N.Y. NINTH STATE TO GIVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS LICENSES

Corruption Chronicles
September 24, 2007

New York's Democrat governor has proudly announced that illegal immigrants can obtain drivers' licenses in his state, a policy that clashes with a 2005 federal law requiring proof of legal status in the U.S. to get state identification cards or licenses.

New York's new rule, a landmark victory for the state's estimated half a million illegal aliens, eliminates a decades-old proof of citizenship requirement to get a license. New York joins eight other states

(Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Utah, Oregon and Washington)

that do not require drivers to prove legal status in the country to obtain a license.

The exemptions for illegal immigrants contradict a 2005 federal law passed at the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to establish minimum standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards. Created to enhance the security and integrity of the state-issued cards, the Real ID Act specifically requires states to verify applicants' identity and lawful status in the United States.

New York officials claim that granting illegal immigrants a license to drive is necessary to protect public safety since hundreds of thousands of undocumented, unlicensed and uninsured drivers are on the state's roads contributing to accidents and often fleeing from them. They believe that putting those illegal aliens into the system will help enhance law enforcement efforts.

Governor Eliot Spitzer calls it a common sense change that deals practically with the reality that undocumented immigrants live among us. Allowing them the opportunity to obtain a driver's license in a responsible and secure manner will certainly help increase public safety, according to the governor.

Spitzer predicts that roads will be safer because he chose to confront the situation rather than bury his head in the sand and pretend the problem doesn't exist. The problem, according to Spitzer, is that too many drivers are unlicensed and uninsured simply because they do not have a Social Security number. Not that they are in the country illegally.

This is smart. The results will be more drivers will be insured and the other result will be more drivers trained on our streets and trained in our traffic laws rather than driving without ever passing a drivers test in this country.

FEDERAL LAWSUIT FILED IN NEW YORK CHALLENGING IMMIGRATION RAIDS ON HOMES AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Higher Education News
by Associated Press
Sep 23, 2007, 15:46

Immigration authorities violated Hispanic families' civil rights by raiding their homes without court warrants, sometimes bursting in before dawn to look for people who didn't live there, according to a federal lawsuit.

The suit was filed Thursday on behalf of 15 people including seven U.S. citizens who say their suburban homes were raided earlier this year.

Arguing that the raids violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, the suit seeks unspecified damages and a halt on the home raids until Immigration and Customs Enforcement develops legal guidelines for them.

Mark Thorn, an ICE spokesman, said the agency does not comment on pending lawsuits.

According to the lawsuit, a program dubbed Operation Return to Sender dispatched armed federal agents to homes in search of illegal immigrants thought to have lingered after being ordered to leave the country. But the people sought often weren't there and couldn't "reasonably" have been expected to be, the lawsuit said.

In one case, authorities raided a home in East Hampton on Long Island around 4:30 a.m. on Feb. 20 in search of a man who had moved out in 2003, according to the lawsuit. The family still living there were U.S. citizens, except for a child who is a legal resident awaiting naturalization.

"Because the immigrant communities are afraid to publicly challenge these home raids, they've been getting away with it," said Foster Maer, an attorney with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

--Associated Press

© Copyright 2007 by DiverseEducation.com

SCHIP INVADED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? HOUSE VOTES TODAY.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 12:36 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

With the House set to vote today to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) has found a new reason to hate the bill. Illegal immigrants.

All of Georgia's Republican congressmen voted against a similar bill in August that would have added at least $35 billion to the program, known locally as PeachCare, despite the program's success and popularity at home. The vote today is on a compromise bill worked out by House and Senate negotiators

Taking their lead from President Bush, Georgia GOPers argue that SCHIP is a first step toward socialized medicine, a wild expansion of governmental powers and no longer doing what it was designed to do a decade ago.

Just hours before the House vote Tuesday, however, Deal warned his fellow congressmen in a "Dear Colleague" letter that the "deeply flawed" Democratic SCHIP bill would allow illegal immigrants to enroll in SCHIP and Medicaid at the cost of $3.7 billion over the next decade.

How would these illegal immigrants get into the program? Simple. A provision in the bill allows potential enrollees to show only a Social Security card - not documents proving citizenship - when they apply at the state level to get in the programs.

"While I am a strong supporter of the SCHIP program, I simply cannot vote for a bill that flagrantly encourages illegal aliens to break our immigration laws and fraudulently enroll in taxpayer-funded public assistance programs," Deal wrote.

'HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS PROTEST DROPPING OF 'LA CUCARACHA' COMIC

By E&P Staff
Published: September 25, 2007 10:50 AM ET

NEW YORK A number of readers are upset about the Houston Chronicle dropping "La Cucaracha" from its print edition.

"Encouraged by the strip's creator, Lalo Alcaraz, along with the League of United Latin American Citizens, supporters started a campaign to get us to restore 'La Cucaracha' to our comics' lineup," wrote Chronicle Readers' Representative James T. Campbell.

The Chronicle replaced Alcaraz's Universal Press Syndicate comic with "Arctic Circle" by Alex Hallatt of King Features Syndicate, but kept "La Cucaracha" on the Chron.com Web site.

"You replaced a comic with biting commentary on the political and social scene with a strip about penguins? I'm disappointed beyond words," said a reader quoted by Campbell. "I have always found 'La Cucaracha' to be humorous, while also socially relevant .... I can only hope that like the L.A. Times, you have enough sense to return 'La Cucaracha' to the print edition of the Chronicle."

Campbell wrote that the comic's "political slant was never the issue; objectionable content was. Editors often had to call the syndicate editor and request that the strip be modified, or that a substitute be sent because the strip's language was offensive to some readers generally, but some Latinos as well." He also noted that the Chronicle previously dropped the conservative "Mallard Fillmore" (by Bruce Tinsley of King) from its print edition.

"The Chronicle is aware of the city's Latino population," continued Campbell. "We offer several Spanish-language publications, and we have not cowered away from reporting on immigration rights and other issues important to the Latino community (some readers accuse us of pandering to Latinos)."

And Campbell concluded: "It's not my call to make as to whether 'La Cucaracha' will be returned to the print edition."

Alcaraz could not be immediately reached for comment this morning by E&P.


E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

FB SEEKS NAMES, ADDRESSES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS

SOME SUSPECT REQUEST LINKED TO ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAWS

12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, September 25, 2007
By KATHERINE LEAL UNMUTH
The Dallas Morning News
kunmuth@dallasnews.com

Attorneys representing the city of Farmers Branch have asked the Carrollton-Farmers Branch school district for the names and addresses of every child living in the city and enrolled in public schools.

City Manager Gary Greer said the City Council directed him to make the request on Sept. 11. Council members are not elaborating much on why they asked for the information.

"When we were discussing stricter code enforcement in our meetings, some of the council members asked if our city attorney could get those statistics from the school districts," Mayor Bob Phelps said. "I assume that's what it's for."

City code calls for a minimum sleeping area in single-family homes of 70 square feet per adult and an additional 50 square feet for each additional adult occupant. Each child must have an area of at least 35 square feet. Apartment ordinances allow two people per bedroom plus one additional person.

Some social activists say illegal immigrants tend to crowd into too little space in apartments and houses, creating unsanitary or dangerous conditions.

