Political news
June 15, 2007, 7:24PM

House delays rules requiring passports


By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Congress is moving to postpone until June 2009 requiring passports for land and sea travel to Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean after complaints about vacation-ruining delays by the State Department in issuing them.

The House passed the 17-month delay Friday after a key Senate committee approved it a day earlier.

The State Department has been flooded with applications since new rules went into effect in January requiring passports for air travelers returning from the same destinations. The resulting backlog has caused delays of up to three months for passports and ruined or delayed the travel plans of thousands of people.

In response, the government last week temporarily waived a passport requirement for air travel, provided people can demonstrate they've applied.

The Homeland Security Department is still pressing ahead to require passports of everyone crossing into the U.S. from Canada or Mexico beginning in January 2008 — a rule that some experts believe will lead to a fourfold increase in demand for new passports.

The House voted 379-45 Friday to include the delay as part of a $37.4 billion homeland security spending bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved the same provision as part of its version of the bill.

"Nobody can say with a straight face that the federal government is ready for this," said Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio. "My amendment simply asks the DHS to slow down and get it right this time."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expressed disappointment with what Congress wants to do.

"To simply kick it down the road and put it into a position where we're going to wait a year and a half is to really create a window of vulnerability," he said.

The application surge is the result of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that since January has required U.S. citizens to use passports when entering the United States from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean by air. It is part of a broader package of immigration rules enacted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Lawmakers have been besieged with pleas for help from constituents who can't get their passports even though they applied up to four months ago.

Last year, Congress gave the Homeland Security and State departments additional time to get ready for the new passport rules, but they opted not to take advantage of the leniency. Now, increasingly frustrated lawmakers want to mandate the delay.

"The administration is walking blithely toward a cliff with this program, and they're threatening to take millions of Americans with them," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "Their competence in being able to get this right was already in question, and when they keep insisting they'll be ready in six months, so is their judgment."

The surge in applications has doubled target turnaround times for passport applications from six to 10-12 weeks, and 500,000 applications have already taken longer.

Those numbers pale in comparison to what lies ahead.

According to government estimates, about 6 million Americans will need formal documents to travel to the Caribbean, Canada or Mexico by air or sea. The estimated need for land crossings is more than four times that: 27 million Americans over the next five years. Those numbers do not include the regular year-to-year demand for passports.

Last year, the State Department processed 12.1 million passports. This year, officials expect to process about 18 million. The department received 1 million applications in December, 1.8 million in January and 1.7 million in February.


On the Net:

State Department information on passports: http://travel.state.gov

June 8, 2007, 10:24PM

Providing some answers on the passport changes

By HARRY SHATTUCK
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


Q: What if I am flying from Houston to Cancun this year? Do I need a passport?

A: Because of a huge backlog of passport applications, the State Department has suspended a passport requirement through Sept. 30 for those who can prove they have applied.

Under current policies announced on Friday, Americans flying to Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean and Bermuda who have applied for but not yet received passports can temporarily enter and depart from the United States by air with a government-issued photo identification and Department of State official proof of application for a passport.

Also, children younger than 16 traveling with their parents or legal guardian will be permitted to travel by presenting the child's proof of application upon departure from and arrival to the United States. Children traveling alone should carry a copy of their birth certificate, baptismal record or a hospital record of birth in the United States.

Q: I applied some time ago but have not received my passport. I have no receipt, so how do I prove that I applied?

A: U.S. citizens with pending passport applications can obtain proof of application by going online to travel.state.gov.

Q: I keep waiting for my passport to arrive. My trip departure is approaching, and I am concerned. How can I check the status?

A: The National Passport Information Center's toll-free phone line (877-487-2778) is now staffed 5 a.m.-11 p.m. Mondays-Fridays and 8 a.m.-4 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. Travelers can check the status of their application online at www.travel.state.gov/passport/get/status/status_2567.html.
Q: Do new policies cover travel to U.S. territories in the Caribbean and elsewhere?

A: No. U.S. citizens do not not need a passport to fly directly to or from any U.S. territory, including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. This won't change if the suspension is lifted Sept. 30.

Q: Will I need a passport this year to drive to Mexico or Canada?

A: No. 2008 is the earliest that a passport or passport card will be required for land border crossings or for cruises.

harry.shattuck@chron.com

June 15, 2007, 4:44PM

Passport mess could get much worse


By HARRY SHATTUCK
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


Passport application proof — Check your passport application status and print out a State Department receipt.

Details of the rule change
What you need to know about passports — Find out how to apply or renew, download forms and get answers to frequently asked questions from the U.S. State Department.

Country by country requirements — Rundown of each nation's rules of entry.



To Apply For a Passport
A person applying for a passport needs the following items:

• Show proof of citizenship such as a previous U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate, a naturalization certificate or a certificate of citizenship.
• Show proof of identity such as a previous U.S. passport, driver's license and government or military IDs.
• Have two recent identical 2-x-2-inch photographs.
Excuse my grammar, but you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Given the inexcusable mess that our government has created in implementing Phase 1 of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative's new passport regulations, I shudder to think how much chaos the more complex and controversial next step will cause.

Phase 1 should have been a cakewalk. Effective Jan. 23, all Americans were required to possess a passport for flights between the United States and Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean and Bermuda. Since travel to other international destinations already required passports, the State and Homeland Security departments obviously assumed that any surge in applications could be easily managed.

