FIRMS BRACE FOR CRACKDOWN ON ILLEGAL LABOR

wsj.com
By MIRIAM JORDAN
October 1, 2007; Page A3

As a crucial hearing looms on a planned government crackdown on illegal immigrants in the workplace, many businesses are scrambling to figure out how they will cope with an expected loss of illegal labor.

A U.S. district court in San Francisco could decide as early as today whether the Social Security Administration can send out thousands of "no match" letters to employers whose workers' names don't jibe with their Social Security numbers. The notices would be accompanied by letters from the Department of Homeland Security outlining new penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

"¢ What's Happening: A court in San Francisco could rule as early as today on a program that cracks down on hiring of illegal immigrants.
"¢ Under the Program: Employers who receive notice that workers' Social Security numbers don't match their names would be required to fire such workers once their status was exposed, or risk fines.
"¢ Employers Say: Small businesses don't have the resources to sort out problem cases. In some industries, they say losing large numbers of workers could prompt them to close operations.
"¢ The Government Says: The rule doesn't impose an expense, and some businesses want to avoid liability for hiring undocumented workers.The program, if put into effect, is expected to pose tough choices for many business owners, particularly in industries such as agriculture, construction and food service, which rely heavily on illegal workers. Employers would be required to fire such workers once their status was exposed, or risk fines.

The Bush administration prepared the crackdown after Congress failed to pass an immigration bill that would have legalized the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. At least eight million illegal laborers are believed to work in U.S. jobs.

The work-site program was supposed to roll out in September with the mailing of 140,000 no-match letters to employers. But the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit alleging the new policy could lead to discrimination against or firing of native-born U.S. workers and legal immigrant workers. The program was delayed when a federal judge in August blocked the new policy until questions about its legality had been addressed. The hearing that opens today is aimed at clarifying this.

The new program puts employers on notice that they can no longer look the other way regarding illegal workers. If an employer receives a no-match letter on a particular worker, the company has 90 days to certify that worker's legal status; otherwise, the worker's employment must be terminated. Companies that violate the policy would face what Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has called "stiff penalties or sanctions" higher than the fines of up to $2,200 a worker in place today.

Already, many companies are bracing for a hit -- particularly small businesses that say their survival could be at stake. Those businesses say the new enforcement places a disproportionate burden on them, subjecting them to costly and time-consuming record keeping by reducing productivity even if only a handful of workers are affected. Some businesses in industries such as agriculture and construction are talking about shutting down or moving their operations abroad.

"The typical small company is not equipped to be the nation's immigration police," says Todd McCracken, president of the National Small Business Association, which represents about 65,000 small companies. "A small-business owner can't just give no-match letters to human resources to sort out."

In early September, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several trade groups representing small businesses that employ low-skilled immigrants joined the lawsuit. Among others, the United Fresh Produce Association, the National Roofing Contractors Association and the Association of Nursery and Landscapers allege the Department of Homeland Security failed to perform a financial-impact assessment, as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to measure the impact of the new rule on small businesses.

"This is a hollow argument coming from businesses who want to avoid liability for employing unauthorized workers," said a Department of Homeland Security spokesman. "The rule does not impose an expense for employers."

In the $1.2 trillion construction industry, at least one-third of the work force is undocumented, according to an estimate by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industry experts believe the actual figure is much higher: Last year alone, nearly half of new construction workers were Hispanics who had arrived in the U.S. since 2000.

The impending crackdown generates everything "from concern to utter panic among roofing contractors," says Craig Silvertooth, director of federal affairs for the National Roofing Association, based in Chicago, representing 4,300 businesses. "There is no way to run your business if this goes forward."

In agriculture, about 70% of all workers are illegal immigrants, according to independent estimates, and an existing guest-worker program supplies less than 2% of the work force required each year.

Most illegal immigrants work for bona fide businesses and are hired and paid like other workers on the payroll. To get work, the immigrants normally obtain a fake Social Security card with a made-up nine-digit number. The fake cards are peddled in immigrant neighborhoods.

When the illegal immigrants are hired, their employers don't know whether the documents are authentic. A company thus hires workers, puts them on the payroll and withholds necessary taxes. The unauthorized workers, who receive a paycheck regularly, pay into Social Security but can't draw benefits.

Social Security has been mailing no-match letters for decades, but employers haven't been held accountable for workers who failed to address discrepancies. In fact, employers have been advised not to take any adverse action against an employee based exclusively on the letter. "There has been no definitive legal obligation to take action," says Angelo Paparelli, an immigration lawyer with offices in New York and Irvine, Calif., who is advising several concerned businesses.

"Employers have to be held accountable if they are given clear notice of the fact that they may be hiring illegal aliens," Mr. Chertoff said in announcing the new crackdown. Mr. Chertoff added that about 4% of the 250 million wage reports received by Social Security each year show no matches.

Maureen Torrey, former chairwoman of United Fresh Produce and a farmer in upstate New York, says she provides W-2 forms for all her employees and withholds taxes on their earnings. She has received no-match letters in the past: 375 of her 400 workers are Hispanics, and she figures some are in the U.S. illegally.

The new rule is pushing many farmers to consider extreme options. "You've got to comply," says Mrs. Torrey, who runs Torrey Farms in Elba, N.Y. "We move our farm operations to another country or just sell out." Some U.S. farmers have already been investing or subcontracting in other countries such as Mexico.

The owner of a small California manufacturer that has 120 employees and subcontracts for the U.S. government foresees having to fire about 15% of her work force. "Because of the role they play and the tight labor market, it is probable that we would go out of business," said the woman, who spoke on condition that neither her name nor that of her company be cited.

