OHIO

BILLBOARD SUPPORTS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS



Reported by: Jenell Walton
Photographed by: 9News
wcpo.com
Cincinnatti OH

It appears a coalition of groups from the Tri-state has a message for the Butler County Sheriff and others who say illegal immigrants should be prosecuted for breaking the law.

9News found a billboard across the street from the Butler County Sheriff's Office near the corner of Knightsbridge Drive and Central Avenue in Hamilton.

It quotes the Bible verse, Leviticus 19:34, "You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you."

Sheriff Richard Jones says his department is following the law when prosecuting illegal immigrants, therefore treating them just like others who break the law.

"I agree with the billboard. Come here, it's a great place to live and obey the law and you'll be treated just as those who are born here," Jones said. "So, it's a good thing. I agree with it as a matter of fact."

Catholics in Alliance, the Hamilton United Ministerial Association and the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform paid for the billboard.

The groups say illegal immigrants should be treated with more respect.

They say those arrested are real people and law enforcement should take that into consideration when prosecuting illegal immigrants.

They say law enforcement should also show more compassion towards illegal immigrants.


©2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

This is one of the best posts I've seen here! But I'm afraid the GOP version of the Bible doesn't contain that verse.

DEPORTEES FILE MOTION OVER FORCED SEDATION

A pastor in Riverside is one of two men who accuse immigration officials of injecting them with potentially lethal doses of anti-psychotic drugs against their will.

By Joe Mozingo, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 10, 2007

The ACLU filed a motion Tuesday in federal court to stop immigration authorities from forcibly drugging deportees in order to send them back to their home countries on commercial airlines.

The motion comes after an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement testified before the Senate last month that 50 immigrants had been given psychotropic drugs against their will over a seven-month period. Thirty-three of them had no previous psychiatric diagnosis.

One deportee, a Christian pastor in Riverside, was pinned down in a holding cell in Los Angeles the day before he was scheduled to be flown to his native Indonesia, the ACLU contended in court papers. Another, a Senegalese man, was wrestled down in the aisle of a plane parked at LAX and injected with medication. Those two deportees were in addition to the 50 cited during the Senate hearing.

"The new information shows the government's forcible drugging policy is more widespread than previously suggested," said ACLU attorney Ahilan T. Arulanantham.

"It's both medically inappropriate and shocking that the government believes it can treat immigrants like animals and shoot them up with powerful anti-psychotic drugs that can be fatal -- without a doctor's examination or court oversight."

The motion comes as part of a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union filed in June on behalf of the Riverside pastor and the Senegalese man, who were detained at Terminal Island and then forcibly drugged during the deportation process. The civil rights group contends that practice violates both the Bill of Rights and federal law regarding the medical treatment of detainees, and may constitute torture.

Both men are appealing their asylum claims. They ultimately were not deported and have been released, pending their appeals.

ICE spokeswoman Lauri Haley would not comment about the pending litigation, but said the forced medications were exceedingly rare. When they are necessary, they are both legal and overseen by "medical professionals," she said.

"Medical sedation is an act of last resort and is rarely used," she said.

According to a brief filed by the government, ICE policy allows for forcibly medicating detainees only if "a medical professional from the U.S. Public Health Service. . . determined that they present a danger to themselves or to others."

The government has not disclosed the circumstances of the forced medications. Only one of the two ACLU plaintiffs even knows what drugs he was given, according to documents recently filed in the case.

The day before he was to be sent back to his native Indonesia, Raymond Soeoth said, two officers pinned him down on a bench in a holding cell and injected him in the buttocks. His medical records show that they gave him two powerful anti-psychotic medications -- Haldol (haloperidol) and Cogentin -- even though he had no history of psychosis.

No doctor had examined Soeoth, an ethnic Chinese and Christian who fled his predominantly Muslim country in 1999 to escape religious persecution, he said. An unsigned note in his medical record, which was attached to the motion, said "psyche meds requested. . . for patient's threats to kill self if deported." Another note said Soeoth was given the medication for "telling officers he would not board airplane."

Dr. Mark Mills, a Columbia University professor of psychiatry retained by the ACLU to review the case, called the involuntary medication "profoundly disturbing."