How else to explain the initial strategy — amended way too late — of maintaining normal application hours and procedures and not adding significantly to the work force at regional passport offices and call centers. Or the stubborn determination to proceed with the introduction of biometric passports, forcing processors to learn new procedures when time was of the essence.

The results of these miscalculations are well-documented: Delays of three to four months in handling what should have been routine applications. Distressed applicants sleeping overnight in long lines outside passport centers. Canceled vacations. Ruined weddings and honeymoons.

And now comes the decision — again too late — to "suspend" the new passport requirement until Sept. 30. Under the suspension, people who have applied for a passport but not received it can travel by air to Mexico, Canada, Bermuda and the Caribbean with a "proof of application" receipt, a photo ID and an original birth certificate or other documentation required by individual countries. (Go to www.travel.state.gov.)
But wait! There's more.

Phase 2 of this initiative would require anyone who crosses the U.S.-Canada or U.S.-Mexico borders by land to possess a passport or a proposed new passport card. The requirement would apply, too, to cruisers to Mexico, the Caribbean, Bermuda and Canada.


Logistical nightmare
By law, the State and Homeland Security departments have until June 1, 2009, to implement this stage. But it could happen as early as Jan. 1, 2008 — 6 1/2 months from now — and Homeland Security insists it prefers a sooner-than-later timetable.

Get serious, people.

Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of supplying a new document — and the passport card isn't even available yet — to every American who drives or walks across the border? It's one thing that our neighbors are furious at us for adopting this policy; it's yet another if we can't make it work without alienating our own citizens.

As for cruises: About 12 million Americans will take a voyage this year, and the vast majority sail to ports in the Caribbean and Mexico. Most passengers don't bother with a passport now. And many frequent cruisers don't plan to apply until they learn all the details about a passport card, which would cost less than a passport.

Bottom line: Once our government issues a deadline for cruising and border crossings, we'll likely see an onslaught of applications that dwarfs the situation this year.

By then will it be prepared? I couldn't help but laugh at the State Department's recent boast that it had hired 170 new employees to handle the overload. Passport centers issued 10.3 million passports during the past eight months, a 37 percent increase over the same period last year. Is our government so naive as to believe that 170 people could make a significant dent in processing these applications and handle thousands of phone inquiries from irate Americans unsure if their documents would arrive in time for them to travel?

But don't blame individual workers. I've spent hours at the Houston Passport Office; I've witnessed the staff's dedication. Believe me, they share our despair.

Corrective action must start at the top. And if these new policies are critical to combatting terrorism — and our government insists that's the justification, though critics disagree — we need action now.


Around the clock
Keep passport offices open 24 hours a day, seven days a week if necessary. Hire enough staff to get the job done (and new employees are being added). And, by all means, answer the phone and give U.S. citizens an accurate update on the status of their application.

Either that or cancel — not suspend — the new requirements, especially those proposed for cruisers and border crossings. For the life of me, I can't figure what kind of terrorist threat a family cruising from Galveston to Cozumel poses.

Pending legislation indicates that Congress shares my concerns. On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), and included in the annual Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, that would mandate a shift in the launch date for Phase 2 until at least June 1, 2009. That bill must next go to the full Senate and eventually to House-Senate conference. An amendment similar to the Leahy-Stevens amendment passed the House of Representatives June 15 by a vote of 349-45.
Allow me one last word, too, on the decision to suspend passport requirements for some air travelers: Also victimized in the processing backlog are Americans who have trips scheduled to Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. They still need passports, and some need them today.

It's a mess. And it could get worse.

harry.shattuck@chron.com

Key Issues On The Immigration Reform Debate

In This Report

Overview
Key Provisions
Amendment Votes
Key Players
» Senate | White House | House
Presidential Candidates' Views
Interest Groups
» Business | Labor | Immigrant Advocacy Groups | Other

By Ilene Rosenblum
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Updated Thursday, June 14, 2007; 6:54 p.m.

On May 9, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) introduced this year's attempt at a plan to overhaul the nation's immigration laws. On May 17, a bipartisan coalition of senators led by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) reached what appeared to be an adjusted compromise version of the legislation that met with President Bush's approval.


The Senate voted on a series of amendments May 22 to 24 and June 6 and 7 to tweak the fragile agreement. However, the coalition failed to move the bill forward on the 7th when senators from both parties refused to cut off debate and move to a final vote, handing the unlikely alliance of Democratic leaders and President Bush a setback on a major domestic priority. Reid is hopeful the bill can be resurrected later in the session, but called for more involvement from the White House in engaging Republican holdouts.



Key Provisions of Senate Bill as Introduced May 17 :

Illegal Immigrants: Allow nearly all of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants who entered the country before 2007 to apply for a "Z visa" that would permit them to live and work in the country as long as they pay a series of fees and renew their visas every two years. Applicants must pass a background check, remain employed and receive a counterfeit-proof biometric card.

Temporary Workers: Create a temporary-worker program that would grant two-year work "Y visas," renewable twice, as long as foreign workers leave the country between each period. Through a mostly merit-based "point" system based on education, job skills, market needs and English proficiency, immigrants can work toward receiving a visa. Allow as many as 600,000 foreign laborers a year into the country. (An amendment to the bill passed that would scale back the number to 200,000.)

