CONSULATE SEEKS TO ISSUE IDs TO HELP REDUCE ARRESTS
Patrick Mcgee - Dallas Star-Telegram
Dallas, TX - The Mexican Consulate wants to send mobile units to Irving, Texas to issue identification cards to illegal immigrants to try to save them from arrest and deportation.
Irving Mayor Herbert Gears said the ID cards could prevent only a few arrests, but he promised to meet monthly with Consul Enrique Hubbard Urrea to review any complaints stemming from the city's Criminal Alien Program.
Deportations
The program identifies suspected illegal immigrants in the city's jail and refers them to federal authorities for possible deportation. More than 1,600 illegal immigrants, mostly Mexicans, have been turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the past 13 months.
Gears said the program will continue.
"Nothing has been changed in regards to police policy and procedure," he said.
Urrea said he wants to send consulate officials to Irving to issue ID cards directly to Mexicans living there. No schedule or location has been chosen.
"If they have the card, their chances of not being arrested would improve dramatically," he said. Police can arrest motorists for not having a driver's license or issue a citation if the person's other identification appears valid.
Gears said the consular ID card might prevent the arrest of people whom police need to identify, but it will not exempt them from arrest for any other crime.
Policy's fairness debated
Gears spoke after a morning meeting with Urrea and about a dozen Hispanic activists. The meeting was the latest chapter in the activists' campaign against Irving's program, which they say unfairly singles out Hispanics.
Gears said that every complaint about racial profiling investigated so far has been found to be untrue.
But Urrea said the complaints continue.
"So we would prefer to sit down and discuss them," he said. "They might have no merit, I don't know. I get these complaints, and I am under pressure to do something about it. ... I have to assume that what my people are telling me is true."
A look at police data, however, suggests that getting illegal immigrants to be more conscientious about carrying identification would put a small dent in deportations.
Only about 9 percent of the suspected illegal immigrants jailed were charged with not having a driver's license, according to Irving police data.
But the data is not clear on how many of them were accused of the lack of a valid driver's license or simply of not having a driver's license in their possession. It also does not show how many of them were also arrested for other offenses.
Local law enforcement
The Irving police's Criminal Alien Program has drawn the ire of Hispanic activists for the high number of suspected illegal immigrants turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE officials said Irving turns over more people than any other North Texas law enforcement agency. Here is a list of the seven top agencies and how many people they turned over last month:
Carlos Fuentes, a renowned Mexican novelist, scholar and diplomat, presented his view of Mexican history and national identity at a recent lecture at Princeton University.
Fuentes traced the social, political and economic development of Mexico in a talk called "A Panoramic View of the History of Mexico." Fuentes began his talk by describing Mexican mythology, focusing on the question of identity that pervades the country's lore from the very beginning of the civilization to the present day, a theme he also often visits in his many novels.
"From the beginning we asked ourselves questions of identity: Who are we? What do we remember? What do we desire?" Fuentes said. "We also asked ourselves the question of justice: To whom do these lands belong?"
Fuentes described the pivotal role of the Mexican Revolution in its history, saying that the Institutional Revolutionary Party brought political stability and a sense of permanence to the country.
Fuentes, who was a visiting professor and fellow of the Humanities council at Princeton in 1979, described yesterday's visit as a homecoming. He has also taught at Cambridge, Harvard and Brown. Firestone Library serves as the archival home for Fuentes' works with 200 boxes of his journals, editorials, letters to international figures, drafts of novels, notebooks from his time in elementary school, photos and audiotapes.
Fuentes' long career as a diplomat and director of international cultural relations for the Mexican government put him in a position to observe the impact imperial powers had on the development of the country. Mexico became open to foreign intervention and lost half of its territory as the United States expanded across North America during the 19th century.
"The Mexican Revolution was a real revolution," Fuentes said, adding that Mexicans gained "national self-knowledge" and a "discovery of cultural continuity which had never been fully recognized in the political and economic history of the country." Fuentes also said that the revolution allowed Mexico to have social justice and maintain national unity against U.S. pressure.
Despite the gains from the revolution, Fuentes pointed out that much had yet to be done to strengthen Mexico, such as integrating minority groups into the population and creating more job opportunities.
When an audience member asked Fuentes to address the issue of Mexican immigration to the United States, Fuentes said that the United States "was once an empty country."
"The so-called American Indians came from somewhere else," he said. "The Europeans were immigrants. This is a country of migrants. When they are here, they should be respected as workers doing the jobs Americans don't want to do."
