NEW MEXICO, ALBUQUERQUE



http://www.swop.net/2005/12/migrant-diaries-colin-rajah.html

Albuquerque, NM - For over a quarter century, SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP) has worked to "empower disenfranchised communities in the southwest United States to realize racial and gender equality and social and economic justice." SWOP is now proud to bring you SWOPblogger - your blog for news and views with a community bias. Come back often for updates!

82 OF 185 JOBS AT ALBUQUERQUE JAIL CUT

Tribune staff
Originally published 08:24 a.m.
September 10, 2007
Updated 01:53 p.m., September 10, 2007

After more than a month without its main client sending detainees to its jail in Downtown Albuquerque, Cornell Companies Inc. this morning cut 82 of 185 jobs at the jail.

The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which had housed about 600 people at the Regional Correctional Center, in late July yanked its inmates, saying the facility didn't meet two detention standards.

Since then, the company has worked to address the concerns but has heard little on ICE's plans, said Cornell spokesman Charles Seigel.

"They have not indicated whether or when or if they plan to be back," Seigel said this morning. The company is looking for other clients.

An ICE spokeswoman this morning had no update on the agency's plans.

The layoffs affected 82 of the 185 positions at the facility, and mostly included correctional officers. It was unclear how many people were laid off, as some positions were vacant, Seigel said.

Bernalillo County Public Safety Director John Dantis said the county would work to recruit officers for its Metropolitan Detention Center.

At the same time, the county is interested in possibly housing inmates again in the jail, which it owns and leases to Cornell. The Houston-based private prison company pays the county more than $1 million in rent each year.

The county in 2002 turned the jail over to Cornell Companies Inc. when it moved to the Metropolitan Detention Center on the city's West Side. But that jail is hundreds of inmates over capacity, and the county needs more space.

The county had occasionally housed overflow inmates from the MDC at the Downtown jail, but stopped that earlier this summer as attorneys in a 12-year-old lawsuit over jail crowding were seeking more access to the facility.

Dantis said the county would need a contract with Cornell to house inmates at the Regional Correctional Center and is interested in talking with company representatives.

"It depends on how things evolve in the future and how our (population) need is, certainly that's something we'd be interested in discussing with them," Dantis said this morning.

The county, which a year ago took control of Albuquerque's jail system from the city, is working to whittle the population at the 2,236-capacity jail and is striving to process people faster at the lockup. Last week, it was more than 400 people over its limit.

Back at the Downtown jail, about 180 detainees of the U.S. Marshals Office remain in custody.

Seigel said the continued occupancy of those inmates shows there are no problems with the jail.

"As far as we can tell, there isn't any fundamental problems, because the Marshals are still (housing inmates) there," he said.

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS WHITE HOUSE MISREAD THE PUBLIC

Sept. 14, 2007, 11:57PM
By RICHARD S. DUNHAM
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration underestimated the ferocity of opposition to White House-backed immigration legislation this year, outgoing White House press secretary Tony Snow said Friday.

"I freely admit that we underestimated the (public) skepticism," Snow said over breakfast with a group of reporters on his final day on the job.

Snow said that the White House was unprepared for the anger of foes of illegal immigration, many of whom believe that government at all levels has failed to secure the nation's borders. The public backlash was aimed "not merely (at) the Bush administration," he conceded, but the White House "made some miscalculations, as well."

The president's chief spokesman, 52, who has waged a very public battle with cancer during his 17 months in the high-profile job, said that though a compromise immigration bill came close to passage, the process now "requires a much longer debate."

"We should have gotten it through last time," he said. "This is an issue that will be with us — will not go away."

After the 2007 legislative defeat, he said, the government must demonstrate that it can secure the border "in a competent way" before any plan to allow American companies to hire more immigrants and permit the legalization of illegal workers can gain traction on Capitol Hill.

Snow argued for a continuing flow of immigrant labor. "We have this big, booming economy," he said, "and we don't have enough workers."

Calling America "a nation of immigrants," he said Congress and the president needed to come up with a plan to deal with the approximately 12 million people who are illegally in the country.