The Border: Make provisions above contingent on increased border security by raising the number of border patrol agents from 13,000 to 18,000, building new vehicle barriers, fencing, ground-based radar and camera towers.

Workplace Enforcement: Strengthen enforcement by fining employers who hire illegal immigrants up to $5,000 for a first offense and up to $75,000 for subsequent offenses with possible jail time.

Green Cards: Create a new system for green-card applications that would deemphasize family ties and favor applicants with advanced education, work skills and English-language proficiency. Visas for parents would be capped.


Amendments Considered in the Senate June 6 and 7:
Passed:

Cornyn Amendment No. 1250 - To strike the confidentiality protections for legalization applicants. 57-39.

Dorgan Amendment No. 1316 - To end the Y-1 guest worker program after a five-year period. It clarifies that the H-2A visa program would not be subject to this termination. 49-48.
Inhofe Amendment No. 1151 - To declare English as the national language of the United States. It provides that the English language be the default language for government communication, and that no person has a right to have the government communicate in any language other than English, unless "specifically stated in applicable law." 64-33

Kennedy Amendment No. 1333 - To create inadmissibility and deportability grounds for various categories of offenders, including gang members, *** offenders and drunk drivers, so they will not qualify for the legalization program. 66-32.

Kyl Amendment No. 1460 - To modify the allocation of visas with respect to the backlog of family-based visa petitions. 51-45.

Reid Amendment No. 1331 - To clarify that nothing in the bill would change the prohibition on illegal aliens gaining access to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). 57-40.

Salazar Amendment No. 1384 - To reaffirm that English is the common language of the United States, but does not undermine existing law that requires the government to provide native language documentation for safety, health care, education, and other services. 58-39.

Sanders Amendment No. 1223 - To raise the fees employers who wish to import H-1B high-skill nonimmigrant workers from $1,500 to $8,500, with the funds going to scholarships for U.S. citizens pursuing high-tech studies. 59-35
Sessions Amendment No. 1234 - To deny the EITC for undocumented individuals applying for "Z visa" status and "Y visa" holders until they become a permanent resident. 56-41.

Lieberman Amendment - To reform the asylum process by improving translation services, access to legal counsel and medical for those seeking aslym. It would also establish an Office of Detention Oversight within the Department of Homeland Security. Agreed to by voice vote.

Thomas Amendment - To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish up to five additional units of 15 Customs and Border Patrol Officers on Indian reservations. Agreed to by voice vote.

Schumer Amendment - To provide for the establishment of B-1 visitor visa decision-making guidelines and a tracking system. Agreed to by voice vote.

Hutchison Amendment - To prohibit obtaining Social Security benefits based on earnings obtained during any period without work authorization. Agreed to by voice vote.
Rejected:

Bingaman Amendment No. 1267 - To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the U.S. before they are able to renew their visa. 41-57.

Clinton Amendment No. 1183 - To remove limits on visas for the spouses and minor children of immigrants with permanent resident status. 44-53

Cornyn Amendment No. 1184 - To bar criminals - including those ordered by judges to be deported - from gaining legal status. Democrats won adoption of a rival version that would ban a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and *** offenders, from gaining legalization. 46-57.

DeMint Amendment No. 1197 - To tie participation in a health plan to access to legal status, thereby limiting the number of people who would qualify for legalization. Rejected 43-55.

Ensign Amendment No. 1374 - To increase weight placed on education and skills but eliminate the family credits for "Z visa" eligibility. 42-55.

Menéndez-Hagel Amendment No. 1194 - To reclassify spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents as "immediate relatives," thereby exempting them from visa caps. This would have allowed as many as 833,000 more visas than the bill now offers, based purely on family connections. Under a Senate procedural rule invoked by opponents to amendment, 60 votes were needed for passage. 44-53.

Obama Amendment No. 1202 - To end the new point system for those seeking green cards in five years rather than 14 years. 42-55.

Vitter Amendment No. 1339 - To require that the U.S. VISIT system - the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996, which is past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date - be finished as part of the enforcement legislation. 48-49.

------------------------------------------------
Key Players:

In the Senate

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) - Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
As the bill's leading Senate negotiator with the White House, this is the third time that the liberal Massachusetts senator has backed a major initiative of President Bush's (the other two were the No Child Left Behind education law and a Medicare prescription drug bill). Kennedy is pushing for more recognition of less-skilled workers in the green-card point system.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) - U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
The leading Republican negotiator, Kyl is under intense criticism in his border state for creating a guest worker program and a path to citizenship.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) - Ranking Republican, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

On May 29, Cornyn said that he is "unhappy" with the compromise. "I'm not going to support a bill, just any old bill, just to send the bill to the president. It's got to be a good bill. This bill does not meet that description. I don't know if it ever will," the Dallas Morning News reported.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) - Senate Majority Leader
Reid is a cosponsor of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which eliminates denial of an unlawful immigrant's eligibility for higher education benefits based on state residence, a part of the current legislation. Reid has called for strong border enforcement, tough sanctions against employers who hire undocumented immigrants and allowing for undocumented immigrants to earn U.S. citizenship.


White House

President George W. Bush

Bush is encouraging legislators to back the compromise plan reached by the White House and a group of senators on May 17. He has vehemently defended the bill against conservative critics from his own party who call it an amnesty provision. He acknowledges that the bill is a compromise but recognizes it as a chance to fix a broken system.