He stressed that Mexicans had a "greater responsibility to keep [immigrants to the United States] in our country and offer them work and better social conditions."
MEXICAN ACTIVISTS ARE AT ODDS ON THE BEST APPROACH FOR FIRM TO SERVE LOYAL CUSTOMERS
By Oscar Avila and Antonio Olivo | Tribune staff reporters
8:28 AM CDT, October 21, 2007
NOCHISTLAN, Mexico - The resentment some Mexicans feel toward the money service that has become their lifeline is apparent in a flier making the rounds on both sides of the border. "Western Union, your fees are a rip-off," it says, showing the image of a masked bandit.
The familiar black-and-gold sign of Western Union is a fixture in Mexican towns like Nochistlan and immigrant enclaves in the U.S., a symbol of the popular yet polarizing mechanism through which workers send remittances to their families south of the border, a flow that totaled $23billion last year.
Now, the complex relationship between Western Union and its Mexican clients has taken another turn as a bloc of Mexican community leaders urges countrymen to boycott the company. Another faction, meanwhile, has teamed with Western Union to launch innovative job-creating ventures in needy towns, including Nochistlan, arguing that the company should be cultivated as an ally.
On one hand, residents in places like Nochistlan are grateful to wire-transfer companies such as Western Union for offering a financial lifeline to isolated places typically underserved by banks. But family members in the U.S. often grouse that the companies charge too much. For a same-day $100 transfer to Mexico, for example, Western Union charges nearly 15 percent.
The growing debate over the role of Western Union has split key organizers of the huge immigration marches held in Chicago over the past two years.
Liberal Mexican activists, including some labor leaders wary of corporate influence, joined the national boycott of Western Union last month. Those critics say the company has a social responsibility to help poor communities where it makes so much money and that its philanthropy lags behind the efforts of other corporations.
They consider that especially galling because Western Union had about $2.3 billion in revenues in the first six months of 2007, much of it from fees paid by immigrants sending money home.
But leaders of immigrant clubs, including those representing Mexicans from the states of Zacatecas and Michoacan now living in Illinois, want to work with the company to bankroll projects in Mexico. Many of those activists entered the immigrant movement as business owners and see the company as a willing financier for their ventures
"I totally agree with exercising social pressure, but I'm not sure if it should be as a boycott," said Efrain Jimenez, vice president of a Zacatecas federation in California organizing the Nochistlan projects. "Yes, Western Union has a social responsibility, but they have the right as a company to make money too. They aren't a charity."
Western Union officials say the demands of some activists are unrealistic. They say the company has been aggressive in its philanthropy, although that is a corporate strategy also aimed at defending its business against the emergence of banks and other competitors in wire transfers.
"We will continue to focus on serving our customers and supporting them in the best possible way," said company spokesman Daniel Diaz, citing about $40 million in aid given by the company's foundation to groups in 70 countries since 2000.
Western Union's business practices were under the microscope in the late 1990s when Chicago plaintiffs led a class-action lawsuit that accused the company and co-defendants MoneyGram and Orlandi Valuta, two other wire transfer service companies, of collecting millions of dollars in hidden fees. Western Union and the others eventually agreed to a $375 million settlement, which included the creation of a fund for immigrant organizations.
But in recent years, the company has started to win over even some former critics.
"The Western Union that I sued is not the Western Union company that is there today," said Chicago lawyer Matt Piers, who filed the lawsuit. "I think the company has woken up and realized that it's a smart thing to treat your customers better."
Fixtures in town
In Nochistlan, a town of 15,000 about seven hours by car northwest of Mexico City, Western Union and other money-transfer companies are fixtures near the main square. For example, customers can receive transfers via Western Union at the Guadalajara Pharmacy, a general store, as they stock up on groceries and other staples.
With about 300,000 locations worldwide, Western Union touts its convenience for out-of-the-way places like this. Even though some banks offer money transfers without fees, Mexicans are much more likely to use other transfer firms, for several reasons.
Experts say Mexicans often distrust the banking system -- many still conduct transactions strictly in cash -- and feel more comfortable at companies like Western Union that they know speak their language.
Western Union holds about 15 percent of the remittance market to Mexico, more than any other single entity, according to the Inter-American Development Bank. But banks and non-traditional senders such as Wal-Mart are making inroads.
In a show of goodwill, Western Union approached officials in Zacatecas, the source of many immigrants to Chicago. The two sides eventually agreed that Western Union would participate in the "3-for-1" program in which federal, state and local governments in Mexico match funds raised by immigrant clubs in the U.S.
