The issue of illegal immigration is continuing to rock the nation. Yesterday, a study reported that the number of illegal immigrants in the United States is falling, protests took place in San Francisco over the city's alleged sanctuary policy, and the Government announced a new scheme which invites illegal immigrants to turn themselves in for deportation.
A report yesterday indicating a marked decline in the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. fueled a widening national debate over the Bush administration's policy of immigration enforcement through aggressive workplace raids, writes Nicole Gaouette from Washington.
The largest such enforcement action was in May in Postville, Iowa, where federal immigration agents descended on a meatpacking plant and arrested nearly 400 workers later detained in a building used to house cattle.
The findings have given fuel to the argument that the method of "attrition" -- making life as difficult as possible for immigrants living in the United States illegally -- might be working.
The report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank, says that the number of illegal immigrants fell about 11% between last August and May, from 12.5 million to 11.2 million.
The study was based on an analysis of census data and concludes that if that rate of decline is sustained, the number of illegal immigrants will be halved in five years.
Over in San Francisco, a small group of Minuteman Project activists demonstrated Wednesday against the city's sanctuary policy, but their call for Mayor Gavin Newsom's ouster was drowned out by hundreds of chanting immigration rights supporters, reports Maria L. LaGanga.Jim Gilchrist, founder of the anti-illegal-immigrant group, stepped inside City Hall, where he told reporters that Newsom should resign because of "his endorsement and support of sanctuary city status that led to the horrific slayings of the Bologna family."
Gilchrist said his organization was now going to begin targeting sanctuary cities nationwide
Meanwhile, federal authorities are launching a pilot program next month to allow noncriminal illegal immigrants with final deportation orders to surrender rather than face possible arrest and detention, reports Anna Gorman from Los Angeles.
Two Southern California cities -- Santa Ana and San Diego -- are among five cities nationwide where immigrants can turn themselves in from Aug. 5 to Aug. 22.
Certain immigrants who do so will be given up to 90 days before being required to leave the United States. And in some cases, the agency will pay for the flight for the illegal immigrants and their relatives.
Activists on both sides of the immigration debate expressed skepticism.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2008/07/us-to-launch-pr.html
Saturday, August 2, 2008
ICE still may track volunteers for deportation
Illegal immigrants who volunteer to leave the country through an experimental government program may have to wear tracking devices or check in at offices until they go, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Thursday.
Between Tuesday and Aug. 22, people who have ignored deportation orders and have not committed crimes can show up at ICE offices and arrange to leave the country. The offer will only be available in five cities: Santa Ana, Calif.; San Diego; Phoenix; Charlotte, N.C. and Chicago.
About 475,000 people have deportation orders and have not committed crimes, said ICE spokesman Richard Rocha. ICE did not know how many such people are in the five cities.
Those who volunteer will have up to 90 days to take care of personal affairs before leaving.
During that time, volunteers could be required to wear an electronic monitoring device on an ankle confining them to certain areas.
In some cases, those who want to appeal a deportation order could be detained while they fight the order, depending on circumstances of their cases, Rocha said.
Volunteers might get help with flights or bus rides home if they can't afford the travel. But laws prohibiting people who have been in the country illegally from returning legally for 5 to 20 years would still apply, Rocha said.
Rocha said that by volunteering to leave, immigrants will be able to prove a departure date when they apply to enter the U.S. legally years later.
Congress had considered so-called "report-to-deport" proposals requiring illegal immigrants to report to federal offices, but they failed to become law.
The self-deport idea has left some advocacy group members puzzled.
"The program is a head scratcher, to think people are going to come forward and walk away from their life here. It shows how desperate and delusional this administration has gotten in dealing with illegal immigration," said Angela Kelly, director of the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Law Foundation.
Frank Sharry, executive director for America's Voice, said the plan appears to be a political move to convince Republicans the administration is now serious about immigration enforcement.
"I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there won't be lines around the block for this program," Sharry said.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gEfnRmHVHzKk8Wxjs-d1t-xgY9VAD928VSKG0
Between Tuesday and Aug. 22, people who have ignored deportation orders and have not committed crimes can show up at ICE offices and arrange to leave the country. The offer will only be available in five cities: Santa Ana, Calif.; San Diego; Phoenix; Charlotte, N.C. and Chicago.