"A lot of these people really are pursuing the traditional path to the American dream," he said.

To win political support for comprehensive legislation, Snow said, the government must re-establish credibility by protecting the border and requiring illegal immigrants to pay substantial penalties before taking their place "at the back of the line" to citizenship. While waiting for legal status, they should not be permitted to collect welfare and should be required to maintain continuous employment and crime-free lives, he added.

Despite the passionate opposition to illegal immigration, Snow said that both political parties should be sensitive to the feelings of Hispanic voters.

"No political party is going to be able to survive (without the) fastest-growing voting bloc in America," he said.

On the 2008 Republican presidential candidates' repeated attacks on President Bush's record on immigration, Snow uncharacteristically demurred.

"Ask me that question in a week — or even tomorrow," he said. "As the president's press secretary, I'm not going to step into that one."

richard.dunham@chron.com

WE ARE ALL ELVIRA

Written by Jorge Ramos
Thursday, 13 September 2007

CHICAGO -- I arrived too late. Elvira Arellano had gone. She’d been deported to Mexico. But everyone is still talking about her. Elvira has become a symbol.
Arellano is the undocumented Mexican who, for more than a year, fought against a deportation order by taking refuge inside a church here. But she was arrested two weeks ago, when she surprisingly decided to go to Los Angeles.
Her mission: to take part in a march there to support the legalization of some 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. But she never got her wish. Without dispatch, she was deported to Tijuana. Her case, however, is an example of why current U.S. immigration laws are not working.

Elvira’s detention took her away from her 8-year-old son, Saul, who is an American citizen. Across the United States, thousands of families have similarly been split apart in the aftermath of recent raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Elvira was arrested, but more to the point, Osama bin Laden is still at large. The so-called “war on terror” must be waged against real killers and criminals, not against helpless immigrant workers.
Elvira’s crime? Obtaining forged documents to allow her to work cleaning airplanes at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. Yes, indeed, she broke the law. But her work benefited many Americans, and she took a job few others wish to do. She only wanted to give her child a better life. That is all.

It’s an ironic contradiction that a country which was founded by immigrants -- and which today needs immigrants more than ever -- should dedicate itself to chasing and persecuting unprotected and vulnerable foreigners. Elvira and millions of immigrants are not the enemies of the United States -- bin Laden is.

Elvira and millions of immigrants are not to blame for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror acts. But they are the ones paying the consequences. American immigration policy, it seems, makes no distinction between good immigrants and potential terrorists.

It has generated a wave of fear in the immigrant community. I took a ride on Chicago subway’s Blue Line -- the same route Elvira surely traveled to and from the airport -- and overheard Spanish conversations that featured frequently the words “migra” and “redadas” (“raids”).

When I mention the word “fear,” I am not exaggerating. At the Chicago Book Fair, an event organized by Giron books with great success since 1985, I met Gabriela. Out of fear of these raids, she and her husband have decided to return to Zacatecas, Mexico, together with their three sons, after being in the United States for 13 years. And there will be more raids, as long as the laws don’t change.

Apart from keeping in mind the enormous contributions to the economy made by immigrants, the reform bill should be approved for simple national security reasons: the United States must have an interest in knowing who lives here. But any hopes for a legalization process will most likely be deferred until 2013, as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) suggests. He believes the immigration debate will not come to life again until the second term with the new president. In spite of these indications of lack of hope, a pro-immigrant rally took place recently in Los Angeles, which Elvira could not attend. But her personal tragedy didn’t go unnoticed. The slogan of the protest was, “We all are Elvira.”

It’s true. With few exceptions, we all – the Hispanics who immigrate to the United States (or our families) – came from other places. But a furious and noisy American minority, filled with hate and prejudice, is imposing its anti-immigrant message in a country that has traditionally opened its arms to the newly arrived.

I feel sorry because I couldn’t get to Chicago in time to talk with Elvira. But the most curious thing is that I found her in the conversations with each one of the immigrants who, like her, refuse to give up.
Yes, in this country, we are all Elvira.