Some observers hope the legal challenge to the administration's latest enforcement efforts will revive congressional action on immigration. In the meantime, the policy could drive more immigrants to seek jobs in the off-the-books economy, where they have fewer legal protections from employment abuses.

Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com

ITAA TO CONGRESS: CUT A CHECK FOR REAL ID NOW

09/25/07 -- 05:12 PM
Washington Technology
By Alice Lipowicz

The Information Technology Association of America wrote to lawmakers yesterday urging approval of $50 million in immediate funding to help states implement the Real ID Act.

Separately, an industry analyst predicted that Real ID would be implemented more slowly than originally anticipated.

Under the Real ID Act, which Congress approved in 2005, states must conform to new national guidelines on collecting, verifying, storing and publishing personal information for driver's licenses, and on sharing that information with other states. The act has stirred up controversy over whether the databases can be made secure enough to reduce identity theft and to protect privacy. The Homeland Security Department expects to issue final rules next month.

The Real ID Act is a major contracting opportunity, with anticipated production of more than 200 million ID cards along with readers, enrollment centers, and supporting IT systems. Estimated costs are $11 billion over five years.

The House included $50 million for Real ID in the Homeland Security Department appropriations bill for fiscal 2008. The Senate considered, but failed to pass, an amendment that would have provided $300 million for Real ID.

The ITAA wrote to House and Senate conferees for the DHS spending bill asking that the $50 million be retained in the final version of the bill.

"Appropriating $50 million would signal a clear recognition by Congress that the federal government must be a full partner with the states in implementing Real ID," ITAA President Phil Bond said in a news release.

The ITAA also cited a survey in which 82 percent of adults generally would be in favor of new rules and regulations for state-issued driver's licenses or identification card designed to help prevent terrorism, identity theft and other crimes.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Grant, senior vice president for Stanford Group Co. research firm in Washington, said in a statement released Monday that he is lowering near-term estimates for spending associated with implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005.

Grant said he based his prediction on delays anticipated both from Congress not passing the DHS appropriations bill quickly, resulting in a longer time in releasing the anticipated $50 million in early fiscal 2008 and from DHS taking longer than expected in releasing $37 million in previously appropriated fiscal 2006 grant money to states for Real ID.

Furthermore, Grant wrote, DHS appears likely to adopt a slower pace for Real ID implementation than what was originally proposed in a March 2007 draft.

"Numerous sources suggest that DHS has settled on mandating a phased approach, focusing first on higher-risk individuals under age 40, followed by the rest of the population. It could drag on for 8-10 years," Grant wrote in an analysis.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/outsidelink.html...u/urn-3:FHCL:1136234


Immigration to the United States, 1789-1930, is a web-based collection of selected historical materials from Harvard's libraries, archives, and museums that documents voluntary immigration to the US from the signing of the Constitution to the onset of the Great Depression.

Immigration has profoundly influenced the character and the growth of the United States. Its salient themes"”including acculturation, nativism, racism and prejudice, homesteading, and industrialization"”and the policies governing it are illustrated in the online collection.

Concentrating heavily on the 19th century, Immigration to the United States, 1789-1930, includes approximately 1,800 books and pamphlets as well as 9,000 photographs, 200 maps, and 13,000 pages from manuscript and archival collections. By incorporating diaries, biographies, and other writings capturing diverse experiences, the collected material provides a window into the lives of ordinary immigrants. For example:

Images from Harvard's Social Museum, which was established in 1903 by Harvard professor Francis Greenwood Peabody, illustrate "problems of the social order" related to the rapid influx of immigrants.
Original manuscript and archival materials"”ranging from records of the Immigration Restriction League to the papers of New Jersey librarian Jane Maud Campbell (1869-1947)"”document the plight of newly arrived immigrants.
In addition to thousands of items that are now accessible to any Internet user, the collection includes contextual information on voluntary immigration and quantitative data. The site also provides links to related digital resources that cover other aspects of immigration to the US, including vital materials on the African diaspora.

Immigration to the United States, 1789-1930, is part of Harvard's Open Collections Program, through which the University offers online access to resources from Harvard's libraries to benefit students and teachers around the world. The goal is to create a new model for digital collections that will benefit the Harvard community and the general public alike.

Immigration to the United States, 1789-1930, is made possible with the generous support of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

B]JUDGE DEELAYS RULING ON ILLEGAL LABOR[/B]

By JULIANA BARBASSA – 6 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) "” A U.S. government plan to crack down employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants was delayed again on Monday as a federal judge said he needed more time to issue a ruling.

The Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security were to send joint letters in September warning businesses they'll face penalties if they keep workers whose Social Security numbers don't match their names.

The restraining order was necessary in the meantime because "it's clear ... there could be irreparable harm to plaintiffs" if the government went ahead with its plan as it stands, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said.

The new rule would require businesses to sort out any Social Security mismatches within 90 days of being notified by the government or to fire the employee involved.

The government has 140,000 such letters ready to go as soon as the judge grants permission, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree said.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, which include the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and numerous other business and labor groups, claim the rule would put a heavy burden on employers.

It also could cause many authorized immigrants and U.S. citizens to lose their jobs over innocent paperwork snafus, they said. Employers who were trying to comply with the government's mandate could in turn be exposed to discrimination lawsuits brought by employees who got wrongfully terminated.

The plan, unveiled in August, is an example of a government agency overstepping its jurisdiction, said ACLU attorney Lucas Guttentag.

"The Department of Homeland Security does not have the authority to hijack the Social Security Administration's data for immigration enforcement," Guttentag said. "We believe this rule is a massive violation of the law."