About 475,000 people have deportation orders and have not committed crimes, said ICE spokesman Richard Rocha. ICE did not know how many such people are in the five cities.
Those who volunteer will have up to 90 days to take care of personal affairs before leaving.
During that time, volunteers could be required to wear an electronic monitoring device on an ankle confining them to certain areas.
In some cases, those who want to appeal a deportation order could be detained while they fight the order, depending on circumstances of their cases, Rocha said.
Volunteers might get help with flights or bus rides home if they can't afford the travel. But laws prohibiting people who have been in the country illegally from returning legally for 5 to 20 years would still apply, Rocha said.
Rocha said that by volunteering to leave, immigrants will be able to prove a departure date when they apply to enter the U.S. legally years later.
Congress had considered so-called "report-to-deport" proposals requiring illegal immigrants to report to federal offices, but they failed to become law.
The self-deport idea has left some advocacy group members puzzled.
"The program is a head scratcher, to think people are going to come forward and walk away from their life here. It shows how desperate and delusional this administration has gotten in dealing with illegal immigration," said Angela Kelly, director of the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Law Foundation.
Frank Sharry, executive director for America's Voice, said the plan appears to be a political move to convince Republicans the administration is now serious about immigration enforcement.
"I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there won't be lines around the block for this program," Sharry said.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gEfnRmHVHzKk8Wxjs-d1t-xgY9VAD928VSKG0
ACLU: Scripts show immigrants pressured at trials
The ACLU is raising questions about documents given to defense attorneys and workers who were arrested in an Immigration raid at an Iowa meatpacking plant. The documents include scripts for judges and defense lawyers as well as waivers of rights and other documents. The American Civil Liberties Union charged that the packets show a disregard for due process and proof that the U.S. Attorney's office put pressure on workers to quickly plead guilty. The ACLU obtained the documents from public defenders in Iowa. "Whether or not they are guilty requires much more careful analysis of the law in each individual case than these documents show existed," said Lucas Guttentag, the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project Director.
Guttentag said the documents show the U.S. Attorney's office was emphasizing speed in handling the cases. "This is part of a larger pattern to achieve quick guilty pleas at the expense of fairness and justice," he said. A phone message left Thursday morning with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa was not immediately returned. Mark Smith, Iowa's acting public defender, also did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Agents arrested 389 workers in the May 12 raid in Postville at Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant. That made it the largest Immigration enforcement operation in U.S. history. Trials were quickly held about 70 miles away at a fairgrounds in Waterloo, where most pleaded guilty within a week. They are serving sentences in federal prisons outside Iowa before being deported. The documents provided by the ACLU include a step-by-step script for hearings, with suggested wording by judges, lawyers and the immigrants charged. The packets include waivers -- printed in English and Spanish -- that bar workers from pursuing further legal claims or procedures. Others waive the legal right to a grand jury to determine criminal charges. One waiver read, "I have been advised that I have the right to insist that any felony charge brought against me in federal court first be presented to a US Grand Jury ... I would like to waive that right, and agree to be prosecuted under information filed against me in this case by the United States Attorney." Andres Benach, an Immigration lawyer at the Washington-based Maggio & Kattar law firm, said the documents obtained by the ACLU were stunning. "It looks to me like they arrested people at a meatpacking plant and they -- they were just pushing people through the assembly lines themselves, all prepackaged for detention," said Benach, whose firm specializes in Immigration issues. Benach said he found the documents deeply troubling because they sped up a process that can vary greatly from person to person. "Considering the time constraints, considering that each individual has his or her own case and his or her own rights ... this is very troubling," he said. "These aren't the worst convictions. They don't involve guns, they don't involve drugs, they don't involve violence, so there might be forms of reliefs for some of these people and they're saying, 'No, just take the government's word that their isn't."'