If Soeoth was suicidal, the appropriate medication would not be Haldol, which can cause serious side effects, but "an anti-depressant or mood-stabilizing drug," Mills wrote in a sworn declaration. Haldol "is never clinically appropriate for patients who are not suffering from some form of psychosis," Mills wrote.

Mills also said that the dose of Cogentin was twice the standard dose of 2 milligrams. "In more than 30 years of psychiatric practice, I have never seen or heard of a case where 4 milligrams was delivered at once, particularly as an initial matter."

The case of the second plaintiff, Amadou Laime Diouf, was equally troubling to Mills, particularly because authorities made no note of the medication they used and because they injected him through clothing, which "greatly increases the likelihood of site infection."

In a sworn statement, Diouf said the incident occurred while on the tarmac at LAX waiting to be flown to his native Senegal. When Diouf asked a flight attendant to talk to the captain because he felt he was being deported in violation of an appeals court order, his immigration escorts grew angry, wrestling him to the floor and injecting him through his pants, he said.

Hearing the commotion, the captain ordered Diouf and the escorts off the plane. But the drug made Diouf's legs numb. He fell going down the stairs, and was disoriented and sleepy for days, he said.

Arulanantham of the ACLU said the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered a stay on Diouf's deportation at the time immigration authorities were trying to remove him.

He said that the Soeoth and Diouf cases showed that the practice has not been limited to plaintiffs posing a danger.

The men and their lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. to issue an order halting the practice while the lawsuit is being settled. Hatter declined to immediately rule on an earlier request to do the same.

Government attorneys, in turn, asked Hatter to dismiss the injunction motion because the plaintiffs could not "demonstrate they face an immediate threat of irreparable injury as they allege occurred in the past."

They also said the policy has changed so that ICE now must get an order from a judge to medicate a detainee.

ACLU attorneys said it was not clear what type of hearing the detainees would get and whether they could appeal.

In Tuesday's filing, they argued that testimony provided by Julie Myers during her Senate confirmation hearing to become chief of ICE contradicted "government officials' repeated assertions that the practice is rare and reserved only for emergencies."

"Based on the numbers Ms. Myers provided, it appears that every month the government forcibly drugs about five noncitizens who are not mentally ill."

I wonder if this says anything about the the attitude of those that came to the U.S. with the only intention of having a better life for their families. Maybe they ARE more responsible than some of the folks that are losing their houses. Those that come here illegally usually have 2 choices. To stay in Mexico or come to the U.S. uninspected. In Mexico they inquire about immigrating to the U.S. and are asked about their profession or their education. They are given little hope of immigrating legally so they take the other route. I'm sorry, if I was in that position I would do the same. I have rambelledon too much so I will stop, I'm just trying to say we need this labor, so the demand for their services is there, so lets do the right thing and give those that are the responsible ones a path to legalization and tighten our borders at the same time.Send the troublemaker back.

Thanks for the post Explora. I just posted the same one. Sorry I duplicated.

ILLEGAL WORKER CRACKDOWN BLOCKED

By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post
Last update: October 10, 2007 – 8:27 PM

A federal judge barred the Bush administration Wednesday from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. firms that hire illegal immigrants, warning of its potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.
In a rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the president's plan to pressure employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers, starting this fall.

President Bush made the effort the centerpiece of a reenergized enforcement drive against illegal immigration in August after the Senate rejected his proposal to overhaul immigration laws. But the ruling -- sought by major U.S. labor, business and farm organizations -- highlighted the chasm that the issue has opened between the Republican Party and its traditional business allies.

The case also called attention to the gulf between Washington rhetoric about the need to curtail immigration and the economic reality that many U.S. employers rely on illegal labor, and to the government's inability over nearly three decades to develop adequate tools for identifying unauthorized workers.

In a 22-page ruling, Breyer said the plaintiffs -- a coalition that included the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- had raised serious questions about the legality of the administration's plan to mail Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers. The letters were intended to warn employers that they must resolve questions about their employees' identities or fire them within 90 days. "There can be no doubt that the effects of the rule's implementation will be severe," Breyer wrote, resulting in "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."

