hispanics in the United States, perhaps half from Mexico, and 37 million immigrants.
Now, Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies projects "” using official Census Bureau figures of 1.25 million legal and illegal immigrants entering and staying in the United States every year "” a U.S. population of 468 million by 2060.
We will add as many people "” 167 million "” in the next half-century as the entire population of the United States when JFK was elected.
Some 105 million of these folks will be immigrants and their children. That 105 million is equal to the entire population of Mexico, whence most of these folks will be coming.
No wonder Mexican presidents are coming out of the closet about what is up. They know the gringos can't stop it, for they have the American establishment on their side.
Buenas noches, America.
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
US RAIDS OFFICES OF UNRECOGNIZED AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBE
The Associated PressPublished: September 6, 2007
WICHITA, Kansas: The self-proclaimed leader of an American Indian tribe not recognized by the U.S. government was arrested by federal agents Thursday during a multistate investigation into the sale of tribal memberships to immigrants.
The Kaweah Indian Nation, which was denied U.S. recognition in 1984, is suspected of selling tribal memberships to illegal immigrants with the promise the documents would protect them from deportation.
On Aug. 15, the tribe's secretary, a woman from El Salvador, and her Guatemalan husband were charged with federal immigration violations that prosecutors said were related to the case.
Days later, the Texas attorney general's office sued tribal leader Malcolm L. Webber, the Kaweah Indian Nation Inc. and two other tribal members, accusing them of fraudulently selling memberships by claiming that tribal members could get a Social Security number and then U.S. citizenship once the tribe is federally recognized.
No charges had been filed against Webber, also known as Chief Grand Chief Thunderbird IV, by Thursday afternoon, though a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office said he expects federal charges will be filed.
Today in Americas DNA overturns a conviction, but prosecutors press for new trialFugitive democratic fund-raiser held in ColoradoU.S. general, seeing gains as fragile, is wary of cutsTribal spokesman Manuel Urbina could not be reached on his cell phone. No tribal members could be found at their headquarters, where U.S. agents were seen going through cardboard boxes of records. Webber has declined repeated requests for comment since reports of the federal investigation first surfaced.
In the past, Urbina has denied the tribe, which claims to have 10,000 members across the United States, was doing anything illegal. He claimed others who were not part of the tribe were selling tribal documents.
The Kaweah's pitch to immigrants became public when the Nebraska Mexican-American Commission posted a warning on its Web site.
"I'm just impressed that the arrest took place so quickly," said Angel Freytez, spokesman for the Nebraska Mexican-American Commission. "Regardless of (immigrants') status in the U.S., we cannot allow other people to profit from the drama and tragedy of others."
Marilu Cabrera, spokeswoman for U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, said illegal immigrants should be cautious.
"Even though you consider yourself a victim, if you're here unlawfully you potentially put yourself at risk," Cabrera said. "So that's why it's very important to be very vigilant." ___
Associated Press Writer Oskar Garcia in Omaha, Nebraska, contributed to this story.
TIMES WRITERS GROUP: BILL MAY HELP ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
St. Cloud MN Times, Opinion Published: September 06. 2007 12:30AM - Last updated: September 06. 2007 12:40AM
In another instance of our own government turning its collective back on "We The People," Senate bill 1923 was placed on the calendar Aug. 1.
This bill is called The Housing Assistance Authorization Act of 2007 and includes the Housing Assistance Council, the Housing Partnership Network and its members and the Raza Development Fund.
The fund's Web site defines it as "a support corporation of the National Council of La Raza, established in 1998 as the community development lending arm of NCLR." The NCLR is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States.
My question is this: Why should Congress pursue legislation that is based upon a person's race? Shouldn't Congress be using our tax dollars to help any and all working-class Americans?
Section 4 of this bill is titled, "Assistance for Raza Development Fund." The stated purposes are to provide technical and financial assistance to local nonprofit organizations to undertake community development and affordable housing projects and programs serving low-moderate income households ... particularly through organizations located in neighborhoods with substantial populations of income disadvantaged households of Hispanic origin.
Grants for these housing developments are authorized in Section C of 1923 totaling $25 million the next three years and are targeted to Hispanic communities.
One amendment to this bill, called the Bunning Amendment, addresses the underlying concern that this is actually housing for illegal immigrants. The amendment says simply that anyone not here legally cannot get direct access to this fund.
It doesn't say, though, they can't get access indirectly. In other words, if RDF money is used to buy housing that La Raza manages, could illegal immigrants become tenants?
La Raza also receives grants and funding in the form of discretionary spending included in labor, education and health and human services bills.
Again, I ask: How is it fair that working-class Americans have to pay via taxes to fund groups such as La Raza, especially if it is "” even indirectly "” putting those tax dollars toward helping illegal immigrants live here and ultimately push Americans out of the job market, out of their homes and toward becoming "income disadvantaged" themselves?
When we lose our jobs, the government loses revenues. Why is there no special development fund for us?
The House is no better.
House bill 1999, the Hope Fund Act, was introduced April 23 and authorizes appropriations for assistance for the National Council of La Raza and the Raza Development fund. It passed the House and awaits Senate action.
House bill 1980, the Housing Assistance Council Authorization Act, passed with 216 Democrats and 134 Republicans voting "aye" July 1. It includes the Raza Development Fund.
It, too, awaits Senate action, which is frightening. After all, this is the Congress that can't secure our border, enforce our immigration laws, build a fence, deport illegal immigrants or in any other way act to defend the sovereign United States from an invasion of illegal immigrants from anywhere!
This is the same Congress, like the one before it, expecting American taxpayers to house, feed, educate and provide health care to individuals who broke our laws entering the country and who are represented by openly racist groups such as La Raza.
I will give La Raza its dues. A check of its Web site page shows its leaders have effectively learned how to use the government to their advantage.
Far from being a collection of individuals who simply wanted a better life, La Raza is well funded and politically connected.
This is the opinion of Marti Oakley, an artist from Watkins whose column is published the first Thursday of the month. She welcomes constructive comments at martijoakley@gmail.com.
UNIVISION POSTPONES DEBATE AFTER GOP CANDIDATES IGNORE INVITES
By Ruth Morris | South Florida Sun-Sentinel September 7, 2007
The debate was to be broadcast from coast to coast, with questions in Spanish and simultaneous translations piped into candidates' ears. Analysts touted the invitation as a landmark opportunity for Republican presidential hopefuls to woo a huge Hispanic audience and collect their contributions.
But prominent Spanish-language network Univision conceded last week that it would postpone a Sept. 16 forum among Republican presidential contenders after only one candidate "” Arizona Sen. John McCain "” announced he would attend. Now, as a full house of Democratic hopefuls gear up for their Spanish-language debate on Sunday, political observers question whether the GOP is turning a cold shoulder to a crucial voting bloc.
Univision spokeswoman Brook Morganstein said the broadcaster had not canceled the Republican forum and hoped to host the event sometime in the fall.
Do you think a Spanish-language presidential debate is a good idea? Vote When to watch
"We're working with the candidates now to reschedule," she said. "There were scheduling issues."