Immigration control advocates, meanwhile, remained hopeful the judge would see this rule as they do "” as a late, but welcome effort to enforce immigration laws that have been on the books, but overlooked for years.

"It's those people who want to continue to use cheap, illegal labor that do not want this rule enforced," said Rick Oltman, with Californians for Californians for Population Stabilization.

Hosted by Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

IMMIGRANTS TIPPING CONGRESSIONAL SCALES
CALIFORNIA, OTHER BORDER STATES COULD BENEFIT IN HOUSE

By Mike Swift
Mercury News
Article Launched: 10/02/2007 01:30:48 AM PDT

Illegal immigration is channeling political clout to California and other border states from the Northeast and Midwest, according to a new report that predicts that California's undocumented population will account for two of its 53 seats in Congress following the 2010 census.

Congressional seats have been migrating south and west for decades, as a result of the Sunbelt's rapid population growth. But the new report by a University of Connecticut demographer is an early take on how the nation's growing population of illegal immigrants would amplify that trend when seats in the House of Representatives are next divided up. It could foreshadow a partisan political fight over the results of the 2010 census.

While illegal immigrants can't vote, the report says their growing numbers are affecting the nation's political balance because they are counted in the once-a-decade census. That population tally determines how seats in the House of Representatives are split among the states and is also used to distribute more than $180 billion in federal aid each year.

The Connecticut report predicts that Arizona, Texas and Florida will all hold additional seats in Congress after the next census, in part because of their illegal immigrant populations. California and New Jersey would keep their current amount of seats in the House under the current system. Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana and Ohio will each have one fewer seat than they would otherwise have

because they have relatively few undocumented immigrants. New York, which would lose two seats under the current system, would lose only one if illegal immigrants were excluded.

With the nation's population of unauthorized immigrants growing by about 500,000 a year, the report says illegal immigration is concentrating the power of voters in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, which have more seats in Congress per legal resident than many states where the number of illegal immigrants is much smaller.

"It's a balance of power," said Orlando Rodriguez, the demographer with the Connecticut State Data Center who wrote the report. "If you look at it, if the undocumented population is included, then you get a real shift in seats from the Northeast to the South and the Southwest, and it's a disproportionate shift because the people who are included in the count, not all of them vote."

The dilution of the principle that every voter has an equal voice in the nation's political life is one ramification of the immigration issue, say Rodriguez and immigration experts.

"That does raise pronounced fairness and democracy questions," said Steven Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., which favors reductions in immigration. "Politics in this way is a zero-sum game, and you can argue that legal immigrants should be represented, but it's tougher to say that illegal immigrants should be represented. Most people in the country, I think, would say that is unfair."

Bill reintroduced

One Michigan congresswoman reintroduced legislation this year - a similar proposal several years ago went nowhere - that would change the apportionment of Congress to count only citizens. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution mandates that Congress be apportioned "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

"Michigan is being outpaced by states that are growing because of heavy illegal immigration, and these states are being rewarded with more representation in Congress at our expense," Rep. Candice Miller, R-Michigan, said in introducing her bill.

California would appear to have the most to lose if the apportionment of seats in the House were changed so it was based only on citizens. According to Rodriguez's projections, California - which has one quarter of the nation's estimated 11.6 million undocumented immigrants - would be the only state to lose two seats if that population was not counted.

The nation's population of unauthorized immigrants has grown by 37 percent since the last census, according to the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics. California has about 2.8 million unauthorized immigrants, about 1.2 million more than Texas, the state with the second-highest total.

Illegal immigration is only one part of what many experts predict will be a bruising partisan fight over the results of the next census, as Republicans and Democrats jockey to use the census for their political advantage, through apportionment and redistricting of seats in Congress and the state legislatures.

The voters may choose their representatives on Election Day, but to a degree, "the politicians choose the voters," said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, a non-partisan analysis of the state's congressional and legislative elections, who predicts the battle over the 2010 census "is going to be, to put it mildly, one helluva fight."

The U.S. Census Bureau is mandated to count everyone living within the borders of the United States. Experts question whether it would be feasible for the census to determine the immigration or citizenship status of more than 300 million people.

Statistical adjustment

But one key issue after the 2000 census that is likely to be debated again after 2010 is whether the count should be adjusted to reflect groups the census tends to miscount more frequently, including immigrants.

That question was expected to trigger a huge dust-up after the 2000 census, but the fight was muted after the net error in the 2000 count turned out to be less than in 1990. Because the census is more likely to miss categories of people who tend to live in Democratic strongholds - racial minorities, renters and immigrants - Democrats tend to advocate statistical adjustment.

The census tends to over-count people more likely to be Republican - whites and affluent people, for example - meaning the GOP tends to oppose adjustment for legislative redistricting or congressional apportionment. Because the census count is closely tied to housing units, people who own more than one home are more likely to be counted more than once, experts say.

"You can assume there will be a big brouhaha over congressional reapportionment, as well as state redistricting, in 2011," said Bill Cavala, a longtime Democratic redistricting expert in the state Legislature.

Quinn, who says counting illegal immigrants benefits Democrats because it increases population totals in Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles, said any attempt to change that law would trigger a pitched battle.

"Anytime you want to change something with election law, the first question everybody asks is, who is benefited?" he said.

But Rodriguez, the Connecticut demographer, said illegal immigration actually may strengthen the GOP at the national level.

Because there are fewer legal residents per House seat in Texas, Arizona and Florida, illegal immigrants boost voter clout in those Republican-leaning states.

"It's incredibly ironic," he said. "I'm not taking a political position here, but you are in a sense disproportionately shifting control of the House to the Republican side, and giving them more weight than the Democratic side."