The ruling brought at least temporary relief to some Minnesota employers. "We're very pleased with the ruling," said Kevin Matzek, director of government affairs for Hospitality Minnesota, which represents 3,000 employers in restaurant, lodging, resort and campground businesses. "We were concerned that the new rules would have cost lawfully employed immigrants their jobs."

He said, "It's important that the government look at a comprehensive approach to immigration reform and takes into consideration the needs of the small business community."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the administration will continue to aggressively enforce immigration laws while considering an appeal, which could take at least nine months.

Staff writer Mary Lynn Smith contributed to this report.

Great! Violent criminals should NOT be given any path to be a part of our community. Those that commited the infraction of crossing our borders for a better life and have been responsible members of our communities are the ones we need to stay.

This what Pres. Carter meant when he mentioned several names like Lou Dobs anti immigrant ravings.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN



THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T FORCE EMPLOYERS TO FIRE EMPLOYEES WHOSE NAMES DON'T MATCH THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

By Mary Couchman
Published: Oct 10, 2007, 8:06 PM EDT

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the Department of Homeland Security's plan to combat illegal immigration would place a financial burden on employers, result in people authorized to work getting fired due to errors in the system and "failed to comply" with policy.

This is the most significant setback in the Bush administration's attempt to secure borders since Congress was unable to approve the president's immigration reform proposal in June.

No timeline has been set for a final ruling, which could take more than a year to argue in court if the department appeals the ruling that says the plan would have "staggering" effects on the workforce.

Immigrant and employee rights activists called the ruling a "victory" as they push for a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the country.

The Bush administration had planned to send letters this fall to 140,000 employers with a total work force of more than 8 million. According to the government, those employers typically had at least 10 workers whose Social Security numbers on W-2 tax forms did not match the government's database.

The letters would give the employer 90 days to resolve the discrepancy and an additional three days for an employee to submit a new, valid number. After that, an employer who failed to fire the worker would be subject to civil fines or criminal prosecution under a 1986 law that prohibits businesses from knowingly employing illegal immigrants.




Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whose agency issued the rule, said the government would consider its options, including an appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

EFFORT TO CURB ILLEGAL WORKERS' HIRING BLOCKED

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 11, 2007; Page A01

A federal judge barred the Bush administration yesterday from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. companies that employ illegal immigrants, warning of its potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

In a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the president's plan to press employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers, starting this fall.

President Bush made the effort the centerpiece of a re-energized enforcement drive against illegal immigration in August after the Senate rejected his proposal to overhaul immigration laws. But the court ruling -- sought by major American labor, business and farm organizations -- highlighted the chasm that the issue has opened between the Republican Party and its traditional business allies.

The case also called attention to the gulf between Washington rhetoric about the need to curtail illegal immigration and the economic reality that many U.S. employers rely on illegal labor, as well as to the government's inability for nearly three decades to develop adequate tools for identifying undocumented workers.

In a 22-page ruling, Breyer said the plaintiffs -- an unusual coalition that included the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- had raised serious questions about the legality of the administration's plan to mail Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers.

"There can be no doubt that the effects of the rule's implementation will be severe," Breyer wrote, resulting in "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."

The government letters are intended to warn employers for the first time that they must resolve questions about their employees' identities or fire them within 90 days. If they do not, employers could face "stiff penalties," including fines and even criminal prosecution, for violating a federal law that bars knowingly employing illegal workers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said when he announced the plan Aug. 10.

The plaintiffs convinced the judge that the Social Security Administration database includes so many errors -- incorporated in the records of about 9.5 million people in 2003 alone -- that its use in firings would unfairly discriminate against tens of thousands of legal workers, including native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens, and cause major workforce disruptions that would burden companies.

"The government's proposal to disseminate no-match letters affecting more than eight million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers," the judge wrote. "Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS policy."

Breyer also said that the government may have ignored a 1980 law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that requires it to weigh the cost of imposing new regulations that would significantly burden small-business owners. Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, said the ruling shows that "the government cannot do anything it wants simply in the name of enforcement. They've got to be careful about building their record and complying with the law."

In a statement, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said: "This is a significant step towards overturning this unlawful rule, which would give employers an even stronger way to keep workers from freely forming unions. . . . More than 70% of SSA discrepancies refer to U.S. citizens."