On June 14, Bush endorsed a plan by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), that grants $4.4 billion in accelerated funding for the legislation to beef up border security and prevent illegal immigrants from being hired in an attempt to appeal to conservatives who are opposed to the bill that is stalled in the Senate.

The following are some of Bush's most recent comments on the compromise:

"And [Secretary of Commerce] Carlos [Gutierrez] and [Secretary of Homeland Security] Mike Chertoff spent a lot of time sitting with the senators from both political parties. I don't know if you're tired of it, but a lot of Americans are simply tired of this endless political bickering, that we can't work together because it might make somebody else look good. I tried to change the system. It's not working. So I sat the two secretaries in there with the senators from both parties and said, "OK, why don't we sit down and see if we can't figure something -- something what's good for the country? Each side's going to have to give a little bit. Not everybody's going to get everything they want. But what matters more is fixing the problem now. And we're making some progress."

-- May 29, before U.S. Customs and Border Patrol trainees, Glynco, Ga.

"On a piece of legislation this complicated, the question people have to answer is: Are we going to sacrifice for the good for the sake of the perfect?"

-- June 1, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington

"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept."

-- June 14, Associated Builders and Contractors conference, Washington



In the House of Representatives

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) - Speaker of the House

"I agree that it's a good first step," Pelosi said of the bill on May 19. However, she expressed concern about family reunification. "A point system for unification undermines our family values that we espouse in our country," she said. "I don't know why we have to make a compromise on reunification of families. I really don't."

Pelosi has indicated that any House immigration bill introduced this summer is likely to look considerably different from the Senate bill, which is designed to attract more Republican votes.

Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.)

The lead House negotiator said he disagrees with Senate version favoring immigrants with certain skills. "We need to find a system that values and honors the work of all," he said, shortly after the Senate compromise was reached. "The landscaper is just as important as the computer scientist."

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

Flake, who with Rep. Gutierrez introduced the STRIVE Act, the House's reform proposal, applauded the Senate compromise, saying: "Our task in the House is to build a similar coalition."

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) - House Minority Leader
Boehner has sounded his party's call for an enforcement-first approach. "Securing our borders and stopping the flood of illegal immigration into the United States must be the first priority of this Congress," Boehner said in a statement. He expressed "significant concerns about parts of the Senate proposal - particularly provisions that would reward illegal immigrants who have consistently broken our laws."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Presidential Candidates' Views

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.)

In November, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's chairman called Mexico an "erstwhile democracy" with a "corrupt system" that is responsible for the illegal immigration and drug problems in America. Unless the political situation changes in Mexico and American employers who hire illegal immigrants are punished, illegal immigration won't stop, he said. "All the rest is window dressing," he said. Biden abstained from voting on consideration of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act on May 17.

Biden also abstained from voting to invoke cloture to proceed to consider the original compromise on May 21. He voted "Yes" on the June 7 cloture motion to cut off debate on the measure and bring it to a final vote.

In the last Congress, Biden voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, and the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)

Clinton is pushing for family reunification and cosponsored an amendment with Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Robert Menéndez (D-N.J.) that would allow spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residence to be exempt from visa caps.

Clinton abstained from voting to invoke cloture to proceed to consider the original compromise on May 21. She voted "Yes" on the June 7 cloture motion to cut off debate on the measure and bring it to a final vote.

Clinton has cosponsored the DREAM Act, which would allow certain alien students to meet residency requirements for higher education, and the AgJOBS bill, which would open the way to legal status for some agriculture workers. She has also pushed for passage of the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act and the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act. In the last Congress, she voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and last year's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)

Dodd introduced an amendment to unite parents with their children who are U.S. citizens by increasing the annual cap on green cards for parents and extending the duration of the parent visitor visa. Dodd abstained from voting on consideration of the May 17 reform compromise.

Dodd abstained from voting to invoke cloture to proceed to consider the original compromise on May 21. He voted "Yes" on the June 7 cloture motion to cut off debate on the measure and bring it to a final vote.

In the last Congress, he voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

John Edwards
The former senator from North Carolina has expressed concerns about a "poorly conceived" guest worker program. Edwards said he supports an "earned path" to citizenship for illegal immigrants, which includes paying a fine and learning English.


Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.)

Obama has called the compromise's green card point plan a "radical experiment in social engineering." He has criticized the bill for favoring immigrants with stronger job skills rather than for their character and work ethic and has cosponsored an amendment with Menéndez that would weaken the point system that favors immigrations with higher education. He did not vote on consideration of the larger reform compromise introduced May 17.

Obama has outlined several provisions for immigration reform. He identified security checks and application backlogs as a major problem with the current immigration process and introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of these background checks. Obama supports providing a path for undocumented immigrants to earn their citizenship.

Obama abstained from voting to invoke cloture to proceed to consider the original compromise on May 21. He voted "Yes" on the June 7 cloture motion to cut off debate on the measure and bring it to a final vote.

In the last Congress, Obama voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.


Bill Richardson

The New Mexico governor and the only Hispanic in the Democratic presidential race says he opposes the legislation, citing misgivings about supporting job skills over family unification and for additions to the border fence. "It's a terrible symbol," he said. Richardson has stated that he believes the number of temporary workers should be adjusted to the needs of the U.S. economy so guest workers would not be taking citizens' jobs. He supports allowing immigrants who arrived illegally the opportunity to gain legal status after passing a background checks, learning English and paying back taxes. Richardson supports increasing the number of legal immigrant guest workers. He has called the requirement for the head of the household to leave the country and reenter legally "bureaucratic and problematic."