Last Updated ( Thursday, 13 September 2007 )

IMMIGRATION DEBATE CONTINUES

Published in the Monday, September 17, 2007 Edition of The Heights
BCHEIGHTS.COM, Boston College Student Newspaper
By Meghan Michael

Even the smallest of cities in the United States contain an array of ethnic restaurants, people chattering in various languages, and stores proudly displaying signs announcing "Se Habla Español." The United States is a nation built on immigration, not all of which has been garnered through proper legal venues, and this continues to hold true today.

A perennially controversial topic, the issue of illegal immigration and deportation has been brought even closer to the national forefront in a post-Sept. 11 world, with large numbers on either side of the proverbial fence. As discussed in a lecture held Wednesday afternoon, "Nation of Immigrants or Deportation Nation?," the topic of border control and what should be done about immigrants who have illegally entered the country is both a delicate and difficult issue, one which the United States has been struggling with for some time.

For centuries new immigrants have supplied the low-wage work force, often doing jobs that many Americans are less willing to do and for compensation that falls below minimum wage. Since the mid-'90s, however, immigration and deportation laws have become increasingly stringent, and since Sept. 11, national security has been heightened, including increased scrutiny of people entering the United States and their means of entrance.

There was increased U.S. presence at the border as early as 1996, with the passage of the Illegal Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Security expanded annually by more than 1,000 agents, which by 2001 included the National Guard.

In 2006, the Secure Fence Act was passed, authorizing hundreds of additional miles of fence to be built at the border with Mexico and granting permission to the Department of Homeland Security to use technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles to protect the border.

Despite such enhanced measures, however, illegal aliens continue to enter the country, and there are still those who have been living in the United States illegally for decades. Julia Preston, National Correspondent for The New York Times, said in Wednesday'=s lecture that the previously lenient enforcement of rules and attitudes regarding illegal immigrants have changed in recent years. Deportation measures have intensified, as even those who have spent nearly their entire lives in this country are now being uprooted from their homes and deported, sometimes being forced to leave their families behind.

"[After Sept. 11], the priority was no longer meat packing but national security," said Preston. "Before, the U.S. saw illegal immigrants as potential citizens; now they are seen as potential terrorists."

According to the U.S. government, Preston's assessment may be accurate. In a news release on Sept. 5, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said that more than 197,100 illegal aliens were deported last year, and claimed that approximately 45 percent were criminal aliens.

The current deportation system may be more stringent, but it is not necessarily more discriminatory.

Some of these deported criminal aliens may have been punished retroactively for offenses that were not deemed sufficient cause for deportation at the time they were committed. Preston spoke of man who was deported for urinating in public while working at a construction job, and although his family remained in the United States, he was not permitted to return.

Other criminal offenses include shoplifting and falsely claiming citizenship in order to work, and attempted re-entry into the United States after deportation, which is a felony carrying up to a 25-year prison sentence.

An estimated 434,000 people were deported from the United States for non-violent crimes in 2005 according to the Department of Homeland Security. Daniel Kanstroom, associate director of the Center for Human Rights and International Justice and author of Deportation Nation, spoke in Wednesday'=s lecture about the current state of the U.S. deportation system.

Functioning under Department of Homeland Security, laws regarding deportation may apply to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen, including lawful permanent residents. As Kanstroom explained, deportation consists of mandatory detention with no right to bail, no jury trial, it can be supported by evidence obtained without a warrant, and it has restricted administrative and judicial review.

"And If you want to understand how the deportation system works, look at the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty, and then think about the opposite,"@ said Kanstroom.

While many associate illegal immigration and the issue of deportation with states such as Texas and California, it is just as relevant to those living in Massachusetts. After an agreement signed by Governor Romney in December 2006, specially trained State Troopers may now enforce federal immigration laws. Both Kanstroom and Preston identify this as a dangerous problem, as the use of local police to enforce immigration laws deters people from going to the police for their own protection.

