By Steve Hendrix Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 30, 2007; Page B01
The Takoma Park council voted unanimously last night to reaffirm the town's status as a "sanctuary city" where police and other municipal employees are forbidden from enforcing federal immigration laws, an action members say is meant to set the community pointedly apart from localities roiled by the illegal immigration debate.
It comes two weeks after they turned down a request by the police chief for more flexibility in executing immigration warrants for possible deported felons.
"I hope it comes out very clearly that Takoma Park is going in the opposite direction as some of these other communities," Mayor Kathy Porter said.
In recent months, a handful of local jurisdictions have taken action against illegal immigrants. Prince William County, for example, has authorized its police force to check the immigration status of certain crime suspects and has voted, along with Loudoun County, to curtail government services to illegal immigrants. Herndon has closed a day-laborer center used by many immigrants.
Takoma Park has long been known for its independent stands. In the past, it has declared itself a nuclear-free zone, and earlier this year, the council voted to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The town also allows residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections.
The flurry of activity on immigration was sparked this year when a Guatemalan man was deported after a traffic stop by Takoma Park police. An immigration warrant for the man showed up on the National Crime Information Center database, and the officer contacted federal authorities, not knowing that the city's sanctuary law prohibited him from doing so.
The law was originally passed in 1985, but immigration warrants were added to the crime database only in 2002.
Takoma Park Police Chief Ronald Ricucci, who took over the department in February, instituted rules to keep his officers in compliance with town law. But he also asked the council to loosen restrictions for one particular category of illegal immigrant: those who were once convicted of violent felonies and were deported after serving their sentences.
To check for such violators, Ricucci asked that his officers be allowed to follow up on the database hits with a call to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If the warrant was for an ordinary immigration violation, police would go no further and let the person go. If it was for a deported violent felon, they would detain him for federal authorities.
"It's very rare," Ricucci said. "We've only gotten three ICE hits this year out of hundreds of checks we make a day. But I thought it was my duty to bring it up."
Ricucci said he had positive meetings on the issue with council members and the advocacy group CASA of Maryland, whose objections focused on the reported unreliability of the federal crime database and with the importance of not fraying the immigrant community's trust in the police. The request turned into a discussion on Takoma Park's commitment to its sanctuary law.
A series of hearings in recent weeks featured often emotional testimony, frequently from residents who see the law as central to the town's reputation as a hub of social and political activism.
Takoma Park "is a sanctuary for me against what is going on in this country," said resident Jenny Hughes at an Oct. 15 hearing. "I have always been proud of the fact that our city is a place where I can feel not just physically safe but politically safe."
The few residents who spoke in favor of the change said the chief should be granted the powers he sought.
"We want police enforcement. We want law enforcement," Steve Davies said. "But this guy comes in and tries to propose something to protect officers and the public, and you're not agreeing with him."
INJUNCTION REQUSTED: ATTORNEYS SEEK TO PUT HOLD ON IMMIGRATION LAW
By Justin Juozapavicius Associated Press Writer Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:18 PM CDT
TULSA (AP) "” Attorneys will ask a federal judge Wednesday to put a hold on a new law that would crack down on illegal immigration in Oklahoma.
A federal lawsuit challenging the law, which goes into effect Thursday, was refiled last week. It added eight undocumented residents who plan to testify that they will face eviction from their landlords unless they provide legal identification, such as a social security card, as required by the new law.
The other plaintiffs include the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and two churches.
Last week, U.S. District Judge James H. Payne dismissed the plaintiff's first lawsuit, saying they could not prove the law damaged them. The hearing on the preliminary injunction is set before the same judge.
"If the judge does not do the preliminary injunction, here's a primary example of eight people who will be evicted," said Rohit Sharma, attorney for the plaintiffs.
Considered one of the toughest in the nation, House Bill 1804 creates barriers for undocumented immigrants to receive public benefits and jobs.
It also makes it illegal to transport or harbor illegal immigrants, making violations a felony punishable by a minimum of one year in prison or a $1,000 fine.