Fred Thompson

The former senator from Tennessee urged Congress to "scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway."

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
Last year Brownback, a conservative, stood out in sponsoring a reform bill that would have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to seek U.S. citizenship. Though one of the seven original sponsors of this year's reform compromise, he was assailed by conservatives as liberal and later rescinded his support after its passage. He said the bill would lead to "chain migration," allowing immigrants to sponsor family members.

Brownback voted in favor of invoking cloture to consider the original compromise on May 21. He voted "No" on the June 7 cloture motion to cut off debate on the bill and bring it to a final vote.

In the previous Congress, Brownback voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

Rudy Giuliani

The former New York mayor has criticized the bill as an ineffective "hodgepodge" that lacks a central focus and a plan for keeping track of foreigners crossing the border. "The problem with this immigration plan is it has no real unifying purpose," he said on June 5 during a debate among candidates vying for the GOP nomination. "It's a typical Washington mess. It's everybody compromises. ... And when you look at these compromises, it is quite possible it will make things worse.

Giuliani has said he would be willing to compromise on legalizing illegal immigrants, but only if legislation requires tamper-proof identification cards and a database of foreigners. On June 7, he issued a statement in support of Sen. Vitter's failed amendment, which would have required a biometric identification card for every non-citizen in the country.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

As one of the bill's co-sponsors, McCain has taken heavy criticism from his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, particularly from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for backing the compromise legislation. The Senate unanimously approved an amendment he introduced that requires illegal immigrants to pay back taxes on earnings for the time they had been in the United States. (Some have questioned the feasibility of collecting such back taxes.) McCain did not vote on whether to move forward with the bill's consideration on May 21.

During a speech to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce on June 4, McCain said passage of the compromise bill is an "imperfect" effort to deal with the issue, but he called it "a serious, comprehensive and practical attempt to secure our borders, defend the rule of law, help our economy grow and make it possible for the United States to know who has entered this country illegally." He also challenged his critics to come up with a better plan: "If someone objects to it, especially if they are a candidate for president, they should have the responsibility and courage to propose another way."

He abstained from voting to invoke cloture to proceed to consider the original compromise on May 21. He was only one of four senators to not vote on the June 7 cloture motion to cut off debate on the measure and bring it to a final vote.

In the last Congress, McCain voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

Mitt Romney
Romney has offered mixed messages on immigration. He described last year's bipartisan reform efforts as "reasonable proposals," but characterized this year's plans as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. During the June 5 GOP debate he said that providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants would be unfair to those who arrived legally: "Every illegal alien, almost everyone, under this bill, gets to stay here," he said. "That's not fair to the millions and millions of people around the world that would love to come here, join with family members, bring skill and education that we need." However Romney has also said that he would "not deny" illegal immigrants the "opportunity to apply for permanent residency or citizenship." In a statement released June 4, Romney said the bill "falls short" of a solution to immigration problems.

He has also said that he favors a biometric identification system for immigrants.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.)
A staunch opponent of illegal immigration, Tancredo criticizes the proposal's path to legal status as an amnesty measure that rewards lawbreakers. Tancredo, who was chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus until February, wants to have every illegal immigrant in the country deported and to make English the country's official language. During the June 5 debate, he took an extreme stance, calling for suspension of most legal immigration. He favors strengthening the Mexican border and cracking down hard on illegal immigration at the workplace.

In the 109th Congress, Tancredo voted in favor of the House version of the Secure Fence Act of 2006


Interest Groups

Business


Some business groups have called the temporary-worker program impractical and protest a provision that would force employers to verify the legal status of every worker in the country. Of concern in some sectors is the bill's point system for permanent-residence visas, or green cards, which would deprive them of the ability to bring in foreign workers with distinct skills they need. Industries needing highly skilled, well-educated workers and industries employing lower-wage, minimally skilled workers have both identified problems with the compromise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs the proposal as "the countours of a sound compromise." Of particular concern to the chamber is a backlog in the immigration bureaucracy that impedes the movement of legitimate cargo and travelers. The group advocates the expansion of temporary visa programs for essential workers, while ensuring that temporary workers would not take jobs being filled by U.S. citizens.

The National Association of Home Builders issued a statement rejecting the reform bill, saying that its problems are "grave and extensive" and if enacted "would do irreparable harm to America's small businesses." The trade association, whose members employ thousands of immigrant workers, says the bill could hurt employers who unwittingly hire illegal immigrants. The group is also concerned about language that would limit the number of permanent-resident green cards for low-skill workers needed by many construction crews.

The National Association of Manufacturers supports exempting foreign nationals who are graduates of U.S. universities with advanced degrees from a visa cap and backs an amendment by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.) that would keep the existing green card system largely intact, arguing that it would keep employers' flexibility in selecting workers with needed skill sets.

Immigrant Advocacy Groups


Several immigrant groups fault the proposed guest-worker program for denying them rights and a path to citizenship. Some also say the point system may limit the diversity of immigrants and allow bias in favor of immigrants from English-speaking countries.

National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, applauds the bill under consideration though it said it has "serious concerns about the specifics." It supports the DREAM Act, which would allow certain alien students to meet residency requirements for higher education, and the AgJOBS bill, which would open the way to legal status for some agriculture workers.