"A[Illegal immigrants] must become a fugitive class of millions of people,"@ said Preston.

The issue of deportation was further localized last March when nearly 350 illegal immigrants, working at a leather factory in New Bedford, were sent to detention centers after a raid dubbed "AOperation United Front."@ A number of Spanish-speaking BC students were asked to aid by acting as translators between the lawyers and the detained workers.

Illegal immigration still remains a charged topic as the United States struggles to find a balance between upholding its historic role as a refuge of democracy and acknowledging the pressure new immigrants can place on limited resources. At the same time, decisions must be made regarding what should be done with illegal immigrants already living among us.

GROUPS CLASH OVER IMMIGRATION AT CHURCH

Associated Press
1 hour ago

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) — Dozens of activists on both sides of the illegal immigration debate faced off outside a church where an illegal immigrant is being sheltered with her U.S.-born infant son.

One immigrant-rights advocate was injured with a chemical spray during Sunday's confrontation at the United Church of Christ, and police were investigating allegations that an opposing protester was responsible, police Capt. John McGinty said.

Members of the anti-illegal immigration group Save Our State, which organized the rally that drew about 120 protesters and counter-protesters, said they had hoped to make a citizen's arrest of the woman, who has identified herself only as Liliana.

The woman has been living in the church's former parsonage as part of the New Sanctuary Movement, which arranges church accommodations for illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Group members shouted for Liliana, who lived in Oxnard before taking shelter at the church, to give herself up.

"I'm here because I'm for the movement for the illegals to go home," protester Dee Barrow said.

Daniel Smallwood, one of the counter-protesters, accused the anti-illegal immigration activists of racism and said members of his group joined the rally because they didn't want their ideological opponents "to get all the attention."

DEMOCRATS IN SENATE RETURNING TO IMMIGRATION

baltimoresun.com
By Nicole Gaouette
September 17, 2007

WASHINGTON - Months after Congress failed to pass a broad immigration overhaul, lawmakers are quietly returning to the issue, discussing narrower measures dealing with illegal immigrants and low-skilled laborers.

As early as this week, Senate Democrats are to introduce an amendment that would give conditional legal status to young illegal immigrants.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, is expected to propose a visa program for farmhands that eventually would allow them to gain citizenship, while Republican senators are discussing a short-term guest worker program for laborers.

"We may be heading for another immigration battle," Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, said of the measures headed for the Senate floor.

Some of the measures now in the works do not have much bipartisan support, limiting their chances of success. And some lawmakers express doubts that it is possible to restructure the immigration system through separate bills.

"I'm personally very skeptical of a piecemeal approach," said Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, a member of the bipartisan coalition that tried to pass the overhaul earlier this year. "The minute we start doing the easy things, like taking care of agribusiness interests because they need the workers, ... we're leaving the hard things."

The central conflict that tripped up the comprehensive bill remains: whether illegal immigrants should be given the chance to earn any kind of legal status.

The first Senate bill to come up is expected to be the so-called Dream Act, championed by Sen. Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. It would give conditional legal status to immigrants brought into the United States at a young age.

To qualify, they must have been in the country for at least five years, have a high school diploma and meet other requirements. Over the next six years, they would have to spend two years in college or in the military, after which they could become legal permanent residents.

Feinstein has backed an AgJobs program that would allow up to 1.5 million agricultural workers to gain legal status if they did farm work for a certain number of days each year. Those who met the criteria could apply for legal permanent resident status after five years.

Sessions is campaigning against the Durbin and Feinstein initiatives, instead supporting a version of AgJobs that would limit workers to short-term stays in the U.S. and not provide any longer term legal status.


Nicole Gaouette writes for the Los Angeles Times.

IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, SALVAGE, SALVAGE AGAIN

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON: IMMIGRATION REFORM PROPONENTS WILL SEEK TO ATTACH MEASURES TO MUST-PASS LEGISLATION.

DENA BUNIS
washington bureau chief
orange county register
dbunis@ocregister.com
Sept. 16, 2007

When a lawmaker can't get everything he or she wants in this town, often they step back, regroup and try to find some way to salvage something from a failed policy effort.