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-aclupostvilleraid,0,1684684.story
Guttentag said the documents show the U.S. Attorney's office was emphasizing speed in handling the cases. "This is part of a larger pattern to achieve quick guilty pleas at the expense of fairness and justice," he said. A phone message left Thursday morning with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa was not immediately returned. Mark Smith, Iowa's acting public defender, also did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Agents arrested 389 workers in the May 12 raid in Postville at Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant. That made it the largest Immigration enforcement operation in U.S. history. Trials were quickly held about 70 miles away at a fairgrounds in Waterloo, where most pleaded guilty within a week. They are serving sentences in federal prisons outside Iowa before being deported. The documents provided by the ACLU include a step-by-step script for hearings, with suggested wording by judges, lawyers and the immigrants charged. The packets include waivers -- printed in English and Spanish -- that bar workers from pursuing further legal claims or procedures. Others waive the legal right to a grand jury to determine criminal charges. One waiver read, "I have been advised that I have the right to insist that any felony charge brought against me in federal court first be presented to a US Grand Jury ... I would like to waive that right, and agree to be prosecuted under information filed against me in this case by the United States Attorney." Andres Benach, an Immigration lawyer at the Washington-based Maggio & Kattar law firm, said the documents obtained by the ACLU were stunning. "It looks to me like they arrested people at a meatpacking plant and they -- they were just pushing people through the assembly lines themselves, all prepackaged for detention," said Benach, whose firm specializes in Immigration issues. Benach said he found the documents deeply troubling because they sped up a process that can vary greatly from person to person. "Considering the time constraints, considering that each individual has his or her own case and his or her own rights ... this is very troubling," he said. "These aren't the worst convictions. They don't involve guns, they don't involve drugs, they don't involve violence, so there might be forms of reliefs for some of these people and they're saying, 'No, just take the government's word that their isn't."'
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-aclupostvilleraid,0,1684684.story
Nativist Bedfellows: The Christian Right Embraces Anti-Immigrant Movement
Many on the Christian Right have become nearly as worked up about undocumented immigrants as about abortion and same-sex marriage. You could hear that in the speeches at last September's Values Voters Summit -- the annual beltway gathering of key Christian Right groups -- and on talk radio before and since. While nativism has long run deep with many conservative white Protestants, this open flirtation with anti-immigrant politics involves a recent, dangerous, shift among the Christian Right's leadership.
Since its resurgence as a social movement in the mid-1970s, Christian Right leaders largely sidestepped immigration -- even when the movement's base generally supported such measures as California's landmark 1994 anti-immigrant measure, Proposition 187. Leaders committed to racial reconciliation between their overwhelmingly white constituency and African American evangelicals understandably have avoided racially charged immigration debates. Another movement objective -- finding common cause with socially conservative Latinos -- is particularly vulnerable to anti-immigrant campaigns. Congressional Republicans' harsh stance on immigration cost their party significant Latino support during the 2006 midterm elections, dropping to 29 percent from 44 percent in just two years.
If the leadership of the Christian Right has attempted to keep the issue of unauthorized immigration at arm's length, their base, increasingly, has embraced anti-immigrant views. A 2006 Pew Research Center Survey revealed that 63 percent of conservative white evangelical Protestants-the base constituency of the Christian Right-view immigrants as a threat to "traditional American customs and values." In a survey of its own constituency, the FRC reported that 90 percent of "values voters" believe deportation of "illegal immigrants" to be consistent with "the requirements of Christian discipleship."
While the Christian Right's growing alignment with anti-immigrant forces began at the movement's base, it seems some of the movement's shepherds have taken to following their flock.
In January 2007 Manuel Miranda, a former aide to Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), announced the "Families First in Immigration" campaign. This "family values" initiative hewed closely to an immigration paper Miranda developed for the conservative Family Research Council, calling on the one hand for a path to citizenship for any unauthorized immigrant relatives of U.S. citizens and, on the other, for expunging birthright citizenship from the U.S. Constitution. This second provision, a longstanding goal of hard-line anti-immigrant groups, would require eliminating the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to children born on US soil to noncitizens. The campaign's "split the baby" approach on immigration drew initial support from such heavyweights as Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer, and Donald Wildmon, but was quickly rejected as being too soft, as smacking of "amnesty."
Meanwhile, 2008 Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and others stretched for ways to connect immigration to the Christian Right's core issue: abortion. Here's how Huckabee made the link: "Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce. It might be because for the last 35 years we have aborted more than a million people [each year] who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."
The cultural terrain of conservative Protestant evangelicals has long offered fertile ground for the cultivation of anti-immigrant hostility. A segment of the Christian Right believes the United States was founded as a Christian country, and views as a threat any people who challenge "American" (i.e. conservative Anglo-Protestant) cultural norms-including immigrants who are bringing in their own religious beliefs. And as occurred during the early 20th century backlash against Irish and Italian Catholic immigrants -- who were not considered to be either white or Christian -- white nationalists have joined ranks with Christian nationalists to oppose the menace to "American" culture posed by an influx of immigrants who are predominantly people of color.