That most GOP candidates didn't clear their calendars raised eyebrows, particularly in Florida, a swing state where Republicans have strong support from Cuban-Americans and an edge among Puerto Ricans.
Univision will host Sunday's debate among Democrats at the University of Miami, in Coral Gables.
"That's like turning away a gift. It's a bad mistake," said Jorge Mursuli, national director of the Miami-based Democracia USA, a nonpartisan Hispanic civic engagement group, of the Republicans' slow response. "I suspect they have a conflict with the base of the party that has been so vitriolic and anti-immigrant. I'm guessing they feel that taking the step toward reaching out to Hispanics may make some of the folks in the Republican base uncomfortable."
Hispanic voters place a premium on the personal touch, Mursuli said, pointing to Republican candidates who used that to their advantage. President Bush, for example, used the slogan "Nos conocemos" or "We know one another," to win Latino voters in his 2004 campaign for the White House.
Critics suggest Republicans aren't sure how to play to Latino voters after the contentious immigration debate. Many Hispanic voters were disillusioned after conservative lawmakers blocked a bill this summer that would have legalized millions of undocumented workers while bolstering border security.
Political analyst Alvaro Fernandez, regional director for the William C. Velasquez Institute that traces Latino voting trends, said a Univision debate would surely include hard questions on immigration. But the GOP's loss is not necessarily the Democrats' gain, he said. Key democrats may have supported legalization, but they still failed to pass it.
"On appealing to Latino voters, I would give the Republicans an F, and the Democrats I would give a C-," Fernandez said, referring specifically to the immigration bill defeat. "The question of immigration will be tough to answer for either party."
Univision is the largest Spanish-language network in the United States, and has vigorously encouraged eligible viewers to apply for citizenship and vote. Hispanics represent the fastest growing segment of the U.S. electorate, growing by 50 percent over the last decade.
South Florida Republican supporters defended their candidates' sluggish response, saying the GOP was likely to reach out to Hispanics much more aggressively after primary elections, when it counts most. Hispanic voters care about complex issues, said Fabio Andrade, the Republican head of the Americas Community Center in Weston, and a few words translated poorly into Spanish could mean a gross political blunder.
Republicans may also be counting on overlapping sympathies with Latino voters to see them through. Many Hispanic voters oppose abortion and support family values, positions Republican candidates have long embraced.
In the minefield of presidential politics, candidates from both parties have selected venues carefully. Political science researcher Susan MacManus, of the University of South Florida in Tampa, said voters rely on evermore segmented news outlets for their news, and candidates are well tuned to the trend.
In August, the Fox network canceled a Democratic presidential debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, after the leading candidates in that field said they would skip it. Like Univision, organizers cited "scheduling challenges."
Still, MacManus said the GOP should not take the Univision debate lightly.
One Republican lawmaker who speaks Spanish fluently, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami, said she hoped other GOP candidates would join McCain and make time for a Univision debate. She dismissed the notion that immigration is the only issue candidates need to address.
"We are not a monolithic community," Ros-Lehtinen said. "The Hispanic family members care about quality schools, crime-free communities, good health care, job opportunities, and all the wonderful quality of life issues that all American families want."
Ruth Morris can be reached at rmorris@sun-sentinel.com or 305-810-5012.
ONLINE Do you think a Spanish-language presidential debate is a good idea? Vote online at Sun-Sentinel.com/broward
Ice officers document a vehicle at cloudburst lawn and sprinkler during a raid that arrested 19 individuals.
ICE ARRESTS 19 CLOUDBURST EMPLOYEES
By Harold Reutter The Grand Island Independent harold.reutter@theindependent.com
Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Thursday arrested 19 people who work for Cloudburst Lawn and Sprinkler.
ICE spokesman Tim Counts said all 19 people were arrested on "administrative immigrations violations." That means they are accused of being in the country illegally.
Counts said there were no criminal arrests.
He said the 19 people who were arrested were being processed in Grand Island and would be detained in the Phelps County Jail.
He said preliminary indications are that 11 of the people arrested are from Mexico, six are from El Salvador and two are from Guatemala.
He said some people may decide to waive their right to a hearing and agree to be deported.
"Others may say they've got a right to be in the country and want a hearing," Counts said.
He said the hearing would be in the administrative immigration court in Omaha. Although the court is in Omaha, the judge in Chicago may hear the case through a video teleconference.
Counts said the administrative immigration hearing would be in "several weeks or one or two months."
He said he has no way of predicting hearing dates because the administrative immigration court resides in a different part of the federal government and sets its own schedule.
"ICE is part of the Department of Homeland Security and the administrative immigration court is part of the Department of Justice," Counts said.
He said the ICE arrests were part of an investigation, but he declined to say why Cloudburst Lawn and Sprinkler was chosen as the site for an immigration enforcement action.
The Independent was unable to contact the owner of Cloudburst on Thursday.
In December 2006, ICE conducted a raid at the Swift plant in Grand Island, arresting 261 people who it believed were in the country illegal. Only one of those arrests was criminal, with the remaining 260 arrests administrative violations.
ICE arrested four more Swift employees this past July.
Pro-border security advocates are warning that the new North Carolina driver's license is a dangerous first step toward a "North American Union" driving permit.
The Tar Heel State recently introduced a license that includes a hologram on its reverse side.
The problem: Critics object that the hologram portrays the entire North American continent, not just the United States. Moreover, they say it looks just like the map of North American used as the logo on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Web site (www.spp.gov).
The SPP supports enhanced regulatory cooperation and the promotion of cross-border trade among the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
Those who object to the North American Union and related projects like the NAFTA Super Highway say it will compromise American sovereignty, exacerbate border-security concerns, and ultimately lead to economic hardships for U.S. citizens.
Groups opposed to illegal immigration worry that a North American driver's license could ultimately enable a citizen of Mexico, Canada, or the United States to travel freely anywhere on the Continent.
William Gheen, who heads the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration political action committee, says the new license is "˜North American Union' ready."
Gheen says he'll protest the new license by refusing to apply for a license, even though it will prevent him from driving a car and make it difficult to travel on a commercial airline.
The hologram is a foil-based security patch that carries design features both visible and invisible to the human eye, including a variety of codes, numbers, and 3-D and fluorescent images. North Carolina DMV officials say the new licenses will eventually be used all over North America, and will take several years to roll out.
North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles spokeswoman Marge Howell says the new licenses will increase security, protect against document fraud, and aid law enforcement officials in identifying crime suspects.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators that designed the hologram represents state and provincial officials in the United States and Canada who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws. The government of Mexico is also a member, though individual Mexican states have yet to join.
"The goal is of the North American hologram is to get one common element that law enforcement throughout the continent can look at on all driver's licenses and tell that the driver's license is an official document," Howell says.
Because the hologram is almost impossible to duplicate, Howell says it will be much more difficult for illegal immigrants to get a bogus license.
But the new licenses have prompted an online opposition effort by FaxDC.com. Missouri state Rep. Jim Guest also is opposed.