That's what the proponents of immigration reform are going to start trying to do this week. It's not going to be easy.

When the comprehensive immigration overhaul bill failed in the Senate, the immediate reaction among activists who wanted to try to find a way to legalize millions of undocumented workers in the U.S. was despair. People took a break. No one wanted to talk about the issue.

But with some time and perspective, lawmakers who sponsored particular parts of the immigration bill are going to try a maneuver that is often used when a measure is not likely to pass on its own.

The tactic is to attach a bill to a so-called must-pass bill; legislation that is so important to Congress and the White House that even if it contains something they don't like, they'll swallow hard and vote for it. Or in the case of the president, not veto it.

You might remember that that's how Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., got the Real ID Act passed. It was added to an emergency Iraq spending bill. Real ID requires that only people here legally get driver's licenses.

Well, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill, the assistant majority leader, is going to try a similar maneuver. Durbin has long championed the DREAM Act, which would legalize undocumented students who were brought here as children and have gone through high school and now want to go to college or join the military.

This bill has had a strange history. It has been introduced in every Congress since 2001. And it's had bipartisan support. But it's never come up for a vote on its own. In the past couple of years the idea was always that it would become part of whatever policy overhaul Congress passed. In fact it was part of the comprehensive immigration bill that did clear the Senate last year.

But now that a major policy overhaul is dead for the foreseeable future, Durbin will try to add the DREAM Act to the defense spending bill, something that is in the must-pass category. But that doesn't mean smooth sailing at all.

First of all he's going to have to get a vote on the amendment. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is one of the most outspoken opponents of giving any benefits to illegal immigrants, has already circulated a letter to his Senate colleagues urging them to beat back any effort to add the DREAM Act to the defense measure.

That means the amendment will probably need 60 votes just to be brought up for a vote.

Supporters know it's an uphill battle but say they are pretty close to the magic 60 number. And even if they don't make it to 60, if the amendment gets more than 50 votes, it will give it some momentum. Those in favor of this are tenacious and don't plan to give up. And Democrats would undoubtedly use a defeat of the DREAM Act as campaign fodder for next year. They'll tell Hispanic voters the GOP doesn't care about their children.

Sessions calls the DREAM ACT an amnesty that he says the American people don't want. Durbin and other DREAM Act supporters counter that these young people who would benefit from the bill were brought here by their parents as youngsters so that it's not their fault they are here illegally.

The other provision of the comprehensive bill that supporters are likely to try to revive is AgJobs.

AgJobs would allow agriculture workers, most of whom are here illegally, to work in the fields legally and get on a path to a green card and citizenship.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is determined to get this measure passed. She even got Majority Leader Harry Reid to say on the floor after the immigration bill died that he would do all he could to get AgJobs attached to the farm bill, expected to be on the floor later this fall.

Now Feinstein had a lot going for her in this. As a stand-alone bill this year she had 30 co-sponsors but in the past she's had more than 60 senators signed on to it. But there is a problem. Feinstein has lost her partner on this measure.

The actual sponsor of the AgJobs bill has been Sen. Larry Craig. The Idaho Republican's name was on the bill in past years when the GOP was in control and it was much easier. Needless to say, Feinstein won't have Craig around any more to help round up Republican support. Craig is expected to leave the Senate at month's end amid a *** sting scandal.

Feinstein is actively looking for a new Republican partner, her staff says. She also has a pretty formidable opposition.

Sessions has also targeted AgJobs as something he's campaigning against. And Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss is the senior Republican on the Agriculture Committee. He's opposed to any bill that would give agricultural workers a path to citizenship.

AgJobs is something agribusiness and organized labor are strongly behind and will undoubtedly lobby Republican senators with lots of growers in their states to get behind it.

Feinstein isn't wedded to just using the farm bill as the vehicle for AgJobs, her staff says. She'll be looking for her own must-pass bill to add it to.