The League of United Latin American Citizens opposes the reform because it says the temporary workers program does not provide "a meaningful pathway to permanent legal residence" and eliminates some family-based green card categories. It supports the DREAM Act and AgJOBS bill.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a nonprofit Latino litigation, advocacy and educational outreach institution, is pushing hard for family reunification and to eliminate some provisions that would bar illegal immigrants from becoming legalized



Labor


The Service Employees International Union, representing 1.3 million workers, supports a wider legalization program and stricter workplace enforcement to deter employers from skirting the law for competitive advantage. In a letter to Sen. Kennedy, the SEIU criticized the bill's legalization provisions as "unacceptable and unworkable," claiming that undocumented workers will not leave the country voluntarily. Service workers would like to create a path to citizenship for these temporary workers, such as the STRIVE Act in the House version of the bill. They also call for increasing the number of visas available for family reunification.

The AFL-CIO and the Laborers' International Union of North America oppose the immigration bill, arguing that workers here on a temporary basis are more vulnerable to labor violations. The AFL-CIO, whose members have historically viewed illegal immigrants as competitors, contends that some temporary workers will stay in this country illegally rather than go home when their visa expires.

The UNITE HERE International Union, representing 450,000 workers in the textile, hotel, casino, foodservice and restaurant industries, supports the legalization of undocumented workers and replacing employer sanctions with labor law enforcement. It is concerned about the creation of an underclass of temporary workers who have no chance of gaining citizenship.

Other Groups


The Roman Catholic Church is concerned about the separation of families and the potential for the exploitation of temporary workers who cannot get full rights and supports an earned legalization program for the country's undocumented workers. Catholicism is the religion of the majority of Latin Americans, the population most central to the immigration debate. In a May 17 statement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed "significant reservations" about the proposal with regard to these issues. During his May 22 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando, representing U.S. bishops, said: "From the church perspective, a family member from Central America, Africa, Asia, the Caribbean or elsewhere could well offer the country as much as a computer software engineer. Wenski proposed a new worker visa program agreed on by U.S. and Mexican bishops as a way to safeguard the rights of migrant workers.

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials does not support the compromise because the group believes the law reduces the emphasis on family reunification, does not provide a clear path to legal permanent residency for temporary workers and considers the legalization requirements of returning to one's home country and paying a penalty to be "unfair and burdensome." It supports the compromise's "earned" legalization program, the DREAM Act and the temporary worker program that provides workers with legal status and labor protections.

U.S. Border Control, a lobbying group dedicated to ending illegal immigration, issued an action alert against the "Amnesty Bill" calling it "a betrayal of everything America stand[s] for."

Judgeseeks update on mentally disabled man deported to Mexico; family says he is U.S. citizen

The Associated Press

Published 06.15.2007

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge refused to order U.S. authorities to help in the search for a mentally disabled man whose family claims he was wrongly deported to Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson said Wednesday he wasn't sure that he had the authority to order the government to help find
Pedro Guzman, though he said it would be the "right" and "moral" thing to do.
Pregerson asked government lawyers to update him Thursday on what is being done to locate Guzman, 29, and what will happen if he appears at a U.S. border checkpoint.
Guzman's relatives say he is a U.S. citizen.

They sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department on Monday, saying they have been searching for him in Tijuana for a month.

He had been arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor trespassing earlier this year, and in April was sentenced to a Los Angeles County jail.

The lawsuit says Guzman was asked about his immigration status in jail and responded that he was born in California. Sometime after that, the Sheriff's Department identified him as a non-citizen, obtained his signature for voluntary removal from the U.S. and turned him over to immigration officials.
U.S. immigration officials confirmed he had been deported and said the agency had done so correctly. Sheriff's officials also said the department followed procedures.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which helped file the lawsuit, argued that the U.S. government needed to do more to find Guzman. It also urged help from Mexico.

June 17, 2007, 9:45AM

Rise in border graft feared Some think 6,000 additional patrol agents will make corruption problem worse

By JAMES PINKERTON
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Border Sheriff Sigifredo Gonza*** first noticed the curious behavior of a longtime deputy last spring.

The Zapata County lawman wasn't coming to work very often.

Then, he began wearing expensive clothing. More strangely, the deputy was spotted a few times in his unmarked car in border areas where narcotics traffickers were under surveillance.

On Tuesday, the sheriff's suspicions seemed to be confirmed when ex-deputy Manuel Martinez, 43, was arrested by FBI agents on charges of extorting more than $20,000 in bribes from drug traffickers. Martinez, who took office in January as a justice of the peace, is also charged with passing on bribes to a county official and a building code inspector.

A spate of recent high-profile arrests not only have given border law officers a black eye, they are worried that corruption of lawmen is on the rise. Heightening that concern is the looming arrival — and potentially more corruption — of thousands of new law enforcement personnel on the border.

''You see a lot more of (the corruption) than before," said Gonza***, whose office assisted in the FBI investigation of the three officials. ''If you look at it real closely, as time goes by, I guess everybody's morals and ethics are eroding away."

The arrests of the former deputy and two other Zapata County officials came a day after three Texas National Guardsmen — assigned to help Border Patrol agents with immigration control — were charged with smuggling 24 illegal immigrants in a van leased to the guard.