Contact Mike Swift at mswift@mercurynews.com or (408) 271-3648.

INCREASED ENFORCEMENT DISRUPS DRUG SUPPLY FROM MEXICO, WHITE HOUSE SAYS

By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 2, 2007; Page A09

MEXICO CITY, Oct. 1 -- Mexico's crackdown on drug cartels and stepped-up U.S. border enforcement have disrupted the flow of illegal drugs and caused cocaine supply shortages in 37 U.S. cities, including Washington, according to a report scheduled for release Tuesday by the White House drug policy office.

Cocaine prices have nearly doubled in some cities and soared from a nationwide average of $95.89 a gram during the first quarter of this year to $118.70 in the second quarter, the report says. Law enforcement officials track drug supply levels in part by monitoring prices. Rising prices typically indicate reduced supplies.

Larry Birns of the nonprofit Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a frequent critic of U.S. drug policy, dismissed the numbers as "seasonal" blips.

"The long-term trend is prices remaining constant or going down," Birns said in an interview from his Washington office. "Law enforcement agencies claiming successes in this anti-drug battle is somewhat illusory."

The cocaine supply figures are part of a rollout of new data -- and the declassification of parts of the Bush administration's strategic counternarcotics plan -- by White House drug officials who were criticized last month by the Government Accountability Office.

The watchdog agency accused the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy of not coordinating sufficiently with Mexican law enforcement during a time when Mexican cartels penetrated nearly all regions of the United States and took in up to $23 billion annually in revenue. The White House paints a rosier picture, citing "a robust counterdrug relationship between the United States and Mexico," according to a summary of the declassified plan obtained by The Washington Post.

"This is historic progress," John Walters, director of the White House drug policy office, said in a telephone interview from Washington on Monday. "We've never worked better together."

Walters also said that "we're a couple of days away from releasing details" of a massive aid package to help Mexico fight drug cartels. "We're finalizing things."

The aid package is expected to be the largest U.S. anti-drug endeavor overseas since the 2000 launch of Plan Colombia, a multibillion-dollar campaign designed to eradicate coca and erode support for Marxist rebels. The Mexico proposal, which will likely require congressional approval, will probably have two phases, a top Bush administration official said Monday. The first phase, which would include money for training and equipment, would be "just shy of $1 billion," the official said.

Independent of the aid package, the Bush administration says it is engaged in reshaping its drug strategy along nearly 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. The strategic counternarcotics plan, which Walters plans to release Tuesday in San Diego after meeting with state, federal and local law enforcement officials, calls for more efficient distribution of information among U.S. agencies and for U.S. officials to share more information with Mexican law enforcement.

"Unfortunately this information is not adequately compiled, analyzed and disseminated throughout the intelligence and law enforcement communities," the summary says.

Without going into detail, the summary also says the United States will increase resources dedicated to stopping drugs at ports of entry along the border by employing "ground-breaking technology and time-tested tactics, such as the use of K-9 units." The plan also calls for the deployment of more aircraft to "eliminate air travel's utility to criminals."

The U.S. plan praises Mexico, saying President Felipe Calder¿n's "recent aggressive actions have sent a strong and promising signal." Mexico destroys most of the opium and marijuana crops there each year, the summary says. And the United States is "assisting Mexico in the establishment of a command, control and intelligence center," the summary says.

Mexico has been particularly effective at reducing importation of chemicals used to produce methamphetamines, shaving imports from 216 metric tons in 2004 to 12 metric tons in 2007, according to a copy of Walters's presentation. Walters predicts a "significant impact" on the amount of methamphetamines reaching the United States within the next three months.

The impact of reduced cocaine supplies is already being felt, Walters says. Positive results in workplace drug tests have dropped in an "unprecedented" fashion, according to a study by test provider Quest Diagnostics that Walters plans to release Tuesday. In the first six months of 2007, the study says, the number of positive drug tests plummeted 15.9 percent.

jj

CASE HIGHLIGHTS IMMIGRANTS' VULNERABILITY

01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, October 3, 2007

By Karen Lee Ziner
Journal Staff Writer

CENTRAL FALLS "” The situation of Edgar Velásquez, an illegal Mexican immigrant who sustained severe injury on the job, illustrates the vulnerability of undocumented workers in this country, an immigration lawyer said at a news conference on Monday.

Velásquez, 22, returned to Rhode Island from Mexico through a government-issued humanitarian visa last week, to pursue a workers' compensation case against William J. Gorman Jr., a tree-service company owner in Warwick.

Velásquez slashed his face open with a chain saw while working for Gorman last year, and tried to pursue a claim against Gorman. But immigration agents arrested Velásquez outside the courthouse on the day of a scheduled hearing, and Velásquez was expelled from the country less than a month later.

Speakers at the news conference included Amparo Anguiano, acting consul for the Mexican consulate in Boston; Velásquez and his lawyer, Maureen Gemma, of the law firm of Stephen J. Dennis; and representatives of the Mexican-American Association of Rhode Island and several other Hispanic community advocacy groups.

"Edgar's situation is not all that uncommon," said lawyer Roberto Gonza***. "It happens every day. Undocumented workers are the most vulnerable people in our society, and people of ill will feel free to take advantage of them ... and discard them when they are damaged."

Gonza*** last week secured a two-week extension of Velásquez's five-day humanitarian visa that will allow Velásquez to remain in Rhode Island through Oct. 14, while his case proceeds. Gonza*** acted on behalf of Gemma and Stephen Dennis' law firm.

