Deported Illegal Immigrant Returns To R.I. for $30K Injury Settlement

January 16, 2008

An illegal immigrant from Mexico has won $30,000 in a settlement with his former Rhode Island employer after accidentally injuring himself with a chain saw.

Edgar Velasquez, who worked for a tree service company in Warwick, was chopping tree branches on March 31, 2006, when he accidentally slashed his face, slicing his nose, eyelid and forehead.

He underwent surgery but still has trouble closing his left eye.

Velasquez sued William Gorman Jr., his former boss and owner of Billy G's Tree Care, seeking compensation for his injuries. He also accused Gorman of notifying immigration authorities that he was here illegally to block him from pursuing his case.

Immigration agents arrested Velasquez outside the courthouse in August 2006 on the day of a scheduled court hearing. Though Velasquez was deported, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security later granted him a humanitarian visa to return to the United States for three months for his court case.

Chief Workers' Compensation Judge George E. Healey Jr. said he did not want "unscrupulous'' employers to think they could avoid responsibility if a worker gets injured in an unsafe workplace.

"And the resolution of a case like this demonstrates otherwise,'' Healey said.

The settlement disclosed Monday requires Gorman to pay Velasquez $300 a month, for 10 months a year, for 10 years _ or until he pays the entire $30,000. Velasquez's lawyer, Stephen Dennis, said he had wanted more than $70,000 for his client.

If Gorman does not make the required payments, the state will fine him $150,000 for not having workers' compensation at the time Velasquez was injured.

Gorman will make every effort to follow the payment schedule, his lawyer, Michael St. Pierre, said.

"I think, all in all, based on everything that happened over the last couple of years, it's a fair settlement for both sides,'' St. Pierre said.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2008/0

Hearing begins for pair accused of robbing day laborers

January 17, 2008 12:34 AM PST
By: Staff and wire reports

VISTA -- About three minutes after accepting an offer of work from two women and getting into their car, day laborers Ebner Escalante Lopez and his brother-in-law were given a different choice by a knife-wielding man in the back seat.

"He said, 'Give me your money or your life,' " Escalante testified Wednesday at a hearing in the Superior Court.

Although he said that he did not see the women's faces, Escalante identified Thomas Graham, 33, of Escondido as the armed man who made that demand around noon one day in June 2007.

Escalante's testimony came as a preliminary hearing began Wednesday afternoon for Graham and April Marie Lewis, 25, of Escondido. Graham and Lewis have pleaded not guilty to multiple charges in connection with a series of robberies of day laborers last summer in various North County locations.

A Vista sheriff's sergeant said in August that many of the victims were citizens and legal residents of the United States. Authorities have said they believe the motive for the crimes was money, not any anti-illegal immigration mind-set.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Runston G. Maino will decide whether prosecutors have enough evidence to make Graham and Lewis stand trial. Graham has been charged with 21 robbery counts and 1 attempted robbery count, while Lewis faces three robbery charges.

Before the start of the preliminary hearing, a third defendant charged in the case, Nicole Dianne Couch, 35, of Escondido, pleaded guilty Wednesday to two robbery charges in connection with incidents July 22 and Aug. 4 in Encinitas. Under the terms of her plea, she is to be sentenced Feb. 27 to five years in state prison.

A fourth person charged in the case, Kevin William Anderson, 32, of Vista, pleaded guilty in September to two robbery charges and is scheduled to be sentenced next week. The district attorney's office and Anderson's attorney did not agree on a sentence as part of his plea.

Escalante testified Wednesday that he and his brother-in-law were in a supermarket parking lot on Rancho Bernardo Road when two women drove up and offered them work.

Graham, who was sitting in the back seat, then held a knife up at them and demanded their money, Escalante said.

"I tried to pull the knife out of his hand," Escalante said, noting that he was cut on his index finger and back.

Escalante, who identified Graham in court, said he jumped from the car when it was stopped at a red light, but the suspects drove off with with his brother-in-law.

The preliminary hearing is scheduled to resume this morning.

Staff writer Scott Marshall and City News Service contributed to this report. Contact staff writer Scott Marshall at (760) 901-4049 or smarshall@nctimes.com. Comment at nctimes.com.

NOTE: Everything here about Ebner Escalante Lopez's testimony is from City News Service (reporter Jim Riffel). Unfortunately, I do not know whether Escalante's citizenship status was mentioned in court.

VISTA -- An Escondido woman pleaded guilty Wednesday to two robbery charges in connection with allegations that day-laborers across North County were lured to remote locations with the promise of work and then robbed at knifepoint.

Nicole Dianne Couch, 35, is the second person to admit involvement in the robberies, admitting her role in crimes July 22 and Aug. 4 in Encinitas. She is to be sentenced Feb. 27 to five years in state prison under the terms of her plea agreement.

Kevin William Anderson, 32, of Vista, pleaded guilty in September to two robbery charges and is scheduled to be sentenced next week. The district attorney's office and Anderson's attorney did not agree on a sentence as part of his plea.

Meanwhile, a preliminary hearing began Thursday afternoon for two other defendants in the case who have pleaded not guilty.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Superior Court Judge Runston G. Maino will decide whether prosecutors have enough evidence to make Thomas Graham, 33, of Escondido and April Marie Lewis, 25, also of Escondido, stand trial on multiple charges.