Chertoff expressed disappointment with the decision and said the administration will continue to aggressively enforce immigration laws while considering an appeal that plaintiffs' attorneys said could take at least nine months.

"Today's ruling is yet another reminder of why we need Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform," Chertoff said. "The American people have been loud and clear about their desire to see our nation's immigration laws enforced."

Several analysts said the Bush administration's plan appeared to be designed to push business interests back into the debate by demonstrating that the failure of legislative reform efforts would carry costs, and to reassure anti-immigration conservative lawmakers that the White House is able and willing to crack down on offenders.

Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington, said the ruling "shows how ineffective the current laws are."

"It reinforces the opinion that many of us hold that until you have a better legal framework -- which requires new legislation -- we're stuck very much with the status quo," Meissner said.

In a statement, Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Calif.), an opponent of Bush's approach who won election to the House last year on the issue, criticized the court. "What part of 'illegal' does Judge Breyer not understand?" he said. "At a time when the federal government is finally trying to enforce current immigration law, we cannot have activist judges stand in the way of doing what is right."

The scope of the problem is uncontested. A three-year government audit ending in 2001 found "widespread" misuse of Social Security numbers by illegal immigrants, who often present fake or fraudulent documents to obtain jobs. Overall, 7.2 million illegal immigrants account for at least 10 percent of low-skilled U.S. workers and 5 percent of the total U.S. workforce, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of 2005 census data.

Illegal immigrants make up even greater portions of workers in specific industries and service occupations, including 24 percent in farming, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction and 12 percent in food preparation. But the government's record in developing tools to screen such workers is spotty, largely because of successful efforts by employers, labor unions and civil rights groups to water them down.

A government program to verify the validity of new hires' Social Security numbers, proposed in concept in 1981 and launched in 1996, remains voluntary and covers only about 23,000 of 8 million U.S. employers. It is also hampered by a high false-alarm rate and the limited ability to detect identity theft involving stolen or fraudulent numbers. Between June 2004 and May 2006, it erroneously rejected 11 percent of foreign-born U.S. citizens and 1.3 percent of authorized foreign-born noncitizens, according to a report provided to Congress.

In protest, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed legislation in August that bars companies in his state from participating in the program until it is 99 percent accurate.

The federal government has mailed Social Security no-match letters to employers since 1994, but such notices were generally silent about workers' immigration status and employers did not face liability. In June 2006, the Department of Homeland Security proposed using the letters to combat immigration fraud involving existing employees, and it finalized its plans this summer. The AFL-CIO and the ACLU filed suit to halt the Sept. 4 start of the mailings, and they were joined later by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the trade associations for the agriculture, restaurant and construction industries.

On Aug. 31, U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney issued a temporary restraining order pending an Oct. 1 hearing before Breyer, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and is the sister of Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

[QUOTE]
"LET ALL THOSE SMUG PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON AND ELSEWHERE WHO FOUGHT SO HARD TO KILL THE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION PICK THE CROPS."

"” Disgusted
[QUOTE]


BREAKING POINT IN IMMIGRATION DEBATE

October 8, 2007, 4:04 pm
Breaking Point in Immigration Debate
By Mike Nizza


In Mexico, a farm rented by an American farmer.(Photo: Janet Jarman for The New York Times)

In June, a proposed immigration overhaul collapsed in Congress, handing a big loss to President Bush and also to the farmers who heavily rely on illegal migrant workers. They immediately voiced worries, but received only more unwelcome news: Two months later, the Department of Homeland Security issued a 90-day warning for farmers to fire any workers with phony social security numbers.

Two more months have passed since then, and crops are reportedly now in jeopardy because farmers can't find enough workers to pick them.

As many as 70 percent of field hands are working in the country illegally, according to grower associations and unions.
Now the White House is stepping in, The Los Angeles Times reports:

With a nationwide farmworker shortage threatening to leave unharvested fruits and vegetables rotting in fields, the Bush administration has begun quietly rewriting federal regulations to eliminate barriers that restrict how foreign laborers can legally be brought into the country.