"I was astonished when I saw that North American hologram on the North Carolina driver's license," Guest said, according to FaxDC. "I thought right then that this was going to be the prototype for the driver's license of the North American Union."
The driver's license flap comes in the midst of a joint U.S.-Mexico pilot program that allows Mexican truckers to make long-haul trips into the United States. Currently, trucks from Mexico are allowed to venture only within the 20- to 25-mile commercial zone in place along the U.S. border.
Under the year-long experiment, though, a select group of about 100 Mexican trucking companies will be allowed to make deliveries beyond the 20- to 25-mile commercial zone.
To participate, Mexican drivers must have a commercial driver's license, must pass a criminal check, show proof that they are medically fit, comply with U.S. hours-of-service rules, and be able to answer questions in English and understand directions from inspectors.
SPP MYTHS VS FACTS SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA (SPP)
The SPP is a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders – Canada and Mexico – to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation.
The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions. The SPP outlines a comprehensive agenda for cooperation among our three countries while respecting the sovereignty and unique cultural heritage of each nation. The SPP provides a vehicle by which the United States, Canada, and Mexico can identify and resolve unnecessary obstacles to trade and it provides a means to improve our response to emergencies and increase security, thus benefiting and protecting Americans.
The SPP is meant to: Coordinate our security efforts to better protect U.S. citizens from terrorist threats and transnational crime and promote the safe and efficient movement of legitimate people and goods; Expand economic opportunity for all our people by making our businesses more competitive in the global marketplace, cutting red tape, and providing consumers with safe, less expensive, and innovative products; and Enhance our common efforts to combat infectious diseases, develop responses to man-made or natural disasters to enhance our citizens' quality of life, protect our people and our environment, and improve consumer safety. The SPP benefits the American people in many ways, and much progress has already been made. For example (see www.spp.gov for more information):
To save lives, prevent injuries, and make consumer goods safer, the United States, Canada and Mexico signed separate agreements for advance notifications when consumer goods violate one country's safety standards or pose a danger to consumers. To strengthen border security, Mexican and U.S. agencies are exchanging information and establishing protocols to detect fraud and smuggling, and address border violence. To speed up response times when managing infectious disease outbreaks, the United States and Canada signed an agreement to enable simultaneous exchange of information between virtual national laboratory networks. To speed cargo shipping, the three countries are developing uniform in-advance electronic exchange of cargo manifest data for maritime, railroad and motor carriers. To develop a coordinated strategy aimed at combating counterfeiting and piracy, a task force of senior officials from the three North American countries has been established To reduce the cost of trade, the United States and Canada decreased transit times at the Detroit/Windsor gateway, our largest border crossing point, by 50 percent. To reduce market distortions, facilitate trade, and promote overall competitiveness, the North American Steel Trade Committee developed a new strategy that focuses on improving innovation and market development. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP): Myth vs. Fact Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.
Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.
Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.
Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.
Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.
Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation's security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.
Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.
Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ˜Prosperity' component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ˜Security' component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.
Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a "NAFTA Super Highway."
Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.
Myth: The U.S. Government, through the Department of Transportation, is funding secretive highway projects to become part of a "NAFTA Super Highway".
Fact: Many States in the American Midwest are proposing or undertaking highway projects to improve or build roads as Federal-aid and State or private sector revenue becomes available. All projects involving Federal-aid funds or approvals are subject to normal Federal-aid requirements, such as review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including public involvement. This public involvement, the common thread among all these activities, makes them anything but "secret." In addition, Congress directs Department of Transportation funding for specific highway projects.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will continue to cooperate with the State transportation departments as they build and upgrade highways to meet the needs of the 21st century. Rather than evidence of a secret plan to create a NAFTA Super Highway that would undermine our national sovereignty, the FHWA's efforts are a routine part of cooperation with all the State transportation departments to improve the Nation's highways.
Myth: U.S. Government officials sponsored a secret SPP planning meeting in Banff, Alberta in September 2006.
Fact: The U.S. Government did not sponsor the meeting in Banff. The North American Forum, a private initiative that is separate from the U.S. Government, hosted the September 12-14, 2006 conference "Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment." Academics, businesspersons, private citizens, and government officials from the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments attended the conference. The North American Forum is not a product of the SPP.
Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.
Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.
Myth: The working groups and SPP documents are a secret and not available to the public.
Fact: The SPP's initiatives and milestones with timelines can be found by clicking the Report to Leaders link at www.spp.gov. The Web site contains a section to enable interested persons to provide input directly to the various working groups.
Myth: The SPP seeks to lower U.S. standards through a regulatory cooperation framework.
Fact: The framework will support and enhance cooperation and encourage the compatibility of regulations among the three partners while maintaining high standards of health and safety. Any regulatory changes will require agencies to conform to all U.S. administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment. Enhanced cooperation in this area will provide consumers with more affordable, safer, and more diversified and innovative products.
Myth: The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes.
Fact: Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP. Likewise, trade disputes between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are resolved in the NAFTA and WTO mechanisms and not the SPP.
Myth: The SPP will result in the loss of American jobs.
Fact: The SPP seeks to create jobs by reducing transaction costs and unnecessary burdens for U.S. companies, which will bolster the competitiveness of our firms globally. These efforts will help U.S. manufacturers, spur job creation, and benefit consumers.
Myth: The SPP will harm our quality of life.
Fact: The SPP improves the safety and well-being of Americans. It builds on efforts to protect our environment, improves our ability to combat infectious diseases, such as avian influenza, and ensures our food supply is safe through the exchange of information and cooperation ─ improving the quality of life for U.S. citizens. Americans enjoy world class living standards because we are engaged with the world.
Myth: The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.
Fact: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.
# # #
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | U.S.Dept. of Commerce USA.gov | Download Adobe Acrobat
Posted Sep 7, 1:51 PM Hide Post For Immediate Release September 6, 2007
CONGRESS RETURNS FROM RECESS TO RENEWED CALLS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
Salem, OR – When the Congressional delegation from Oregon returns to Washington DC this month after the August Recess, they will return to renewed calls for real and workable immigration reform that will secure our borders, restore the rule of law and provide a practical solution for dealing with the country's 12 million undocumented workers who are a vital part of the national economy.
"If our elected members of Congress think they're going to breeze back into the nation's Capitol, and not make themselves accountable to their constituents for the undue burden being placed on state and local governments, they're in for an abrupt reality check.," said Aeryca Steinbauer, Coordinator with CAUSA.
Since the death of the immigration bill in the Senate, we've already seen a preview of the problems that come with the failure of the federal government to fix our immigration system. Local governments all over the country are attempting to implement their own immigration ordinances, leading to chaos in the system and divisive battles within their respective communities. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has turned to enforcement-only mechanisms which led to a lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO and an order by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney to halt the program. Stunningly, an already badly broken immigration system is getting worse thanks to the failure of Congress to get its act together and implement true immigration reform.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee is holding a hearing this Thursday on STRIVE Act, the House bill on immigration reform co-authored by Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). "The country is clamoring for real and workable immigration reform that will secure our borders, restore the rule of law and provide a practical solution for dealing with the country's 12 million undocumented workers who are a vital part of the national economy," said Steinbauer. "We need constructive debate on this issue – our elected officials should be held accountable to create, and not destroy, the opportunity for dialogue and reform."