Also on Monday, a veteran Border Patrol agent was sentenced to 16 months in jail for transporting 11 illegal immigrants he picked up outside Laredo last July. In March, a U.S. Customs inspector was sentenced to 14 years in prison for taking bribes to allow drugs across a border bridge.

These recent cases were not isolated.

The inspector general's office of the Homeland Security Department reported last week that 282 employees of Customs and Border Protection stationed on the Southwest border have been investigated for corruption since fiscal year 2004. And 52 of those cases were investigated so far this year, compared with 66 in all of last year. There were 151 cases in Texas in that time.

The Bush administration last year stepped up recruitment efforts to boost the U.S. Border Patrol to 18,000 agents by December 2008, an increase of nearly 6,000 agents. On Thursday, President Bush called for $4.4 billion in immediate funding for border security proposed in the pending immigration bill.

''The graft and corruption will increase," said Robert Lee Maril, a sociologist who spent two years researching a book on Border Patrol operations in South Texas.

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke, though declining to comment on the Texas Guard and Border Patrol cases, said corruption in federal agencies is ''really quite rare."

''Even the finest law enforcement agency in the world is not immune to the potential bad apple," he said.


A fast-growing agency
Experts say that heightened border security has allowed human trafficking organizations to greatly increase their smuggling fees. The criminal cartels that control narcotics and human smuggling have ''astronomical" amounts of money to use on bribes, Maril said.

''They're tightening up the border, so the criminal organizations are finding it a little bit more difficult to get across," said Maril, who chairs the sociology department at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C. ''So they're spending a little more to buy off Border Patrol agents and managers. It's just part of the overhead."

Maril said the quick buildup in the agency may lead to further corruption.

''In this rush to graduate so many agents I think they have considerably lowered their standards, and I think that's going to come back to bite them," Maril said.

T.J. Bonner, head of the 11,000-member National Border Patrol union, predicts that stepped-up recruitment could result in less time to conduct thorough background investigations of new recruits.

''It's inevitable that we will see more of these cases, because the shortcuts are creating the perfect storm for corruption to flourish," said Bonner, a Border Patrol agent in San Diego. ''And from the standpoint of the men and women on the front lines — the overwhelming majority who are honest — it's a disaster because these corrupt individuals are our backup."


The impact of bribery
Knocke, the DHS spokesman, said the agency is on track to expand the current 13,500-agent Border Patrol force up to the 18,000 goal by late 2008.

''I can tell you we go to great lengths to ensure we are recruiting, hiring and training law enforcement professionals with the integrity and morality that Americans expect," Knocke said.

Don Clark, a security consultant who headed the Houston FBI office until 2000, said if the corruption isn't addressed now the problem will become more widespread.

"Let's face it, these soldiers and Border Patrol agents, none of them get paid high-priced salaries," Clark said. ''Plus, they are waving money in their faces right and left."

As an example, the U.S. Customs inspector who was sentenced in March pocketed $1 million in bribes.

Martinez, the ex-deputy, was jailed without bail until a June 20 detention hearing, U.S. court officials said. Attempts to contact his defense attorney were unsuccessful.

Zapata County Judge Rosalva Guerra said Martinez was known in the small border community as a dedicated family man, as well as a veteran deputy before taking office as a justice of the peace.

''It was a sudden shock to all of us — we never expected this to happen," Guerra said.

Laredo defense lawyer Marcel Notzon, who is representing one of the Texas National Guard members charged with immigrant smuggling, said the chronic poverty along the border engenders corruption.

''In general, maybe it's because of the amount of money that's being offered, or that the economy is not as vibrant as it could be," he said.


New fear: infiltration
Notzon said his client, decorated Iraq war veteran Sgt. Julio Cesar Pacheco, will plead not guilty to federal charges that he was part of a ring that smuggled undocumented migrants from the border to San Antonio.

''I think the case was hastily put together," Notzon said.

Watching out for corruption is now part of the job description for federal law agencies, several officials said.

''We need to be ever vigilant on how smugglers will try and defeat any weakness in our defenses, including attempting to compromise law enforcement," said Alonzo Pena, who heads the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Arizona.

The Zapata County sheriff fears cartel leaders are grooming members to join police agencies.

''The information we have is some of these cartels are trying to infiltrate local, state and federal law agencies on the border," Gonza*** said. ''They're trying to get some of their people to apply for jobs, so they will have control of operations on the border."

james.pinkerton@chron.com

Border deal looking likely
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations and a raging debate on the Senate floor have proponents of a broad immigration compromise back to square one.

As ever, the bipartisan coalition is working behind the scenes to line up enough support for the measure, expected to get a second chance at passage late next week.

They're trolling for support largely among Republicans, most of whom previously balked at allowing the measure to advance. As enticement, the negotiators are using the prospect of votes on key changes to the bill supported by senators they believe can be persuaded to at least support moving forward with it - even if they oppose the final measure.

The fragile compromise would grant millions of illegal immigrants lawful status while tightening border security and creating new measures for weeding out illegal workers at job sites. Championed by President Bush, it has sparked an outcry among conservatives who regard it as amnesty for lawbreakers.

An appearance by Bush on Capitol Hill this week to prod action on the measure - and his subsequent OK to immediately pumping a new $4.4 billion into border security - helped set the stage for its resurrection. But it was raw trolling for votes by key Republicans and Democrats that made the difference, said lawmakers and senior officials involved in the talks.