Presumably, a list of student names and addresses would provide information about how many children live at an address.

Another reason could be the city's research into the possibility of creating its own charter school or private school as an alternative to the school district.

Dr. Annette Griffin, school superintendent, said more than 100 requests come in each year for so-called student directory information from colleges, the armed forces, the media and from companies who want to develop mailing lists.

Dr. Griffin said she does not recall the city ever asking for student names and addresses in the past.

"I really don't know why they would want that information or what they would want to do with that," she said.

School districts and other governmental bodies are allowed to assess clerical fees for gathering information under the state open records act.

The school district has sent a bill to the city's attorney and is awaiting a response before turning over the information.


Not talking

Farmers Branch City Council member Tim O'Hare has become the public face of those in the city who oppose illegal immigration. He did not return phone calls for this story.

Mr. O'Hare has speculated that enforcement of ordinances banning illegal immigrants from renting apartments might cause school enrollment to change.

A judge has put enforcement of those ordinances on hold, and this year's enrollment in the Farmers Branch portion of Carrollton-Farmers Branch public schools remained steady at 3,853. An estimated 26,302 students attend district schools.

The student body is overwhelmingly Hispanic, classified as economically disadvantaged and limited in English proficiency.

Council member Tim Scott, whose child attends a Farmers Branch school, said the city's request for student names and addresses was a simple one: "Don't read too much into it."

Mr. Scott is generally seen as Mr. O'Hare's ally on immigration issues.

"The request was made just to get an idea of where the students are in Farmers Branch and what students we have in Farmers Branch," he said. "It's just about gathering information. There's no real mystery here. We just wanted to know if the kids are in the schools."

He said the request is designed to lead to improvement of educational opportunities in the city.

Some children in Farmers Branch attend Dallas public schools. Mr. Greer, the Farmers Branch city manager, said he intends to make the same open records request to Dallas ISD

Dallas and Irving city officials said they don't ask their school districts for such information.


Speculation

School board member Frank Shor said the City Council clearly wants more than statistics because it's asking for names and addresses.

"I believe it could have something to do with the immigration issue," said Mr. Shor, who pointed out that the state's open records law does not allow the school district to ask the city why it wants the names and addresses.

"If that question is not being answered by the folks asking for the information, my skeptical mind causes me to think they're not proud of their motivation."

City Council member Jim Smith said the topic came up in a discussion several weeks ago.

"Somebody said, 'I'd like to know how many kids that live in Farmers Branch go to the school district,' " he said. "I don't know what the purpose would be, why we would want a list of kids."

The city is still in litigation over the ordinances banning illegal immigrants from apartment occupancy.

Hector Flores, immediate past president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the city's request concerns him because the information could be used for profiling and selective use of code enforcement.

"It seems very highly unusual in the racially charged atmosphere that prevails in Farmers Branch for the city and their lawyers to be asking for information about children that reside in that community," he said.

"What wrong have these children done to deserve this – because they're Hispanic and their parents might be here without any documents? Shame on those that would retaliate against children."


School rating affected?

The 1982 Plyler vs. Doe Supreme Court ruling guarantees illegal immigrant children the right to a free public education. That case originated from a Texas law that had denied free public education to such children.

Mr. O'Hare has said ordinances directed at illegal immigrants were motivated, in part, by his concern about the impact of immigration on public schools. He has said increased dropout rates and a focus on teaching English to Spanish-speaking children hold other children back.

On his blog, Mr. O'Hare blamed illegal immigrants for the district's recent drop in rating from recognized to academically acceptable. It fell because of the performance of Hispanic students on the TAKS science test.

He also criticized the district for making itself "attractive" to immigrants through the programs it offers.

Tension between the city government and the school district dates back more than 10 years. Back then, city officials accused the district of segregating poor Hispanic children in Farmers Branch schools.

The school district has maintained it is committed to neighborhood schools.

School board member James Goode, who has advocated for better education for Farmers Branch children, said he hopes the city wants the student names and addresses for positive reasons, such as funding more programs.

"I have no earthly idea of what they're trying to do," he said.

FARMINGTON HILLS

LOVE CAN'T CONQUER IMMIGRATION

Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Laura Berman

Jeremy Tracy loves his wife. He loved her when he met her three years ago at the Novi restaurant where they both worked.

He loved her when he was working armed security at a Detroit Pizza Hut and she stayed up and cooked dinner for him at 2 a.m. He loved her needlework -- she liked to embroider -- and her careful personal habits (no smoking, no drinking). She went to church. She read books.

When he lost the security job, she supported him with her earnings at Capital Billing Systems in Farmington Hills, where her employer Diane Amendt describes Puro Tracy as "one of the best workers I've ever had. Everyone here dearly loved her."

Her desk is waiting for her.

Her husband is waiting for her.

Homeland Security officials handcuffed her in June at the Detroit headquarters of the Citizenship and Immigration Service, as she tried to renew her work visa. Her husband had stepped outside to smoke a cigarette. "When I came back in," he says with bitterness, "she was gone."

Since June, she's been living at the Calhoun County Jail, which leases space for detained illegal immigrants.

New rules

Puro Tracy left her native Indonesia in 1998, after riots in Jakarta that singled out the nation's ethnic Chinese for arson, looting and rape. She was 20, and by the time she understood the rules about filing for political asylum, the law had changed and she'd missed the one-year deadline.

In 2005, as immigration became a hot issue, she lost her bid to stay in the United States. But she got a work visa, a job she excelled at, and an American husband who believes she loves him as much as he loves her.

"Just about any woman could find somebody richer than me," says Jeremy Tracy, who has a straightforward way of looking at life. He thinks of his wife as "the perfect American girl, if it weren't for a few technical details."

Always, she kept working and paying her taxes. After her work visa expired last Dec. 14, she tried without success to get it renewed. But officials didn't tell her she would be deported or that the order of removal was still in force -- instead, they encouraged her to reapply, which she did.

But Jeremy's lawyer believes it's likely that authorities encouraged her to visit the downtown office as a ruse to arrest her.

"They're interfering with my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness," says Jeremy Tracy, who works at Cafi Sushi in Troy as a cook. He's lost 20 pounds and his life-savings since June.

Awaiting deportation

After 90 days in jail, she has exhausted her legal remedies, short of a full-scale court appeal -- which Jeremy Tracy cannot afford.

Now her taxes, and yours, are paying for her room and board at a Battle Creek jailhouse, for the administrative work of coordinating her deportation with the Indonesian government.

Everyone agrees that Puro Tracy is just the kind of person this country needs: Hard-working, resourceful, educated, and law-abiding. "We empathize with her," says Greg Palmore, a spokesman for Homeland Security's immigration office. "The crux of this is that a final order of removal has been issued."

She's going to be shipped back to Indonesia, where Muslim extremists have made life precarious for Christians and Americans.

"I'll go with her if I have to," says Jeremy Tracy. He doesn't understand why so many dollars, so much energy, is being spent to rid the United States of the hard-working, English-speaking, taxpaying wife of an American citizen.

But then, who would?

SUPPORTERS: CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW!!!