Workers Compensation Court Judge Bruce Q. Morin held a pretrial hearing Thursday, and ordered lawyers on both sides to submit a memorandum on Oct. 10. Gemma, who represents Velásquez, said the judge could render a decision after that, or could set it down for trial.

Speaking of Velásquez's earlier failed attempt to pursue his claim, Gonza*** said, "This was a situation where someone tried to assert his rights, his legal rights, under the Constitution ... which gives rights to all persons," regardless of their immigration status in this country. "He tried to go to court and he was denied justice "” that's what makes this so bad."

Gonza*** added, "This points out the need to work on the bigger issues of immigration reform. Until the Congress of this country gets off the fence, rather than building fences, this will continue to happen."

Gemma, Velásquez's lawyer, recounted when he first came to her office for help.

"He was exercising his circumscribed rights when he came to see me. And he was not sure he wanted to continue with this claim," said Gemma. "I assured him at that time that we had many people in this country [in similar situations] who had gotten workers' compensation. I lived to regret those words."

Gemma, however, credited the Mexican-American Association of Rhode Island, the office of Sen. Jack Reed and others who were instrumental in securing a humanitarian visa for Velásquez so that he could return.

Said Gemma, "We're thrilled to have him here, and we hope we can get some kind of justice done."

Anguiano said the Velásquez case is unique in the history of the Boston consulate.

"One of the main duties of our consulate is to protect the rights of all Mexican nationals in this country, regardless of their immigration status," said Anguiano. "This is the first time our office has dealt with a case where there was a court proceeding going on and the Mexican national was brought back to the United States."

Juan Garcia, organizer for the Immigrants in Action Committee of St. Teresa Church in the Olneyville section of Providence, said the Velásquez case "sends a clear message to all businesses that have no integrity when workers have accidents."

MASSIVE SWEEP DEPORTS HUNDREDS

Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-10/32951377.jpg

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer escorts a man in Maywood who was later fingerprinted and scheduled for deportation to Guatemala. In a massive two-week operation, the agency targeted illegal immigrants held in county jails and those who had failed to abide by deportation orders. More than 1,300 are arrested as U.S. officials target immigrant criminals in Southland.
By Anna Gorman and Andrew Blankstein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

Federal officers in Southern California over the last two weeks have arrested more than 1,300 immigrants, most of whom either have criminal records or have failed to abide by deportation orders -- part of an intensifying but controversial effort across the nation to remove such violators.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which plans to announce the operation at a news conference in Los Angeles today, called the sweep the largest of its kind in the U.S. Nearly 600 of those arrested at homes, workplaces and in jails have already been deported.

"Where these laws may not have been enforced in the past, that has changed," said Jim Hayes, Los Angeles field office director for ICE.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, pressure has been growing on the federal government to crack down on illegal immigrants, especially those who have committed crimes. And ICE has been waging a public relations battle to show that it is addressing the problem.

In the recent ICE operation, nearly 90% of the immigrants arrested had criminal records, deportation orders or had reentered the United States after being removed. The rest, 146, were "collateral" arrests -- people who encountered the agents and could not prove they were in the United States legally. Officers arrested 530 immigrants in their homes and workplaces and took custody of nearly 800 others from jails in Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The 1,327 arrests surpassed the 1,297 undocumented immigrants arrested by ICE agents at meat processing plants in six states last December, part of an investigation into identity theft.

The enforcement is the latest example of the how some local law enforcement agencies are cooperating with federal authorities to ensure that criminals are identified and deported, rather than simply released from jail. ICE recently created a 24-hour command center, complete with a specific e-mail address and phone number, where local law enforcement officers can exchange information with immigration agents to identify possible deportees.

Though Los Angeles police, under a controversial policy, do not routinely inquire about suspects' immigration status, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino counties have formal agreements with ICE that allow local sheriff's officials to check the immigration status of inmates. ICE agents also work in some city jails, including Costa Mesa and Anaheim.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca called the partnership between ICE and jail personnel "very successful." He said his department had identified and interviewed 8,000 illegal immigrant inmates in the county jail system between January and September.

"It shows the volume in Los Angeles County is significant when it comes to the managing of illegal immigrants that have committed local crimes," Baca said.

In Orange County, officials found that about 10% of the 46,000 inmates that have gone through the system since mid-January were illegal immigrants.

"It's exceeding our expectations," Sheriff Michael S. Carona said of the screening program. "The communities are slowly but surely" buying into it. "We are not going down the street asking people for their immigration status."

In many cities, there has been a rising backlash to special treatment of illegal immigrants, including in Los Angeles, where officers have long interpreted the department's Special Order 40 as prohibiting them from asking the immigration status of suspects in most routine cases. Anti-illegal immigrant groups are suing to overturn the order.

The federal arrests also signal a change in how Immigration and Customs Enforcement deals with absconders and violators. In the past, most immigrants simply ignored their deportation orders, knowing there was little chance of arrest. Even those who were detained often posted bond and hid in plain sight in the community.

"There is no question that the immigration problems that our country is facing are problems that have grown over a long period of time," said ICE Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers. "Historically, the agency was not aggressively focused on detaining those who posed a risk of flight."

But Myers said the agency is expanding bed space, detaining more immigrants and increasingly using alternatives to detention, such as electronic monitoring.

In 2003, ICE created 17 fugitive operations teams to target specific immigrants. As of this week, there are 75 such teams around the nation, including five in the Los Angeles area. Since the program's inception, ICE teams have arrested more than 61,000 immigrants, including 17,331 who had criminal convictions.

Overall, there are an estimated 595,000 immigration fugitives in the United States, down 37,000 from a year ago -- marking the first-ever decline, ICE authorities said.