Sebastian Lantos, a court-certified Spanish interpreter and Tulsa community activist, says House Bill 1804 will cause the economy to suffer and further divide the community. Thousands of Hispanics already have left the city ahead of the new law taking effect.
"The worst thing to me is that we lost a sense of belonging to the city," Lantos said. "We see our neighbors leaving, we see the unfairness.
"The mentality of the community has to change," he said.
The author of the legislation, Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, said Monday he remained confident the bill will hold up in court.
"We're talking about a group of people who have had five or six months to plaintiff shop, forum shop and judge shop to find somebody who is sympathetic to their cause," Terrill said.
Last month, five Democratic state lawmakers asked Attorney General Drew Edmondson to clarify several provisions of the measure.
Because there were about two-dozen questions, an opinion from the office appears unlikely before Thursday.
WILLIAM MCKENZIE: HOW TO BREAK STALEMATE OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATON
WHICH IS IT: RIGID ADHERENCE TO IMMIGRATION LAW OR COMPASSION FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY HERE?
08:39 AM CDT on Tuesday, October 30, 2007
If you didn't think so before, the DREAM Act's demise in the Senate last week showed for sure, beyond the proverbial shadow of a doubt, that Congress can't do immigration reform.
Whether it's the big-deal comprehensive immigration change the Senate choked on earlier this year, or the smaller-deal DREAM Act's attempt to help children of illegal immigrants earn citizenship, Congress is stuck. And will remain stuck until Washington – and the rest of us – decide what's more important: a rigid adherence to the law or a compassionate view of the alien amidst us?Not until a clearer consensus emerges will Congress find its way.
Also Online Tell Us: Where do you stand? Do you support rigid adherence to the immigration law or a compassionate view of the illegal alien? Fortunately, some people are thinking about this question. The University of Dallas sponsored a forum last week to discuss the balance between law and the alien.
The meeting was more than an academic gab-fest. The Catholic school sits smack dab in Irving, which has become the most recent local flashpoint in the immigration debate. The town's policy of determining whether people who have been arrested or ticketed are illegal immigrants has made it a new Ground Zero in the debate.
Perhaps that's why more than 100 people showed up for the discussion. As the moderator, the refreshing give-and-take encouraged me.
And it reminded me why I come down on the side of worrying about the alien among us. It's hard for me to read the Bible and not come away with that conclusion.
There's the famous story about the Good Samaritan who comforts a stranger. There are the commands in Exodus to not oppress an alien. And there is Jesus being born an outlier in a manger.
Those are among the many commands in Scripture to care for the foreigner, the alien and the rejected. They are so many that one panelist, the Rev. Owen Ross, came with a long list of them to back up his preference for a new, just immigration policy.
An attendee later e-mailed me to explain that the biblical references to the sojourner pertain to one who is a temporary resident of a country that is not his or hers by birth. In other words, the sojourner is heading someplace else.
The e-mailer used the work of Claremont College theology professor John Cobb to back up his views, citing Mr. Cobb's summation that: "To use sojourner and immigrant interchangeably in today's world is to obscure their distinction."
I hear that, just as some people made interesting points at the forum about protecting the common good. But the hair-splitting over the term "sojourner" misses the point, just as the common good argument skates by the strong scriptural preference to comfort the lost and the lonely.
****, we've gotten so literal about this that Sen. John Cornyn wouldn't even meet, or allow his staff to meet, with three children of illegal immigrants who were part of a Dallas team lobbying for passage of the DREAM Act. The staff of his fellow Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison did. But Mr. Cornyn wouldn't let them in because they weren't legal residents. The Pharisees of old would have appreciated his rigidity.
This immigration debate really does get down to a matter of the heart. Where do we put our efforts? In helping the foreigner come to terms with America through new immigration policies? Or in building a wall to protect ourselves from illegal immigrants? Or in passing local laws to rid our communities of them?
My reading of Scripture leads me to support a way for immigrants to come here legally to work and a chance for illegal immigrants working here to earn citizenship. This approach seems the most just and humane response.
Lest you think I care not a wit about the law, yes, we need a fail-safe ID card that shows whether workers are legal. And we should put more agents along the border. National sovereignty matters.