Graham is charged with 21 counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery; Lewis faces three robbery charges.

We must get this up higher, or at least preview. A literal "your money or your life' moment? priceless

Ebner Escalante Lopez, the alleged victim in the attempted robbery, testified he and his brother-in-law were in a supermarket parking lot on Rancho Bernardo Road around noon one day in June when two women drove up and offered them work.

After about three minutes, Graham, who was sitting in the back seat, held a knife up at them, Escalante said.

"I tried to pull the knife out of his hand," Escalante said, noting that he was cut on his index finger and back. "He said, 'Give me your money or your life."'

Escalante, who identified Graham in court, said he jumped from the car when it was stopped at a red light, but the suspects drove off with with his brother-in-law. He said he did not see the women's faces.

Graham is alleged to have committed similar robberies with Anderson in Vista, with Couch in Encinitas and with Lewis in San Marcos and Vista.

A Vista sheriff's sergeant said in August that many of the victims were citizens and legal residents of the United States. This begs the question: Was Escalante's citizenship mentioned? If not, we're not obligated to know. But if we know, we must include. Authorities have said they believe the motive for the crimes was money, not any anti-illegal immigration mindset.

Staff writer Scott Marshall and City News Service contributed to this report.

A federal investigation may have consequences beyond the diamond for Miguel Tejada.
WINSLOW TOWNSON: AP

U.S. entry for Tejada a concern

By JOSE DE JESUS ORTIZ
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Jan. 17, 2008, 12:25AM

Miguel Tejada's immigration status could be in peril in light of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's decision to ask the Department of Justice to investigate whether the new Astros shortstop lied to federal investigators in 2005.

Tejada, a native of the Dominican Republic, is a legal U.S. resident with a green card. Yet there are some instances in which he could be denied entry back into the country just by admitting he committed a crime for which he is being investigated.

"Obstruction of justice is considered under immigration law a crime involving moral turpitude," said attorney Alexandre Afanassiev, who practices immigration litigation. "So the question then becomes, how long did he have his green card? Why? Because the law says that if you had your green card for less than five years and then committed a crime of moral turpitude, you can be subject to deportation. In other words, they can take your green card away because of that crime and (have you) sent home."

Gordon Quan, the managing partner at Houston-based Quan, Burdette and Perez, is a baseball fan who has followed the game's steroid scandal closely. So far, he hasn't seen or heard proof of anything that could derail Tejada from entering the United States at this time.

"He has denied doing anything as far as injecting himself with anything, so all the rights of innocence until proven guilty still apply to Miguel Tejada," said Quan, who practices general immigration, business immigration and employer sanctions law.

That could change, however.

"I just want to mention there is one important exception," said Afanassiev, who handles deportation work in court for Quan, Burdette and Perez, which recently was deemed the No. 1 immigration law firm by Chambers USA, a guide that rates law firms. "If Mr. Tejada admits that he lied ... that might be enough for immigration to initiate deportation proceedings. Because the way immigration law is written, you either need a conviction or an admission you committed a crime."

Tejada was originally signed by the Oakland Athletics in 1993 as an amateur free agent in the Dominican Republic, where he still lives in the offseason and plays winter ball. He reached the majors in 1997 and five years later was named the American League's Most Valuable Player.

It's unclear exactly when Tejada, a four-time All-Star, gained his green card. A message left for his agent, Fernando Cuza, was not returned. Tejada was unavailable for comment Wednesday, a day after his brother was killed in a motorcycle accident in their hometown of Bani, D.R.


Pivotal period: Five years
If Tejada is convicted, his chances of staying in the U.S. are stronger if he has had legal residency for more than five years. But that wouldn't automatically save him.

Tejada is currently in the Dominican Republic. Although it's unlikely he'd be denied entry into the U.S. at this point, that, too, won't necessarily remain true.

"If he had his green card for more than five years and then this incident happened, then while he's in the United States nothing really will occur," Afanassiev said. "It will not affect him, really. But if he travels abroad, at the time of his entry to the United States when he presents his green card, if he's in fact convicted for this, they can prevent him from entering the United States — once again, based on the conviction of this crime — and he can be deported that way."

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., announced Tuesday that he is asking Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate whether Tejada lied in 2005 to federal agents investigating whether former Texas Rangers and Baltimore Orioles slugger Rafael Palmeiro perjured himself during the panel's first set of hearings on steroids in baseball in March 2005. In those hearings, conducted several months before Palmeiro tested positive for steroids, the power-hitting first baseman denied using the banned substance.


Become a citizen?
Tejada was interviewed after Palmeiro claimed he likely tested positive because Tejada gave him steroid-tainted B-12 vitamins. During that interview, Tejada told investigators he had never used steroids and had no knowledge of other players who did. Yet in former Sen. George Mitchell's report, Tejada's former Oakland teammate, Adam Piatt, claimed he provided Tejada with steroids after the shortstop asked him about the substances.

Being a citizen might not help Tejada in regard to avoiding punishment if he's convicted for lying to federal agents, but it would behoove him to check into becoming a citizen while he's being investigated, Quan said.

