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
Does immigration hurt the environment?
A new advertising campaign has got American progressives spluttering into their soy lattes. Plastered across the pages of the liberal American canon - newspapers and magazines like the New York Times, the New Republic, the American Prospect, the Nation and Harper's - are a series of full-page ads calling for progressives to join forces with anti-immigration activists in the name of saving the environment. The ads, which show bulldozers ripping up pristine forests while endless traffic jams snake off toward the horizon, blame overpopulation - driven, of course, by unchecked immigration - for suburban sprawl, greenhouse-gas emissions, depleted water resources and traffic congestion. "300 million people today, 600 million tomorrow," the ads warn darkly. "Think about it."
This isn't the first time that anti-immigration groups have tried to co-opt the American environmental movement. A few years back, the Sierra Club - itself founded by a Scottish immigrant - had to fend off a hostile takeover bid from right-wing activists who tried to win seats on the group's board of directors. In fact, anti-immigration campaigners' attempts to win over environmentalists date back to at least the 1970s, when Herbert Gruhl, a founder of Germany's Green party, made the ecological case for anti-immigration policies. When German Greens didn't bite, Gruhl went off in a huff and founded his own far-right ecological party. Since then, his ideas have been championed by German neo-Nazi groups and eagerly embraced by the British National party.
America's anti-immigration activists are doing their best to live up to that pedigree. Three of the five groups behind the current campaign are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Centre's Intelligence Project for their ties to white supremacists and their promotion of racist conspiracy theories. It's hardly surprising, then, that many of the ads' claims are best taken with a hefty pinch of salt. Suburban sprawl, notes the Sierra Club's energy programme director, Dave Hamilton, is "due to economic development without land use controls, not necessarily immigration". As for those pictures of endless traffic jams, studies show that, as a group, immigrants contribute least to congestion because they're more likely to carpool or use public transport.
In fact, it's debatable whether immigration has any significant environmental impact. US government scientists say there's insufficient evidence (pdf) to draw a conclusion one way or the other, while cornucopian economists like Julian Simon - a free-marketeer who's loathed by most environmentalists - have argued that immigration-fuelled population increases will make little or no long-term difference to the US environment. It's even been suggested that on a global scale, immigration helps to slow population growth. Immigrants from the developing world tend to reproduce more slowly than they would have done if they'd stayed home, while their remittances promote economic development and slow population growth in their home countries.
Of course, while there's scant evidence that immigration damages the environment, it's pretty clear that current efforts to curb illegal immigration are having a serious negative impact. The security fence being built along America's southern border slices through a number of key wildlife refuges, preventing the migration of animals such as black bears, grey wolves and jaguars. A study by the Mexican government found that the border fence would put as many as 85 endangered plant and animal species at heightened risk, in violation of a 1983 conservation agreement between the US and Mexico. That's apparently of little concern to the Bush administration. Homeland security chief Michael Chertoff has routinely waived environmental regulations in order to hasten the wall's construction.
The bottom line is that while environmentalists can't ignore population growth, it's a global issue that demands global solutions. The notion that America can solve or stave off environmental problems simply by sealing her borders is both factually incorrect and ideologically repugnant. At its core, the immigration lobby's cynical parochialism is based on the assumption that Americans can reasonably continue to pollute and consume at current levels, as long as they prevent anyone else from joining in. That's an ugly, nationalistic line of reasoning that some academics argue flirts dangerously with eco-fascism. Either way, it's a logic that has no place either in progressive circles or in the modern environmental debate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/01/immigrationpolicy.usa
This isn't the first time that anti-immigration groups have tried to co-opt the American environmental movement. A few years back, the Sierra Club - itself founded by a Scottish immigrant - had to fend off a hostile takeover bid from right-wing activists who tried to win seats on the group's board of directors. In fact, anti-immigration campaigners' attempts to win over environmentalists date back to at least the 1970s, when Herbert Gruhl, a founder of Germany's Green party, made the ecological case for anti-immigration policies. When German Greens didn't bite, Gruhl went off in a huff and founded his own far-right ecological party. Since then, his ideas have been championed by German neo-Nazi groups and eagerly embraced by the British National party.