While pulling out pieces of a larger bill doesn't always work, there is one high-profile issue in which such a strategy was used pretty successfully - health care.

When then first lady Hillary Clinton's health bill bit the dust in 1994, it wasn't long before Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and former Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan., teamed up to pass a bill allowing workers to take their health plans with them from job to job.

Since then the SCHIP program, which helps cover low income children, and the bill giving prescription drug coverage to those receiving Medicare have also passed.

The fact that Democrats control both chambers of Congress should make it easier for these two distinct immigration measures to pass. But the emotion wrapped up with this issue hasn't gone anywhere. And since the bottom line for both bills is allowing illegal immigrants to get permanent legal status in the U.S., opponents will do all they can to block it.

We'll be watching.

Bunis is the Register's Washington bureau chief

Contact the writer: 202-628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com

A woman marches in Los Angeles as part of the National Day of Action in support of immigration legislation and to call for an end to immigration raids Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007.

Reed Saxon, The Associated Press

IMMIGRATION REFORM FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS

themiamihurricane.com
By: Victoria Genuardi
Issue date: 9/17/07 Section: Opinion

The issue of immigration took center stage at Univision's Democratic Presidential Forum, and just last month the Bush Administration unveiled a series of immigration policy reforms. "Work is the magnet of illegal immigration," said Stewart Baker, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy.

Now I will not pretend to comprehend all of the complexities of the immigration debate, but I nevertheless feel justified in my aversion to merciless measures intended to crack down on illegal immigration. Does anybody else have a problem with our government taking such painstaking efforts to prevent poor undocumented workers from filling lowly positions that are of no interest to degree-obsessed Americans? These immigrants work tirelessly for next to nothing and endure dreadful working conditions to ensure a better life for their children or to escape the economic, political and societal woes of their native soils. They seek opportunity and refuge here in our "land of the free." How can we deny work to these hard-working, hopeful people?

Sure, they have not followed the lawful path to citizenship, and many do not pay the taxes that legal United States citizens pay, but it's not difficult to understand why they chose the illegal route. They do so out of fear of the torturously convoluted legal immigration process. How can we expect people without any means of survival to wait endlessly for citizenship that they will likely be refused?

The legal acquisition of citizenship must be made more feasible. Yet this does not seem to be on the immigration reform agenda. Many elitist U.S. citizens and lawmakers have no desire to receive more immigrants even if they're legal. They worry about job competition, deterioration of the country's national identity, overpopulation and the depletion of public resources.

As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, I find it hard to believe that the U.S. cannot accommodate a steady stream of immigrants. We cannot merely turn these people away at our borders or deport them. We must provide aid and work diligently to improve the quality of life in the countries from which they emigrate.

Given its privileged status, the U.S. has a humanitarian obligation to help the oppressed and less fortunate. To fulfill this duty, the foremost objective of policymakers entrenched in the immigration debate should be to amend the immigration system to give more people a chance at the American Dream. Secondly, they should endeavor to elevate living conditions in destitute countries. Simply put, if we're neither going to embrace disadvantaged people who want to devote themselves to our country nor recognize the innumerable positive contributions they make to our lives, then we must facilitate the realization of their hopes and dreams in their homelands.

Victoria Genuardi is a sophomore majoring in communications. She may be contacted at vickigenuardi@comcast.net.

CLOCK STOPPED ON DHS REGULATION


A federal court has temporarily, at least, barred enforcement of a Homeland Security rule regarding employer responses to Social Security no-match letters. Experts advise HR leaders to be prepared for such regulations to take effect at some point, however.

Human Resource Executive Online
By Tom Starner
September 17, 2007

During the past summer, the Department of Homeland Security put the hammer down on employers, saying employers should use Social Security Administration "no-match" letters as the starting point in Homeland Security's quest to root out illegal immigrants working in America.

But two weeks ago, a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily barred the SSA from mailing those letters -- which would have included information about the new DHS regulations -- so the DHS hammer is being held back, for the time-being.