IMMIGRATION DEBATE ROILS ANEW

By: Carrie Budoff Brown
Sep 25, 2007 05:59 AM EST


As the Senate prepares to vote on an immigration measure this week, senators are being forced back into politically treacherous territory on the controversial question of amnesty. In many ways, the debate is a mini-version of the free-for-all that consumed the doomed comprehensive bill in June.

Legalization opponents and supporters are picking up where they left off earlier this year, flooding congressional offices and Internet blogs with talking points on the latest legislation.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) has been trying for years to stitch together a bipartisan coalition for a narrower measure that he calls the DREAM Act. It would give illegal immigrants who were brought to the country at 15 years old or younger "” and have remained here for at least five years "” a path to citizenship if they go to college or enter the military.

"The fundamental premise," Durbin said on the floor last week, "is that we shouldn't punish children for the mistakes their parents made. That isn't the American way. The DREAM Act says to these students: America is going to give you a chance. It won't be easy, but you can earn your way into legal status."

Durbin is offering the measure as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, in part because it could ease strains on military recruiting.

An opponent of the most recent comprehensive bill, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), signed on as a co-sponsor last week, joining Sen. **** Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and a dozen Democrats.

But with anti-immigration groups calling the amendment "amnesty on the installment plan," passage is far from assured in a chamber that operates on a 60-vote threshold.

NumbersUSA, the group that helped derail the comprehensive bill that would have offered legal status to the existing 12 million illegal immigrants, posted on its website a tally of its "anti-amnesty champions." So far, 21 senators have signaled to NumbersUSA that they will oppose the amendment. The group is looking for 20 more senators to block it.

"If you were to pass another amnesty, you would only encourage more illegal behavior because it is seen as a reward," said Caroline Espinosa, a spokeswoman for NumbersUSA, which claims credit for more than 260,000 faxes sent by its supporters to Congress in the past week.

Proponents of the measure dispute the amnesty argument, saying it applies only to illegal immigrants who have been in the country for five years at the time of the bill's enactment.

The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan organization, estimates that 360,000 undocumented students would become immediately eligible for conditional legal status. An additional 65,000 could be added to the pool annually, the group found.

Like previous battles, advocates on both sides of the issue have been pressing Congress, blasting e-mails to supporters and asking them to contact senators. The office of Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), one of the members being targeted by both sides, reported a spike in calls starting last Monday.

The Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform attempted to counter its opponents, pleading with members in an e-mail last Tuesday: "We need your calls beginning NOW, before senators get the idea (again) that they only hear from anti-immigrant constituents, and that they should play it safe and vote against the amendment."

N.J., RIVERSIDE

TOWNS RETHINK LAWS AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

By KEN BELSON and JILL P. CAPUZZO
Published: September 26, 2007

RIVERSIDE, N.J., Sept. 25 "” A little more than a year ago, the Township Committee in this faded factory town became the first municipality in New Jersey to enact legislation penalizing anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.

Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled. The noise, crowding and traffic that had accompanied their arrival over the past decade abated.

The law had worked. Perhaps, some said, too well.

With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.

Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town's already tight budget. Suddenly, many people "” including some who originally favored the law "” started having second thoughts.

So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.

"I don't think people knew there would be such an economic burden," said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. "A lot of people did not look three years out."

In the past two years, more than 30 towns nationwide have enacted laws intended to address problems attributed to illegal immigration, from overcrowded housing and schools to overextended police forces. Most of those laws, like Riverside's, called for fines and even jail sentences for people who knowingly rented apartments to illegal immigrants or who gave them jobs.

In some places, business owners have objected to crackdowns that have driven away immigrant customers. And in many, ordinances have come under legal assault by immigration groups and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In June, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a housing ordinance in Farmers Branch, Tex., that would have imposed fines against landlords who rented to illegal immigrants. In July, the city of Valley Park, Mo., repealed a similar ordinance, after an earlier version was struck down by a state judge and a revision brought new challenges. A week later, a federal judge struck down ordinances in Hazleton, Pa., the first town to enact laws barring illegal immigrants from working or renting homes there.

Muzaffar A. Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonprofit group, said Riverside's decision to repeal its law "” which was never enforced "” was clearly influenced by the Hazleton ruling, and he predicted that other towns would follow suit.

"People in many towns are now weighing the social, economic and legal costs of pursuing these ordinances," he said.

Indeed, Riverside, a town of 8,000 nestled across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, has already spent $82,000 defending its ordinance, and it risked having to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees if it lost in court. The legal battle forced the town to delay road paving projects, the purchase of a dump truck and repairs to town hall, officials said. But while Riverside's about-face may repair its budget, it may take years to mend the emotional scars that formed when the ordinance "put us on the national map in a bad way," Mr. Conard said.

Rival advocacy groups in the immigration debate turned this otherwise sleepy town into a litmus test for their causes. As the television cameras rolled, Riverside was branded, in turns, a racist enclave and a town fighting for American values.

Some residents who backed the ban last year were reluctant to discuss their stance now, though they uniformly blamed outsiders for misrepresenting their motives. By and large, they said the ordinance was a success because it drove out illegal immigrants, even if it hurt the town's economy.

"It changed the face of Riverside a little bit," said Charles Hilton, the former mayor who pushed for the ordinance. (He was voted out of office last fall but said it was not because he had supported the law.)

"The business district is fairly vacant now, but it's not the legitimate businesses that are gone," he said. "It's all the ones that were supporting the illegal immigrants, or, as I like to call them, the criminal aliens."

Many businesses that remain are having a hard time. Angelina Guedes, a Brazilian-born beautician, opened A Touch From Brazil, a hair and nail salon, on Scott Street two years ago to cater to the immigrant population. At one point, she had 10 workers.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Challenge in Connecticut Over Immigrants' Arrest (September 26, 2007)

City Room Blog
The latest news and reader discussions from around the five boroughs and the region.

Go to City Room » Business quickly dried up after the law against illegal immigrants. Last week, on what would usually be a busy Thursday afternoon, Ms. Guedes ate a salad and gave a friend a manicure, while the five black stylist chairs sat empty.

"Now I only have myself," said Ms. Guedes, 41, speaking a mixture of Spanish and Portuguese. "They all left. I also want to leave but it's not possible because no one wants to buy my business."

Numerous storefronts on Scott Street are boarded up or are empty, with For Sale by Owner signs in the windows. Business is down by half at Luis Ordonez's River Dance Music Store, which sells Western Union wire transfers, cellphones and perfume. Next door, his restaurant, the Scott Street Family Cafe, which has a multiethnic menu in English, Spanish and Portuguese, was empty at lunchtime.

"I came here looking for an opportunity to open a business and I found it, and the people also needed the service," said Mr. Ordonez, who is from Ecuador. "It was crowded and everybody was trying to do their best to support their families."

Some have adapted better than others. Bruce Behmke opened the R & B Laundromat in 2003 after he saw immigrants hauling trash bags full of clothing to a laundry a mile away. Sales took off at his small shop, where want ads in Portuguese are pinned to a corkboard and copies of the Brazilian Voice sit near the door.

When sales plummeted last year, Mr. Behmke started a wash-and-fold delivery service for young professionals.

"It became a ghost town here," he said.