The renewed calls for immigration reform stem from growing concerns over the staggering number of anti-immigrant ordinances that have been proposed across the country, the increase in raids by I.C.E, and the Bush Administration's new plan to issue "no match" letters to companies whose employees' names and Social Security numbers do not match those on record at the Social Security Administration.
"We're all in agreement that the system is broken and reform is needed. That's not the issue. The concern is that the enforcement-only policies are only half the answer, and the public is being sold a bill of goods that won't really get them what they want"”true immigration reform. Without more realistic immigration laws, the current path we are on will lead to chaos in the system," said Steinbauer. "The public does not need that. Why are the Bush Administration and Congress forcing this situation rather than solving the problem? Is that really what the public wants?"
By Sara A. Carter The Washington Times September 7, 2007
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in Texas have been ordered to abbreviate national security checks at one of the nation"s busiest ports of entry to speed up travel between the United States and Mexico, according to official documents and multiple interviews with agents.
An Aug. 16 memorandum from CBP El Paso field office Director Luis Garcia directs agents to limit inspections of vehicle and pedestrian border crossers as wait times escalate. The document, obtained by The Washington Times, sets new guidelines that border inspectors say undermine efforts to prevent terrorists and other criminals from entering the United States.
The memo says:
"¢ If wait time is 45 minutes or less, officers are required to query all drivers and passengers older than 18 and ensure that the license plate is correct.
"¢ If wait time is 45 to 60 minutes, customs officers are to query only the driver and 50 percent of the passengers. Also, the officers are not to conduct compartment checks and density-meter readings used to find contraband.
"¢ If wait time is 60 to 120 minutes or more "” the average wait at the numerous crossings "” they are to query only the driver and ensure that the license plate is correct.
"At 30 to 40 minutes of 'wait time,' we were querying the driver only at the request of our supervisors," said an El Paso customs agent, who spoke with The Washington Times this month on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.
"Basically, we were only running the documents of the driver every fifth vehicle, so everyone else was coming in without being checked to the same standards. Even if you stick with the letter of this memo, it still falls short for national security purposes."
Officers, who speculated the guidelines were created to counter complaints from businesses in the region that are angry over delays at the border, said pedestrian crossings are even more vulnerable.
According to the memo, if the pedestrian crossing wait is more than one hour, "query at a rate of 30 percent of pedestrian traffic."
El Paso is one of the world's busiest ports of entry. According to the CBP, nearly 40,000 cars went through the ports of entry at El Paso, Santa Teresa and Fabens daily in July. More than 145,000 pedestrians crossed into the United States during that period.
Rosemary Jenks, immigration lawyer and government relations director for Numbers U.S.A., said the directives in the El Paso memo violate federal law.
In Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, all border inspectors are to collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with the record of the alien's arrival in the United States.
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure the attorney general has the ability to identify people who overstay their visas for national security reasons.
"Customs and Border Protection should not be telling its agents at ports of entry to abandon critical security procedures when the lines get too long "” including checks for drugs or even radioactive materials," said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
"If so, they are ignoring the law and putting convenience ahead of American lives."
El Paso CBP spokesman Roger Maier would not comment on the memoranda but said that security is the main priority at the ports of entry "on a daily basis."
Other documents obtained by the paper also show that customs officers in the El Paso sector have been told to "not deny permits" of entry to any person entering the United States, regardless of indicators that they've overstayed their visa in the past.
CBP Chief George Carpenter, shift commander, sent a memorandum to all border inspectors informing them never to deny I-94 forms, which allow non-immigrants extended stay in the United States, even if those people failed to turn in previous forms required by law. All the El Paso inspectors were required to sign the memorandum.
According to multiple border inspectors, the agents who denied entry to non-immigrants without proof of the appropriate crossing forms were reprimanded by supervisors.
"It has been brought to my attention that yesterday, a couple was denied I-94 permits because they did not turn in previous ones," Chief Carpenter said in the memorandum sent in January. "We do not deny permits. We issue the permit or process them for Expedited Removal. ... If, during your interview with the applicants, you suspect something or have a 'gut' feeling that things are not right, they should be escorted to the SPM (secondary inspection) room as a referral. ... Any time an officer feels that a permit should not be granted, for whatever reason, the supervisor should be advised. Again, we do not refuse a permit or send the applicant back for more documentation/proof."
That problem highlights the need for the system required by the 1996 law, Ms. Jenks said.
"Without an exit system, we have no way to determine whether visa holders have violated our immigration law," Ms. Jenks said. "It creates a huge loophole by which aliens can exploit and gain from the system and remain in the United States far longer than their visa allows."
Border inspectors told The Times that Chief Carpenter's memorandum was part of the agency's verbal policy for years. The officers indicated their surprise when it was put in writing.
"It was a verbal policy, and they didn't want to put it in writing so they can get away with it and deny it later," one customs official said on the condition of anonymity
"That's the environment that we live in. These are failed policies. We're not supposed to question the people crossing the border; we're supposed to just let them in. When you look at the terrorist aspect of it "” it was fertile ground for a sleeper cell because they can do or say anything and we're supposed to believe it."
A protest of nearly 150 people gathered in downtown Tucson, Ariz., Aug. 28 to demand an end to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, demilitarization of the border and an end to the inhuman border policy that has resulted in more than 200 deaths in the Arizona desert this year.
The crowd gathered amidst a collection of cardboard crosses, each with the name of an undocumented person whose body was recovered from the desert. "For each body recovered," explained activist Isabel Garcia, "we estimate that there are between five and 10 bodies that go unrecovered." Speaking about the recent deportation of Elvira Arellano and the inhumanity of separating her from her son Saúl, she told the crowd, "We are not going to let this happen anymore!"
A contingent of Tucson High School students marched from their school to join the rally. Leilani, a student leader, said: "We brought forth the youth of MEChA from Tucson High because the youth need to be involved. It's up to us"”the people, the students, the youth, and the workers"”to yell and march for our rights."
Michael Woodward of Tucson's *******, ***, bi and transgender rights group Wingspan expressed solidarity and recounted the story of Victoria Arellano, who was denied medication and died in detention [see accompanying article].
Standing beside her parents, Cynthia Bracamonte told of the brutal treatment her father and uncle received upon re-entering the U.S. at the Nogales border crossing after visiting a dentist in Mexico. Arnulfo Bracamonte and his brother Mario are U.S. residents, yet customs agents took them out of line at the crossing and beat them so badly that they were both hospitalized. Arnulfo asked repeatedly for medical attention, but the agents continued to beat him until they saw the row of stitches in his side from a surgery he had three weeks earlier. They then released the brothers, who had to wait for family members to pick them up and transport them to the hospital.
After performing for the crowd, a member of the Mexica/Azteca dance group Danza Mexica Cuauhtemoc stated: "We must organize from the barrios up. This is a war against our people. It is a war against workers and we must defend ourselves."
"”Report and photo by Paul T.