America's anti-immigration activists are doing their best to live up to that pedigree. Three of the five groups behind the current campaign are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Centre's Intelligence Project for their ties to white supremacists and their promotion of racist conspiracy theories. It's hardly surprising, then, that many of the ads' claims are best taken with a hefty pinch of salt. Suburban sprawl, notes the Sierra Club's energy programme director, Dave Hamilton, is "due to economic development without land use controls, not necessarily immigration". As for those pictures of endless traffic jams, studies show that, as a group, immigrants contribute least to congestion because they're more likely to carpool or use public transport.
In fact, it's debatable whether immigration has any significant environmental impact. US government scientists say there's insufficient evidence (pdf) to draw a conclusion one way or the other, while cornucopian economists like Julian Simon - a free-marketeer who's loathed by most environmentalists - have argued that immigration-fuelled population increases will make little or no long-term difference to the US environment. It's even been suggested that on a global scale, immigration helps to slow population growth. Immigrants from the developing world tend to reproduce more slowly than they would have done if they'd stayed home, while their remittances promote economic development and slow population growth in their home countries.
Of course, while there's scant evidence that immigration damages the environment, it's pretty clear that current efforts to curb illegal immigration are having a serious negative impact. The security fence being built along America's southern border slices through a number of key wildlife refuges, preventing the migration of animals such as black bears, grey wolves and jaguars. A study by the Mexican government found that the border fence would put as many as 85 endangered plant and animal species at heightened risk, in violation of a 1983 conservation agreement between the US and Mexico. That's apparently of little concern to the Bush administration. Homeland security chief Michael Chertoff has routinely waived environmental regulations in order to hasten the wall's construction.
The bottom line is that while environmentalists can't ignore population growth, it's a global issue that demands global solutions. The notion that America can solve or stave off environmental problems simply by sealing her borders is both factually incorrect and ideologically repugnant. At its core, the immigration lobby's cynical parochialism is based on the assumption that Americans can reasonably continue to pollute and consume at current levels, as long as they prevent anyone else from joining in. That's an ugly, nationalistic line of reasoning that some academics argue flirts dangerously with eco-fascism. Either way, it's a logic that has no place either in progressive circles or in the modern environmental debate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/01/immigrationpolicy.usa
McCain, Obama similar on immigration reform, but paths differ
John McCain and Barack Obama don’t agree on much, but they come close on immigration. The two presidential candidates think the country’s immigration system needs reform. Both believe America’s borders need to be secured. They want to create a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country. Both want to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. And they want all immigrants to learn English. But neither as president will be able to escape the politics of the debate. Political tensions likely will affect the way each would implement reform. Here’s a look at what we can expect on immigration from a McCain or an Obama administration. Reforming a broken systemThe two candidates, along with advocates on all sides of the issue, believe the next president will have no choice but to deal with immigration. McCain, a Republican, came under fire from many hard-liners in his own party as the immigration debate heated up in 2006 and 2007 for his attempt to push through bipartisan reform legislation.McCain and Democrat Obama both voted for the reform legislation in 2006, although the bill never made it out of Congress. The bill, among other things, would have built a fence along the Mexican border and allowed illegal immigrants to become citizens if they followed certain guidelines. Supporters of a get-tough approach on illegal immigration hammered McCain for what they saw as rewarding people who entered the country illegally. Since then, McCain has backed away from his own proposals and now says he underestimated Americans’ desire to secure its borders first and then enact reform later.“We must first prove to [Americans] that we can and will secure our borders first, while respecting the dignity and rights of citizens and legal residents of the United States,” McCain said in June. “But we must not make the mistake of thinking that our responsibility to meet this challenge will end with that accomplishment.”His emphasis on border security and enforcement highlights his change on the issue. McCain believes additional reforms would come later. Obama is pushing for a comprehensive fix.