Immigration is not new to Riverside. Once a summer resort for Philadelphians, the town became a magnet a century ago for European immigrants drawn to its factories, including the Philadelphia Watch Case Company, whose empty hulk still looms over town. Until the 1930s, the minutes of the school board meetings were recorded in German and English.

"There's always got to be some scapegoats," said Regina Collinsgru, who runs The Positive Press, a local newspaper, and whose husband was among a wave of Portuguese immigrants who came here in the 1960s. "The Germans were first, there were problems when the Italians came, then the Polish came. That's the nature of a lot of small towns."

Immigrants from Latin America began arriving around 2000. The majority were Brazilians attracted not only by construction jobs in the booming housing market but also by the presence of Portuguese-speaking businesses in town. Between 2000 and 2006, local business owners and officials estimate, more than 3,000 immigrants arrived. There are no authoritative figures about the number of immigrants who were "” or were not "” in the country legally.

Like those waves of earlier immigrants, the Brazilians and Latinos triggered conflicting reactions. Some shopkeepers loved the extra dollars spent on Scott and Pavilion Streets, the modest thoroughfares that anchor downtown. Yet some residents steered clear of stores where Portuguese and Spanish were plainly the language of choice. A few contractors benefited from the new pool of cheap labor. Others begrudged being undercut by rivals who hired undocumented workers.

On the town's leafy side streets, some residents admired the pluck of newcomers who often worked six days a week, and a few even took up Capoeira, the Brazilian martial art. Yet many neighbors loathed the white vans with out-of-state plates and ladders on top parked in spots they had long considered their own. The Brazilian flags that flew at several houses rankled more than a few longtime residents.

It is unclear whether the Brazilian and Latino immigrants who left will now return to Riverside. With the housing market slowing, there may be little reason to come back. But if they do, some residents say they may spark new tensions.

Mr. Hilton, the former mayor, said some of the illegal immigrants have already begun filtering back into town. "It's not the Wild West like it was," he said, "but it may return to that."

ILLINOIS

U.S. SUES ILLINOIS TO LET EMPLOYERS USE IMMIGRANT DATABASE

NY Times
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: September 25, 2007

The Bush administration sued the State of Illinois yesterday, hoping to block a new state law that bars employers from using a federal database to verify that immigrant job applicants are in the United States legally and are authorized to work.

With the suit, officials said, the administration is going on the offensive in the courts in response to cases intended to stall a crackdown on illegal immigration that the federal authorities announced last month.

"We will vigorously contest any effort to impede our enforcement measures," the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, said yesterday in a telephone interview.

The suit, brought by Mr. Chertoff's department, seeks to stop Illinois from putting into effect a law that forbids employers from enrolling in the federal worker verification database program.

The program, formerly known as Basic Pilot, was renamed E-Verify last month.

Under the Illinois statute, the ban would remain until Washington certifies that the databases used to verify workers' eligibility are 99 percent accurate.

Supporters of the law say the Social Security Administration and Homeland Security Department databases used to confirm eligibility are riddled with errors and could result in the denial of jobs to legal workers, including citizens.

The law, which passed with bipartisan support, was signed by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich on Aug. 13 and is to take effect on Jan. 1.

Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, did not comment yesterday, because he reportedly had not had a chance to read the suit. A spokeswoman for him, Abby Ottenhoff, said he had signed the bill because he "concurred with the General Assembly that the system now leaves too much room for mistakes and abuse."

Ms. Ottenhoff said lawmakers had determined the verification program had a 50 percent accuracy rate and was slow, taking up to 10 days to respond to employers.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court for the Central District of Illinois, argues that the state statute is unconstitutional because it pre-empts federal laws that established the worker verification program, beginning in 1996.

The program compares job applicants' identity information against the Social Security and immigration databases. Illegal immigrants often present false names or Social Security numbers when seeking work.

The program, which functions in all states, remains voluntary for most employers. The suit says 22,200 employers are enrolled in the system, which handled 2.9 million inquiries from employers in the current fiscal year.

"We want to be sure that employers can participate without being punished by the state," Mr. Chertoff said. "We don't want them to be guinea pigs" in a legal test between conflicting federal and state laws.

With the defeat of a broad immigration bill in the Senate in June, Mr. Chertoff said, "Congress said, ˜We want you to enforce the law first,' " before measures could be considered to give legal status to illegal immigrants.

The Illinois law was supported by business and labor organizations. "We have no problem with the program, but the program needs to be accurate," said Tim Bell of the Chicago Workers' Collaborative, which helped pass the statute.

Immigration officials said they would begin a system today within the verification program to allow employers for the first time to compare applicants' photographs against pictures in immigration agencies' records.

Last month a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily held up a new federal rule that would have forced employers to dismiss illegal immigrants after 90 days.

FELLOW ACADEMICS QUESTION VALIDITY OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION STUDY


SDSU professor John Weeks presents a report on the costs of illegal immigration to county supervisors, including Bill Horn (left), who spearheaded the project. Photo: Sam Hodgson

voiceofsandiego.org
By Rob Davis
Voice Staff Writer
Sept. 26, 2007

Despite several caveats and estimates, a San Diego State University report about the costs of illegal immigrants on San Diego County's government pegged the annual tab at $101 million.

But when SDSU demographics professor John Weeks presented his calculation to the county's Board of Supervisors Tuesday, the number got twisted. Supervisor Bill Horn, who has campaigned on an anti-illegal immigration platform, said the money was being stolen out of taxpayers' pockets.

Supervisor Pam Slater-Price said the number was the result of a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis that weighed both the positives and negatives that undocumented immigrants bring to the region. She blamed "a couple of news accounts" for saying the $40,000 study had ignored immigrants' positive contributions to the economy.

Horn and Slater-Price were both wrong, even by the professor's own admission.

"Whether or not there is a net cost or gain is the subject of debate," the report states. "... It is probably impossible to ever know the exact impact of undocumented immigrants."

Weeks' study had a specific target: Figuring out how much illegal immigrants cost the county in 2006. The county performed 42 autopsies on immigrants who died while crossing the border. It provided health care to pregnant women in the country without papers. It immunized preschoolers for influenza.

The study estimated how much those services cost, but ignored the benefits that illegal immigrants bring, such as inexpensive labor, payroll taxes and sales tax revenue. And the study ignored those benefits because supervisors didn't ask for them to be analyzed. The report provided a limited view of illegal immigration's local effects.

While county taxpayers may see some of their property taxes diverted to paying for illegal immigrants, those same taxpayers reap benefits elsewhere. Many immigrants pay into Social Security but do not receive it; they spend money in local businesses; they have payroll taxes withheld.

"It's misleading," said Gordon Hanson, director of the Center on Pacific Economies at University of California, San Diego. "No economist wants to know just what the impact on the revenue side is. You want to know what the net impact is."

With an academic analysis in hand, the supervisors had an authored study they said they would take to Washington to bolster their case for getting an increase in federal reimbursements.

Weeks defended the scope of his analysis, which he completed with the assistance of David Eisenberg, a former Chula Vista police officer.

"We were not asked to address the benefits," Weeks said. "We did what the county asked us to do."

Professors at universities across the region said that before accepting the contract, Weeks could have more carefully considered who was requesting the study and how the findings would be used and potentially manipulated. Weeks could have insisted on a broader analysis, they said, or simply passed on the job.