-------------------------------- Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 Email: ww@workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Your donations have kept us independent on the Web since 1996.
Workers.org gets about 2 million hits a month. Click here to give your support and keep us going.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
SANTEE, Calif. (AP) - A U.S. Border Patrol agent has been killed by a speeding, wrong-way driver in Santee.
Border Patrol spokesman Richard Smith says the agent was on his way home from work in east San Diego County when a woman in a compact car driving the wrong way on Highway 52 crashed head-on into his pickup truck.
Smith says a witness reported the woman was traveling at more than 100 miles per hour. Both drivers died at the scene.
The agent's identity is being withheld until relatives are contacted.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
CITY OF HAZLETON: JUDGE MUNLEY V. U.S. CONSTITUTION
Update: Needed to reword the discussion on migration and importation.
In striking down Hazleton, Pa.'s "Illegal Immigration Relief Act" on July 26, 2007, federal Judge James Munley, with the support of twisted and outright erroneous federal precedent, invalidated Hazleton's ordinance under the doctrine of federal preemption (Supremacy Clause). In addition, plaintiffs asserted that Hazleton violated the United States Constitution's Due Process Clause and exceeded its Police Powers.
Below I will discuss each of these claims under the letter of the United States Constitution.
Federal Preemption
The doctrine of federal preemption as allowed to be practiced today is, frankly, hogwash. In order to give the doctrine of federal preemption any validity, one is required to close their eyes and pretend Congress was clothed in unlimited powers, while also pretending there is no such thing as either reserved rights belonging to the people or any concept of independent self-government.
Judge Munley said that "Congress has in fact enacted a comprehensive legislative scheme with regard to the employment of unauthorized aliens and occupies the field to the exclusion of state law."
Oh really?
Hamilton said the Supremacy Clause so far from being ipso facto exclusive, never ousted the power of the States previously existing, unless "where an exclusive authority is in express terms granted to the Union, or where a particular authority is granted to the Union and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States."
The court had consistently laid down the same rule as Hamilton outlined. In the License Cases for example, the court effectively said if you want invalidate some State law under the preemption doctrine the burden is on the plaintiff to point to the clause in the United States Constitution that exclusively delegates Congress the authority to make the law, and point to the express prohibition against the States to touch it. Simply having two conflicting laws is not enough; the burden is on the Federal Government to show its law is in pursuance to the Constitution and that it is an area expressly prohibited to the States to act upon, and thus, giving the law national supremacy. Scenarios for which the Federal Government can claim supremacy is very limited by design under our form of republican government. James Madison Jr. explained local "inviolable sovereignty" this way:
[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority is subject to them within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one, since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all objects. To support federal preemption in matters of immigration, federal court's enjoy quoting without question DeCanas v. Bica that said the "[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power." At first blush, that would appear to make a strong case for the Federal Government to claim preemption. The trouble though is it is entirely made up.
The DeCanas court relied on the old passenger case of Henderson v. Mayor of City of NY to support this above conclusion. However, anyone who bothers to study that case will find the court made no such determination at all. The opinion of the Henderson court was not directed towards the question of internal regulation of immigration within State jurisdiction, or their right to do so, but commerce.
Attempting to link "immigrants" themselves as something of commerce would require treating them as imported commodities that can be bought and sold, something only the most ill-informed justice would contemplate. It would also go against the defined meaning of the language before the constitutional conventions and later Supreme Court rulings, which held persons, are not articles of commerce.
The authority over the migration of people was strictly withheld from the Federal Government. Even in the Constitution itself, words strictly prohibit Congress from any interference with the migration of people to and from the States.
The Migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
What does that mean? We will let James Wilson (second only to James Madison in importance in the framing of the U.S. Constitution) explain it:
The gentleman says that it means to prohibit the introduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them from coming amongst us. A little impartiality and attention will discover the care that the Convention took in selecting their language. The words are, 'The migration or importation of such persons, &c., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation.' It is observable here that the term migration is dropped when a tax or duty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose the tax only on those imported. What Wilson makes clear is Congress' only limited power over the migration of people are those persons who are imported as articles of trade to be bought and sold. The migration of people, who are not imports of trade, cannot be taxed by any authority of Congress, and thus, banned.
Congress can resort to two powers in banning the importation of slaves, 1) Tariffs and 2) Defining it as a crime on the high seas.
On the other hand, the States did not surrender their absolute authority over persons within, or invited into from the outside, as they retained "residuary and inviolable sovereignty" over all objects not surrendered to the federal government. Because of this "residuary and inviolable sovereignty," States can impose stringent rules and taxes on aliens entering their respective limits. Even post Fourteenth Amendment adoption, John Bingham acknowledged the States inherent right to impose head taxes or banishment laws in regards to aliens.
I will let Alexander Hamilton have the final word here:
But it will not follow from this doctrine (supremacy) that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.
Due Process
Judge Munley suggested Hazleton's IIRA ordinance is unconstitutional because "the IIRA does not provide notice to challenged employees or tenants, does not inform the employers and owners/landlords of the types of identity information needed, and provides for judicial review in a court system that lacks jurisdiction, it violates the due process rights of employers, employees, tenants and owners/landlords. It is therefore unconstitutional."
It has always amazed me how the courts in modern times can misapply such an ancient, well-understood principle as due process, for which has been part of the U.S. Constitution for over 200 years. For which the same identical language had been imported into the Fourteenth Amendment, and made clear that it carried the same operation as it had always, could be applied by the courts to operate in an entirely different manner then had always before.
This is not justice or judgment, but tyranny against the people.
The terms "due process of the law" and "by law of the land" has always been recognized as being identical imports from Article 39 of the Magna Carta (1215). The Fourteenth Amendment's primary drafter of the first section, Rep. John A. Bingham (OH), said the amendment changed nothing in regards to whom the phrase inhibits under the first section of the fourteenth article of the U.S. Constitution. Due process is only a limitation upon the executive officer or the courts, not any legislative body.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit any State legislature, or municipal government from operating under their own laws of due process, nor gives any power to Congress or the federal courts to impose their own idea of procedures of due process as they please. Instead, the language is simply a declaration that whatever those general laws of the State may be, they cannot be denied before depriving anyone of their life, liberty, or property.
The court in Hurtado v. California described due process under the Fourteenth Amendment this way:
In the Fourteenth Amendment, by parity of reason, it refers to that law of the land in each State which derives its authority from the inherent and reserved powers of the State, exerted within the limits of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and the greatest security for which resides in the right of the people to make their own laws, and alter them at their pleasure.
Due process, or "by law of the land," protects individuals from being deprived of life, liberty or property by arbitrary acts unsupported by existing laws. No arbitrary deprivation or penalties are sanctioned by Hazleton's ordinance in question.
What Hazleton has done is simply enacted summary procedures that have always existed under statute laws, and extended to private parties. For example, landlord's have long enjoyed summary procedures authorized under law in taking possession of demised premises and property within by the prompt dispossession over tenants who hold over after default in paying rent.
Do such summary proceedings as approved by statute violate anyone's "due process"? No because the proceedings are sanctioned by law. Some tenants might not like it, but they have no constitutional grounds to invalidate the statutes in question under some twisted ruse of violating due process.