"I don't know how long he's had his green card," Quan said. "But he might want to look at becoming a citizen of the United States also before there is ever any conviction against him, because he can never be deported as a citizen. ... Well, an investigation can be anything. ... As long as no charges are being brought against you, I think you can still apply for citizenship."

jesus.ortiz@chron.com

Editor’s Note: 2007 was a grim year for many immigrants with the double whammy of failed comprehensive immigration reform and increased enforcement measures across the country. What's in store for 2008? Maya Harris is the executive director of the ACLU of Northern California, the organization’s largest affiliate in the country. She is the first African American and first Indian American to hold that position. IMMIGRATION MATTERS regularly features the views of the nation’s leading immigrant rights advocates.

IMMIGRATION MATTERS: Defending the Civil Rights of Immigrants

Looking Back, Looking Forward

New America Media, Commentary, Maya Harris, Posted: Jan 18, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – First-grader Kebin Reyes, a U.S. citizen who lives with his father in San Rafael, just over the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, missed a field trip with his class one day last March. In the early dawn hours, armed agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stormed into the Reyes’ apartment, handcuffed Kebin’s father, and took both father and son into custody. The terrified six-year-old was locked in a room with his father for 10 hours, with nothing to eat but bread and water.

Kebin is one of our clients. A month after the raid, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the little boy for violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Kebin was just one of thousands of children across the country who were traumatized by the Department of Homeland Security’s “Operation Return to Sender” program last year, an initiative characterized not only by racial profiling and a disregard of constitutional rights, but by tremendous inefficiency. Though DHS chief Michael Chertoff claims that the ongoing campaign is aimed at capturing criminals and fugitives, less than one quarter of those arrested last year in Northern California had criminal records.

Despite the fact that Congress was unable to agree on a major immigration reform bill in 2007, state and local laws proliferated. This election year is sure to bring heightened rhetoric and even more draconian proposals. Some of these will be high-profile photo opportunities orchestrated to benefit politicians – like more neighborhood raids and an ever longer, stronger border fence. Others will be more subtle, contrived in the corridors of power, but whose influence will be felt sharply by families, students and workers.

Here are some priorities for the ACLU in the new year:

“No-Match” letters: In 2007, a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the AFL-CIO temporarily halted the federal government plan to punish employers who do not fire employees whose work authorizations are not in the Social Security database. The government has acknowledged that the database is rife with errors, and that more than 70 percent of the discrepancies are in records of U.S. citizens. The court predicted that the program could cause irreparable harm to more than 8 million workers and their employers. Nevertheless, the government intends to reintroduce its flawed proposal in March 2008.

REAL ID: Tucked away in a supplemental bill for the Iraq War and Tsunami relief in 2005, the REAL ID Act turns a driver’s license into a national identity card that everyone will need in order to travel by plane, enter government buildings or open a bank account. Under REAL ID, every person who applies for a driver’s license must prove to a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk that he or she is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. This national database will not solve the problem of illegal immigration or enhance national security – it will, however, endanger the privacy of all Americans. Seventeen states have registered their opposition to REAL ID, and a measure to repeal it is now pending in Congress.

Citizenship delays: As a “national security” measure, the government expanded its use of FBI background checks in 2007 to include a “name check” for each applicant against every name that appears as a reference (as a victim, witness, or other relevant party) in an FBI investigation database. This practice, which results in “false hits,” has caused delays for hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country.

DREAM Act: The California Legislature passed a bill to ensure that all California high school graduates accepted into state public institutions of post-secondary education would be eligible for state-sponsored financial aid, regardless of their immigration status. Though the Governor vetoed the bill, it will be reintroduced this year in hopes that all California kids have a chance to fulfill their dreams of higher education.

Now for some good news. Last year, California became the first state to enact a law prohibiting landlords from checking the immigration status of tenants and prohibiting local governments from requiring such checks. The bill was sponsored by apartment owners who did not want to be put in the position of acting like Border Patrol agents. The California law, which was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was in direct response to local ordinances around the country that would ban landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants.

People often ask me, why is the ACLU involved in immigration issues?

There are very big reasons for doing so.

The ACLU was founded during the 1920s Palmer Raids, when our government ordered European immigrants detained and deported because of their political views. As the U.S. Supreme Court later established, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution apply to all persons in this country, not just to U.S. citizens.

There are also many small reasons. Like first-grader Kebin Reyes.

Immigration is not the biggest problem that Americans face

Michael Brandon Harris-Peyton
Issue date: 1/18/08 Section: Ed-Op

It is a sad day in United States history when some politician thinks that we can solve illegal immigration with a fence. Fences will not solve the problem. It might, however, cut through American towns, as the most recent plans for a border fence in Texas, along the Rio Grande would. The no-man's land between the fences and the border would contain the U.S.-side banks of the river, including a number of back yards and houses. Illegal immigration prevention, right in your living room. Literally.

The proposed solution to illegal immigrants simply cutting through or hopping the fence would be cameras. But you have to pay people to watch cameras, and extra government employees lead to bigger bureaucracies, and larger budgets. The whole plan is a colossal waste of taxpayer funds-funds that Congress could be wasting on its myriad of other insanely foolish ideas, like buying both evolution-based and creationism-based "science" books for our schools, in the interests of acknowledging all perspectives, regardless of how mindlessly ridiculous they are.