"Good university researchers are not good German soldiers -- only following orders," said Steve Erie, a UCSD political science professor. "Your reputation is the single most important thing that you have. I certainly would never have taken that county contract under the terms offered. Particularly from Bill Horn. You already know what conclusions he wants you to reach. That's not research. That's using the university, contaminating the brand name. You don't do that."

For college professors throughout the region, consulting jobs provide a sometimes lucrative income source outside the classroom. Some professors choose to spend more time teaching; others seek out contractual work for government agencies, economic development groups and businesses. UCSD permits its faculty to do consulting one day a week during the academic year; summers can be devoted to contract work.

Richard Carson, a UCSD economics professor, has worked with several federal and state agencies on contract. He has analyzed the economic impact of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and other environmental disasters. Carson said his reputation allows him the luxury of choosing what contracts he takes on.

"A lot of times they'll walk," he said of government agencies. "They either want to keep too much control or they won't put in enough money. I'm in the enviable position that I don't care if they walk. But a lot of people need the money more."

Sponsored By


Carson said professors should be wary of political minefields when taking on contract work. But many aren't, he said, because they assume the work is legitimate.

"It's a sad thing if he got himself used," Carson said. "It's a worse thing for the public if a nontrivial amount of money was spent to make a political point. He's done just enough stuff in the immigration area that I suspect he should've been a little more cognizant of what's going on."

James Gerber, an SDSU economics professor and director of the school's Center for Latin American Studies, said he was disappointed in his colleague's study. He said the analysis sheds little light on the economic impacts of illegal immigrants and instead reveals "that people are pissed off about immigration and the county is trying to leverage that in some way."

"The other lesson of this is that we're all *****s," Gerber said. "Academicians are like anyone else. If there's a good payday ahead for doing some analysis, a lot of people will go for it regardless of how it subtracts from or contributes to a debate."

Other academics said they'd give Weeks the benefit of the doubt. David Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at University of San Diego, said he wouldn't judge Weeks or his study. Shirk said he had not seen the analysis, but spoke generally about the subject.

"If you want to make conclusions with one half of the equation, you're going to get a result that doesn't reflect reality," Shirk said. "But don't blame the researcher necessarily. Blame the people who commissioned the study."

Shirk said academics do not need to be neutral. They may inevitably choose sides as they inform themselves about the world around them, he said.

"That's fine," he said. "But when academics are bought and sold by political interests -- that presents real hazards."

Please contact Rob Davis directly with your thoughts, ideas, personal stories or tips. Or send a letter to the editor.

VIRGINIA

DETENTION FACILITY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS POSSIBLE

A 1,000-bed detention facility for immigrants who have committed low-level crimes is among the possibilities for Virginia lawmakers looking to combat illegal immigration.

BY HUGH LESSIG | 804-225-7345
4:31 PM EDT, September 25, 2007

A state task force will consider recommending that Virginia build a detention center of up to 1,000 beds to hold illegal immigrants who have committed low-level crimes and await deportation.

The proposal discussed Tuesday is among several ideas in play as lawmakers explore ways to address this volatile issue when the General Assembly convenes in January.

Other ideas include improving ways to collect data so lawmakers have an accurate head count of illegal immigrants and forming regional anti-gang task forces in all areas of the state.

The Virginia State Crime Commission's Illegal Immigration Task Force did not vote on the proposals Tuesday. When it does, the endorsed ideas will go to the full commission, which makes recommendations to the General Assembly, which convenes in January.

The project would hinge on federal funding. U.S. immigration authorities would have to agree to pay a per-day rate that would cover construction and operating costs.

Still, Virginia would be the first state in the nation to build such a center, said Sen. Ken Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who introduced the idea and is considered influential on matters of public safety.

Stolle said the people held at such a center would not be dangerous criminals. They end up behind bars now and then are deported. Instead, it would cover illegal immigrants who commit lesser offenses and cannot be held in prison for long periods simply to wait for federal authorities to deport them.

"These would be for people like domestic violence, low-level drug dealers, driving under the influence of alcohol, he said. "We haven't come up with a list of violations yet."

CONNECTICUT, DANBURY



ICE

CHALLENGE IN CONNECTICUT OVER IMMIGRANTS' ARREST

By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: September 26, 2007

Nine day laborers are expected to file a federal lawsuit today challenging the legality of a sting operation in Danbury, Conn., last year that led to their arrest on immigration charges.

Those plaintiffs, and a tenth man whose traffic stop for a noisy m-u-f-f-ler resulted in his deportation to Ecuador, contend that their arrests were illegal and part of a campaign based on racial profiling. They also say that the city of Danbury, its mayor, Mark D. Boughton, and its police chief acted to enforce federal immigration law without authority.

At a time when towns across the country are wrestling with how to deal with illegal immigrant residents, and when day laborers are often a flash point of conflict, the lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges to local crackdowns.

According to the complaint, on Sept. 19, 2006, a Danbury police officer posing as a contractor drove an unmarked van belonging to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to a park in downtown Danbury where day laborers, many from Ecuador, gather. Pretending to offer $11 an hour to demolish a fence, the officer transported 11 would-be workers to a fenced-in lot where they were arrested, handed over to federal immigration agents and eventually placed in deportation proceedings.

Mr. Boughton said yesterday that the local police had only provided "logistical support" to federal immigration agents during the operation. Calling the lawsuit, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the Yale law clinic, "a fishing expedition," he said the police would provide similar support at the request of any federal law enforcement agency.

In 2005, Mr. Boughton had pushed Connecticut to have State Police officers deputized as federal immigration agents. But Gov. M. Jodi Rell refused to pursue that proposal.

The complaint, expected to be filed today in United States District Court in New Haven, contends that Mr. Boughton encouraged the Danbury police to try to enforce civil immigration law anyway, either unilaterally or by conspiring with federal agents.

"In their frustration with the arrival of new immigrants to Danbury, Mayor Boughton and the Police Department have taken the law into their own hands," the complaint charges.

Along with Mr. Boughton and the Danbury police chief, Alan D. Baker, nine agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are named as defendants in the court papers.

The plaintiffs charge that they were arrested without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The suit also contends that the arrests violated the First Amendment because they were calculated to silence the laborers' expression of their availability for work in a traditional public forum, and to chill the speech of other day laborers who now avoid the park for fear of arrest.

"Looking at a group of day laborers and assuming that they are undocumented is a form of racial profiling," said Geri Greenspan, one of the law students working on the case with Michael Wishnie, a Yale law professor.

Robert Myles, a Danbury police captain and spokesman for the chief, said disagreement over local immigration enforcement was not unique to Danbury. "It's happening across the country," he said. "It's just going to play out till the courts make a decision one way or another."

Nine jurisdictions around the country, including Massachusetts and Arizona, have deputized local or state law enforcement officers as federal immigration agents under a federal program known as 287G. At least 30 other jurisdictions have applications pending. In a speech in May, President Bush encouraged such federal and local partnerships as a way to increase enforcement, and vowed to seek a 10-fold increase in the program's $5 million budget.

At the same time, many police departments have opposed joining the program, saying it will hurt criminal law enforcement efforts by making immigrants more fearful of dealing with the police to report crime.