Police Powers
Under plaintiffs' ninth cause of action, they alleged Hazleton's ordinance exceed its legitimate police powers. Hazleton responded the ordinance was a legitimate exercise of its police powers.
Judge Munley concluded that because Hazleton had violated the Constitution elsewhere, they in return exceeded their police powers because "enacting an unconstitutional ordinance is in itself a violation of the defendant's police powers."
Police powers used to be held sacred and beyond encroachment under any pretense – even after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. So when did the people surrender their authority over local order and security, or more importantly, where can it be found documented through consent of the people?
It is this "inviolable sovereignty" that Madison spoke of is why all leading statesmen of this nation and Supreme Court went to great pains to make clear that all internal domestic concerns, especially those of internal security (police), were beyond approach of federal encroachment under any pretense.
To guard, however, against any possible misconstruction of our views, it is proper to state, that we are by no means to be understood in any manner whatsoever to doubt or to interfere with the police power belonging to the states in virtue of their general sovereignty. That police power extends over all subjects within the territorial limits of the states; and has never been conceded to the United States (Prigg v. Pennsylvania) Justice Grier's affirming opinion in a much-cited case in recent immigration case law (The Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 283, 7 How. 283) wrote:
This right of the States has its foundation in the sacred law of self-defense, which no power granted to Congress can restrain or annul. It is admitted by all that those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may be more properly called the internal police, are not surrendered or restrained.
One doesn't need to look for Supreme Court rulings to come to the same conclusion as Justice Grier did, for this inviolable principle shines as a bright beacon due to the fact of being deeply embodied in events of our history and expressed throughout the U.S. Constitution. The same Congress who introduced, debated and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment firmly shared the same conclusion as Justice Grier after it was made part of the Constitution.
Austin Blair (MI), a strong advocate for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and human rights activist, had this to say about federal encroachment on local matters on April 19, 1871:
If gentlemen say that the powers of the General and State governments for the protection of life, liberty, and property are concurrent and that we can go everywhere throughout the United States and do by the General Government everything that can be done by any State government, then I grant this power might exist; but until I am shown that, I am unable to see it. As I have said, I have always supposed that there were certain powers and certain rights that belong to the States that the General Government has no right to interfere with. This right of local self-government, as I supposed, it was not the intention of the Constitution of the United States in any case to take away from the States, and I cannot see how it is possible that this power could exist without taking it away.
The chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lyman Trumbull in the same year: "I do not know where in the Government of the United States gets the constitutional authority to go into the States and establish police regulations." James Garfield went on to add:
These systems of local government by counties and cities are adopted by the States as instrumentalities to aid them in the wise and judicious regulation and protection of the local and domestic interests of their citizens.
It will never do to say that they may be tampered with, impeded, or arrested in the discharge of their duties, as this bill proposes. It would be fatal to the success and very existence of local self-government. It has many times been solemnly decided by the Supreme Court that these agencies adopted by the States to aid in local administration are above the touch or control of any power, are subject only to the exclusive regulation of the States. John Farnsworth, member of the Committee on Reconstruction said:
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided repeatedly that the Congress can impose no duty on a State officer. We can impose no duty on a sheriff or any other officer of a county or city. We cannot require the sheriff to read the riot act or call out the posse comitatus (sic) or perform any other act or duty. Nor can Congress confer any power or impose any duty upon the county or city. Can we then impose on a county or other State municipality liability where we cannot require a duty? I think not.
Jefferson wrote from Monticello on June 12, 1823, "Can it be believed that under the jealousies prevailing against the General Government at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties, and restraining vice, within their own territory?"
All the above simply demonstrates that there was never any recognized authority before or after the adoption of the 14th amendment for the Federal Government to oust local municipal authorities in administering laws for the security, welfare and social order under their respective jurisdictions.
If a local municipal is exceeding its police powers, then the only known authority to interfere is the State judiciary under State laws.
Conclusion
What these charges against the City of Hazleton boils down to is this: Plaintiffs sought relief from the consequences of a lawfully enacted regulation, not any deprivation of due process contrary to any existing general law of the State.
Judge Munley's ruling, aided by past divisive, unsanctioned precedent, exceeded federal jurisdiction into the affairs of the people in exercising their solemn right to self-government under the United States Constitution. The ruling is simply, repugnant to our form of constitutional government and finds no support in the spirit and letter of the great compact that forms our Union of States.
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Feedback Have questions for Madison? Use the link below: Feedback
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
TRUCKERS AT CALIF., TEXAS BORDERS PROTEST POLICY MEXICAN CARRIERS
LAREDO, Texas -- Dozens of truckers protested at border crossings in Texas and California on Thursday, denouncing as dangerous and unfair a pilot program allowing up to 100 Mexican trucking companies to transport cargo anywhere in the United States.
Carrying signs reading "NAFTA Kills" and "Unsafe Mexican Trucks," a few dozen protesters circled in the heat for two hours at Laredo's port of entry at the World Trade Bridge on the U.S.-Mexico border.
"What do we want? Safe highways. When do we want them? Now!" they chanted.
The U.S. Transportation Department said no Mexican trucks had arrived as of late Thursday afternoon. But 38 Mexican firms were poised for U.S. permits, said Melissa M***ella DeLaney, a spokeswoman for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which regulates truck safety.
The Teamsters union, Sierra Club and watchdog group Public Citizen sued to stop the program, arguing there won't be enough oversight of drivers entering the U.S. from Mexico. But a federal appeals court ruled last week that the Bush administration could move ahead.
Government lawyers said the program is a necessary part of the North American Free Trade Agreement and that trucks enrolled in the program would meet U.S. regulations.
Near San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing, dozens of truckers led by the Teamsters mixed with anti-illegal-immigration activists. Business was uninterrupted, said Lt. Hector Paredes of the California Highway Patrol, which inspects about 3,000 trucks a day at the crossing.
"We're already inspecting Mexican trucks and will continue to inspect them the same way," Paredes said. "These trucks already haul product from Tijuana to San Diego. Now they will be able to go beyond San Diego."
Critics such as Teamsters organizer Hugo Flores doubt that Mexican drivers will be held to the same rules on things such as the length of work shifts and drug testing.
"There are no means to regulate these guys. Bush has opened up highways to unsafe trucks," Flores said at the Laredo protest. "I don't want them sharing the roads with my family."
Interstate 35, which stretches from the U.S.-Mexico border in Laredo north to Minnesota, is a major north-south artery though the country.
"Those guys run all the way here and all they way back without sleep," said Roadway Express driver William Scribner, of Laredo. "They don't respect the laws, they don't respect the people."
Scribner said he has seen drivers come across the border in two-seat cabs, then pick up two workers, meaning there aren't enough seat belts for everyone.
NAFTA requires that all roads in the United States, Mexico and Canada be opened to carriers from all three countries. Canadian trucking companies already have full access to U.S. roads, but Mexican trucks can travel only about 20 miles inside the country at certain border crossings.