Another poorly thought out idea that was proposed as a solution to illegal immigration was so elegantly beautiful in its simplicity that you knew there had to be a catch-the "let's just deport all them pesky illegal immigrants" plan.

Problem No. 1: there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the continental U.S.

Problem No. 2: The Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency stated in September that the approximate cost of deporting all these people would exceed $94 billion. And in that figure, they did not completely cover the costs of hunting down and catching all those undocumented immigrants who didn't want to go back. A spokesman for the agency laid out how they arrived at that figure for CNN, and said the following:

"He said the amount was calculated by multiplying the estimated 12 million people by the average cost of detaining people for a day: $97. That was multiplied by the average length of detention: 32 days. ICE officials also considered transportation costs, which average $1,000 per person. But that amount can vary widely, the spokesman said. Some deportees are simply driven by bus across the border, while others must take charter planes to distant countries, he said. Finally, the department looked at personnel costs, bringing the total to roughly $94 billion."

On top of all this, one has to take into account the effect on the economy if 12 million people suddenly stopped working. The undocumented worker and their production make up a significant part of the economy, which would disappear if, as in the dreams of many politicians in both parties, illegal immigrants just fell off the face of the earth.

The economy is certainly not at its best right now, and any magical loss of illegal immigrants could, in a hypothetical scenario, crash the economy.

But what is to be done about illegal immigration? It is certainly not fair that undocumented immigrant workers do not pay taxes, and it is certainly unfair that they use public services without contributing to it in the same way as citizens do. In order to even suggest a solution to the problem, the sources of the problem must be addressed.

Legal immigration into the United States is difficult, time consuming, and often expensive. There are complications with citizenship requirements, temporary residency, and working inside the country as a non-citizen. The citizenship examinations also, perhaps unfairly, contain technical questions about U.S. law that many American citizens cannot answer-for example, the line of presidential succession. There are few citizens who can recite the line of succession off the top of their heads beyond the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House. In short, it is difficult to become a legal resident, much less a citizen, of the United States.

In the case of the most prominent source of illegal immigrants to this country, Mexico, it is particularly complicated. Public opinion is often very anti-Mexican-immigrant, and both governments are somewhat awkward in their dealings with one another on the subject of immigration itself. Mexicans are not defined as refugees by international law, even though it has become apparent in many cases that illegal immigrants are either politically or economically motivated to flee their home country.
The language doesn't help public opinion very much. The word "illegal" brings a negative response out in people, while the word "refugee" tends to bring out more empathetic feelings.

There is something deeply hypocritical about the hardliner position against illegal immigration. There seems to be contextual amnesia going on-an American citizen of the anti-immigrant persuasion can go from openly discussing the foreign origin of their ancestors to talking about how the country shouldn't immigrants "come over here and steal our jobs and not speak English."

News flash - your ancestors were probably poor, illiterate immigrants who most of the time didn't speak English either. And they had the advantage of arriving, most likely, in an older America with much looser border controls. If you're that severely anti-immigration, you're not "conservative," and you're definitely not a "real American"-you're xenophobic. You're also a hypocrite. The only people who can even claim to not be descended from immigrants are Native Americans. And from what the history books say, your ancestors weren't very nice to them. The anti-immigration argument is often so flawed that it approaches the irrational.

The fact of the matter is that we should not be looking at these people with hatred and intolerance-we should be making it easier for them to become legitimate citizens, and to contribute wholly to society.

America needs all the people it can get-we certainly have the space, and with the declining birthrate, we'll need more immigrants in order to stay on-par with the rising power of countries like India and China. If this country is truly ready to say no to immigrants, even the illegal kind, and go to such insane lengths as to build walls and deport every undocumented person, then it might as well resign itself to becoming the next collapsed superpower. America was built by immigrants, and that singular fact should be the first thought when it comes to dealing with the country's immigration issues.

Michael Brandon Harris-Peyton is a sophomore majoring in English and Japanese. He can be reached at ed-op@thetriangle.org.

The Benefits Of Immigration

by Donald J. Boudreaux for the Foundation for Economic Education

I recently challenged a case, made by some market-advocates, for immigration restrictions. I have since received scolding letters and E-marls from numerous people predicting that open borders would bring all manner of calamities. While some writers were less certain than others about the baleful consequences of unregulated immigration, only one correspondent fully shared my support for eliminating all immigration restrictions.

These many letters have prompted me to think longer and harder about immigration. Alas, my opinion remains unchanged: we should welcome all immigrants. Government should not redistribute income to immigrants, but neither should government prevent immigration.

Each immigrant comes to America to make himself better off. Suppose government no longer redistributes income to immigrants. Would immigrants still relocate here? You bet! A handful will come because some Americans are willing to use their own resources to care for them. Most immigrants will come because each has sufficient skill and ambition to profit in the market.

Absent government welfare payments to immigrants, immigrants who do not seek work burden no one other than family or friends who voluntarily assume this burden. I here ignore such non-working immigrants who receive no government handouts. These immigrants do not raise the ire of anti-immigrationists. Opponents of immigration object most vehemently to immigrants who are eager to work.

Such objections are mistaken. Let’s see why.