But I'm where I am because we need to see immigrants more as human beings than as pawns in some political game.
Until we as a society come to a conclusion about this, though, we aren't going to find a clear answer. Which is it: adherence to obeying the law or having a compassionate view of the alien?
William McKenzie is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His e-mail address is wmckenzie@dallas news.com
{WebSurvey}Tell us: Where do you stand? Do you support rigid adherence to the immigration law or a compassionate view of the illegal alien? dallasnews.com/extra
Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza says the law affects all Hispanics.
Emily Bazar, USA TODAY
One of the toughest state laws targeting illegal immigrants takes effect Thursday in Oklahoma, prompting efforts by immigrants trying to block it and work by state agencies to comply.
The law makes it a felony to transport or shelter illegal immigrants. Businesses, which are barred by federal law from hiring illegal immigrants, can be sued by a legal worker who is displaced by an illegal one.
The measure denies illegal immigrants certain public benefits such as rental assistance and fuel subsidies.
"It's clearly one of the most restrictive policies" in the country, says Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.
Muñoz says she's particularly concerned about a provision that gives local police the authority to check immigration status. Such policies create fear among all Hispanics, including those in the country legally, and may contribute to discrimination, she says.
On Thursday, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders filed its second lawsuit against the measure. The group says it is unconstitutional because immigration is a federal, not state, responsibility.
A federal judge threw out the first lawsuit days earlier, saying the group failed to show that the law had harmed anyone. This time, the coalition cited people they said have already been harmed, including illegal immigrants whose landlords threatened to evict them if they could not prove they're in the country legally, says Miguel Rivera, president of the coalition.
Lead attorney William Sanchez says the court scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.
State Rep. Randy Terrill, author of the law, says he doesn't want Oklahoma to be a comfortable place for illegal immigrants.
"Illegal aliens won't come to Oklahoma or any other state if there aren't jobs waiting for them," he says. "They will not stay here if there is no taxpayer subsidy."
He says he's "99.9% confident" the law can withstand legal challenges but says the lawsuit may delay its implementation.
Some public agencies aren't waiting for the legal wrangling to end before altering their policies. Last week, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education tightened the rules on financial aid.
Previously, illegal immigrants were eligible for state financial aid if they lived in the state for two years and graduated from an Oklahoma high school or got a general equivalency diploma in the state, says Ben Hardcastle, regents spokesman. They also had to file an affidavit vowing to apply for legal residency, he says.
In the 2005-06 school year, 244 students met the criteria and received $112,039 in scholarships and grants and paid an additional $238,785 in tuition, he says.
The regents' new policy says illegal immigrants would be eligible for aid by meeting most of the same requirements, but they must have already applied for legal residency.
Charles Kuck, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, says that means state financial aid will not be available to illegal immigrants.
"There's nothing you can legally apply for if you're here illegally," he says. "If you're attesting that you've applied for (legal residency), you'd either be lying or putting yourself into deportation proceedings."
Countries that have historically friendly relations with U.S. begin to issue passports to residents traveling abroad complete with facial-recognition software and digital chips
U.S. ALLIES BEGIN ISSUING HIGH-TECH PASSPORTS FOR TRAVELERS
Thursday, October 26, 2006 By Liza Porteus Fox News
NEW YORK "” Countries that have historically friendly relations with the United States on Thursday will begin issuing passports to residents traveling abroad complete with facial-recognition software and digital chips.
The U.S. State Department is already issuing so-called e-Passports to some American travelers as part of the U.S. government's effort to make travel documents more secure in a post-Sept. 11 world.
"The department is committed to shutting down the ability of terrorists and criminals to use false travel documents to move freely through our borders. The upgrade to e-Passports is a significant advance in preventing terrorists from using lost or stolen passports to obtain entry into the United States," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.
"It is going to make for a quicker inspection. It also allows the inspectors to focus their resources on people who don't have electronic documents who have, perhaps, come from countries of greater concern," added Frank Moss, deputy assistant secretary for consular affairs at the State Department. "I've never tried to tell people the e-Passport is a silver bullet ... it is another tool to improve border security ... and to make the inspection process more efficient for the vast majority of legitimate travelers."