As the first private partner, Western Union pledged $1.2 million and started its first job-creating projects in Zacatecas this year with clubs from Illinois and California.
The joint partnership in Nochistlan is paying for a computerized irrigation system in a cactus field that organizers hope will increase the yield. The growers hope to sell the cactus as a vegetable but also to make tortillas. Western Union also is helping to bankroll a storefront business that reassembles computers.
The workers in both projects are engineers who recently graduated from a technical institute in town. In the past, they would have to move to nearby Aguascalientes or to the U.S. if they wanted to
Transfer fees, a little or a lot
"I am grateful that there are people who believe in us," said Manuel Avelar, 24, who is helping run the cactus project.
So far, the Nochistlan projects have generated about a dozen jobs. And Jimenez conceded that Western Union's total contribution will be less than 1 percent of the money raised for 3-for-1 projects in Zacatecas.
Carlos Arango, an activist in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood who is helping organize the boycott, said Western Union's contributions are "insufficient," given that the company reported about $1.1 billion in revenues during the first quarter of this year. He also downplayed the class-action settlement, which was paid out in coupons for future transfers, many of which went uncollected.
"In reality, that was nothing," Arango said.
Boycott is tough
Outside a Western Union store in Pilsen, activists pushing the national boycott huddled around Santos Tolentino, 75, urging him to stop patronizing the company.
Tolentino, who sends $500 every few months to a daughter in Michoacan, agreed to avoid going in for the day.
But later he said he likely would go back. "Yes, their prices are a little high, but what can I do?" he said. "They have a store near where my daughter lives, and it gets there very fast, without any problems."
The boycotters, organized by the Oakland-based Transnational Institute for Grassroots Research and Action, are demanding that Western Union donate $1 for every money transfer back toward Mexican community development.
As the boycott idea spread, Western Union unveiled a plan this month to fund $1 million in scholarships and training for immigrants. The company also plans to expand its 3-for-1 participation to other Mexican states and other Latin American nations.
The mixed feelings over Western Union were clear in May during an international immigrant summit in the Mexican city of Morelia, at which the company contributed $10,000 as a sponsor. As panelists spoke behind a company logo, Fabian Morales, president of a federation of Guerrero state immigrants in Chicago, said he feared that the boycott from his fellow immigrant activists could discourage increased financial contributions from Western Union.
"At least we are getting a little bit of help from Western Union. We should negotiate with them," Morales said.
Officials in Nochistlan welcome the assistance, not just for the actual dollars.
Luis David Ramirez, the town's economic development director, said Western Union has brought professionalism to projects typically organized by volunteers. Company executives, who inspected the progress of Avelar's cactus field last month, expect strict accounting and oversight, he said.
Ramirez said he also hopes Western Union's example, though limited, will encourage Mexican and U.S. corporations to offer their own financial support for job-creating ventures that will slow the exodus of immigrants to the U.S.
Jimenez, the California immigrant activist, said he realizes that Western Union has the same motives as any other corporation: good publicity.
"But I want to believe that they are sincere," he said. "If not, they will have let me down."
- - -
Transfer fees, a little or a lot
Western Union's fees vary widely based on the amount of money sent and how fast it must arrive.
For same-day transfers of $100 to Mexico, the fees are nearly 15 percent. But for a more typical transfer of $300, the fees are about 5 percent and have dropped steadily over the years.
----------
oavila@tribune.com
aolivo@tribune.com
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
Join us on Sunday for the Labor of Love! Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. Location: Centennial Olympic Park
And united we will always be, as we help build a better country, supported by our families, our work and the yearning to make all our dreams come true.
As immigrants, we have left our home countries behind to take advantage of the splendid opportunities this marvelous country has to offer, and our hearts are filled with pride, appreciation and love for our state of Georgia.
You and your family are invited to join us on a marvelous day when we will build a gigantic heart with thousands of flowers to express our good faith and gratitude.
Together, we can build a great team to work for a better country!
Location: Centennial Olympic Park, in the heart of downtown Atlanta
Tax-deductible contributions specifically for this event can be made to the GALEO Latino Community Development Fund (GLCDF), a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit organization. All funds raised for this event will be used only for this event. Any excess funds and the flowers will be donated to the U.S.O. & Veteran's Administration (VA) Hospital.