Juan is a hypothetical immigrant. He arrives in America and immediately begins looking for employment. Before finding a job, he must secure food, clothing, and shelter. He may do so from funds brought with him from his native country, or he may depend upon the kindness of family, friends, or charitable organizations here in the United States. In either case, because such transfers are voluntary, no American is harmed.

If Juan resorts to theft, however, the story is different. Some Americans are indeed harmed. But criminal law is the appropriate tool for dealing with such thievery. Restricting immigration on the grounds that a handful of immigrants behave criminally would be like denying drivers licenses to everyone just because a small percentage of people drive recklessly. More focused and less ham-fisted means are available in both cases for weeding out the bad apples from the good.

Juan, however, is no thief. He’s a worker. Suppose that Juan has no skills of any value to any American. He can do nothing that any American is willing to pay for. In this case, Juan will eventually return home. No American is harmed. (Actually, Juan would probably not come to America in the first place. People so destitute of skills are unlikely to leave home in search of work in a foreign and highly competitive economy.)

But Juan is extremely unlikely to lack any skill for which Americans are willing to pay some mutually agreeable wage. Readers who doubt this claim should consult that cornerstone of economics called the theory of comparative advantage—a theory, by the way, that exposes the senselessness of identifying people economically as being "above average" or "below average." The theory of comparative advantage makes clear that everyone is above average at some tasks and below average at many others.

When Juan finds employment, not only is Juan made better off, but so, too, is his employer. Consumers are also made better off, for the higher output or lower cost that Juan’s availability makes possible for his employer is shared with consumers through reduced prices or improved product quality. Nothing to complain of so far.

Some people, however, are harmed by Juan’s availability—namely, American workers who compete with Juan. If Juan’s most marketable skill is nearly identical to the most marketable skill possessed by Sam the American, Juan is a potential rival for Sam’s job. Because of Juan, Sam’s income may fall.

Protecting Sam from income loss, though, is inappropriate. To prevent Juan from entering America is to do nothing more virtuous than to protect Sam from competition. But it is also to prevent George and Bill and other Americans from freely dealing with Juan, who is someone they would otherwise choose to deal with! To restrict immigration is to deny to Americans their freedom of association. Sam, then, becomes a monopolist under immigration restrictions. If Sam suffers income loss when these restrictions are lifted, he is no more worthy of our solicitude than is any other monopolist whose monopoly privilege unravels.

Suppose that government grants me the exclusive privilege to write newspaper op-eds. No longer can publishers carry the likes of Walter Williams, George Will, Maureen Dowd, or Russell Baker. Protected from such competitors, my income skyrockets. Now imagine that government withdraws this privilege. Publishers— and readers!—are again free to patronize op-ed writers other than me. My income plummets.

Should you feel sorry for me? Of course not. Would you conclude from the fact that this heightened competition reduces my income that the wealth of the nation falls? Of course not. Likewise, productively employed immigrants invariably increase the nation’s wealth by intensifying competition and expanding the division of labor. Immigration restrictions, in contrast, reduce economic growth. Prosperity cannot be bred by monopoly protections.

immigration opponents also fear that open immigration means overcrowding. This worry is overblown. First, the United States is sparsely populated. Second, owners of private property have incentives to keep their properties from being overcrowded. The proper solution to overcrowding is privatizing those property holdings not yet privatized, not forcibly stopping productive people from coming to our country.

Third, overcrowding is an elusive concept. Among the people who wrote to complain that immigration spawns overcrowding was a resident of New York City. But this person clearly doesn’t mind crowds. If he did, he’d move to Oklahoma or Mississippi.

Manhattan is one of the most densely populated spots on earth. Yet it is also one of the wealthiest. New Yorkers often complain of crowds, but no one is compelled to live in that city. The reason people live there is because economic opportunity in New York is vast. Living in close contact with lots of people is a price that many of us voluntarily pay for the opportunity to take advantage of the wealth-producing capacities of an extensive division of labor.

New York and Los Angeles are crowded but wealthy. Oklahoma and Mississippi are sparsely populated but much poorer. This fact alone is ample evidence of the great economic benefits of immigration.

This article was originally published by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

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

About The Author

Donald Boudreaux for the Foundation for Economic Education is the chairman of the economics department at George Mason University. He was the president of FEE from 1997 to 2001. The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), one of the oldest free-market organizations in the United States, was founded in 1946 by Leonard E. Read to study and advance the freedom philosophy. FEE's mission is to offer the most consistent case for the "first principles" of freedom: the sanctity of private property, individual liberty, the rule of law, the free market, and the moral superiority of individual choice and responsibility over coercion.


The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

Copyright © 1999-2007 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM

Dallas suburb proposes new rental ban for illegal immigrants

The Associated Press
January 17, 2008

FARMERS BRANCH, Texas -- The Dallas suburb that jumped into the nationwide debate over immigration plans to take up another law to force out undocumented immigrants.

The Farmers Branch City Council plans to consider a new ordinance Tuesday banning landlords from renting apartments and houses to illegal immigrants. It would require the city and federal government, not the landlords, to determine who is in the country legally, The Dallas Morning News reported on its Web site Thursday.