About 1,100 of the recent arrestees were from Mexico. An additional 170 were from Central America, and others were from countries including Vietnam, Indonesia and Ireland. They had committed crimes such as burglary, domestic violence, assault and transportation of drugs, agents said. Some of them were legal, permanent residents who were deportable because of the crimes they committed.

The U.S. attorney's office plans to prosecute more than 45 of the arrestees for reentry after deportation, a felony that could land them in prison for up to 20 years.

"These are people who, No. 1 , have no right to be in the United States legally and they've exacerbated that crime by committing additional crimes," Hayes said. "These aren't people that we want in our communities. These aren't just people looking for work."

At 5:15 a.m. last Thursday, several armed officers wearing bullet-proof vests met at a Food 4 Less parking lot in Maywood. Supervisory Agent Jorge Field ran through the list of targets they were seeking.

Among them was Ramon Yac Mahik. Field showed the officers his photo and recited his information: Male from Guatemala. Thirty-five years old. Previous convictions for vehicle theft and domestic violence. An Immigration Court ruled against him. His appeal was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Several ICE vehicles pulled up quietly on his street in Los Angeles and within seconds the officers had surrounded the house. They knocked on the front door, but the people living at the apartment didn't know him. Then a woman came down a side stairway leading to an upstairs apartment.

Field asked her name and her husband's name. After getting permission to go inside, officers found Mahik. Field told him that he had an immigration warrant for his arrest. After the Guatemalan said goodbye to his children and gave his wife his boss' phone number, he was handcuffed and escorted to a van.

Later that morning, he sat on a metal bench at an immigration processing center in Santa Ana. In an interview, he acknowledged his criminal record but said it was from years earlier and that he deserved to have a chance to stay in the United States. Mahik said he was ordered deported in 1999 after posting bond and then failing to show up in court.

He works in the garment industry and has three U.S.-born children, ages 16, 10 and 5. His wife was injured in a recent car accident and can't work, he said.

"I don't consider myself a criminal," he said in Spanish. "I would like to fight to see if they let me stay here with my children. To leave them abandoned would be horrible for me. . . . And I don't want them to suffer."

The arrests break up families and create an unfair and inaccurate impression of the immigrant community, which is by and large law-abiding, said Reshma Shamasunder, director of the California Immigrant Policy Center. Enforcement actions also cause fear in immigrant neighborhoods and families that may include U.S. citizens.

"It directs public attention away from the real need to reform the immigration system overall," she said. "This is not going to solve our problems. . . . This is just one narrow-minded, mean-spirited way of trying to fix the immigration problem."

Anti-illegal immigration groups, however, said the action showed what the government can do when it is motivated to enforce the law.

"I hate to sound ungrateful, because we're grateful for any enforcement," said Rick Oltman with Californians for Population Stabilization. "But at this point, we're wondering what took so long."

Here's a link to the new Citizenship test.

http://www.scrantontimestribune.com/projects/TEST.pdf

QUIET PROTEST? BORDER CITIES STALL FENCE PROGRESS

DECRYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, SOME BLOCKING ACCESS TO LAND FOR BARRIERS

Eric *** / AP file

Pelicans pass over Boca Chica, Texas, where the Rio Grande meets the Gulf of Mexico, Thursday, May 10. Wildlife enthusiasts fear the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge could be ruined by the fences and adjacent roads the U.S. government plans to erect along the Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants and smugglers.

Updated: 2:05 a.m. ET Oct 3, 2007

BROWNSVILLE, Texas - Mayors along the Texas-Mexico border have begun a quiet protest of the federal government's plans to build a fence along the border: They are refusing to give access to their land.

Mayors in Brownsville, Del Rio and El Paso have denied access to some parts of their city property, turning away federal employees assigned to begin surveys or conduct other preliminary work on the fence meant to keep out illegal immigrants.

"This is exercising our rights. This is our property. We are not going to make it easy for them," said Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada, who refused last month to sign documents granting government workers permission to enter city property.

In Eagle Pass, Mayor Chad Foster initially refused the Border Patrol's request to build 1½ miles of fencing as part of a project that includes light towers and a new road for patrols. Now he is negotiating with the Department of Homeland Security.

"All of us are in opposition to physical barriers, but we want to work with DHS so everybody walks away happy," Foster said.

Del Rio and El Paso granted workers limited access, said Monica Weisberg Stewart of the Texas Border Coalition, a group that represents local officials.

Congress has authorized $1.2 billion to put up 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The project would include about 330 miles of so-called virtual fence "” a network of cameras, high-tech sensors, radar and other technology. The remaining 370 miles, primarily in more urban areas, are expected to have an actual fence.

Officials decry environmental impact

State and local officials have said the fence will destroy ecosystems by cutting off the Rio Grande, the only source of fresh water in the region. They also say it will hurt the cross-border economy and send the wrong message to neighbors in Mexico.

Brownsville, a city of 170,000 people across the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico, is considering a lawsuit against the federal government to prevent the fence's construction on city property. City leaders met with attorneys Tuesday night about that possibility but decided to wait two weeks before deciding.

"If we have to we'll take it all the way up to the Supreme Court," Ahumada said.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Brad Benson said the federal government has not responded to the cities yet, but officials expected some land owners would refuse.

"We will work with everybody. We plan to accommodate any credible concerns with regard to the environment," Benson said. "Our mission at the end of the day is to secure the border."

David Crump, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said for now, land owners can keep anybody out of their property for any reason, but a legislative body could override that right.

"Either the Texas Legislature or Congress can give power to an agency to do it," said Crump, who specializes in real property law.