Passports currently have a bar code that is swiped by customs officials through a reader. The traveler's information then comes up on the computer screen. The new passports have the regular bar code, digital photographs and an electronic chip in which is stored the same biographical data of the traveler currently on the first page of the "old" passport. E-Passport holders will be able to pass through the customs booth with the e-Passport symbol "” hopefully in a quicker fashion than the regular passport lines.
Click here for more information from the State Department on the new e-Passport
After Sept. 11, not only did the United States and other countries set out to create more secure travel documents, but to do it in a way that didn't put travelers through even more time-consuming security checks.
The Sept. 11 commission noted in its report that the use of forged or fake documents to get into the United States is one of the biggest holes in U.S. homeland security.
The move to more advanced machine-readable passports "sort of went gradually until Sept. 11, 2001, where the world said 'whoa "” we have to accelerate research and guidelines on electronic passports because of the bottlenecks in airport security,'" said Denis Chagnon, spokesman for the International Civil Aviation Organization, which created the technical standards for the e-Passports.
Many foreign travelers need to show their visa upon arrival at U.S. airports. But some countries "” Australia, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, among others "” are exempt from that requirement. Those countries participate in the Visa Waiver Program, which only requires a passport for arrival in the United States.
Critics have pointed out that VWP countries have had their own share of terrorists in their midst "” for instance, would-be shoe-bomber Richard Reid, a British citizen who flew out of France; and the British citizen bombers who killed 56 others in the subways and on a bus in London on July 7, 2005 "” and they shouldn't benefit from more lax security restrictions.
The U.S. Border Security Act of 2002 requires that as of Thursday, passports issued by VWP nations must be electronic. It also requires that U.S. ports of entry have technology in place to compare and authenticate the high-tech documents. All countries issuing e-Passports must also have readers in place to read any other countries' e-Passports.
Come Thursday, "the overwhelming majority of countries" will be in compliance with the new passport requirements, DHS spokesman Jarrod Agen said, adding that some countries outside of the VWP are also beginning to issue e-Passports.
The three countries not yet issuing e-Passports are Andorra, Brunei and Liechtenstein. Their residents will need a visa to enter the United States if they have a passport issues after Oct. 26 until e-Passports are available.
But some groups are concerned that technology in the passports could be preyed upon by identity thieves.
"There have definitely been some improvements in what the government has done. Nevertheless, we're really still not satisfied with the way this is being done," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
At home, the State Department began issuing e-Passports to its diplomats and other officials last December, then to other government personnel in April. The new technology was first issued to American tourists Aug. 14 out of the Colorado passport agency; the passports take about six weeks to make and deliver. Last Thursday, passport agencies in Boston, Washington and Miami began issuing them.
Only residents applying for passports in those cities will receive e-Passports immediately. By mid-2007, the State Department hopes to have converted all its U.S. passport agencies to e-Passport production in what Moss said is part of the effort to combat the "active market" of lost and stolen passports around the world.
The United States issued 12.1 million e-Passports in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 and officials expect demand to be between 15 and 16 million in the coming fiscal year.
How They Work
The new U.S. passports have an international e-Passport symbol on the cover, which is a rectangle with a circle inside (see photo); each page depicts a different American scene "” such as the Statue of Liberty, Boston Harbor, cowboys and a boat on the Mississippi. Each book contains a chip with the passport holder's name, address, date of birth and other biographical information and a digital photograph of the traveler. The chips are called RFID (radio frequency identification) chips; they're equipped with antennae and use radio waves to identify the passport holder. They're similar to chips used in bank cards, cell phones and automated payment systems.
Click here to see more designs on the new U.S. passport
The e-Passport readers at airports also have antennae, which send out electromagnetic waves to the chip and convert incoming waves into digital data that shows up on the airport official's computer screen.