City Council members first approved a ban on apartment rentals to illegal immigrants in November 2006 without discussion. They then revised the ordinance to include exemptions for minors, seniors and some mixed-immigration status families and approved it in January 2007. Residents voted to approve the rule in May.

But a federal judge has blocked Farmers Branch from enforcing the ordinance after finding city officials attempted to regulate immigration differently from the federal government.

"I am confident this new proposal is consistent with the intent of Farmers Branch voters, and will withstand any legal challenges," Mayor Pro Tem Tim O'Hare, who led the city's original efforts against illegal immigrants, told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

The new proposal would require adults wanting to lease a house or apartment in Farmers Branch to obtain an occupancy license from the city. People seeking the license would have to provide information about their citizenship or legal status. The information would be checked against a federal database to determine if applicants are in the country legally.

If federal authorities can't confirm a person has permission to live in the country, the license holder and landlord would be notified. The renter would have 60 days to provide proof of legal status.

Violations of the ordinance could result in a fine of up to $500 per day.

Nationwide, more than 100 cities or counties have proposed, passed or rejected laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ undocumented workers or training police to enforce immigration laws.

Letter delivered to the U.S. House of Representatives Hearing regarding the delays in processing of U.S. citizenship applications due to surge in applications

"GALEO joins other organizations and individuals nationwide calling on our federal government to move quickly in processing of the U.S. citizenship applications. Bureaucratic delays should not bar the door to the American Dream and are unacceptable. This is particularly important for those who filed timely applications for U.S. citizenship in order to participate in the upcoming Presidential elections. Voting is a fundamental responsibility for all U.S. citizens and these legal immigrants want to participate fully in our democracy. Our Bureacracy should not stand in the way. We should demand a better performance from the USCIS."

*************************

17, 2008

Dr. Emilio Gonza***
Director, US Citizenship and Immigration Services
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington DC 20536


Dear Dr. Gonza***:

The undersigned organizations are writing to you because we are deeply concerned about the current delays in naturalization processing.

The delays stem from last summer's surge in applications for citizenship and other immigration benefits. Immigrants had already begun applying for citizenship in much higher numbers throughout 2006, moved by a desire to become full members of our body politic and commit to their new home country. The fee increases announced in early 2007 provided even more motivation for these immigrants to not delay their applications any further.

Many of the undersigned organizations opposed fee increases of the magnitude that USCIS proposed and warned that if USCIS were to proceed with the fee increases, it must prepare for a surge in applications from immigrants wishing to avoid the fee increases. In fact, USCIS did move forward with the fee increases, but did not adequately prepare to handle such a surge.

Yet the surge happened, causing worsened delays. USCIS has stated that processing delays for citizenship applications could hit 18 months. Indeed, many applicants who filed before the fee increase have already had to wait four to five months just to get a receipt from USCIS. By the end of December, USICS had not finalized plans for handling the backlog created last July.

Meanwhile, USCIS still appears to have no plan to address the thousands of applications that are still delayed due to name-check clearances. Approximately 150,000 citizenship applicants have waited more than six months, if not years, for their names to clear the FBI name-check process. These delays have hit several populations particularly hard; Arab and Muslim immigrants are disproportionately affected.

The processing backlogs and name check delays are preventing hardworking, patriotic immigrants from becoming full members of our nation. Specifically, these delays will disenfranchise thousands of immigrants who, applying more than a year prior to the upcoming Presidential election, had fully expected to be able to vote in this election. If USCIS does not address the delays, these immigrants will not yet be citizens and will not be able to vote in the November election.

We urge you to take whatever measures may be necessary to alleviate the current backlogs and to ensure that the naturalization applications for these immigrants are promptly processed so that they may become citizens. Our nation should be doing whatever it can to enable legal immigrants to join the American community. Poor planning and bureaucratic delays should not bar the door to the American Dream. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely



1. Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR)


National organizations

2. Asian American Justice Center
3. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
4. American Immigration Lawyers Association
5. Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)
6. International Immigrants Foundation
7. Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
8. National Immigration Forum
9. Asian Law Alliance
10. Asian Law Caucus
11. Dumaraonan USA
12. Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform
13. Irish Apostolate USA
14. National Council of La Raza
15. United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
16. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
17. Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
18. Church World Service, Immigration and Refugee Program
19. Interfaith Worker Justice
20. South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow (SAALT)
21. American Friends Service Committee
22. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
23. Center for Community Change
24. Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM)
25. Union for Reform Judaism
26. U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
27. Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
28. National Immigration Law Center
29. National Immigrant Justice Center
30. American Jewish Committee
31. Gamaliel Foundation
32. Change to Win


State/regional organizations

33. Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest
34. Idaho Community Action Network
35. CAUSA (Oregon)
36. CASA of Maryland
37. New Jersey Immigration Policy Network (NJIPN)
38. Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA)
39. Maine People's Alliance
40. New York Immigration Coalition
41. Pennsylvania Council of Churches
42. Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
43. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA)
44. Hate Free Zone (Seattle WA)
45. Voces de la Frontera (Milwaukee WI)
46. Students United for Immigrant Rights (Racine WI)
47. Northwest Federation of Community Organizations (Seattle WA)
48. Washington Community Action Network
49. Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO)
50. Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC)
51. American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California
52. ISAIAH - Gamaliel (Minnesota)
53. WISDOM - Gamaliel (Wisconsin)
54. Metropolitan Congregations United - Gamaliel (Missouri)
55. Transforming Action Through Power (TAP) - Gamaliel (Indiana)
56. Gamaliel of Michigan
57. UACT - Gamaliel (Connecticut)
58. Project IRENE (Illinois)