Fence plans begin to solidify

Maps released last month by the federal government show the proposed location of about 70 miles of border fencing in south Texas, stretching from Rio Grande City southeast to Fort Brown, next to Brownsville. Maps of fencing being proposed for other parts of the state have not been released.

The maps show nearly 23 miles of fence would be built in and around Brownsville, including some city property. Ahumada pointed out of his office window to land only three blocks away as potential fenced-in areas.

Ahumada said a nearly $40 million dam-and-reservoir project proposed for Brownsville would provide a natural physical barrier and offer better border security than the fence.

The Department of Homeland Security has said it is committed to erecting 370 miles of fencing by the end of 2008.

If Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff "is determined to build a wall. I wish Mr. Chertoff would build a wall around his house," Ahumada said. "We don't want this wall."

U.S. SAILOR: DON'T DEPORT MY WIFE

SAILOR'S WIFE COULD BE DEPORTED WHILE HE'S OVERSEAS

SAILOR: "DEFENDING THE COUNTRY THAT'S TRYING TO KICK MY FAMILY OUT" IS TOUGH

U.S. MILITARY DOESN'T HAVE OVERALL POLICY TO HANDLE SUCH SITUATIONS

WIFE: "WE JUST WANT TO FEEL SAFE AND HAVE A HOME JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE"

From Thelma Gutierrez and Wayne Drash
CNN

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (CNN) -- Eduardo Gonza***, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back.

Mildred and Eduardo Gonza*** worry about what would happen to their family if she is deported.

His wife faces deportation to Guatemala -- her home country that she hasn't seen since 1989. He also doesn't know what would happen to his young son, Eduardo Jr., if that happens.

"I like being in uniform and serving my country, but if she goes back I'm going to have to give it all up and just get out and take care of my son and get a job," he said.

"Defending the country that's trying to kick my family out is a thought that always runs through my mind."

Gonza***, who works on helicopters that bring cargo, supplies and military personnel in and out of Iraq, testified before a House Judiciary Committee panel last month, detailing his situation and urging officials to consider some sort of policy to deal with cases like his, where military members' families could be deported while they're defending their country overseas. Watch "they're tearing families apart" »

"I want to serve my country 100 percent. But with this issue in the back of my mind, I feel I can't do that," he testified on September 6.

The U.S. military does not have a policy to deal with such cases. Each is handled case-by-case, not by the military, but by immigration authorities. The government doesn't have numbers on how many military members are in predicaments similar to Gonza***'s.

Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, a member of the U.S. Army Reserves who teaches immigration law at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, said she believes there should be an overall policy dealing with the potential deportation of family members of active duty military members.

"You got to understand. When you're in a combat zone, you need to be focusing all of your energies on fighting the enemy. You can't be worried that your loved ones back home could be shipped off to a foreign country where you're never going to see them again," she said.

Stock also said the government is conflicted about how to treat such cases. On the one hand, the government is supposed to be providing military families with assistance, housing and other forms of benefits while their spouses are overseas. On the other hand, the same government is trying to deport the very same people.

"What's happening right now is, because of the dysfunction and complexity of our immigration laws, we've got people fighting overseas who are facing the impossible situation of having family members facing deportation back home," she said.

In Gonza***'s case, his wife, Mildred, came to the United States with her mother in 1989 when she was 5 years old. They were granted political asylum because of their status as war refugees from Guatemala.

In September 2000, Mildred's mother applied for legalization and included her daughter in that application. Her mother was granted legal status in July 2004, according to Gonza***.

However, six weeks earlier, Gonza*** and Mildred got married, canceling Mildred's ability to apply for legal status through her mother because she was no longer an unmarried daughter under the age of 21. As a result, her legal status still remains in jeopardy.

A judge in June granted her a one-year extension to remain in the United States. If her legal status does not change by June 8, 2008, she will have 60 days to voluntarily leave the country or face deportation.

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

Gonza*** said that type of response is unjustified. "I'm trying to make his country better -- my country better -- and it should be her country too."

Gonza*** himself entered the country illegally, crossing the Mexican border with his family when he was about 10. He joined the Navy as a so-called "green-card sailor" and became a U.S. citizen in July 2005. The military does accept some immigrants who aren't U.S. citizens.

"I understand the laws have to be followed and guidelines and a system must be maintained, but on the other token, there are times when the situation is just out of their reach," Gonza*** said.

His wife, Mildred, added, "We didn't come here to break the law. We just want to feel safe and have a home just like everybody else."

U.S. Army Sgt. Emmanuel Woko, a member of the Army's 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division who faces his third tour in Iraq, understands just how Gonza*** and his family feel. His wife and children could be sent back to Nigeria.

"My heart is bleeding on the thought that my wife could be deported back to Nigeria while I am deployed in Iraq," he said. "I am extremely distressed and distracted by the thought."

That's a sentiment echoed by Gonza***: "We are not asking for anything. We are just asking for our families to stay with us."

I completely agree with iperson.

LADY LIBERTY IS BLUSHING OVER NATION'S IMMIGRATION DEBATE

BETH STEPHENSON
The Edmond Sun
Published: October 02, 2007 10:08 pm

EDMOND "” "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." These are the last five lines of the sonnet that hangs in the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. I think it's time we were honest and say, "Never mind!"

My ancestors are Irish, German, English, Scottish and Scandinavian. Some immigrated before the Revolutionary war. Only one seems to have brought any money with him, and they all came to America for opportunity. Is "first-come, first-served" really the correct policy for immigration?

I visited Mexico and due to a wrong turn, ended up driving "” very fast "” past miles of shanty towns. Cardboard, tin and scraps of plywood made up the walls of the dwellings. Skinny, half-naked children played in the unpaved streets flowing with streams of foul liquid. This isn't in some distant place, but a few miles south of San Diego. If I were a parent in that place, I would give my life to give my children even the poorest lifestyle enjoyed a few miles north.