Travelers who arrive at airport inspection booths displaying the international e-Passport symbol will have their passport scanned by a biometric reader. Chagnon said the biggest change travelers may see at some airports is a camera that they will look into so airport officials can determine the passport holder is who the passport says he or she is.
Chagnon explained that encryption keys allow the immigration or security official to determine the passport isn't a forgery and to determine that the person in front of them is same as the one in the passport photo.
"What the coding and decoding does, is it takes hundreds of points, sets of two points all over the face, then it compares those to what the camera sees. So even though someone may look like someone else, they're not the same. The accuracy is such that by comparing these two points, the distance between the eyes isn't the same...it's very accurate," Chagnon said.
"It's really excellent in authenticating a document and a person," he added. "It doesn't replace the person [airport official], it's just an added feature to help authenticate the person, the travel, and the passport and the document."
A State Department official clarified that U.S. airports will not install cameras specifically for e-Passport holders, but they may be used in some airports abroad. The benefit of RFID is that it requires no contact, meaning the user can simply wave the RFID-embedded object close to a reader to get the information verified.
But that's a problem with RFID, come critics say, because anyone sitting nearby with a laptop can easily "skim" the data from the chip when the passport is swiped. Some cyber-security gurus say they've actually cracked RFID and successfully stolen data from cards or other devices using the technology.
Tien likened the RFID swipe to that of punching in your pin number at and ATM with someone looking over your shoulder. Calling RFID an "inherently leaky technology," he said: "If you don't put in more controls, the data's going to be flying in the clear."
U.S. officials say the government has countered those concerns by including various encryption and digital signature devices, as well as a basic-access control in the chip, which essentially locks the chip's data and only allows someone with authorization to read the RFID signal and chip information after the printed lines of data are skimmed through the reader. That's opposed to the chip being an open book for anyone with a compatible reading device. The passport chips are also designed to operate only within 10 centimeters of a chip reader.
A piece of metallic material also covers the passport from front to back, and the chip is included on the third page, not the front.
"At the end of the day, you ended up what looks a lot to me like a swiping card, because you had to deal with the privacy issues," Tien said, adding that two-dimensional barcode passports or laser cards using light technology "” not radio waves "” would work just as well.
"There's a lack of openness and accountability here that makes me very skeptical about the initial decisions to use RFID, and therefore, the whole policy question about 'should the U.S. government be promoting itself a technology that has known privacy and security issues when there appear to be equally if not better, more effective alternatives."
But Moss said the new passport "establishes a gold standard" for protecting privacy.
"The bottom line is, we have adopted a belt-and-multiple-suspenders approach to security because we want to be sure we're providing the American public with the most secure travel documents possible," Moss said.
3 COUNTRIES MISS DEADLINE TO APPLY FOR ISSUING NEW PASSPORTS
U.S. State Department
Data page of new e-Passport, complete with digital photograph and holder's biographical information.
WASHINGTON "” The countries of Andorra, Brunei and Liechtenstein on Thursday missed the U.S. deadline to begin issuing sophisticated new passports that contain an integrated circuit chip.
Twenty-four other countries required to meet the deadline succeeded, the Homeland Security Department said.
Citizens of the 27 countries, mostly in Europe, enjoy visa-free travel rights to the United States.
The requirement that the so-called "visa waiver" countries begin issuing tamperproof new passports arose from concerns about people using forged or stolen documents to enter the United States.
The Homeland Security Department says the new passports defend against identity theft and make it harder for people to cross borders using fake documents.
"The department is committed to shutting down the ability of terrorists and criminals to use false travel documents to move freely between our borders," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in a statement.
The chip can contain expanded biographical information about the passport's holder. A tamper-proof digital photograph is also required.
Homeland Security said in a statement that it's working with the three countries to make sure they meet the requirement as soon as possible. Until then, travelers from those countries will need a visa to enter the United States.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
By TERRY AGUAYO and JULIA PRESTON Published: October 31, 2007
MIAMI, Oct. 30 "” The parents and grandmother of two college students in Miami whose fight for legal immigration status came to symbolize the hopes of illegal immigrant students were deported to Colombia on Tuesday.