Students at the Yale law clinic have been litigating for months under freedom of information laws to obtain government documents relating to the Danbury arrests, Ms. Greenspan said. Federal immigration agents have maintained that the arrests were initiated by the Danbury police, she said, while Danbury officials insist that it was a federal operation.

None of the day laborers arrested had an outstanding order of deportation, the lawsuit says, and immigration officers involved in the operation were not looking for a fugitive at the Danbury park, which might have provided a rationale for a federal immigration operation.

According to the police incident reports filed at the time, the day laborers were arrested by the police at 7 a.m. on a charge of entering the country illegally, a federal misdemeanor. Connecticut law does not authorize local Danbury police to make warrantless arrests for federal misdemeanors, Ms. Greenspan said, and the officers had no evidence of illegal entry into the country.

In the case of the 10th plaintiff, Danilo Brito Vargas, the lawsuit charges that his arrest in February was part of a pattern of police stopping Hispanic drivers on the pretext of minor traffic infractions, then investigating the immigration status of the drivers through the National Crime Information Center database, and arresting them for civil immigration violations.

"Nothing we do is pretextual," countered Captain Myles. "We see a violation, we'll stop it and take it from there. If the computer comes up with a hit that someone's illegal, we'll respond to that hit, and we'll check with the agency it came from, whether it be federal or state."

Michael Gilhooly, a spokesman for the federal immigration agency, said the agency had not seen the complaint. But he added: "Immigration Customs Enforcement conducts all of our operations lawfully and in full accordance with ICE policies and procedures."

Joint Statement by Faith Community Leaders regarding Immigration:

"IN THE LIGHT OF LOVE"

A joint statement signed by:

Most Rev. Wilton D. Gregory, Catholic Archbishop of Atlanta
Plemon Tauheed El-Amin, Imam, the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam
Rabbi Scott Saulson of Atlanta
The Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta

For more information, please contact:

Patricia M, Chivers, Communications Director, Archdiocese of Atlanta, pchivers@archatl.com, 678-480-6865 or Susan Sullivan, Director, Parish & Social Justice Ministries, Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of Atlanta, 404-885-7208, ssullivan@archatl.com


"IN THE LIGHT OF LOVE"

ENGLISH

As people of faith with a strong belief in individual human dignity - regardless of race, language or place of birth - we are concerned about the callous and hateful perspective of many of the loudest voices heard lately around immigration issues.

Our concern includes constant reference to men, women and children in derogatory terms that seem to dismiss their, and our own, humanity and to justify any proposed mistreatment or punishment.

Defaming, diminishing and dismissing newcomers as less than human strikes us as neither very faith-filled nor very American. Our concern is with family, civic and faith values.

If we are to treat others as we would like to be treated, if we believe that mercy will be measured out to us even as we measure it out to others, it seems important to look at forgiving those who once violated the unworkable immigration laws of our country.

These are people who, lacking a "line to stand in," crossed the border at great peril, or who have stayed here on an expired visa, or who have joined family members while waiting a decade or more for immigration documents to be processed. These are people who are taking risks to work for a better life for themselves and their families in a new land. Legal status in civil law is important, but it is not a final measure of humanity.

It is not a great leap to consider divine law, about "loving the stranger" (Deut. 10:19), "you shall not wrong or oppress the stranger, for you were once strangers" (Ex. 22:21), and "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" (Matt. 25:35).

We are not suggesting that the United States must not act to secure its borders. Nor do we believe that the failed Senate legislation was without major flaws and inadequacies in such areas as family reunification and temporary workers.

We are remembering that most of our ancestors, under a much simpler immigration policy of generations ago, made the voyage to the United States. Some arrived in iron shackles; others shared the dream of a better future for themselves and their families. Insulting nicknames were coined and phrases such as "yellow horde," and "Irish need not apply" were common. Racism and bigotry led to actions which still stain our national history. Such wounds take much time and effort to heal.

Our blaming newcomers for long-standing problems of health care, education and employment, our denigrating those who may look and sound different from us, does not make us stronger or safer - it diminishes us.

We accept the labor of the desperate, the suffering of separated families, the taxes and the purchasing power of millions of people. It is wrong to say those same people may not be accorded basic human rights and protections or to deny that they are essential to our economy and our future.

May God forgive us even as we forgive others. Forgiveness has always been a value at the very core of the major faith traditions. It is the mutual path to healing.

Let us open our hearts with the hope of finding solutions that are best for our nation, for our world, for our souls, and for the future of our children who are listening so intently to this lesson.

We are sowing the future with our words and our actions in the vast field of our global neighborhood. We will reap what we sow. May God help us.

********

ESPANOL

********

"EN LA LUZ DEL AMOR"

Una declaración conjunta firmada por:

Reverendísimo Wilton D. Gregory, Arzobispo Católico de Atlanta

Plemon Tauheed El-Amin, Imam, Masjid de Al-Islam de Atlanta

Rabino Scott Saulson de Atlanta

Reverendo J. Neil Alexander, Obispo Episcopal de Atlanta

Como personas de fe con un fuerte respeto por la dignidad humana - sin importar la raza, el idioma o el lugar de nacimiento - estamos preocupados por la cruel e infame perspectiva de muchas de las voces más enérgicas que últimamente se escuchan opinando sobre temas de inmigración.

Nuestra preocupación incluye la referencia constante a hombres, mujeres y niños en términos peyorativos que parecen desestimar su humanidad, y la nuestra, y que pretenden justificar cualquier propuesta de maltrato y castigo.

Calumniar, subestimar y descartar a los recién llegados como si no fueran humanos no nos hace ver como seres llenos de fe, ni como buenos estadounidenses. Nuestra preocupación incluye los valores familiares, cívicos y espirituales.

Si creemos que debemos ser tratados como nos gusta que nos traten; si entendemos que recibiremos la misma compasión que nosotros tengamos con los demás; sería importante perdonar a aquellos que violaron las caducas leyes inmigratorias de nuestro país.

Estas son personas, quienes a falta de "una fila para esperar", cruzaron la frontera corriendo grandes riesgos, o quienes se quedaron aquí después de que su visa expiró, o quienes se han reunido con su familia después de esperar una década o más hasta que sus documentos inmigratorios sean procesados. Esta gente toma riesgos para trabajar y conseguir una vida mejor para ellos y sus familias en una nueva tierra. El estatus legal es importante, pero no es una medida definitiva de humanidad

No es necesario dar un gran paso para considerar leyes divinas como: "amar a los extrañjeros" (Deut. 10:19), "no perjudicarás ni oprimirás a un extranjero, pues tú fuiste uno alguna vez" (Ex. 22:21), y "yo fui un desconocido y tú me diste la bienvenida" (Mat. 25:35).

No estamos sugiriendo que Estados Unidos no debe actuar para proteger sus fronteras. Pero, reconocemos que la legislación que fracasó en el Senado tenía fallas mayúsculas y vacíos en áreas como reunificación familiar y trabajadores temporales.