The coalition drew up a tentative list of 22 amendments, divided equally between the two parties, whose consideration would give a handful of Republicans the comfort they needed to allow the bill to go forward. That would take 60 votes, a threshold the bill missed by 15 last week, when just seven Republicans backed ending debate and moving to complete the bill.

Allowing votes on the proposals "has as its goal bringing more people on board," Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a lead Republican negotiator, said Friday. "They're going to get input that will make them feel better," Graham said of wavering Republicans.
Bush plans to keep blocks of time open next week in order to be able to jump in as needed, aides said.

"Each day our nation fails to act, the problem only grows worse," the president said Friday at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast. "I will continue to work closely with members of both parties to get past our differences and pass a bill I can sign this year."

The package is not yet final, and key players probably will be hammering it out even as it unfolds on the Senate floor.

For some GOP holdouts, the promise of votes to make the bill more punitive toward the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who would get lawful status might be enough to persuade them to support moving ahead.

Negotiators hope that's the case for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who wants to toughen a requirement that unlawful immigrants seeking green cards return home to apply for permanent legal residency.

Proponents are hoping others will like the prospect of the binding commitment of new money for border security and workplace enforcement measures.

Published: 06.18.2007

U.S. Economy Benefits From Immigration

Tucson Citizen
letters@tucsoncitizen.com

Editor's note: Below is an excerpt from "The
Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration," an April 2007 report by Gordon H. Hanson issued by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Are the gains that illegal immigration brings in labor market flexibility offset by other economic costs?

Critics of illegal immigration argue that an influx of these immigrants lowers domestic wages and raises expenditures on public services. If those costs are sufficiently high, the economic case for restricting illegal immigration would be strengthened.

Overall, immigration increases the incomes of U.S. residents by allowing the economy to utilize domestic resources more efficiently.
But because immigrants - illegal, legal temporary and legal permanent - have varying skill levels, income-earning ability, family size and rights to public services, changes in their inflows have different impacts.

Immigration also affects U.S. incomes through its impact on tax revenue and public expenditure.

Immigrants with lower incomes and larger families tend to be a bigger drain on public spending. Immigrants pay income, payroll, sales, property and other taxes, with lower-skilled immigrants making smaller contributions.

Immigrants also send their kids to public schools, demand fire and police protection, drive on roads and highways, and receive public assistance, with families that have more children absorbing more expenditure.

Adding pretax income gains from immigration to immigrants' net tax contributions - their tax payments less the cost of services they use - allows for an estimate of immigration's net impact on the U.S. economy.

Immigration generates extra income for the U.S. economy, even as it pushes down wages for some workers.

By increasing the labor supply, immigration raises the productivity of resources that are complementary to labor. More workers allow U.S. capital, land and natural resources to be exploited more efficiently.

Increasing the supply of labor to perishable fruits and vegetables, for instance, means each acre of land under cultivation generates more output.

Similarly, an increase of manufacturing workers allows the existing industrial base to produce more goods.

The gain in productivity yields extra income for U.S. businesses, which is termed the immigration surplus. The annual immigration surplus in the United States appears to be small, about 0.2 percent of GDP in 2004.

These benefits, however, are not shared equally.

Labor inflows from abroad redistribute income away from workers who compete with immigrants in the labor market.

George Borjas estimates that between 1980 and 2000, immigration contributed to a decrease in average U.S. wages of 3 percent.

This estimate accounts for the total change in the U.S. labor force due to immigration, including legal and illegal sources.

Because immigration is concentrated among the low-skilled, low-skilled natives are the workers most likely to be hurt.

From 1980 to 2000, wages of native workers without a high school degree fell by 9 percent as a result of immigration.

On the other hand, lower wages for low-skilled labor mean lower prices for labor-intensive goods and services, especially those whose prices are set in local markets rather than through competition in global markets.

Patricia Cortes finds that in the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. cities with larger inflows of low-skilled immigrants experienced larger price reductions for housekeeping, gardening, child care, dry cleaning and other labor-intensive, locally traded services.

Lower prices for goods and services raise the real incomes of U.S. households, with most of these gains going to those in regions with large immigrant populations.

Immigration, by admitting large numbers of low-skilled individuals, may exacerbate inefficiencies associated with the country's system of public finance.

If immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, then immigration generates a net fiscal transfer to native taxpayers.

The total impact on U.S. residents - the sum of the immigration surplus (the pretax income gain) and the net fiscal transfer from immigrants - would be unambiguously positive.

This appears to be the case for immigrants with high skill levels, suggesting that employment-based permanent immigrants and highly skilled temporary immigrants have a positive net effect on our economy.

They generate a positive immigration surplus (by raising U.S. productivity) and make a positive net tax contribution (by adding to U.S. government coffers).

On the other hand, if immigrants pay less in taxes than they receive in government benefits, then immigration generates a net fiscal burden on native taxpayers: Native households would be making an income transfer to immigrant households.

Paying for this fiscal transfer would require tax increases on natives, reductions in government benefits to natives or increased borrowing from future generations (by issuing government debt).

If immigrants are a net fiscal drain, the total impact of immigration on the U.S. would be positive only if the immigration surplus exceeded the fiscal transfer made to immigrants. For low-skilled immigration, whether legal or illegal, this does not appear to be the case.