The current pilot program is designed to study whether opening the U.S.-Mexico border to all trucks could be done safely.
The government says it has imposed rigorous safety protocols in the program, including drug and alcohol testing for drivers done by U.S. companies. Additionally, law enforcement officials have stepped up nationwide enforcement of a law that's been on the books since the 1970s requiring interstate truck and bus drivers to have a basic understanding of written and spoken English.
Besides the safety issues, Flores said there are also concerns about job security and pollution from emissions.
"Now they're trying to export all our driving jobs to Mexico," Flores said. "That's one less American job."
About a dozen Laredo police officers stood watch Thursday, but the Teamsters said they weren't there to cause trouble. As trucks passed by, some honked in support, other drivers gave the group the thumbs up.
At a Petro truck stop near El Paso along Interstate 10, reactions to the program were mixed.
Carlos Moreno, who has been a truck driver for nearly four decades, said he doesn't begrudge anyone trying to make a living.
"There's enough for all of us," said Moreno, an El Paso resident.
But he is concerned that some of the drivers from Mexico can't read highway signs written in English. "You can always tell in construction zones," he said.
Omar Nunez, a 34-year-old driver from Pecos, said he worries that freight prices will drop as shippers turn to Mexican trucking companies that may offer cheaper services.
"As it is, I'm barely making it right now," he said.
Among those most concerned were a group of drivers gathered at the Flying J truck stop in Edinburg, Texas. Much of their business has come from picking up loads that Mexican drivers previously had to leave at the border.
"That's my business," said Gerald Fernow, a 36-year-old from Flatonia, Texas. "What am I supposed to do? I'm screwed."
___
Associated Press writers Alicia A. Caldwell in El Paso, Lynn Brezosky in Edinburg and Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
LANDMARK SETTLEMENT ANNOUNCED IN FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CONDITIONS AT IMMIGRANT DETENTIN CENTER IN TEXAS (8/27/2007)
ACLU Urges Congress to End Policy of Detaining Immigrant Children
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org
AUSTIN, TX -- The American Civil Liberties Union today announced a landmark settlement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that greatly improves conditions for immigrant children and their families inside the T. Don Hutto detention center in Taylor, Texas. Dozens of children were released from the facility with their families as a result of the litigation. The settlement is expected to be approved shortly by Judge Sam Sparks of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
"This is a huge victory not only for the children and families that have been released from Hutto, but for every detainee held at the facility, now or in the future," said Vanita Gupta, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Racial Justice Program. "Though we continue to believe that Hutto is an inappropriate place to house children,conditions have drastically improved in areas like education, recreation, medical care, and privacy."
The settlement is the result of extensive litigation and mediation in consolidated lawsuits filed earlier this year against Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and six officials from ICE on behalf of 26 immigrant children. The children are between the ages of 1 and 17, and were detained at Hutto with their parents who, in almost all cases, were awaiting determinations on their asylum claims.The ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, the University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic, and the international law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP brought the lawsuits.
Since the original lawsuits were filed in March 2007, all of the 26 children represented by the ACLU and co-counsel have been released.The final six children were released days before the settlement was finalized, and are now living with family members who are U.S. citizens and/or legal permanent residents while pursuing their asylum claims.
For the children, the release day was very emotional. Andrea Restrepo, a 12-year-old child from Colombia, had been held in Hutto in a small cell for nearly a year with her mother and 9-year-old sister.
"I feel much better, I feel tranquil, I can do things now I couldn't do there," said Restrepo. "I am trying to forget everything about Hutto. I feel free. It was a nightmare."
Conditions at Hutto have gradually and significantly improved as a result of the groundbreaking litigation. Children are no longer required to wear prison uniforms and are allowed much more time outdoors. Educational programming has expanded and guards have been instructed not to discipline children by threatening to separate them from their parents.
"The ACLU has long been concerned with poor conditions in immigration detention centers, but the inhumane conditions in which the children at Hutto lived before this litigation demanded our immediate attention," said Gouri Bhat, an attorney with the ACLU's National Prison Project."This agreement with ICE will make permanent important changes that already have been made and will ensure additional improvements in the future."
"The litigation has achieved enormous results," said Sean R. D. Gorman, a partner with LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP, which provided pro bono representation to the children."Instead of punishing asylum seekers by treating them like criminals, the settlement requires ICE to treat children more like children "” with the care and compassion that exemplify American values."
Soon after the litigation commenced, ICE instituted a policy of detaining at Hutto only families placed in expedited removal proceedings and began to issue bonds for asylum seekers who passed their credible fear interviews.
"Imprisoning families who have fled their home countries under fear of persecution from their own governments, and detaining them in jail-like conditions, was an indescribable trauma for many of the children we represented," said Barbara Hines, Director of the University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic. "We are hopeful that by limiting the population at Hutto to families in expedited removal except in exigent circumstances, and adopting more meaningful release procedures, that the length of stay for children will be significantly reduced."
Additional improvements ICE will be required to make as a result of the settlement include allowing children over the age of 12 to move freely about the facility; providing a full-time, on-site pediatrician; eliminating the count system so that families are not forced to stay in their cells 12 hours a day; installing privacy curtains around toilets; offering field trip opportunities to children; supplying more toys and age-and language-appropriate books; and improving the nutritional value of food. ICE must also allow regular legal orientation presentations by local immigrants' rights organizations; allow family and friends to visit Hutto detainees seven days a week; and allow children to keep paper and pens in their rooms. ICE's compliance with each of these reforms, as well as other conditions reforms, will be subject to external oversight to ensure their permanence.
Despite the tremendous improvements at Hutto, the facility remains a former medium security prison managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, a for-profit adult corrections company. In recent years, Congress has repeatedly directed DHS to keep immigrant families together, either by releasing them or using alternatives to detention. Where detention is necessary, Congress has said immigrant families should be housed in non-penal, homelike environments. The ACLU remains adamant that detaining immigrant children at Hutto is inappropriate, and calls on Congress to compel DHS to find humane alternatives for managing families whose immigration status is in limbo.
"We are thrilled at what we were able to accomplish through litigation and mediation," said Lisa Graybill, Legal Director of the ACLU of Texas. "But the fact remains that our government should not be locking up innocent children "” period. That is not what America is about. It is time for Congress to intervene and end the policy of family detention."
The Hutto lawsuits were filed by Gupta and Elora Mukherjee of the ACLU's Racial Justice Program; Bhat and Tom Jawetz of the ACLU's National Prison Project; Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project; Graybill of the ACLU Foundation of Texas; Hines of the University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic; and Gorman, Stephen J. Lable and Carol A. Lafond of the law firm LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP.