Checks can be made to "GLCDF", P.O. Box 29506, Atlanta, GA, 30359. Please note "Labor of Love" on the check.
For more information, please contact Jose Blanco, GALEO Program Coordinator, 404.745.2546, joseblanco@galeo.org. Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO)
P.O. Box 29506 Atlanta, Georgia 30359 Jose Blanco, Program Coordinator, 404.745.2546
14 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS NABBED IN TRAFFIC STOP PASSENGERS PAID $200 EACH TO ENTER U.S.
POSTED: 11:49 am PDT October 22, 2007 UPDATED: 12:03 pm PDT October 22, 2007
PRESCOTT, Ariz. -- A sheriff's deputy arrested 14 illegal immigrants on Sunday in a traffic stop near Seligman, officials said.
The deputy spotted a minivan with Alabama license plates weaving in its lane on Interstate 40 around 3:15 p.m. and initiated a traffic stop, the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office said.
The driver, 25-year-old Francisco Hernandez, had a Mexican license with the name Hector Zandoval and two other forged identification documents, the Sheriff's Office said.
In the van with Hernandez were 10 men, two women and an 11-year-old boy, the Sheriff's Office said. Some of the passengers were sitting on top of each other.
When asked where they were going, the passengers gave varying answers including Alabama and New York. One passenger told the deputy they had each paid $200 to be smuggled in from Mexico, YCSO said.
Hernandez was arrested on forgery charges and could be charged with human smuggling.
The 11 adult passengers were taken to the Prescott Jail and the boy was taken to a juvenile facility. All were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
SENATE GOP STRIKES BACK AT SPITZER'S ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PLAN
By VALERIE BAUMAN | Associated Press Writer 8:09 PM EDT, October 22, 2007
ALBANY, N.Y. - The Senate's Republican majority moved Monday to try to block Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to make it easier for illegal immigrants to receive driver's licenses.
The bill to reverse Spitzer's order drew some of the most heated and personal attacks seen in years on the state Senate floor, pitting upstate and downstate politicians against each other.
Some white upstate Senators felt they were being called racist and took offense to comments Sen. Kevin Parker made indicating that New York City was more valuable as a terrorist target than upstate regions.
"I'm sorry everybody is so thin skinned they are hurt by my comments, but I have a lot of people in my district and a lot of people in this state who are hurt by this legislation," the Brooklyn Democrat said.
The Senate's license bill would require applicants for a driver's license to be in the country legally. Spitzer's plan will end that requirement in December, by no longer requiring a Social Security number to get or renew a license.
The debate was part of an uncertain special session that could include action on pay raises for legislators and judges and tax breaks despite a projected deficit.
Spitzer has said he can start the new policy in December without the Legislature's approval.
"We will change those rules," Spitzer said. "If somebody will challenge it, we'll see what the courts will do." He said he believes his administration is within its legal authority to change the rules.
"This governor is so ill advised, there's an arrogance to it that is hard to understand," said Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno.
The Assembly's Democratic majority has supported the Democratic governor's plan, although some Democrats may side with the opposed Republican minority. The Senate's measure, if passed as expected in that chamber, wouldn't become law without the Assembly's support.
Bruno said the attempt to change the policy on illegal immigrants was unconstitutional, contradicted the REAL ID Act and opposed the guidelines provided by the 911 commission.
After leaving a closed-door conference with Senate Democrats, Spitzer said the discussion was ongoing.
"Reasonable people will disagree on tough issues," Spitzer said. "That's part of the discourse we have ... I think some of the rhetoric that has been imposed and brought into this issue has not only been overheated but I would say counterproductive."
Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser to three presidents, and William Bratton, the former commissioner of the New York City Police Department have supported the governor's plan.
Republicans argued Spitzer's plan wouldn't help an illegal immigrant get insurance and the roads would be no safer.
"It is conceivable that some insurers will sell an insurance policy absent a social security number, but they would be in the minority," said Michael Barry, vice president of public relations for the Insurance Information Institute.
Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith said he and most of his Democratic caucus support the governor's plan.
"This is the right way to go, given that Washington has failed to act" on illegal immigration, Smith said on the Senate floor.
Meanwhile, the Assembly's minority Republican caucus called on Democrats to help pass legislation with new amendments when they go into session Tuesday. The new items would also prevent Spitzer's plan from going through.
A spokesman for Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly Democrats had no comment on how they would vote on the issue if forced to.
A Siena College poll released last week found 72 percent of voters were opposed to "the governor's plan to allow undocumented immigrants to get New York driver's licenses."