Mr. and Mrs. Gómez are the parents of Juan Sebastián Gómez, 18, and his brother Alejandro, 20, both born in Colombia, whose illegal status became publicly known when the family was first detained by immigration agents on July 25. Classmates of Juan at Miami Killian Senior High School, citing his exceptional academic performance, rallied the support of federal lawmakers, winning a temporary reprieve from deportation for the two young men.
The Gómez brothers became public faces for hundreds of thousands students nationwide who are illegal immigrants and could benefit if Congress adopted legislation to give them legal status. The most recent effort, a bill sponsored by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, failed to pass a procedural test vote last week in the Senate.
The deportation of the Gómez parents and grandmother, the boys' only immediate family in the United States, left it clear that the authorities would not extend any special protection to parents even if their children were to obtain legal status as students.
It left Juan and Alejandro with no means of economic support while they attend Miami Dade College, said Cheryl Little, the executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, a legal group representing the brothers. Ms. Little said she was working to obtain driver's licenses and work permits for the youths so they could find jobs to pay for their studies.
A statement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement said, "The family had full due process of law and exhausted all legal avenues of relief." Family members "self-deported" after officials allowed them time to put their affairs in order, the statement said.
After coming to the United States as tourists in 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Gómez stayed beyond the terms of their visas, starting a successful catering business. Mr. Gómez sought asylum, saying he faced threats from leftist guerrillas in Colombia because of his participation in a labor union there.
According to court papers, a brother of Mr. Gómez was assassinated by guerrillas in 1987, and in recent years a niece and a nephew were murdered. On Oct. 19, the Board of Immigration Appeals declined to reopen the case.
Juan Gómez, who was 2 when his parents arrived in Florida, drew attention by earning a 3.96 high school grade point average and receiving the highest possible score on 11 Advanced Placement examinations.
Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and a presidential candidate, presented separate private bills on behalf of the brothers, which resulted in the suspension of their deportation until 2009.
At the airport on Tuesday, the brothers were silent and calm, and their father appeared resigned, while their mother wept as she said goodbye to her sons. Mrs. Perilla de Gómez, who came to the United States in 1991, arrived in a wheelchair.
"It makes me sad to see that this country separates families," Mrs. Gómez said. "We've never been separated."
Mr. Gómez defended the United States. "This is the best country in the world," he said. "I will continue to say that."
The Durbin bill that was defeated last week excluded illegal immigrant parents from any benefits under the measure, which would have given legal status to high school graduates who finished two years of college or military service. Opponents said it was an amnesty for immigrant lawbreakers that could draw millions of new immigrants to the United States.
Terry Aguayo reported from Miami and Julie Preston from New York.
ALBANY, Oct. 30 "” The phone call from a top aide to Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, came two weeks ago, and the message was clear: The department was concerned that Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants would undermine a federal initiative to roll out a new highly secure, nationally recognized license.
The prospect of Mr. Chertoff coming out publicly against Mr. Spitzer's plan caused deep anxiety among Spitzer administration officials, said Michael A. L. Balboni, the governor's deputy secretary for public safety, who received the call.
The governor and his aides felt they had few options.
The license plan had already set off angry attacks from Republicans and unease among Democratic allies, and had made the governor a target of national groups rallying for tougher immigration policies.
Mr. Spitzer agreed with Mr. Chertoff to a compromise plan on Friday under which the state would offer three levels of driver's licenses beginning next year, including a limited license that illegal immigrants could obtain but that could not be used to board airplanes or cross borders.
The announcement has done little to quiet the fury Mr. Spitzer set off on Sept. 21 when he declared, without consulting the Legislature, that New York would offer driver's licenses to the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants living in the state, as a way of making the roads safer and bringing them "out of the shadows."
An examination of five weeks of policy twists, during which Mr. Spitzer alienated allies and emboldened enemies, reveals a governor almost stubbornly certain of himself and disinclined to consult with those who could be helpful in politically selling or smoothing the way for a divisive initiative.
Most lawmakers first heard about the initial policy when the governor announced it, saying, "The D.M.V. is not the I.N.S."