Recordamos que la mayoría de nuestros ancestros, hicieron el viaje a Estados Unidos hace muchas generaciones bajo una política inmigratoria mucho más sencilla. Algunos llegaron en grilletes de hierro cuando otros no compartían sus sueños de un futuro mejor para ellos y sus familias. Sobrenombres insultantes fueron acuñados y frases como "horda amarilla" e "irlandeses no se molesten en aplicar" eran comunes. El racismo y la intolerancia desembocaron en hechos que aún manchan nuestra historia nacional. Heridas semejantes toman mucho tiempo y esfuerzo en sanar.

Culpar a los recién llegados por antiguos problemas del sistema de salud, de educación o de empleo y denigrar a quienes lucen o suenan diferente a nosotros, no nos hace más fuertes ni más seguros - nos menoscaba a nosotros.

Aceptamos la mano de obra de los desperados, el sufrimiento de las familias separadas, los impuestos y el poder adquisitivo de millones de personas. Es equivocado decir que esa misma gente no merece derechos humanos básicos y protección, así como negar que son esenciales para nuestra economía y nuestro futuro.

Que Dios nos perdone como nosotros perdonamos a otros. El perdón siempre ha sido un valor fundamental de las tradiciones de toda religión mayor. Es el camino mutuo a la sanación.

Abramos nuestros corazones con la esperanza de encontrar las mejores soluciones para nuestro país, el mundo, nuestras almas y para el futuro de nuestros hijos, quienes están escuchando atentamente esta lección.

Estamos sembrando el futuro con nuestras palabras y nuestras acciones en el vasto campo de un vecindario global. Cosecharemos lo que sembramos. Que Dios nos ayude.

About Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO)

GALEO is a 501 (c) (6) statewide nonprofit and non-partisan organization providing a voice for the growing Latino population in Georgia, and providing a framework for collaborative and proactive legislative initiatives for Georgia's Hispanic community.

IMMIGRATION PANEL SHIES FROM PUSH FOR POLICE TO MAKE ARRESTS



By TIM MCGLONE, The Virginian-Pilot
© September 27, 2007

When a state task force on illegal immigration began meeting earlier this year, senators and delegates trumpeted the need for a law enforcement crackdown.

But missing from the Illegal Immigration Task Force's recommendations issued Tuesday were proposals to give local police more authority to arrest illegal immigrants.

After five months of meetings, legislators realized they had two problems: Federal law preempts states from enforcing most immigration laws, and police departments don't want to alienate immigrant communities.

"Our major objective was to figure out what we could do and couldn't do," said Sen. Ken Stolle, R-Virginia Beach and the task force co-chairman. "The legal debate was very enlightening."

The task force determined that it could not recommend forcing police departments to enforce federal immigration law or even require officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone they encounter.

The task force did, however, recommend that jail officials ask incoming inmates about their immigration status and report suspected undocumented individuals to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A panel study found that one-third of jail administrators were not making such inquiries.

If the recommendations become law, Stolle said, Virginia will have taken "the most aggressive stance" on illegal immigration in the nation, Stolle said. Still, it's far less than what was being talked about earlier.

A proposal to require all sheriff's departments to be trained in immigration procedures died from a lack of support from ICE, which told the task force it could not afford the program.

Some legislators on the panel talked tough at earlier meetings, chastising police officers who testified that they often promise illegal immigrants that they won't be reported to immigration authorities. Officers who work in immigrant communities say it's more important to obtain trust so that crimes will be reported and witnesses will cooperate, even if someone is in the country illegally.

The task force learned that local police are prohibited from enforcing federal law and that states are barred from passing their own immigration laws.

Stolle said panel members such as Reid remain frustrated by the federal government's inability to respond effectively to the problem, mainly because ICE is woefully underfunded and understaffed.

"I think the most important thing to come out of the task force is the recognition that immigration law is the responsibility of the federal government," Tim Freilich, legal director for the Charlottesville-based Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers, said Wednesday.

Freilich and other immigrant advocates urged the panel over the past five months not to alienate a migrant work force that forms the backbone of Virginia's economy by filling jobs unwanted by U.S. citizens.

Instead, Virginia should focus its attention on employers who abuse and exploit foreign-born workers, Freilich said.

Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com

SENATE TEMPORARILY SIDELINES IMMIGRATION LEGALIZATION BILL

DEMOCRATS VOW TO PASS MEASURE AIDING 1 MILLION YOUTHS

By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
Sept 26, 2007 10:33 p.m.

WASHINGTON "” The prospects for immediate Senate action on the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants, disappeared Wednesday amid Republican opposition.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledged that senators would vote on the the measure, which is strongly opposed by anti-illegal immigration groups, before the Senate finishes its work for the year in mid-November.

"All who care about this matter should know that we will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here," he said.

Sen. **** Durbin, D-Ill., had sought to attach the DREAM Act to the defense authorization bill. But Reid announced Wednesday night that Democrats were shelving the effort because of difficulties getting past legislative roadblocks.

"Unfortunately, some Republicans are opposed to this proposal and are unwilling to let us move forward on this bill," Reid said.

'Issue doesn't stop here'

Durbin and immigrant rights advocates were dismayed by the setback but vowed to find other means to pass the legislation, which they have sought since 2001.

"There is no question that this issue doesn't stop here," said Cecilia Muñoz, senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza. "The longer we wait, the more talented young people we close the door of opportunity to."

The bill "” officially the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act "” would allow illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before the age of 16, and who have lived here at least five years, to receive conditional legal status if they have graduated from high school and have a clean record. After six years, they could become permanent legal residents if they serve in the U.S. military for at least two years or complete at least two years of college. As with most green card holders, they could apply for citizenship after five years.

The nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute estimates that slightly more than 1 million high school graduates and children still in class could gain legal status under the legislation.

60 votes needed

With conservatives being barraged with calls, faxes and e-mails from anti-illegal immigration groups that view the DREAM Act as amnesty, some Republicans who supported the measure in the past have been reluctant to do so now. Durbin needed 60 votes to surmount an expected filibuster.

Some Senate Republicans, including Texans Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, objected to the measure being brought up on a defense bill.

"Putting extraneous things on this bill isn't helpful," Hutchison said.

Other Republicans aren't ready to revisit a debate that imploded in June when the Senate scuttled an overhaul endorsed by the White House that would have given most illegal immigrants a chance for legal status.

"People, I think, want to let the immigration thing cool off a bit before we jump back in," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who helped derail the comprehensive immigration bill.

Josh Bernstein, federal policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, predicted DREAM Act supporters eventually will prevail.

"The politics is right and the commitment is there," Bernstein said. "We're not giving up."

michelle.mittelstadt@chron.com

Immigration/Minuteman


Border War Over Immigration Comes to U.S. MidwestCritics say the MCDC group is a racist band of vigilantes patrolling the Mexican border with guns and intimidation.

Reuters

A routine city hall appointment threatens to turn Kansas City into a new front in the U.S. debate over illegal immigration, even though the closest Mexico border crossing is hundreds of miles (kilometres) away.

Anger has been simmering among Hispanic leaders since the summer, when newly elected Mayor Mark Funkhouser appointed Frances Semler, a dues-paying member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), to the city's parks and recreation board.

Critics say the group is a racist band of vigilantes patrolling the Mexican border with guns and intimidation.