“We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor - reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens,” Obama said in June. “We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.”The difference in the candidates’ approach to reform is important, said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns for the non-partisan civil rights group the National Council of La Raza. A piecemeal approach will not work, she said. “Dealing with border alone will not really deal with the restoration of law,” Martinez said.Immigrants already hereKey to both candidates’ plans is how to deal with 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. Neither believes it is practical to deport all illegal immigrants.Obama supports allowing undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English and go to the back of the line to become citizens.In the meantime, Obama sees allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses as a practical solution to documenting those here illegally. McCain as president would require all undocumented immigrants to enroll in a program to resolve their status. Under his proposal, background checks would be performed and immigrants would have to pay taxes they owe. Those who want to apply for citizenship would also have to go to the back of the line, behind those who have applied legally.To cut down on illegal immigration, both support building a fence along the border with Mexico. Obama calls for additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the country’s borders and ports – and so does McCain, who also says he will work with governors to certify that borders are secure as well as provide additional funding to border states.EmployersBoth candidates want to develop employment verification systems. Obama has pushed proposals to create a system for employers to verify workers are legally eligible to work in the United States. McCain is also pushing for a similar system and has said the Department of Homeland Security would vigorously prosecute employers that continue to hire illegal immigrants.Both would also create registries or databases of temporary workers.Can change happen?But the next president, whoever it is, will need to balance what sometimes are competing interests to be successful in reforming the current system, analysts say. The issue is not one that divides clearly along party lines, so McCain or Obama will have to consider his supporters and tread carefully, said Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigrant research and policy group.Labor unions, backing Obama, are highly interested in how immigration reform will affect the workers they represent, she said. Obama will also need to balance not alienating Hispanic voters, expected to be in his column in November.McCain will have to balance the interests of the business community, traditionally a Republican base, as well as those in the party who take a hard line on illegal immigration, Kelley said. Reform will also depend on Congress.“I have a feeling that there are a lot of folks in Congress that don’t want to go down that path,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to stop illegal immigration and reduce immigration overall. Other issues, such as the economy and war in Iraq, are likely to occupy the new president’s attention before immigration, Kelley said. “I think the issue is a necessity for the next president,” she said. “It’s just an issue of when it’s going to be called.”
http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/mccain-obama-similar-on-immigration-reform-but-paths-differ/1391/
http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/mccain-obama-similar-on-immigration-reform-but-paths-differ/1391/
Penn Station: Obama's immigration stance
Have you ever wondered exactly what Sen. Barack Obama's stance on legal and illegal immigration is?
At the Unity: Journalists of Color convention last week in Chicago, Obama laid much of it out in detail.
And as far as the senator is concerned, there's nothing wrong with the large numbers of people around the world wanting to immigrate to the United States. The problem is America has an illegal immigration system that runs parallel to a legal one, he said.
As a result, Obama is a major proponent of sweeping immigration reform.
"We are a nation of immigrants and we are nation of laws," Obama told the audience of journalists. "The problem that I see isn't the number of immigrants that are coming. We are actually advantaged by the number of immigrants coming. The fact that we're getting people who still want to come to this country and live out the American dream, that's all good."
But Obama said reforming the immigration process and making it more fair is a must.
"That means cracking down on employers who are hiring undocumented workers and only paying them minimum wage and not paying them overtime," Obama said. "We need adequate border security. We need to provide a pathway for citizenship for those undocumented workers who are here who have put down roots. We need to get them out of the shadows. They'll have to pay a fine. They'll have to learn English. But let's give them an avenue to become fully part of the American society."
Any comprehensive immigration reform also must examine and reform the legal system, he said.
"We have to make sure we have a realistic approach," Obama said. "Frankly, we are probably underrepresented when it comes to immigrants from certain parts of the world. It's harder for Haitians to immigrate than it is for persons from other countries in some cases. That's something we need to prevent."
Obama still needs to give us more details on his approach to immigration reform. As president, he'd be responsible for providing the leadership and direction on the issue.
But whatever his plan ultimately would look like, it will be viewed as controversial. Obama must avoid the temptation to lean too far to the right on immigration, especially if he plans on counting on the much needed Hispanic vote in November.
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/13485
At the Unity: Journalists of Color convention last week in Chicago, Obama laid much of it out in detail.
And as far as the senator is concerned, there's nothing wrong with the large numbers of people around the world wanting to immigrate to the United States. The problem is America has an illegal immigration system that runs parallel to a legal one, he said.
As a result, Obama is a major proponent of sweeping immigration reform.
"We are a nation of immigrants and we are nation of laws," Obama told the audience of journalists. "The problem that I see isn't the number of immigrants that are coming. We are actually advantaged by the number of immigrants coming. The fact that we're getting people who still want to come to this country and live out the American dream, that's all good."
But Obama said reforming the immigration process and making it more fair is a must.