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/93443/nativist_bedfellows:_the_christian_right_embraces_anti-immigrant_movement/
Since its resurgence as a social movement in the mid-1970s, Christian Right leaders largely sidestepped immigration -- even when the movement's base generally supported such measures as California's landmark 1994 anti-immigrant measure, Proposition 187. Leaders committed to racial reconciliation between their overwhelmingly white constituency and African American evangelicals understandably have avoided racially charged immigration debates. Another movement objective -- finding common cause with socially conservative Latinos -- is particularly vulnerable to anti-immigrant campaigns. Congressional Republicans' harsh stance on immigration cost their party significant Latino support during the 2006 midterm elections, dropping to 29 percent from 44 percent in just two years.
If the leadership of the Christian Right has attempted to keep the issue of unauthorized immigration at arm's length, their base, increasingly, has embraced anti-immigrant views. A 2006 Pew Research Center Survey revealed that 63 percent of conservative white evangelical Protestants-the base constituency of the Christian Right-view immigrants as a threat to "traditional American customs and values." In a survey of its own constituency, the FRC reported that 90 percent of "values voters" believe deportation of "illegal immigrants" to be consistent with "the requirements of Christian discipleship."
While the Christian Right's growing alignment with anti-immigrant forces began at the movement's base, it seems some of the movement's shepherds have taken to following their flock.
In January 2007 Manuel Miranda, a former aide to Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), announced the "Families First in Immigration" campaign. This "family values" initiative hewed closely to an immigration paper Miranda developed for the conservative Family Research Council, calling on the one hand for a path to citizenship for any unauthorized immigrant relatives of U.S. citizens and, on the other, for expunging birthright citizenship from the U.S. Constitution. This second provision, a longstanding goal of hard-line anti-immigrant groups, would require eliminating the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to children born on US soil to noncitizens. The campaign's "split the baby" approach on immigration drew initial support from such heavyweights as Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer, and Donald Wildmon, but was quickly rejected as being too soft, as smacking of "amnesty."
Meanwhile, 2008 Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and others stretched for ways to connect immigration to the Christian Right's core issue: abortion. Here's how Huckabee made the link: "Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce. It might be because for the last 35 years we have aborted more than a million people [each year] who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."
The cultural terrain of conservative Protestant evangelicals has long offered fertile ground for the cultivation of anti-immigrant hostility. A segment of the Christian Right believes the United States was founded as a Christian country, and views as a threat any people who challenge "American" (i.e. conservative Anglo-Protestant) cultural norms-including immigrants who are bringing in their own religious beliefs. And as occurred during the early 20th century backlash against Irish and Italian Catholic immigrants -- who were not considered to be either white or Christian -- white nationalists have joined ranks with Christian nationalists to oppose the menace to "American" culture posed by an influx of immigrants who are predominantly people of color.
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/93443/nativist_bedfellows:_the_christian_right_embraces_anti-immigrant_movement/
Bush signs PEPFAR bill that drops ban on immigration, travel to U.S. by those with HIV
President George W. Bush signed legislation on Wednesday, July 30 that not only reauthorized the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, but also tripled funding for fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the world’s poorest countries, particularly in Africa, and cleared the way for ending the ban on travel into the U.S. by HIV-positive foreigners.The measure also drops a previous clause requiring that at least one-third of the PEPFAR funds be used to promote sexual abstinence.Congress approved the measure, which increases funding for the five-year program from the $15 billion level set in 2003 to $48 billion, earlier in July.Although some sources reported that the president’s signature lifted the 21-year-old prohibition on travel into the country by those infected with HIV, those reports are inaccurate.U.S. immigration law prohibits foreigners with “any communicable disease of public health significance” from entering the U.S., but only HIV was named explicitly in the statute. For all other illnesses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services determined which ones truly posed a risk to public health.The PEPFAR reauthorization bill Bush signed this week removes that explicit mention of HIV, putting the decision on whether to ban those with the AIDS virus back within the purview of the HHS head.Passage of the bill received widespread praise from advocacy organizations for both AIDS and LGBT rights.Eric Friedman, senior global health policy advisor for Physicians for Human Rights, applauded the measure, saying that the U.S. HIV travel ban had “been an embarrassment to this country for many years.”Friedman called the bill “the boldest act of any wealthy nation in ameliorating Africa’s disastrous health care worker shortage,” by providing funds to create 140,000 jobs in that field. But he criticized PEPFAR for not linking HIV services with family planning.