Assembly Republican leader James Tedisco of Schenectady said Republicans plan to force a vote on the issue Tuesday, if the Assembly goes into session.
The session came the same day that Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the new license policy.
Associated Press Writer Michael Gormley contributed to this report.
EIGHT WAYS TO GET DENIED, BANNED, DETAINED OR DEPORTED FROM THE U.S.
These Common Immigration Mistakes Will Keep Your Feet Off U.S. Soil
A variety of circumstances can lead to a visa or green card denial, banning from the U.S., or deportation. Here are eight avoidable immigration mistakes you need to know about.
Immigration Mistake #1: Break the Law, or Become a Suspect If you have had any trouble with the law, you may be: a) Denied a visa or entry at ports and borders, if you have a criminal record in any country, or criminal charges pending outside the U.S.;
b) Detained in a U.S. jail if you have broken (or are suspected of breaking) a U.S. or international law;
c) Banned from entering the U.S. for a stipulated number of years, or forever, because of criminal convictions abroad or in the States;
d) Deported from the U.S. if you are found guilty of a "crime of moral turpitude," or extradited if you face serious criminal charges abroad.
Immigration Mistake #2: Misrepresent Long-Term Reasons for Coming to the U.S. When you apply for a visa, you must intend to use that visa for its official purpose. If you come to the U.S. as a visitor, intending to seek work or marry, that's immigration fraud. In any case of misrepresentation you may be; a) Denied U.S. entry, a visa, a green card or citizenship;
b) Detained at the border or port of entry;
c) Banned from the U.S.;
d) Deported if you fail to leave on your own when ordered to.
Entering with one intent, and later changing your mind is not illegal. But, for example, if you enter on a visitor visa and get married a week later, that is going to be highly suspect: Immigration officials will likely believe that you planned this all along, that it was not a spontaneous change of plans.
Immigration Mistake #3: Express Hostile Anti-American Sentiments If you express hostile anti-American sentiments; if you are vocally sympathetic towards terrorist groups; or, if you are suspected of being violent or smuggling drugs, you could be: a) Denied entry to a U.S.-bound flight, or to the U.S. upon arrival;
b) Banned from future entries to the U.S.;
c) Detained in a U.S. jail indefinitely if you are suspected of having terrorist ties;
d) Deported if the U.S. government determines that you are a danger to its citizens.
Just be aware that post 9/11/01, even seemingly harmless jokes about terrorism could lead to a lot of unnecessary questioning and stress. Use common sense. No bomb jokes. Unless of course you really are a criminal, in which case, please flaunt it.
Immigration Mistake #4: Enter the U.S. Illegally If you have ever entered the U.S. by sneaking over the border or stowing away, you cannot gain legal status unless you a) marry a U.S. citizen and prove the relationship is legitimate, or b) the government grants you amnesty, refugee or asylum status. If you enter the U.S. on a Crewman's Visa, fail to depart with your vessel, and then remain in the U.S., not even marriage to a U.S. citizen will make you legal. Only a government amnesty or waiver would help you. You'd want to consult a lawyer.
Illegal crossers could be:
a) Denied a future visa or green card;
b) Banned from re-entering the U.S. for 5-10 years;
c) Detained within the U.S. for a removal hearing; and/or,
d) Deported if caught living in the States, even years later.
Immigration Mistake #5: Overstay Your Visa and I-94 If you stay in the U.S. longer than your Visa, I-94 and/or grace period (180 days after expiration) allow, you face: a) Future denial of visas;
b) Bans from re-entry;
c) Detention and deportation as an illegal alien, unless you:
Marry a U.S. citizen, based on a genuine, existing relationship and have a sponsor who will sign and qualify for an Affidavit of Support;
Are granted a waiver for extenuating circumstances; or,
Manage to qualify for Temporary Protected Status, Asylum or Refugee Status. Immigration Mistake #6: Enter the U.S. Very Contagious, or Pregnant If you arrive in the U.S. with a serious contagious illness, such as Tuberculosis, you may be: a) Denied entry; or,
b) Detained in quarantine.
Pregnancy's not an illness, but it does fall under "Health." So if you're pregnant, you may be:
a) Denied a visa or U.S. entry as student, worker or exchange visitor.
b) Denied if you're from a country with excessive illegal immigration to the U.S. or
c) Denied if you enter the U.S. in your third trimester. (Why? Babies born in the U.S. are automatic citizens and the government tries to prevent visitors from taking advantage of this.)