Local organizations

59. Centro de Amistad, Guadalupe AZ
60. Chicago Irish Immigrant Support, Chicago IL
61. Rock Valley College Refugee and Immigrant Services, Rockford IL
62. Erie Neighborhood House, Chicago IL
63. South Texas Immigration Council Inc., Brownsville, Texas
64. Immigrant Information Center, Jamaica Plain, MA
65. Logan Square Neighborhood Association, Chicago IL
66. Eirene Immigration Center, Camden NJ
67. Asbury United Methodist Church, Camden NJ
68. Tu Amigo Community Center, Camden NJ
69. La Mesa Del Pueblo Food Ministry, Camden NJ
70. The Resurrection Project, Chicago IL
71. Southwest Organizing Project, Chicago IL
72. Casa de Esperanza, Bound Brook NJ
73. Franciscan Order of Sacred Heart JPIC Office, Chicago IL
74. Jr's Roofing and Framing, Shelbyville TN
75. Law Office of Emily Love, P.C., Evanston IL
76. World Relief Chicago, Chicago IL
77. African Resource Center, Washington DC
78. Jewish Community Action, St. Paul, MN
79. Chinese Mutual Aid Association, Chicago IL
80. Scott D. Pollock & Associates, P.C., Chicago IL
81. Interfaith Legal Services for Immigrants, St. Louis MO
82. Digna Ochoa Center for Immigration Legal Assistance, Columbia, SC
83. Refugee Immigration Project, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Jacksonville FL
84. Law Office Of Brigit G. Alvarez, Los Angeles CA
85. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society Chicago (HIAS Chicago), Chicago IL
86. Office of Nancy M. Vizer, P.C., Chicago IL
87. AzulaySeiden Law Group, Chicago IL
88. South-East Asia Center, Chicago IL
89. Bonilla Community Services, Matthews, NC
90. Law Office of Eleanor Kaplan Adams, San Diego CA
91. Interfaith Refugee and Immigration Ministries, Chicago IL
92. Ebere N. Ekechukwu & Associates, P.C., Chicago IL
93. Dominican Literacy Center, Aurora, IL
94. Law Offices of Scott E. Bellgrau, P.C., Bensenville IL
95. Amigos Center, Fort Myers FL
96. Erwin, Martinkus & Cole, Ltd., Champaign IL
97. Law Office of Judith Michaels Morrow, San Francisco CA
98. Alaska Immigration Law Offices, Anchorage AK
99. Law Office of Mary O'Leary, Evanston IL
100. Community Legal Services, East Palo Alto CA
101. Hudson | May, LLC, Salem OR
102. Centro Legal De La Raza, Oakland CA
103. Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Portland ME
104. Law Offices of Ashley Mammo, P.C., West Bloomfield MI
105. Law Offices of Jesiros D. Bautista, Oakland CA
106. East Bay Community Law Center, Berkeley CA
107. Kathleen M. Weber Law Office, Seattle WA
108. Law Office of Maura B. Petersen, Santa Cruz CA
109. International Institute of the Bay Area, San Francisco CA
110. International Center of Greater Cincinnati (OH)
111. Youth Service Bureau of the Illinois Valley, Ottawa IL
112. Centro Latino Cuzcatlan, San Pablo CA
113. Latin American Coalition, Charlotte NC
114. Hanul Family Alliance, Chicago IL
115. East Central Illinois Refugee Mutual Assistance Center, Urbana IL
116. Maxwell Street Legal Clinic, Lexington, KY
117. Dady Law Office, Rockford IL
118. Jewish Child and Family Services, Chicago IL
119. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., Toledo OH
120. Berzon and Associates, Chicago IL
121. Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of Chicago
122. Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago
123. Latino Law Student Association, DePaul University, Chicago IL
124. Filipinos for Affirmative Action, Oakland CA
125. Conexion Americas, Nashville, TN
126. Rights for All People, Denver CO
127. Social Justice Group of St. Anthony of Padua Parish, Hightstown, NJ
128. Law Office of Kevin Dixler, Chicago IL
129. St. Brigid's Casa Mary Johanna, Westbury NY
130. Centro Romero, Chicago IL
131. Law Offices of George L. Young, APC, San Marino CA
132. Chicagoland Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights, Chicago IL
133. Centro Hispano of Dane County, Madison WI
134. Alpha International American Immigrant, Seattle WA
135. Catholic Charities Immigration Services, Santa Rosa CA
136. Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, Los Angeles CA
137. International Friendship Center, Highlands NC
138. Center for New Americans, Northampton MA
139. Instituto del Progreso Latino, Chicago IL
140. Lutheran Children and Family Service, Philadelphia PA
141. Council on American Islamic Relation - Chicago Chapter (CAIR Chicago), Chicago IL
142. IRIS Integrated Refugee & Immigration Services, New Haven CT
143. Immigration Law Offices of Mahoney & Tomlinson, Sacramento CA
144. Gamaliel of Metro Chicago, Chicago IL
145. Pilsen Neighbors Community Council, Chicago IL
146. South Suburban Action Conference, Chicago IL
147. United Congregations of Metro-East, Madison IL
148. Quad Cities Interfaith, Rock Island IL
149. Justice Overcoming Boundaries, San Diego CA
150. Pittsburgh Interfaith Impact Network - Gamaliel, Pittsburgh PA
151. CAUSE, Oxnard CA
152. AMOS - Gamaliel, Cincinnati OH
153. NOAH - Gamaliel, Cleveland OH
154. ACTS - Gamaliel (Ohio)
155. MOSES - Gamaliel, Detroit MI
156. ISAAC - Gamaliel, Kalamazoo MI
157. EZEKIEL - Gamaliel, Grand Rapids MI
158. ARISE - Gamaliel, Albany NY
159. VOICE - Gamaliel, Buffalo NY
160. ACTS - Gamaliel, Syracuse NY
161. NOAH Niagara- Gamaliel, Buffalo NY
162. ABLE - Gamaliel, Atlanta GA
163. MICAH - Gamaliel, Milwaukee WI
164. ESTHER - Gamaliel, Waukesha WI
165. RIC - Gamaliel, Racine WI
166. East Boston Ecumenical Community Council (EBECC), Boston MA
167. Community Refugee & Immigration Services, Columbus, Ohio