"That means cracking down on employers who are hiring undocumented workers and only paying them minimum wage and not paying them overtime," Obama said. "We need adequate border security. We need to provide a pathway for citizenship for those undocumented workers who are here who have put down roots. We need to get them out of the shadows. They'll have to pay a fine. They'll have to learn English. But let's give them an avenue to become fully part of the American society."
Any comprehensive immigration reform also must examine and reform the legal system, he said.
"We have to make sure we have a realistic approach," Obama said. "Frankly, we are probably underrepresented when it comes to immigrants from certain parts of the world. It's harder for Haitians to immigrate than it is for persons from other countries in some cases. That's something we need to prevent."
Obama still needs to give us more details on his approach to immigration reform. As president, he'd be responsible for providing the leadership and direction on the issue.
But whatever his plan ultimately would look like, it will be viewed as controversial. Obama must avoid the temptation to lean too far to the right on immigration, especially if he plans on counting on the much needed Hispanic vote in November.
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/13485
Illegal Versus Inhumane: Unauthorized Immigrant Shackled While in Labor; Can't Feed Newborn
JUANA VILLEGAS is a Mexican immigrant who broke federal law. As The New York Times recently reported, she was deported in 1996, but she returned illegally to the United States. What is more troubling, however, is what happened to her in custody of law enforcement this month. Overzealous use of the law trampled decency.
On July 3, Villegas, nine months pregnant, was pulled over in a Nashville suburb and arrested after admitting that she did not have a license. At the county jail, Villegas's illegal status was discovered by a federal official. That official was there as part of the federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
Two days later, Villegas went into labor. At the hospital her foot was cuffed to the bed, and the cuffs were reportedly removed only for two hours before she gave birth and for six hours after. An officer stood guard in her hospital room.
After she left the hospital, Villegas was held in jail. She could not breastfeed her baby and was not allowed to use a breast pump. She says she developed a breast infection and her baby became jaundiced.
Needless to say, the 287(g) program wasn't intended to snare pregnant women. Rather, it is supposed to help officers "pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling, and money laundering," according to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Yet the perceived need for even local officials to crack down on illegal immigrants has become an obstacle to treating people humanely.
Villegas has been released to the custody of her family and faces deportation. Her case shows how much the country needs comprehensive immigration reform that deploys legal resources where they are most needed.
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/93625/illegal_versus_inhumane:_unauthorized_immigrant_shackled_while_in_labor%3B_can't_feed_newborn/
On July 3, Villegas, nine months pregnant, was pulled over in a Nashville suburb and arrested after admitting that she did not have a license. At the county jail, Villegas's illegal status was discovered by a federal official. That official was there as part of the federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
Two days later, Villegas went into labor. At the hospital her foot was cuffed to the bed, and the cuffs were reportedly removed only for two hours before she gave birth and for six hours after. An officer stood guard in her hospital room.
After she left the hospital, Villegas was held in jail. She could not breastfeed her baby and was not allowed to use a breast pump. She says she developed a breast infection and her baby became jaundiced.
Needless to say, the 287(g) program wasn't intended to snare pregnant women. Rather, it is supposed to help officers "pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling, and money laundering," according to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Yet the perceived need for even local officials to crack down on illegal immigrants has become an obstacle to treating people humanely.
Villegas has been released to the custody of her family and faces deportation. Her case shows how much the country needs comprehensive immigration reform that deploys legal resources where they are most needed.
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/93625/illegal_versus_inhumane:_unauthorized_immigrant_shackled_while_in_labor%3B_can't_feed_newborn/
Iowa marchers say ‘No more raids!’
Chanting “Sí se puede! (Yes we can) No more raids!” about 1,500 people marched through the streets of this small farm town July 27 in support of workers arrested in the May 12 immigration raid of Agriprocessors, a kosher meatpacking plant.
The march was led by several workers wearing GPS tracking bracelets on their ankles. Forty-five of those arrested in the raid were given conditional release for “humanitarian” reasons and required to wear the bracelets. They are not allowed to travel out of state or work pending upcoming court hearings.
Pedro, who worked at Agriprocessors for three years and did not want his last name used, said his wife was arrested in the raid and was given a five-month prison sentence. “This protest is very important, especially for the Agriprocessors workers in jail. It shows that there is support.”
The raid by as many as 500 cops led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents was the largest immigration raid of a single plant in U.S. history. Close to 400 workers were detained, with 302 charged with criminal offenses. The use of mass criminal charges represents a deepening assault on the rights of undocumented workers.