As an aside, airlines will often refuse very pregnant women just because flight attendants prefer not to deliver babies at 30,000 feet.
Immigration Mistake #7: Lie on Your Application Lying about anything on any visa, green card or citizenship application can result in: a) Denial;
b) A ban; or,
c) Deportation
The lies taken most seriously aside from intent include those related to criminal records, war crimes, negative political affiliations and terrorist ties. But any lie can be used against you. If you're afraid that the truth will have serious consequences, consult an attorney before you apply.
Immigration Mistake #8: Fail to Keep the USCIS Informed Since 9/11 the USCIS has been more diligent about keeping track of:
B and waiver Visitors;
M and F Students;
Temporary Workers;
Adjustment of Status applicants;
Green Card holders here for fewer than 10 years; and,
Sponsors of those Green Card Holders If the USCIS is unable to verify your status or reach you: a) Your application could be denied; or,
b) Your visa revoked, which could ultimately lead to:
c) Detention, future denials and bans or deportation for being an illegal alien.
Sponsored Links Fight Deportation/Removal Law Firm fights for those facing deportation. Free Consultation www.fight-deportation.com
Immigration The ultimate resources on Immigration www-Immigration.info
Green Card Investment Speak with Top Immigration Lawyers Each with 25+ years experience www.GreenCardInvestor.com
The process of making an immigration law (or any other law for that matter) is quite complex and time-consuming. This article explains the process of lawmaking (legislation) and the difference between a law and a bill.
Don't Rely on Mass Media for Legal Facts For future immigrants or anyone involved in immigration, reading about new immigration laws in general newspapers or hearing about them from other people can be confusing. You might read about a new rule that will allegedly make it harder for certain people to enter the country, or that driver's licenses will now be more difficult for immigrants to get, and a variety of other "regulations." When you talk to people, it seems everybody knows something about recent immigration law changes, but often times, facts get mixed up and leave many people wondering what is going to happen next, and even what the law really is.
A Bill is Not a Law
Even journalists often misrepresent the facts, writing about a new immigration "law," that is, in fact, still just a bill in need of approval from one of the legislative parties, and facing the distinct possibility that it may never see the light of day.
Democracy at Work
One of the greatest things in a democracy is that anyone can draft a bill and thereby attempt to contribute to, and shape, our society. In the United States, only members of Congress can actually introduce legislation though. Usually, interest groups and lobbies promote their causes by urging Congressmen to consider their proposals for introduction in Congress. But individuals can write to their Congressmen, and can even work on garnering enough support for a bill that it may actually make it to the floor for consideration.
Fun Fact: In contrast, in Switzerland, which many believe is the most democratic of all democracies, an individual can draft a bill or "initiative" as they call it, gather 100,000 signatures and send it to Congress, where it goes through the legislative mill before it becomes law or gets dropped. The U.S. is probably too large and diverse a country for mass input like that to be feasible.
How does the process work in the United States?
If a member of Congress decides to introduce legislation, he or she becomes the sponsor. Basically, there are four types of legislation: bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions. The legislative process starts:
"¢ When a bill or a resolution is labeled and numbered, for example H.R. 1234 or S. 1234, "H.R." standing for House of Representatives (short: House) bill or "S" for Senate bill "¢ When the bill or resolution is referred to a committee and the Government Printing Office prints the document. From this point forward, the bill or resolution (in this article referred to as "motion") enters a 13-step program:
1. Referral to Committee: Motion is referred to a committee in the House or Senate.
2. Committee Action: Motion is put on calendar of committee and either examined by the committee or referred to a subcommittee, such as the House Immigration Subcommittee. If the committee doesn't do anything with the motion, it dies.
3. Subcommittee Review: The Subcommittee reviews the motion and holds hearings for the public that usually include experts in the field, members of the executive and other supporters or opponents.
4. Mark Up: After the hearings, the subcommittee might make changes and amendments to the motion before it passes it on ("report legislation") to the full committee. If the subcommittee votes not to pass on the motion to the full committee, it dies.
5. Committee Action to Report a Bill: The full committee can hold further hearings or vote on the proposed changes, and then refer it to the House or the Senate. This process is known as "ordering a bill reported."
6. Publication of a Written Report: The committee prepares a report of the motion that includes the objective and the effect on existing laws, and the position of committee members and members of the executive.
7. Scheduling Floor Action: The motion is put on the calendar of the House or the Senate. The majority leader and the Speaker determine when a motion is debated on the floor. 8. Debate: Rules determine how and how long a motion is debated on the Senate or House floor.