The effort, urgently underway at the departments of Homeland Security, State and Labor, is meant to rescue farm owners caught in a vise between a complex process to hire legal guest workers and stepped-up enforcement that has reduced the number of illegal planters, pickers and middle managers crossing the border.
(Wait a minute "” middle managers? Foremen, maybe? The article never explains.)

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers continue to debate "AgJobs," a measure that would create a system for admitting migrant workers, and it may be added to a farm bill scheduled for a vote before winter. But a major supporter of the measure, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, is avoiding major fights at the moment as he tries to survive a scandal.

The desperation in Washington state has led to an ad campaign promising farm workers elsewhere that "it's worth taking the long trip to Washington."

Around this time last year, pear growers mourned major crop losses, and one told The New York Times that "there weren't any people to pay" higher wages to. Here are two sides of the debate from Julia Preston's most recent article on immigration in The New York Times:

Some academics say warnings of a farm-labor debacle are exaggerated. "By and large the most dire predictions don't come true," said Philip Martin, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis. "There is no doubt that some people can't count on workers showing up as much as they used to," Professor Martin said. "But most of the places that are crying the loudest are exceptional cases."

But some recent studies suggest that strains on the farm-labor supply are real. Stephen Levy, an economist at the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, in Palo Alto, compared unemployed Americans with illegal immigrant workers in the labor market. "The bottom line," Mr. Levy said, "is that most unemployed workers are not available to replace fired, unauthorized immigrant workers," in part because very few of the unemployed are in farm work.





An obvious solution has struck a few American farmers: Steve Scaroni and others like him are relocating to a place where inexpensive farm labor is abundant and legal: Mexico.

IndyStar.com
Opinion
October 10, 2007

Ruben Navarrette

A 'DREAM' CHANCE AT IMMIGRATION REFORM

Since the demise of comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year, I've been looking for another idea that would give illegal immigrants the chance to become legal but require that those who receive such a privilege give back quite a bit in return.

For a while, I thought this sort of thing would never materialize. In fact, you could say, I thought I was dreaming. But now comes the DREAM Act (for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). The idea needs adjustments, but it's a step in the right direction. The measure, proposed by Sen. **** Durbin, D-Ill., would give U.S. citizenship to individuals if they had come to the United States before the age of 16, graduated from high school or received a GED, and completed two years of college or military service. Durbin tried to insert the idea as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nixed it because there wasn't enough support. Reid did promise to bring the DREAM Act to a vote next month.

It's the mention of military service that concerns those on the extreme left, who fret that students who can't afford college might be so eager for citizenship that they could wind up in Iraq. Meanwhile, the extreme right thinks that the idea will serve as a magnet for illegal immigration (as opposed to say, jobs) and rejects it as nothing more than -- wait for it -- amnesty.

As usual, both extremes are wrong. But to assuage some of those concerns, I think the DREAM Act should be tweaked so that students have to complete a four-year degree or four-year military enlistment before qualifying, and then they would qualify only for legal residency -- not citizenship. Once they become legal, they should have to follow the same steps anyone else does to obtain citizenship.

We might also add a third option besides college or the military. How about two years of national service in a poor community within the United States? If the point is to find some way for these young people to contribute to the betterment of a country that is about to grant them legal status, that would sure do the trick.

The specifics can be worked out, but let's not lose sight of the real strength of the DREAM Act. It's the quid pro quo of offering illegal immigrants a path to legalization but not making that path a cakewalk. It offers something precious -- the right to stay in the United States legally -- but it isn't bashful about demanding certain things in return.

Every single piece of immigration reform that comes along should strike the same sort of bargain. Those who don't want to accept the terms and take the deal can go about their business, and bet their chances with immigration authorities. But those who do will have demonstrated that they're willing to make an investment in a country that has already given them a lot and stands to give them much more. In return, the rest of us get a higher-earning, greater-producing legal resident who can contribute to society for many years to come.

Speaking of a contribution, there are those who don't seem to be making much of one in this debate. Far and away, one of the shrillest and most alarming arguments against this bill is coming from conservative Republicans who insist that enacting this sort of reform would somehow reduce educational opportunities for native-born U.S. citizens by forcing them to compete with illegal immigrants for admission to colleges, scholarships and the like. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., glibly labeled the DREAM Act "a nightmare" that would drain scarce resources.