The march and rally was called by St. Bridget’s Catholic Church in Postville and Jewish organizations in Chicago and St. Paul, Minnesota. Busloads of protesters came from Chicago, Minneapolis, and Madison, Wisconsin. Six vanloads drove up from Des Moines, Iowa, while many others came from other parts of the state.
Roselina Ramírez, who was picked up in the raid and later released pending a deportation hearing, worked a knife job cutting out chicken breasts for three years. She said there were many injuries and abuses by the Agriprocessors bosses. She never made more than $7.25 an hour. Many workers were trying to improve their conditions by unionizing but the company intimidated workers by threatening to fire them, said Ramírez.
Juanita López, 20, has not talked to her mother, one of those arrested, since the day of the raid. “They make it very difficult for us to communicate with her on the phone,” said López. Her mother is being held in Leavenworth, Kansas. López said a large group of minors worked in the plant. According to a fact book distributed by St. Bridget’s to the press, at least 17 minors ranging from 14 to 17 years old were detained and later released.
Farm activist Randy Jasper, whose farm is about one hour from Postville, said this was the first time he had marched against deportations. “I was impressed by the number of people that came to the protest from nearby towns,” said Jasper. Many of the bystanders waved in support, while others seemed neutral, he said.
Near St. Bridget’s, where the protest began, more than 100 counterprotesters demonstrated in support of the ICE raid. While carrying signs that read “Deport Illegals,” “Secure U.S. Borders,” and “American Workers in American Jobs,” they chanted patriotic and anti-immigrant slogans such as “USA, USA, USA” and “More raids, more raids.” The rightist protest was organized by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a national anti-immigrant outfit.
“Our aim is to demonstrate public support for vigorous prosecution of employers who, in addition to violating laws against hiring illegal aliens, engage in other sorts of reprehensible and criminal activities,” said a July 24 FAIR press release. “Those who exploit illegal labor and impose burdens on American taxpayers should be sent to prison.”
Jennifer Powell and her sister Lisa LaBrec, both in their early twenties, are U.S.-born workers who joined the protest. “I opposed the raids here when they happened. Immigrants should have the same rights as us,” said Powell, whose husband is from Mexico. LaBrec added, “I am against raids wherever they take place, not just in Postville.”
The march was led by several workers wearing GPS tracking bracelets on their ankles. Forty-five of those arrested in the raid were given conditional release for “humanitarian” reasons and required to wear the bracelets. They are not allowed to travel out of state or work pending upcoming court hearings.
Pedro, who worked at Agriprocessors for three years and did not want his last name used, said his wife was arrested in the raid and was given a five-month prison sentence. “This protest is very important, especially for the Agriprocessors workers in jail. It shows that there is support.”
The raid by as many as 500 cops led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents was the largest immigration raid of a single plant in U.S. history. Close to 400 workers were detained, with 302 charged with criminal offenses. The use of mass criminal charges represents a deepening assault on the rights of undocumented workers.
The march and rally was called by St. Bridget’s Catholic Church in Postville and Jewish organizations in Chicago and St. Paul, Minnesota. Busloads of protesters came from Chicago, Minneapolis, and Madison, Wisconsin. Six vanloads drove up from Des Moines, Iowa, while many others came from other parts of the state.
Roselina Ramírez, who was picked up in the raid and later released pending a deportation hearing, worked a knife job cutting out chicken breasts for three years. She said there were many injuries and abuses by the Agriprocessors bosses. She never made more than $7.25 an hour. Many workers were trying to improve their conditions by unionizing but the company intimidated workers by threatening to fire them, said Ramírez.
Juanita López, 20, has not talked to her mother, one of those arrested, since the day of the raid. “They make it very difficult for us to communicate with her on the phone,” said López. Her mother is being held in Leavenworth, Kansas. López said a large group of minors worked in the plant. According to a fact book distributed by St. Bridget’s to the press, at least 17 minors ranging from 14 to 17 years old were detained and later released.
Farm activist Randy Jasper, whose farm is about one hour from Postville, said this was the first time he had marched against deportations. “I was impressed by the number of people that came to the protest from nearby towns,” said Jasper. Many of the bystanders waved in support, while others seemed neutral, he said.