"The Minuteman is an extremist group ... espousing hate and sometimes violence," said Janet Murguia, chief executive of The National Council of La Raza, the largest U.S. Hispanic advocacy group.

The Minutemen, who count about 9,000 members nationally and have a stated mission of helping apprehend "those who violate our borders," counters that it wants only to uphold the law. It says opponents are the ones promoting hatred and law-breaking.

The group is now seizing on the appointment controversy to increase its visibility in the Midwest, promising to make Kansas City the site of a winter leadership meeting and a public education "open house" on immigration concerns.

"Kansas City is going to become a hotbed and centerpoint for the issue in the near term," said MCDC spokesman Bryan Rudnick.

The group's Midwestern chapters are already among the fastest-growing in the United States, according to MCDC president Chris Simcox.

Membership has been given a boost by growing worries that illegal immigrants are crowding out jobs and resources in heartland areas and from rumors of a Mexico-to-Canada "superhighway" that will pass through Kansas City.

IMMIGRATION ISSUE

There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. How to deal with them and others seeking to come in has become a divisive issue for Americans and a key topic for contenders for president in the November 2008 election.

This week's battle in Washington over legislation that would grant permanent legal status to students under certain conditions is only the latest proposal that has outraged those seeking stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

La Raza and other ethnic organizations are threatening to boycott Kansas City by canceling conventions unless the mayor removes Semler -- a move the mayor has refused.

"It's a pickle," said Kendrick Blackwood, a spokesman for Funkhouser. "I'm optimistic that we're going to find some way to work through this."

Semler, who joined the Minuteman group in December because of frustration with a lack of enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, said she has been vilified in smear campaigns on the Internet and elsewhere. But she has no intention of backing away from the group.

"I feel very strongly about enforcing the law," she said.

The furor has left city and business leaders frustrated.

"I'm concerned about our image nationally," said city councilwoman Jan Marcason, who fears the controversy makes the metropolitan area of 2 million people look like a "right-wing extremist community."

"The border of Kansas and Missouri is not in jeopardy," Marcason said. "It is odd that they feel like they should even be here."

Another GREAT POST, explora !!
I think this is a FINE idea. I would vote for this (if I were able to do so)! I think more states should follow. And if and when these detention facilities are no longer needed to house these illegals, I'm sure the states would be able to utilitze them for other purposes !

"Other ideas include improving ways to collect data so lawmakers have an accurate head count of illegal immigrants and forming regional anti-gang task forces in all areas of the state."

How nice it would be IF there was a PUBLISHED list of the illegal immigrants which are presently in custody OR already deported ! There are so many people here in the USA who do not realize that there are SO many illegals ... right in their own back yard ![b] If they knew this...they might do something more about it !

[b]Federal Funding ...That shouldn't be an issue, since the U.S. distributes millions of dollars to other causes like it was nothing! I believe the government needs to focus more on helping and protecting our own.

quote:

Originally posted by explora:
VIRGINIA

DETENTION FACILITY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS POSSIBLE

A 1,000-bed detention facility for immigrants who have committed low-level crimes is among the possibilities for Virginia lawmakers looking to combat illegal immigration.

BY HUGH LESSIG | 804-225-7345
4:31 PM EDT, September 25, 2007

A state task force will consider recommending that Virginia build a detention center of up to 1,000 beds to hold illegal immigrants who have committed low-level crimes and await deportation.

The proposal discussed Tuesday is among several ideas in play as lawmakers explore ways to address this volatile issue when the General Assembly convenes in January.

Other ideas include improving ways to collect data so lawmakers have an accurate head count of illegal immigrants and forming regional anti-gang task forces in all areas of the state.

The Virginia State Crime Commission's Illegal Immigration Task Force did not vote on the proposals Tuesday. When it does, the endorsed ideas will go to the full commission, which makes recommendations to the General Assembly, which convenes in January.

The project would hinge on federal funding. U.S. immigration authorities would have to agree to pay a per-day rate that would cover construction and operating costs.

Still, Virginia would be the first state in the nation to build such a center, said Sen. Ken Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who introduced the idea and is considered influential on matters of public safety.

Stolle said the people held at such a center would not be dangerous criminals. They end up behind bars now and then are deported. Instead, it would cover illegal immigrants who commit lesser offenses and cannot be held in prison for long periods simply to wait for federal authorities to deport them.

"These would be for people like domestic violence, low-level drug dealers, driving under the influence of alcohol, he said. "We haven't come up with a list of violations yet."

SETBACK FOR "DREAM ACT" STUDENT IMMIGRATION BILL

By Eunice Moscoso | Thursday, September 27, 2007, 01:40 PM

The Senate will not vote on legislation known as the DREAM Act this week after an attempt to attach it to a large defense spending bill failed.

Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, is the chief sponsor of the measure which would give young illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they complete two years of college or join the military.

Durbin said late Wednesday: "I am disappointed that the Republican leadership has blocked my efforts to offer the DREAM Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, despite the fact that it would help to solve the military's recruitment crisis."

But he also said that Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised a vote on the DREAM Act by Nov. 16.

"This narrowly-tailored bipartisan legislation will allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential and ambitions to contribute to our nation's security and future," Durbin said.

WITH LESS THAN 24 HOURS UNTIL MYERS CONFIRMATION VOTE, MCCASKILL'S REQUESTS FOR INFORMATIONN STILL UNANSWERED

All American Patriots
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 15:14 "” newsdesk

September 25, 2007 -- WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill has made repeated requests for the number of prosecutions of employers who hire illegal immigrants during the tenure of Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Julie Myers. When McCaskill suggested at Myers's confirmation hearing on September 12th that her vote hinged on obtaining the statistics, Myers said she would provide the information at a later date. With less than 24 hours before the scheduled committee vote, McCaskill is still waiting.

"Frankly, I don't understand how the person responsible for immigration enforcement can tout her record of going after employers who hire illegal immigrants, but not have a shred of proof that a single employer has gone to jail even for a day," McCaskill said.

Six days after the Myers hearing, McCaskill sent a letter formally requesting the information Myers had promised during the hearing. Shortly thereafter, staff at ICE indicated during verbal conversations with McCaskill's staff that the information would require significant time to obtain. Therefore, McCaskill asked that the committee to delay the vote on Myers's confirmation until adequate information had been supplied.

McCaskill also asked for the total number of persons charged criminally as a result of ICE workplace enforcement actions at the hearing on September 12th. Myers confirmed at that time that there had been a total of 716 arrests made during fiscal year 2006, including illegal immigrants and any alleged arrests made of employers. Friday, McCaskill requested that Myers turn over the names of those individuals, so McCaskill's staff could try to determine if any employers had been charged. ICE has yet to provide that basic information as well.

McCaskill continued, "I've been more than patient. Information about a case in Missouri was requested this past summer. My staff gave ICE time to come up with statistics about employer arrests before the hearing two weeks ago. We even asked for the names Ms. Myers cited in her hearing so that we could attempt to investigate these cases ourselves. Still, nothing. This is unacceptable."

Specifically, McCaskill has asked for the number of employers who, as a result of ICE's workplace enforcement actions, were arrested in 2007, served jail time in 2007, or were fined in 2007. She also requested similar statistics for the entire Bush Administration.

Source: Senator Claire McCaskill