The real issue with illegal immigration has nothing to do with the emigrant. It has to do with our insatiable government programs. We don't want any more poor people here because we already are smothering under a tax policy that insists that anyone who works must "donate" a third of their wages to the government. If you think about it, we're really only a free people May through December. The first third of the year, we are slaves of Uncle Sam.

We think of Uncle Sam as tall and lean, but have you seen a photograph of him lately? He looks more like Jabba the Hut these days and begs for a crash diet. The idle must go to work, charities must care for the hungry and newcomers must make their way by the sweat of their brow.

The irony is, we don't want more dead weight on the already sagging social programs, so those who are motivated to make a better life by working, can't come here.

Emigrants don't want to be part of the dole, but part of the dream! I say, "let them come."

We should limit negative impact by requiring them to register so we know who and where they are. A barcoded card with a clear photograph swiped at regular intervals could help keep track of them. They must pay their share of taxes, and as non-citizens, they'd have limited access to freebees but would enjoy protection of human rights. Children born to non-citizens here ought to have the same status as their parents and not automatic citizenship.

If we give the government huge doses of appetite suppressant, workers of any status will live more comfortably, and we would return to the values we embraced when we passed through the golden door ourselves.

A float depicting U.S. President George W. Bush being spanked by the Statue Of Liberty passes by during the Rose Monday carnival parade in Mainz, western Germany, on Monday, Feb. 19, 2007. Thousands of spectators attended the traditional street carnival parade in the state of Rhineland-Palatinates's capital. (AP Photo Bernd Kammerer

CITIZENS CAUGHT UP IN IMMIGRATION RAID

By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: October 4, 2007

Peggy Delarosa-Delgado, a United States citizen, Long Island homeowner and mother of three, was fast asleep when someone banged at the door before 6 a.m. last Thursday.

Her son Christopher, 17, a high school senior, opened the door, and more than a dozen federal immigration agents and one Suffolk County police officer pushed past him, he said later.

Only after the agents had herded her other children into the living room, frightened her aunt and uncle, and drawn a gun on a family friend staying in the basement, Ms. Delarosa-Delgado said, did she awake to discover that her house in Huntington Station had been the mistaken target of a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It was not the first time. In the summer of 2006, she said, agents waving the same photo of a deportable immigrant named Miguel had stormed into her house before dawn. No Miguel has ever lived there, she said "” at least not since she bought the place in 2003.

This time, the raid on her house was part of a series of antigang sweeps on Long Island. The raids, which resulted in 186 immigrant arrests, were denounced by officials in Nassau County as riddled with mistakes and marked by misconduct. But on Ms. Delarosa-Delgado's side of the county line, the Suffolk County police commissioner, Richard Dormer, hailed the sweeps as a successful operation that made the community safer.

Ms. Delarosa-Delgado, 42, a school aide who was born in the Dominican Republic, moved to the United States 24 years ago and became a citizen in 1990, does not feel safer.

"It's not right," she said. "My kids were scared. They had to sit in the living room like little criminals."

"Sure, look for criminals. But they've got to make 100 percent sure that the house they're going into, the person's there. They can't come in just because my address pops up in the computer."

Suffolk County police officials said they stood by their statements praising the raids. But Ms. Delarosa-Delgado's complaint is one of many that have been emerging in Suffolk County as employers, church workers and lawyers learn who was arrested.

"They took guys who I see in church every single week, whose homes I've gone into and everything," said Sister Margaret Smyth, a nun who attends church in Greenport, where she said 12 immigrant men were arrested last Thursday. "Some of them work on farms, some of them work construction," she said. "They're family men."

One man who was arrested, Walter Tzun, has been in the country for a decade, she said. She described him as married, a father, a taxpayer and a construction worker whose employer has been trying to sponsor him for a green card. He has been moved from a New Jersey jail to two detention centers in Pennsylvania, she said, and has been told that he is headed to Texas. She said the man's boss drove to Pennsylvania "to try to bond him out" and help him stay.

Eberhard Müller, formerly the executive chef of the restaurant Lutèce and now the owner of a 180-acre farm on the East End of Long Island, said he had spent a week trying to locate the brother, cousin and roommate of one of his workers, a legal immigrant from El Salvador. The three were arrested in a raid at their home in Greenport early last Thursday, he said, leaving babies and two distraught wives behind.

Mr. Müller said he finally learned with the help of a lawyer that two of the three, Omar Mena Lopez and Marvin Lopez, were at the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, and that one, Valentin Rudy Escobar Montenegro, was in a detention center in York, Pa.

"They accuse them of being gang associates, which makes no sense," Mr. Müller said, describing all three as holding down two or three jobs as roofers, restaurant workers and farmhands. "Marvin Lopez is a librarian in his country, the sweetest person in the world. He works 14 hours a day, seven days a week. How is he able to be a gang member?"

Accounts of the Suffolk County raids are similar to those criticized in Nassau County.

"These were like dragnets being cast over entire houses," said Nadia Marin-Molina, director of the Workplace Project, an immigrant advocacy organization in Hempstead that has gathered many of the complaints.

The complaints echo a federal lawsuit filed last month in Manhattan contending that immigration agents unlawfully force their way into the homes of Latino families in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches.

"We have been inundated with calls," said Cesar Perales, director of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed the lawsuit. "People are terrified by these indiscriminate raids."

Mr. Perales said yesterday that by week's end he would seek an emergency restraining order to stop such raids.