9. Voting: Once the debate is over and possible amendments have been made, the members vote to either pass the motion or defeat it.
From Idea, to Motion, to Law 10. Referral to Other Chamber: After a motion has passed in one chamber, it is passed to the other one, where it goes through the same process as before, from committee review to debate on the floor. This other chamber can accept the motion as it is, reject it, change it or ignore it.
11. Conference Committee Action: If the other chamber makes significant changes to the motion, a conference committee is created in order to even out the differences between the Senate and House versions of the motion. Again, if the conference committee can't come to an agreement, the motion dies. If an agreement is reached, the conference committee prepares a report that details the changes. Both chambers, House and Senate must approve the conference report.
12. Final Actions: Once the motion has been approved by the Senate and the House, it is sent to the President.
For the legislation to become law, the President has to do one of two things: either sign the motion or take no action for ten days while Congress is in session. The President can also reject or veto the motion, or take no action after Congress has ended its second session, it then becomes a "pocket veto" and the motion or legislation dies.
13. Overriding a Veto: Congress has the ability to override the President's veto. In order to do so, a sufficient number of Congress members is needed with a 2/3 roll call.
As you can see, there are many opportunities along the way where a motion can die and never make it to the President. Just because a newspaper writes about bills and legislation does not mean it will ever become law. The time-consuming and tedious process of legislation ensures that extreme and unrealistic proposals have little chance of ever becoming reality, and it takes dedicated people with stamina to push for a new law.
However, a large number of bills are introduced each year. According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), there are 151 or so(!) immigration-related bills being debated at any given in the 109th Congress.
COMMENTARY: LOCAL POLICE SHOULDN'T ENFORCE IMMIGRATION
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Using local law enforcement in immigration matters will end badly
By Ruben Navarrette Jr. Special to CNN October 22, 2007
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The wacky world of immigration reform is full of half-baked ideas, but none has the taste of having spent less time in the oven than letting local cops enforce federal immigration law.
As the son of a retired cop who spent 37 years on the job, and someone who has seen firsthand how much havoc this policy can wreak, let me be clear: No. No. No. It's a dreadful idea that never goes away. In fact, someone should drive a wooden stake through its heart.
Listen to the experts. And I don't mean right-wing pundits, who have never worn a badge. I'm talking about men and women who have spent their careers in law enforcement. Most police chiefs in the country, and many rank-in-file officers, are smart enough to balk at enforcing immigration law. But the law enforcement community isn't monolithic. There are younger officers who are eager to jump into the muck and enforce immigration law. Many of the veteran officers know better and oppose it.
Meanwhile, politicians foolishly rush in. In December 2005, the Costa Mesa, California, City Council made that city the first in the United States to take advantage of a Justice Department program that trains local officers to enforce immigration law.
Now the issue is raging in Phoenix, Arizona, where media hound Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio struck an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, authorizing the training of 100 deputies to arrest illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security or public safety. Among the more than 1,000 people arrested so far: corn vendors scooped off city streets. You know the world is a dangerous place when food vendors are considered a threat to national security.
Things also are heating up in Irving, Texas, where police officers are using -- some say abusing -- an ICE initiative called the Criminal Alien Program, which allows local police departments to detain illegal immigrants who have been accused of a crime. That sounds reasonable enough, except for the complaints streaming in that Irving police officers are engaging in racial profiling by rounding up anyone who looks Hispanic who isn't carrying his papers.
This will end badly. Local immigrant communities need to be able to trust law enforcement, or they'll never cooperate with them as witnesses or report crimes when they're the victims. Word will get out that the immigrant communities are good prey, because the people there never go to the police. An initiative intended to fight crime could backfire and lead to more of it.
Besides, federal immigration officials couldn't care less what trouble local officials get into while playing border patrol agent. If there is racial profiling, and lawsuits start to fly, the feds will leave the locals holding the bag. You see, "interagency cooperation" stops at the courtroom door.
Yet some people still think that law enforcement entities are interchangeable and that one badge is as good as another. For those who believe that, the world of cops and robbers is a delightfully simple place. Law enforcement officers chase down criminals. Illegal immigrants are criminals. Ergo, local law enforcement should chase down illegal immigrants.
Sure. I'll buy that --- the next time I see FBI agents writing speeding tickets.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column here.
www.slate.com from: Tim Wu Posted Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM ET
This is a five-part series about the laws we are allowed to break in America and why. Tim Wu was online on Oct. 18 to chat with readers about this article. Read the transcript.