County clerks who would have to carry out the policy were not consulted. Nor was Mr. Chertoff's department.
"There's a very consistent pattern here of not consulting with his friends," said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat. "I must say, at this point, people don't understand what the thinking and the planning was."
Aides to the governor, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they had not foreseen the intensity of opposition the license plan would touch off.
Mr. Spitzer saw it as simply keeping a promise he had made during his campaign last year.
And it was consistent with his desire, after battling the Legislature for a frustrating six months, to govern by exercising the powers of the executive agencies under his control, without legislative interference.
His policy advisers and David J. Swarts, the motor vehicles commissioner, worked quietly on the policy for several months. They presented it to the governor, and then he moved on it.
"We finished, got to a conclusion, said, ˜O.K., now let's announce it,'" Mr. Spitzer recalled in a recent interview. "It was not a whole lot more than that."
It did not take long for opponents to make themselves heard. Within a week, county clerks began to rebel. Even New York's mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, typically a friendly voice, raised concerns.
Though they acknowledge that they failed to anticipate the reaction fully, Mr. Spitzer and his staff also argue that the issue is so visceral that laying more groundwork might not have made much difference.
"I don't think it would matter if Lou Dobbs saw us standing next to some police chief," said one aide to the governor, referring to the CNN anchor, who has been leading an almost nightly crusade against Mr. Spitzer's policy.
The governor moved to shore up support, enlisting Latino lawmakers and other Democrats to appear with him at press conferences. He also tried to rally them in closed-door meetings before a special legislative session last week.
State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr., a conservative lawmaker from the Bronx, strongly defended the governor, arguing for the policy in emotional language on the Senate floor.
Mr. Diaz took aim at the governor's chief political rival, Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, for first supporting the plan and then reversing himself.
But even as Mr. Diaz and others stood up for Mr. Spitzer, talks had begun with the Department of Homeland Security about revising the plan.
Mr. Balboni, a former Republican senator, said he was initially "not enthused about the idea" of having the state adopt the national Real ID card, which has been opposed by some civil liberties groups and immigration advocates. But he came to believe, he said, that it was a way of getting illegal immigrants into the system.
The Spitzer aides also felt they had gained key concessions on Real ID. They included getting the Department of Homeland Security to forgo forcing states to start using more expensive material for their licenses and to ease the timeline so the state did not need to immediately increase staffing levels at the Department of Motor Vehicles, which would have been costly.
But when the governor's new plan was announced, he lost support from just about everyone. Those who stood by granting the licenses to illegal immigrants felt betrayed. Those Democrats uneasy with the initial plan wondered if this change would solve the problem.
And opponents of the initial plan either declared victory, or vowed to continue to block Mr. Spitzer from issuing any kind of license to illegal immigrants.
Again, many allies felt they were not given a heads up that the announcement was coming.
"I believed the governor, I trusted him," said Mr. Diaz. "Bruno has been good to me, but I criticized him. Now I'm going to have to go back to the Senate floor and apologize because the governor decided to turn his back on us and make a deal with Washington."
Even Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the Legislature's top Democrat, and David A. Paterson, the lieutenant governor, were not told that there would be a shift in strategy until late Friday, the night before the governor announced the deal.
To try to smooth some of the anger, Mr. Spitzer invited Mr. Diaz and a half-dozen other lawmakers, most of them Hispanic and defenders of the original plan, to an Upper East Side diner on Sunday morning to explain his decision.
Feelings were frayed, and the meeting grew emotional. At one point, Mr. Spitzer asked Mr. Diaz to lower his voice because they were in a public place.
"You made me make a fool out of myself," Mr. Diaz told the governor.
Mr. Spitzer and his aides told the lawmakers that they had been reluctant to send word of the new proposal before they completed negotiations with the Bush administration, which took until the end of the day Friday. And they were clearly worried about what Mr. Chertoff would do if they did not go along.
While Mr. Spitzer tries to repair ties with his old allies, his handling of the issue has only made his Republican foes more determined to keep after him. And, given that the new license system is a year off, and legislative approval will likely be necessary to finance part of it, Albany could see many more months of intense argument over the issue.