It's official. The protectionists have no shame. We now have members of Congress who -- after years of arguing that Americans are threatened by trade deals, high-tech workers and low-wage laborers -- are trying to protect native-born high school students from the embarrassment of competing with illegal immigrant students and losing out.

It just hit me. What Americans really need is a domestic DREAM Act for our own kids -- something to remind the little darlings that, if you want something out of life, you have to put something back in. If they learn that, they won't need protecting.


Navarrette is a San Diego Union-Tribune columnist. Contact him via e-mail at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.

Once again explora is right on. I would have no problems with the 4 years service and the addition of community service such as Vista or Peace Corps, etc.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer is fortunate we got rid of AT Gonze*** and Carl Rove before he made this ruling. Breyer is to be congratulated.

CURBS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN WORKPLACE DEALT A SETBACK

By MIRIAM JORDAN
wsj.com
October 11, 2007; Page A12

A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration's efforts to get tough on illegal immigrants in the workplace.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against a federal program to force employers, under threat of fines and criminal penalties, to fire workers whose Social Security numbers don't match their names.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO and several trade groups representing small businesses, which sought the injunction, challenged the so-called "no-match program" on the basis that it could lead to discrimination against or firing of native-born U.S. workers and legal immigrant workers. They also claimed that the proposed crackdown would pose a heavy burden on employers.

"More than 70% of Social Security Administration discrepancies refer to U.S. citizens, and as Judge Breyer found, the mailing of the new 'no match' letters would result in irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers," said John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president.

The program, announced by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in August, was to roll out last month with the mailing of 140,000 no-match letters from the Social Security Administration. An insert would say that an employer had 90 days to rectify the no-match problem or be held liable for employing an unauthorized worker, and would face stiff penalties or sanctions.

In his ruling, Judge Breyer said the threat of criminal prosecution "reflects a major change in Department of Homeland Security policy." The judge also said that the government failed to analyze the proposed rule's impact on businesses.




Some legal experts said the government could address this issue and then try to go ahead with the program. "If you read the fine print, it doesn't mean the new rule can't go forward," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell University. "It means the government must do a better job of determining its impact on business before it can republish the rule."



The Bush administration crafted the employer crackdown after Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would have put 12 million illegal immigrants on the path to legal U.S. residency.

In response to the judge's ruling yesterday, Mr. Chertoff issued a statement saying that the government was examining all options, including appeal. He added, "Today's ruling is yet another reminder of why we need Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform."

The judge told the parties to submit proposals by Friday for a hearing intended to achieve a final decision.

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

CALIFORNIA

DREAM ACT BILL AWAITING APPROVAL

THE DREAM ACT IS DESIGNED TO HELP OUT UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS

media.www.dailytitan.com
By: Eleni Reed
Issue date: 10/11/07 Section: News

By Friday, the stress for tens of thousands of undocumented students could be alleviated, depending on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision over whether or not to sign the The California Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. The bill on Schwarzenegger's desk would allow undocumented students to apply for non-competitive loans.

The DREAM act is also being debated on the federal level. Carlos Amador, president for the Alliance of Students for an Equal Education at Cal State Fullerton, said the bill was introduced in the state legislature two weeks ago, however, there was no vote. The DREAM Act is now being introduced in the Higher Education Bill and a deadline is set for Nov. 16, Amador said.

"It is very important that representatives know that people are out there that support the DREAM Act by contacting them with letters [and phone calls]," said Amador.

The federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Illegal Responsibility Act of 1996 discourages states from providing in-state tuition costs to undocumented students. The DREAM Act would nullify provisions and pave a path for undocumented students to gain citizenship.

Undocumented residents who have lived in the country for five years with a high school diploma may be able to obtain citizenship. Undocumented students are put on a six-year probation where they must enroll in a two-year community college, a four-year university or enroll in the military and keep a clean criminal record. If these obligations are upheld, they become permanent residents. The bill has been rejected by critics as amnesty.