No-match letters, of course, refer to notifications sent to employers when Social Security numbers submitted by employees do not match those in the SSA database. Each year, the SSA sends out thousands of the letters letting employers know their wage reports include names and Social Security numbers that do not match agency records. The IRS sends similar letters.

While the no-match letters may be evidence a company is employing illegal immigrants, bad matches can also be mistakes (misspelled names or wrong numbers).

In the past, companies have mostly ignored the letters -- an approach that seemed to meet federal concerns about the potential for national-origin or racial discrimination by employers.

With the DHS rules, employers must respond to no-match letters within 90 days.

Federal Judge Maxine Chesney's decision came out of a lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO, American Civil Liberties Union and California labor groups. The lawsuit argues that the new rules would lead to the firing of thousands of legal workers and discrimination against Latino workers.

Chesney's decision said that the lawsuit raised "serious questions" over the legality of the federal government's get-tough stance on illegal workers. She scheduled an Oct. 1 hearing on a preliminary injunction to further block the rule until trial.

"DHS did not comply with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act when it concluded the new regulation would impose no 'new or additional costs' on employers. This is clearly wrong," says Robin Conrad, executive vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's National Litigation Center, which filed its own lawsuit to stop the DHS rules.

"At the very minimum, employers would have to expend significant amounts of time and effort simply to understand the regulation and to train their human resource professionals on how to handle no-match letters when they are received," he says.

Despite Chesney's decision, employers will have to eventually deal with the illegal immigrant situation in some way, shape or form, experts say.

Jacob Monty, managing partner of the Houston law firm Monty Partners, says the judge's decision, while offering a reprieve for employers, probably will not stop the DHS' efforts to deal with the illegal-immigrant situation.

"It's a step, and it buys some time," says Monty, whose firm is the largest Hispanic-owned firm in the Southwest. "But whether it's Oct. 2 or Dec. 30, employers are going to have to deal with the mismatched Social Security numbers issue.

"The decision is welcomed from an employer's point of view," he says, "but is the lawsuit going to carry the day and abrogate the no-match rule? I'd say no."

Monty Partners has developed a niche by advising companies on employee eligibility and hot-button immigration issues. For example, Monty Partners employs 25 former INS/ICE (the DHS enforcement arm) officers who perform mock audits for clients, reviewing stacks of employment documentation to point out any bogus SSA numbers and other immigration violations.

Monty explains that, at the very least, the DHS rules provide some standards in the effort to manage the illegal-immigrant situation, and also offers employers a "safe harbor" provision, which is better than what exists right now.

"There are many onerous aspects to the DHS rules, but one bit of good news is the safe-harbor provision," he says. It means if an employee says he or she can't get a mismatched SSA number resolved for any number of legitimate reasons (such as new legalized status), an employer can accept that reason, as long as they verify it. The safe harbor is they have shown good faith in trying to get the match-letter situation resolved.

"On the other hand, comprehensive immigration reform is still needed, and document counterfeiters will still work this system," Monty adds. "Smart employers should be focusing on these new match rules."

Rebecca Sigmond, a partner and head the immigration practice at Powell Goldstein LLP, in Atlanta, says her main advice to employers is to stay mindful of this regulation, because something is going to happen eventually on the immigration front.

"We've always suggested that clients be proactive checking Social Security numbers anyway," Sigmond says. "Social Security ID is ripe with fraud, as the cards are so easily reproducible. Five out of every 10 people with mismatched numbers are using fraudulent documents."

Elena Park, a partner and the immigration practice chair at Cozen O'Connor, a Philadelphia law firm, says that while the Judge's ruling does not alter an employer's strategies in managing the illegal alien situation per se, she strongly believes that the DHS no-match regulation would likewise would have done nothing to help employers manage the illegal alien situation.

She also feels that that the no-match regulation is contrary and outside the scope of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

"It expands the definition of 'constructive knowledge' in the statute, and flies in the face of reality," she says. "A mismatch letter from the SSA has virtually nothing to do with a person's immigration status. A request for green card sponsorship says nothing about the person's current status. Therefore, to state that employers have constructive knowledge of an employee's illegal status if confronted with these two circumstances is itself illegal."