Individuals

168. Dr. Rogelio Reyes, San Diego State University, San Diego CA
169. Patrick Corr, immigration instructor, Pittsburgh PA
170. Pete Cerneka, Lebanon IL
171. Jeff Jennett, citizenship instructor, Highland Park IL
172. Victoria Palacios
173. Vaishali Mamgain, University of Southern Maine, Portland ME
174. Julie Turner-Lloveras, attorney, Sacramento CA
175. Lynne Weintraub, citizenship educator, Amherst MA
176. Alicia Armstrong, immigration paralegal, New York NY
177. Sarahid Rivera, legal advocate, Napa CA
178. Miguel Angel Castanon, Napa CA
179. Matthew Bernstein, director, immigration and nationality clinic, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago IL
180. M. Lucero Ortiz, Washington DC
181. Teresa DeRush, Grand Junction CO
182. Laura P. Fernandez, Washington DC
183. Mary B. Godfrey, LMSW, Grand Rapids MI
184. Jillian Kong-Sivert, Esq., Scottsdale AZ
185. Rosa Mendosa, Muscatine IA


We hope you will share this message with others.

Sincerely,


Jerry Gonza***
Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO)

San Francisco Chronicle
Daly City police seeking suspect in pry-bar beating of elderly woman

John Coté, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, January 18, 2008

(01-17) 18:29 PST DALY CITY - Police are searching for a 28-year-old South San Francisco man suspected of savagely beating a 78-year-old widow inside her Daly City home and leaving her for dead after she surprised him during a robbery attempt.

The woman was upgraded today to critical condition at a local hospital after she suffered life-threatening injuries from being beaten in the face and head with a metal pry bar Saturday, Daly City police said.

They identified the suspect in the attack as Jose Perez-Gonza***, 28, an illegal alien originally from Guadalajara, Mexico, who has been living in South San Francisco.

Perez-Gonza*** may be employed as a house painter in the San Jose area and may frequent exercise gyms in San Francisco during the early evenings, police said.

He has tattoos of a black-and-red Harley Davidson motorcycle emblem and a black dragon band on his right arm. He may also have "Mexico" tattooed in large letters running up his inner right forearm, police said.

Perez-Gonza*** - who has used the names Antonio Perez, Moses Omar Lopez-Padilla, Jose De Jesus Perez-Gonza*** and Juan Arellano - is also a suspect in the Dec. 21 burglary of a Pacifica home, Daly City police Lt. Jay Morena said.

Police did not say how they had focused Perez-Gonza*** as a suspect.

The Daly City attack came after the burglar had apparently telephoned the victim earlier in the day and posed as a package deliveryman in an effort to determine when the woman was going to be home, police said.

"This was not a random burglary," Morena said. But he added that police suspect the burglar tried to strike when no one was home.

"It was not a home invasion-type of burglary," Morena said. "The phone call was to find when she wouldn't be there."

E-mail John Coté at jcote@sfchronicle.com.

Jan. 17, 2008, 4:32PM

Ex-BP agent in Laredo, wife in smuggling conspiracy


© 2008 The Associated Press


LAREDO, Texas — Calls from a Border Patrol agent's wife to him while he was on duty helped illegal immigrants on buses slip through a checkpoint.

Prosecutors say 32-year-old David Cruz and 35-year-old Susana Lopez-Portillo De Cruz pleaded guilty Thursday in Laredo to conspiring to transport and harbor illegal immigrants.

The case involved three 2007 incidents — in January, July and September — when a total of 25 illegal immigrants were bused from Laredo.

Prosecutors say Cruz would get calls from his wife letting him know the number of a particular bus and when it likely would reach his checkpoint so he could let it pass.

Cruz resigned in September.

The husband and wife face a maximum 10 years in prison and $250,000 fines.

A third person was arrested Jan. 9 and remains in custody without bond on similar charges.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5464488.html