On Aug. 10, 2007, the Bush administration announced that it would try something no modern administration has succeeded in doing: enforcing the immigration laws. More specifically, the administration wants to institute serious fines for any employer who fails to fire workers lacking legitimate Social Security numbers. If Bush's plan is ever implemented, it will require the sacking of millions. Don't hold your breath. The administration is trying to get at one of America's favorite instances of tolerated lawbreaking: our de facto guest-worker program, created by the nonenforcement of immigration laws. And while no one will admit it, our current system is popular enough that his effort seems destined to fail.
For the last several decades, internal enforcement of the immigration laws has been, by and large, sporadic and symbolic. In 2004, the number of fines issued against domestic employers for employing illegal immigrants was a grand total of three. Politicians usually prefer to talk about "securing our borders," a method of stopping illegal immigration that has great advantages for all concerned. It sounds tough. It's easy to fund. And it doesn't deprive us of any of the benefits of illegal immigration, because it doesn't work. In fact, it's such a laughably ineffective way to deter illegal immigration that it almost seems designed to fail.
The enforcement math at play here is simple and mainly uncontested. There are millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States, millions more people who might enter, and millions of potential weak spots along the borders. These numbers make border enforcement a fruitless way of trying to "stop" illegal immigration.
Many illegal immigrants get to the United States on visas they overstay, bypassing the border altogether. Border enforcement can even be counterproductive, because it discourages those illegal immigrants who find themselves inside the country from ever trying to leave. And even when border agents catch people, it cannot be anything but a system of "catch and release," unless the United States is willing to open a Guantanamo prison complex the size of Rhode Island.
Studies and statistics suggest that the net impact of border enforcement on total immigration rates has been something close to zero"”making it more like a cultural subsidy than law enforcement. Despite the great increases in border enforcement in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been no measurable effect on the rate at which the illegal immigration population in the United States is growing. It is the classic example of applying a teaspoon solution to an ocean problem.
Meanwhile, employers and contractors are a much more obvious and logical target for a serious enforcement strategy. The number of employers who hire large numbers of illegals is not in the millions, but in the tens of thousands. Employers are large, sensitive to fines and threats of imprisonment, and tend stay in one place. Basic enforcement theory"”the theory of "gatekeeper enforcement""”clearly suggests targeting the few, not the many. Gatekeeper enforcement is what government does when it actually wants to stop something illegal from happening.
So why has the United States chosen a method"”border enforcement"”that's less effective than zealous domestic prosecution? If we thought illegal immigration was really a bad thing"”if, say, the problem were the unlawful arrival not of workers, but of disease-bearing chickens"”the government might rapidly deploy the most effective form of enforcement, with the support of all parts of society. But instead the nation tolerates illegal immigration to create a de facto guest-worker program. Immigration is what economists call "trade in services," and effective enforcement would make most services more expensive, just as blockading China would make many goods more expensive. It can be tough on low-wage workers, but the United States is richer overall because we get cheaper labor, while Mexicans and other workers are richer for selling it.
If all this is true, isn't creating a legalized guest-worker program the right thing to do? That's where political failure kicks in, for the political discussion of immigration policy is both inflamed and insane. The Republican Party is split between free traders and nativists, and the latter are much more vocal. Many in the Democratic Party"”loyal to organized labor on this point"”go nuts when it comes to guest-worker programs. Illegal immigrants themselves don't have representation. It all adds up to a big political zero.
Under the de facto guest-worker system, the United States gets to have its cake and eat it too. We receive all the advantages of cheap labor without the duties of having new citizens. We don't actually have to pass an unpopular or complex law. Elected officials and talk-radio hosts get to talk tough about "securing the border" which is tough on the actual migrants, but doesn't raise any actual danger of halting illegal immigration, hurting the economy, or displeasing large employers. And grown men get to fly giant model airplanes in the desert to "patrol" the Mexican border. Hypocrisy, in short, has its comforts.
Immigration policy is perhaps the strongest example of the ways in which tolerated lawbreaking is used to make the legal system closer to what lies in the economic interests of the nation but cannot be achieved by rational politics. All this is why the Bush administration faces an uphill battle in the course of trying a real internal enforcement strategy. My bet is that internal enforcement will be stopped somehow, someway. Let's be honest: We'll never say it, but this country must love illegal immigration.
Add to del.icio.us