“That allows HIV to go unprevented and undetected for years, until a whole family is infected.”Dr. David Reznik, HIV/AIDS policy consultant for Log Cabin Republicans, praised President Bush for having done “tremendous work to combat this disease globally,” adding that the legislation will “continue dramatic improvements in the lives of millions of people” living with HIV.But Reznik also spoke of the “stark reality” of HIV in the U.S., and said political leaders “from both parties must lead a renewed effort to combat the devastating effects of this disease in our country.”LCR President Patrick Sammon agreed: “The U.S. has led the way in fighting this disease in the farthest edges of the world, but we are not doing enough here at home. We have an obligation to confront this problem head-on, and we hope that President Bush [and presidential hopefuls] Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama will show the same commitment to fighting the disease here in the U.S. that has been shown around the world.”Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, focused his comments on the HIV travel ban repeal.“The HIV travel and immigration ban performs no public service, is unnecessary and ineffective,” Solmonese said. “We thank our allies on the Hill who fought to end this injustice and now call on Secretary of Health and Human Services Leavitt to remove the remaining regulatory barriers to HIV-positive visitors and immigrants.”Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the ACLU, called the repeal of the ban the end of a “shameful era in American immigration policy” and a “major advance for all people living with HIV/AIDS.”
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_9485.php
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_9485.php
Iowa immigration raid case scrutinized
Justice Department officials who prosecuted hundreds of illegal immigrants arrested at an Iowa meatpacking plant in May used a government-created manual to speed through guilty pleas, a potential violation of the rights of those detained in the raid, the American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday.The manual was assembled before the workers were arrested or their lawyers were appointed. It lays out suggested guilty pleas for the arrested workers and specifies how they should waive their legal rights.
It includes detailed scripts for judges and lawyers to recite. One suggests the judge say, "I want each of you to state your name, so I'll know who you are." The manual ends with forms for sentencing and deportation.ACLU lawyers said the scripts and the rapid-fire sentencing procedure had raised concerns that the Bush administration subverted fundamentals of legal justice in its push for an enforcement victory."The government's tactics really undermined the constitutional protections of due process and presumption of innocence," ACLU staff attorney Monica Ramirez said.Justice Department officials denied the allegations."They're off-base with that," said Sean Berry, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "This is not some document to railroad people; this allows defense counsel to prepare their clients."Questions about the immigration raid -- the largest in U.S. history -- have intensified since agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided the Agriprocessors Inc. meatpacking plant in Postville on May 12. Lawmakers have held hearings on the raid and have promised to take action. Religious organizations and advocacy groups are spotlighting the case as well.Advocates, immigration lawyers and translators question the deal offered to the Postville workers, who were told they could either plead guilty to aggravated identity theft, with a minimum two-year sentence, or accept a reduced charge and spend a year or less in jail. The lesser charge also would require the workers surrender more of their legal rights.Groups of 17 workers, mostly uneducated Guatemalans, were each represented by a single criminal defense lawyer. Workers appeared before judges in similarly large groups for sentencing.They had limited access to lawyers specializing in immigration issues.Advocates of tighter immigration controls have defended the process at Postville."Each defendant was provided a criminal defense attorney, and it was up to those defense attorneys to ensure due process," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said.But other lawmakers and attorneys have said the conditions set up by the Justice Department made adequate representation all but impossible.Justice Department lawyers gave the workers seven days to accept a plea bargain that a "majority of them didn't understand," said Erik Camayd-Freixas, a translator for many of the workers.The time pressures meant that lawyers spent an hour or less with individual clients and had little time to formulate strategies or objections, said Robert Rigg, a professor at Drake University Law School in Des Moines.Nearly 400 workers were arrested, and more than 300 were charged. All but a