For now, Park, who advises Fortune 500 clients, says employers need to continue to do their best to make sure their employees are legal.

"The judge's ruling maintains the status quo," she says. "So employers can continue to determine the proper steps and timeline as fits the particular situation or the employer's policy.

"In the end, I believe the final outcome will be that the court will permanently block the regulation, or the Bush administration will change the wording of the regulation in an attempt to circumvent any judicial bar," Park says.

Copyright 2007© LRP Publications

EXCLUSIVE: INVASION USA: WHO IS SELLING HIGH-TECH SECURITY VISAS ON MEXICAN BLACK MARKET?
Exclusive: Invasion USA: Who is Selling High-Tech Security Visas on Mexican Black Market?

Author: Jim Kouri, CPP
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: September 17, 2007

FSM Contributing Editor Jim Kouri reports on an issue that we should have known would happen: Mexican black market interference in our high tech visas. The question is: who is responsible? The government of Vincente Fox or Mexican organized crime cells?

United States immigration and State Department officials fear that their newly developed, high-tech visas are being sold on the Mexican black market. The US government hoped the newly designed visas would help in curtailing rampant illegal immigration at the Mexican border, but investigators believe many of them are being bought or rented by Mexicans seeking illegal entry into the US.

Well over 11,000 of these Laser Visas, issued to Mexicans for legitimate travel into the United States were reported stolen or "lost" in just two border cities. Government officials claim this is a 15 percent jump from previous figures.

The ATM card-sized documents, which include the legal holder's photograph and scanned fingerprints, were actually developed for use in 1998 hopefully to increase security and standardize documents used by Mexicans to cross the border since so many different types of documentation made the screening process cumbersome and confusing.

"While many may have been legitimately 'lost,' it seems probable that quite a few are either 'stolen' or 'reported stolen' in order to sell them," a U.S. consular official, who declined to be named, told Reuters.

"There appears to be a healthy market for both buying and renting laser visas on the border," she added.

Mexicans call these visa cards "Micas," which allow bearers to cross into the US without other supporting documents. The card also allows them to travel up to 25 miles inside California or Texas and they may remain in the US up to 30 days.

According to figures provided by Reuters, 8,745 of the border crossing cards went astray last year in Ciudad Juarez, south of El Paso, Texas, and 3,095 in Tijuana, opposite San Diego, California. No figures were available for other cities along the 2,000-mile border.

The problem got so bad that the US Embassy in Mexico City revamped its visa policy late last year, but did not inform anyone of the mounting problem. The embassy now replaces "lost" or stolen cards with stickers placed inside passports hope this will curb the illegal market of the laser cards.

The paradox is that in an effort to beef up security at the Mexican border using state-of-the-art technology, the US may have made it even easier to compromise that very security.

Also, the US is getting zero help from the Fox government in Mexico City during the course of investigations. While not speaking "on the record," off the record some US law enforcement people believe elements within the Mexican federal and local governments are assisting in the diversion of legitimate visas.

While US authorities say they possess no concrete evidence that organized Mexican human trafficking rings overseeing the illicit trade are using these cards, many security experts believe there are several organizations trafficking in this document.

But Tijuana police claim most of the stray visas are sold by cash-strapped holders to human traffickers in the gritty industrial city of 2 million people, on a widely used route for Mexican illegal immigrants headed for the Californian border.

Recently, seven illegal aliens from Mexico were arrested for allegedly operating a fraudulent document ring in Chicago's "Little Village" area. The organized crime enterprise generated approximately $2.5 million a year.

Found inside the residence was equipment used for making fake government documents, including: five high-speed computers, printers, ID card printers, scanners, laminating pouches, foil strips with security features, dozens of counterfeit identification cards, and other document-making paraphernalia. The estimated value of the seized items is approximately $10,000; the street value of the software is believed to be about $100,000.

Law enforcement commanders throughout the US believe that there are similar operations being conducted by