"I really don't believe this is the end of the story," said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Manhattan Democrat.
The Arkansas Bar Association's International and Immigration Law Section will present a CLE program titled Immigration Law Seminar: Contending With Constantly Changing Currents.
The presentation will take place on Friday, November 16 from 8:25 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Clarion Inn, I-540 and Highway 62, Fayetteville, AR. Registration begins at 8 a.m.
Discussion topics will include: Overview of Nonimmigrant Visa Categories: Navigating the A to V Waters; Caps, Quotas & the H-1B Crunch: Rough Sailing on a Sinking Ship; Employment-Based Route to a Green Card: Taking the Slow Boat; Form I-9 Issues and Social Security Number Mismatch Letters: Entering Murky Waters; Notices to Appear & Removal Proceedings: Rowing Upstream Without a Paddle, and Dual Representation, Conflicts and Other Ethical Issues: Seeking a Safe Harbor.
Among the speakers are: Michael Freeman, director, Office of International Students and Scholars, University of Arkansas; Eugene J. Flynn, certified immigration specialist, and Donna S. Galchus, Brown Martin Haller & McClain LLP.
For details on registration fees and available CLE credits, see the Bulletin Board on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel website at www.metrocorpcounsel.com. For reservations, call (800) 609-5668 or visit www.arkbar.org.
SAN DIEGO -- The thought of it is daunting: Having just minutes to prepare while you are being forced to leave your home, not knowing when you will return or if your home will still be there when you return.
That is what more than a million people here in Southern California had to face when Santa Ana winds erratically spread fires across the dry, mountainous terrain. In a matter of days, hundreds of thousands of acres had been charred, and well over 2,000 homes and businesses had been burned to the ground. For many families, a lifetime of memories and hard work was reduced to ashes within minutes.
Thousands of them ended up in Qualcomm Stadium, a venue where people usually come to cheer on the San Diego Chargers or attend concerts. But this week they came to seek shelter, receive aid, or at least find a place to wait until circumstances allowed them to return to their homes.
Manuel Santiago and his family were just one family of the thousands grateful for the generosity and the aid they received. They also were among the lucky ones whose homes were spared by the fires. They were told they should feel free to take what they felt was necessary, not knowing what they would find back home. But on their way out of the stadium, that welcoming feeling turned sour. They were detained by San Diego police officers and accused of stealing and looting.
"They asked us if we had legal documents," Santiago told me, still dismayed by what had occurred. They did not.
The police contacted immigration agents, and within minutes two border-patrol cars were at the scene. Three of Santiago's cousins and three children, at least one of them a U.S. citizen, were arrested.
"I think we were spared because of the fear they saw in our children's eyes," said Santiago, of whose children three were born in the United States. In the 13 years he has lived here working as a gardener, this was the first time he encountered immigration agents. His daughter cried inconsolably at the thought that she and her siblings would be separated from their parents.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer Richard Smith assured me that although the agency's main goal is to secure the border and uphold immigration laws, its role at the refugee centers is to assist the victims. "Under no circumstances are we here to look for undocumented immigrants and arrest them," he told me. "But if a law-enforcement agency asks for our help to assist when a crime has been committed, then we are there to help them."
In this case, of course, it was an alleged crime. Witnesses say the Santiago family members had taken only what was offered to them. Their crime was that they lived in the path of the fires.
Like them, there are many other migrant workers who have situated themselves in makeshift homes on the hills of San Diego County below luxurious mansions and golf courses.
According to the social studies department of the University of San Diego, there are between 14,000 and 15,000 undocumented immigrants who work here mainly in the fields or as gardeners, as does Manuel Santiago. Most of them simply refused to go to temporary shelters or to accept the aid that was offered to them.
After the Santiago family's ordeal, I can see why.
They help cultivate the land in San Diego and keep the pristine beauty of its hills. But in the middle of this crisis of vast proportions, for these workers, the fear of being confronted by immigration has been much stronger than their fear of the fires.
Add to del.icio.us