few were sentenced by May 22, eight business days after the raid.Lawmakers also have asked why only two managers had been arrested and have questioned whether the raid will affect an ongoing Department of Labor investigation of possible violations at the Agriprocessors plant, including alleged child labor and sexual abuse.Berry, of the U.S. attorney's office, said scripts were commonplace for lawyers and judges to keep track of complicated issues.He said he did not know who had assembled the manuals or who determined the ratio of lawyers to workers.Berry refused to answer questions about who imposed the seven-day limit for workers to decide on guilty pleas or why, saying they touched on an ongoing investigation.But he said the proceedings did not violate due process."The defendants all had qualified court-appointed federal counsel," Berry said."They had judges take their guilty pleas and ascertain their pleas were knowing and voluntary."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig1-2008aug01,0,7416056.story
It includes detailed scripts for judges and lawyers to recite. One suggests the judge say, "I want each of you to state your name, so I'll know who you are." The manual ends with forms for sentencing and deportation.ACLU lawyers said the scripts and the rapid-fire sentencing procedure had raised concerns that the Bush administration subverted fundamentals of legal justice in its push for an enforcement victory."The government's tactics really undermined the constitutional protections of due process and presumption of innocence," ACLU staff attorney Monica Ramirez said.Justice Department officials denied the allegations."They're off-base with that," said Sean Berry, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "This is not some document to railroad people; this allows defense counsel to prepare their clients."Questions about the immigration raid -- the largest in U.S. history -- have intensified since agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided the Agriprocessors Inc. meatpacking plant in Postville on May 12. Lawmakers have held hearings on the raid and have promised to take action. Religious organizations and advocacy groups are spotlighting the case as well.Advocates, immigration lawyers and translators question the deal offered to the Postville workers, who were told they could either plead guilty to aggravated identity theft, with a minimum two-year sentence, or accept a reduced charge and spend a year or less in jail. The lesser charge also would require the workers surrender more of their legal rights.Groups of 17 workers, mostly uneducated Guatemalans, were each represented by a single criminal defense lawyer. Workers appeared before judges in similarly large groups for sentencing.They had limited access to lawyers specializing in immigration issues.Advocates of tighter immigration controls have defended the process at Postville."Each defendant was provided a criminal defense attorney, and it was up to those defense attorneys to ensure due process," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said.But other lawmakers and attorneys have said the conditions set up by the Justice Department made adequate representation all but impossible.Justice Department lawyers gave the workers seven days to accept a plea bargain that a "majority of them didn't understand," said Erik Camayd-Freixas, a translator for many of the workers.The time pressures meant that lawyers spent an hour or less with individual clients and had little time to formulate strategies or objections, said Robert Rigg, a professor at Drake University Law School in Des Moines.Nearly 400 workers were arrested, and more than 300 were charged. All but a few were sentenced by May 22, eight business days after the raid.Lawmakers also have asked why only two managers had been arrested and have questioned whether the raid will affect an ongoing Department of Labor investigation of possible violations at the Agriprocessors plant, including alleged child labor and sexual abuse.Berry, of the U.S. attorney's office, said scripts were commonplace for lawyers and judges to keep track of complicated issues.He said he did not know who had assembled the manuals or who determined the ratio of lawyers to workers.Berry refused to answer questions about who imposed the seven-day limit for workers to decide on guilty pleas or why, saying they touched on an ongoing investigation.But he said the proceedings did not violate due process."The defendants all had qualified court-appointed federal counsel," Berry said."They had judges take their guilty pleas and ascertain their pleas were knowing and voluntary."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig1-2008aug01,0,7416056.story
Fed program used to check legal status threatens S.C. immigration law
A federal immigration database that is the lynchpin of South Carolina’s recently passed immigration law is in congressional trouble.
The E-Verify system, used by almost 80,000 employers nationwide to verify new employees’ legal status, is caught in a Senate dispute, officials said Thursday, that could prevent a vote there before Congress’ August recess.
Since members of Congress are only expected to be in session a few weeks after they return the week of Sept. 8, supporters of the system fear the program could die.
Without any congressional action, the Web-based system would expire by November, throwing many states’ immigration laws into turmoil, including South Carolina’s.
State Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens said not having the E-Verify system would be "like having a gun with no ammunition." "It will about cut the legs out from under our bill," he said. "It’s a key component of our immigration law," said Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford. "We would hope Congress would recognize its value and reauthorize it. If E-Verify wasn’t reauthorized for some reason, we would certainly have to address that legislatively because it’s such an important part of it." Created in 1996 and run by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the system allows employers to tap DHS and Social Security databases to verify the legal status of new workers. According to immigration officials, 1,000 new employers voluntarily sign up to use the system each week. President Bush issued an executive order this year requiring all federal contractors to use it. Not all officials are thrilled with the program. Illinois passed a law prohibiting employers in that state from using the system. The federal government has challenged that decision in court. Under South Carolina’s immigration law passed this year, contractors doing business with the state as well as private companies are required to use either the E-verify system or a South Carolina driver’s license to verify any new workers beginning next year. Smaller firms would use the system beginning in the summer of 2010. Drivers’ licenses from states with document standards as stringent as South Carolina’s also could be used. Requiring E-Verify was a battle cry for those in the Legislature pushing immigration legislation. Sen. David Thomas, a Greenville County Republican who supports the system, said it wouldn’t cripple the state’s new law but would put a big burden on business. He said if E-Verify isn’t renewed, state lawmakers will have to take another look at the law when they return in January. Both of South Carolina’s senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, support E-verify and have signed a letter along with 11 other senators to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking that the Senate take up and pass the legislation to renew the program, according to a copy of the letter. The House passed the legislation Thursday night. A spokesman for DeMint said one senator has placed a hold on the legislation, a move that will effectively keep it from being taken up until after the fall break. "Congress is running out of time to reauthorize and even enhance E-Verify," Graham wrote. "The number of employers relying on the program to hire legal workers is likely to grow. Small businesses and companies that utilize it need to be able to know that Congress is not going to let this program die." Martin said he isn’t taking any chances and is faxing letters to each member of the state’s delegation asking for their help to ensure that the system continues. "Our efforts will have been for naught and completely fruitless if that thing is not reauthorized," he said.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080801/NEWS01/308010003/1001/NEWS01
The E-Verify system, used by almost 80,000 employers nationwide to verify new employees’ legal status, is caught in a Senate dispute, officials said Thursday, that could prevent a vote there before Congress’ August recess.
Since members of Congress are only expected to be in session a few weeks after they return the week of Sept. 8, supporters of the system fear the program could die.
Without any congressional action, the Web-based system would expire by November, throwing many states’ immigration laws into turmoil, including South Carolina’s.
State Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens said not having the E-Verify system would be "like having a gun with no ammunition." "It will about cut the legs out from under our bill," he said. "It’s a key component of our immigration law," said Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford. "We would hope Congress would recognize its value and reauthorize it. If E-Verify wasn’t reauthorized for some reason, we would certainly have to address that legislatively because it’s such an important part of it." Created in 1996 and run by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the system allows employers to tap DHS and Social Security databases to verify the legal status of new workers. According to immigration officials, 1,000 new employers voluntarily sign up to use the system each week. President Bush issued an executive order this year requiring all federal contractors to use it. Not all officials are thrilled with the program. Illinois passed a law prohibiting employers in that state from using the system. The federal government has challenged that decision in court. Under South Carolina’s immigration law passed this year, contractors doing business with the state as well as private companies are required to use either the E-verify system or a South Carolina driver’s license to verify any new workers beginning next year. Smaller firms would use the system beginning in the summer of 2010. Drivers’ licenses from states with document standards as stringent as South Carolina’s also could be used. Requiring E-Verify was a battle cry for those in the Legislature pushing immigration legislation. Sen. David Thomas, a Greenville County Republican who supports the system, said it wouldn’t cripple the state’s new law but would put a big burden on business. He said if E-Verify isn’t renewed, state lawmakers will have to take another look at the law when they return in January. Both of South Carolina’s senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, support E-verify and have signed a letter along with 11 other senators to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking that the Senate take up and pass the legislation to renew the program, according to a copy of the letter. The House passed the legislation Thursday night. A spokesman for DeMint said one senator has placed a hold on the legislation, a move that will effectively keep it from being taken up until after the fall break. "Congress is running out of time to reauthorize and even enhance E-Verify," Graham wrote. "The number of employers relying on the program to hire legal workers is likely to grow. Small businesses and companies that utilize it need to be able to know that Congress is not going to let this program die." Martin said he isn’t taking any chances and is faxing letters to each member of the state’s delegation asking for their help to ensure that the system continues. "Our efforts will have been for naught and completely fruitless if that thing is not reauthorized," he said.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080801/NEWS01/308010003/1001/NEWS01
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