The alliance is trying to bring a play to CSUF called "Nine Digits Away From My Dreams." It will highlight the lives of undocumented students and their struggles of being denied the same social opportunities as citizens, said Leticia Serrato,vice president of the alliance. The organization wants to either hold a rally or set up tables around campus to ask students to sign a petition to support the DREAM Act.

ICE TO WORK AROUND INJUNCTION

US District Judge Breyer's recently decided to grant the motion
for a preliminary injunction of the DHS final rule regarding no-
match letters (see below in news). This will likely not stop the
use of social security data by the government to weed out the
undocumented as well as ensnare individuals authorized to work in
the US. Despite the government's admission that the Social
Security Administration's system is rife with errors, heightened
scrutiny of social security data will likely emerge within the
scope of I-9 audits. While employers across the board may be
spared from the rule because of the preliminary injunction, those
that face an audit will bear the additional burdens of the
temporarily enjoined rule by administrative interpretation during
the course of the audit. We suspect that that has already begun
in I-9 audits and will likely increase with time. Immigration
attorneys would be wise to plan accordingly.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by
writing to mailto:editor@ilw.com.
_________________________________________________________________

MEXICAN CONSUL SAYS HE TURNED THREATENING EMAIL OVER TO U.S.

He had warned others of Irving crackdown on illegal immigrants

05:31 AM CDT on Thursday, October 11, 2007
By ISABEL MORALES / Al Día imorales@aldiatx.com

Mexican Consul Enrique Hubbard Urrea has received plenty of hate mail in the last several days over his comments about Irving's crackdown on illegal immigrants.

On Sunday, he received a threat, as well, which he said he has reported to the U.S. State Department.

"Keep out of our dealings with the illegals in our state and in our country," reads the e-mail sent Oct. 7. "This is not your issue, this is my country and we will take care of it. Any interference from you people will have dire consequences.

The threat follows Mr. Hubbard's warning to Mexican immigrants to stay out of Irving because of the spike in the number of deportations being reported out of that city in the last several months. At the same time, the diplomat said he believed Mexican nationals were being detained simply because of their appearance.

Last month's warning was part of a shift in policy by the Mexican government to toughen its defense of immigrants and give the consulates in the U.S. more resources as well, officials familiar with the strategy have said. The new policy by the Mexican government comes as deportations reach an all-time high in the toughest crackdown in decades by the U.S. government and law enforcement.

Among the actions under discussion are the creation of an anti-defamation league similar to that focused on protecting Jews; budget increases for some of the 47 consulates; and a media campaign aimed at counteracting groups opposed to illegal, and sometimes legal, immigration.

The effort underscores the tension in U.S. communities grappling with problems created by illegal immigration – and a failure by Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration laws.

Mexico's consuls were told to be "more active and more involved in the defense of the civil rights of our people," Mr. Hubbard said then.

"The environment is poisonous, and the fact that there is now this threat against the consul confirms that we have a racist element in this mix," Mr. Hubbard said. "I can't come up with any other way to explain the fact that there is now a threat against someone who is bringing these things to light."

Mr. Hubbard said that he filed an official complaint with representatives in the State Department's Dallas office on Tuesday and that they responded that they would possibly contact Dallas police.

"I don't know if they will launch an investigation," he said.

Officials with the State Department could not confirm Wednesday that they had received a complaint. And Dallas Police Department authorities were not aware of the complaint.

Between July 1, 2006, and Oct. 4, 2007, the Irving Police Department has turned over 1,685 illegal immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials as part of the Criminal Alien Program, or CAP.

Under the program, people who are detained at the Irving Jail are asked about their legal status. If they are found to be illegal, they are turned over to immigration authorities.

Local activists are frustrated about the situation and say that hate mail and threats will do nothing to solve the problem, but dialogue will.

"This is horrible," said Anthony Bond, an activist in Irving. "The person who made that threat should be prosecuted. The consul is a victim of a hate crime."

Mr. Hubbard said he would continue about his business, though he's not taking the threat lightly. He said he would ask his wife to be more careful, but that he will not be intimidated.

"I am not going to keep my mouth shut or stop saying what I need to say," he added. "I'm not taking this lightly, but it's not going to affect my life."

Staff writers Scott Goldstein and Brandon Formby contributed to this report.