More information about Hutto and the ACLU's litigation is available online at: www.aclu.org/hutto
SE ANUNCIA ACUERDO NEGOCIADO SIN PRECENDENTS, EN DEMANDA ENTABLADA EN LOS TRIBUNALES FEDERALES, IMPUGNANDO LAS CONDICIONES EN UN CENTRO DE DETENCION PARA IMMIGRANTS EN TEXAS (8/27/2007)
La ACLU exhorta al Congreso a ponerle fin a la politica de detener a los hijos de los inmigrantes
PARA SU DIFUSIÓN INMEDIATA CONTACTO: media@aclu.org
Desde que se entablaron las demandas en marzo del 2007, cada uno de los 26 niños representados por la ACLU y los abogados adjuntos han sido puestos en libertad. Los últimos seis niños fueron liberados pocos dÃas antes de que se suscribiera el acuerdo y viven ahora con sus familiares ciudadanos y/o residentes permanentes mientras prosiguen con sus solicituces de asilo.
Para los niños, el dÃa de su liberación fue muy emotivo. Andrea Restrepo, una niña de 12 años, proveniente de Colombia, habÃa permanecido recluida en una pequeña celda de Hutto durante casà un año con su madre y su hermana de 9 años.
"Me siento mucho mejor, me siento tranquila, ahora puedo hacer cosas que no podÃa hacer allÃ," dijo Restrepo. "Estoy tratando de olvidar todo lo de Hutto. Me siento libre. Fue una pesadilla."
Las condiciones en Hutto han mejorado paulatinamente de manera notable, en consecuencia de este litio sin igual. A los niños ya no se les obliga a usar uniformes carcelarios y se les permite estar al aire libre mucho más tiempo. Se han ampliado los programas educativos y a los guardias se les ha dado instrucciones de que no impongan disciplina a los niños con amenazas de que los van a separar de sus padres.
"El litigio consiguió resultados considerables," explicó Sean R.D. Gorman, socio del despacho de LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, LLP, el cual proporcionó representación legal gratuita a los niños. "En lugar de castigar a las personas que solicitan asilo, amenazándoles como criminales, el acuerdo exige que ICE trate a los niños más como niños, con el cuidado y la compasión que son ejemplos de los valores de estadounidenses."
"El recluir a las familias que habÃan huido de sus paÃses de origen por miedo a ser perseguidos por sus propios gobiernos, en condiciones carcelarias, fue un trauma indescriptible para muchos de los niños a quienes representamos," indicó Barbara Hines, Directora del Taller de Inmigración de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Texas. "Tenemos la esperanza de que al limitar la población de Hutto a familias que se encuentran en proceso de deportación acelerada, salvo circunstancias extraordinarias, y al adoptar procedimientos de liberación más sensatas, la detención de los niños se acortará considerablemente."
A pesar de las considerables mejoras en Hutto, el Centro sigue siendo una antigua prisión, administrada por la empresa con fines de lucro Corrections Corporation of America, dedicada a los reclusorios para adultos. En años recientes, el Congreso dictó repetidas instrucciones al Departamento de Seguridad Interna para que conservara unidas a las familias de inmigrantes, ya sea mediante su liberación o alternativas a su detención. El Congreso ha indicado que cuando fuere necesaria la detención, las familias de inmigrantes deberán ser albergadas en ambientes no penales, semejantes a un hogar. La ACLU se mantiene firme en su postura de que la reclusión de los niños inmigrantes en Hutto no es correcta y ha exhortado al Congreso a que obligue al DHS a encontrar alternativas más humanas para familias cuya condición migratoria sea indefinida.
"Estamos muy emocionados por lo que pudimos lograr por medio del litigio y la mediación," exclamó Lisa Graybill, Directora JurÃdica de la ACLU de Texas. "Pero sigue siendo un hecho que nuestro gobierno no deberÃa encerrar a niños inocentes: punto. Eso no es congruente con los Estados Unidos. Es hora de que intervenga el Congreso para ponerle fin a la polÃtica de la detención de familias."
Las demandas Hutto fueron archivadas por Gupta y Elora Mukherjee del Programa de Justicia Racial de la ACLU; Bhat y Tom Jaqwetz del Proyecto Nacional de Prisiones de la ACLU; Judy Rabinovitz del Proyecto de los Derechos de los Inmigrantes de la ACLU; Graybill de la Fundación de la ACLU en Texas; Hines del Taller de Inmigración de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Texas; y Gorman, Stepen J. Lable y Carol A. Lafond del despacho jurÃdico LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, LLP.
Puede obtener más información acerca de Hutto y el litigio de la ACLU en lÃnea en: www.aclu.org/hutto
IN A FIRST, CANDIDATE FORUM IN TRANSLATION DEMOCRATIC EVENT ON LATINO ISSUES IS EXCEPTIONAL MORE FOR FORMAT THAN RESPONSES
By Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 10, 2007; Page A04
CORAL GABLES, Fla., Sept. 9 -- The first presidential forum to be conducted in Spanish placed a couple of the Democratic participants in an uncomfortable position Sunday night: answering tough questions while simultaneously fiddling to make sure their earpieces didn't fall out and they could the hear the translation of the next question.
Those questions dealt with a range of issues of interest to Latino voters, from health-care policy to relations with Latin America.
And the candidates were eager to connect their experiences with those of the Latino community. Democratic candidates were asked questions in Spanish that were translated into English. Univision, the forum's host, required responses to be in English. (By Joe Raedle -- Getty Images)
Several questions focused on immigration, and the seven participants exhibited little difference on the issue, with all supporting changes that would allow illegal immigrants now in the country to stay and eventually receive U.S. citizenship, and all criticizing anti-immigrant sentiments. Nearly all the candidates committed to overhauling immigration laws in their first year in office, days after Republican candidates accused each other in a debate of supporting "amnesty."
"We all know that this has become a contentious political issue," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said. "It is being demagogued, and I believe that it is being used to bash immigrants, and that must stop. The Republican candidates need to understand that they are doing a great disservice to our country."
The most remarkable part of the 90-minute forum, held at the University of Miami, proved to be not the responses but the format: Questions were posed in Spanish by two moderators from the Spanish-language television network Univision, which broadcast the event nationally; interpreters immediately translated the questions into English for the candidates, while a written English translation was beamed onto a screen in the arena for the crowd of more than 3,000.
Univision required candidates to answer in English, because only New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) speak Spanish fluently. That prompted Richardson to criticize the network from the stage Sunday night.
"I'm disappointed today that 43 million Latinos in this country -- for them not to hear one of their own speak Spanish, is unfortunate," Richardson said. "In other words, Univision is promoting English-only in this debate."
He then switched to Spanish but was cut off by moderators Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas.
Salinas and Ramos, meanwhile, delivered challenges of their own. Dodd, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) were called to account for their votes to build a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border. All three noted their support for broader rights for Latino immigrants, both legal and illegal, but they said tighter border security is important. "That has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform," Clinton said, adding that in some points she supported "even a physical barrier."
Richardson called the fence "a horrendous example of misguided Washington policy."
"If you're going to build a 12-foot wall, you know what's going to happen," he said. "A lot of 13-foot ladders. This is a terrible symbol of America."
That seven of the eight Democratic candidates came to South Florida -- Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) did not attend -- underscored the increasing importance of Latino voters in U.S. politics. Obama's campaign recently announced that he would skip some of the forums organized by liberal groups in the Democratic Party, but he was sure not to miss this event.
Add to del.icio.us
ICE ARRESTS 19 CLOUDBURST EMPLOYEES