Near St. Bridget’s, where the protest began, more than 100 counterprotesters demonstrated in support of the ICE raid. While carrying signs that read “Deport Illegals,” “Secure U.S. Borders,” and “American Workers in American Jobs,” they chanted patriotic and anti-immigrant slogans such as “USA, USA, USA” and “More raids, more raids.” The rightist protest was organized by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a national anti-immigrant outfit.
“Our aim is to demonstrate public support for vigorous prosecution of employers who, in addition to violating laws against hiring illegal aliens, engage in other sorts of reprehensible and criminal activities,” said a July 24 FAIR press release. “Those who exploit illegal labor and impose burdens on American taxpayers should be sent to prison.”
Jennifer Powell and her sister Lisa LaBrec, both in their early twenties, are U.S.-born workers who joined the protest. “I opposed the raids here when they happened. Immigrants should have the same rights as us,” said Powell, whose husband is from Mexico. LaBrec added, “I am against raids wherever they take place, not just in Postville.”
Federal officials defend documents used after raid
The U.S. attorneys office and a federal judge are defending the use of documents, including scripts, that were given to attorneys as well as workers arrested in an Immigration raid at an Iowa meatpacking plant. Chief Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss for the Northern District of Iowa led the hearings in Waterloo after the raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. plant in Postville on May 12. He said he doesn't understand the American Civil Liberties Union's recent criticism of materials provided at the hearings. "In our district, we have always made available to the lawyers 'scripts' for our routine hearings in criminal cases," he said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. "This practice has not been limited to Immigration cases, but has been used in all cases." Zoss said the "manual" handed out after the Postville raids was "a compendium of these scripts and some of the commonly used district forms."
"It was not a 'defense manual"' he said. The ACLU 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," Lucas Guttentag, the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project Director, said earlier this week. He said the documents showed 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," Guttentag said. Bob Teig, assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, defended the use of the documents and said the ACLU's comments this week were based on a "lack of accurate information and a misunderstanding of the criminal law process." "The documents helped ensure fairness, understanding, and constitutional rights were of paramount importance throughout the proceedings," Teig said in a statement. "They did nothing to push people into pleading guilty; quite the opposite is true." Agents arrested 389 workers in the raid at Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant. Officials said it was 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 at the center of the debate were provided by the ACLU. They 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 U.S. 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." Zoss said the scripts are intended as an outline of what will take place during proceedings, but added that he and other court officers often go "off script" as individual circumstances dictate. "By making them available to the lawyers in advance, I feel the lawyers and their clients can better prepare for hearings, and defendants are in a better position to understand their rights," he said. Teig said the Agriprocessors workers who pleaded guilty were not "duped or railroaded." "They pled guilty because of the law and the evidence and the fact that, as they admitted, they were guilty," he said.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-aclu-postvillerai,0,3617380.story
"It was not a 'defense manual"' he said. The ACLU 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," Lucas Guttentag, the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project Director, said earlier this week. He said the documents showed 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," Guttentag said. Bob Teig, assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, defended the use of the documents and said the ACLU's comments this week were based on a "lack of accurate information and a misunderstanding of the criminal law process." "The documents helped ensure fairness, understanding, and constitutional rights were of paramount importance throughout the proceedings," Teig said in a statement. "They did nothing to push people into pleading guilty; quite the opposite is true." Agents arrested 389 workers in the raid at Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant. Officials said it was 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 at the center of the debate were provided by the ACLU. They 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 U.S. 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." Zoss said the scripts are intended as an outline of what will take place during proceedings, but added that he and other court officers often go "off script" as individual circumstances dictate. "By making them available to the lawyers in advance, I feel the lawyers and their clients can better prepare for hearings, and defendants are in a better position to understand their rights," he said. Teig said the Agriprocessors workers who pleaded guilty were not "duped or railroaded." "They pled guilty because of the law and the evidence and the fact that, as they admitted, they were guilty," he said.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-aclu-postvillerai,0,3617380.story
Neb. governor says immigration a federal issue
Gov. Dave Heineman says problems of illegal immigration need a unified resolution from the federal government.
Heineman spoke Friday at the Fremont Rotary. He says there can't be 50 states and thousands of cities doing it differently.
Heineman wouldn't comment specifically on the city's recently defeated proposed ordinance that would have banned renting to, harboring and hiring illegal immigrants.
Heineman talked about his plans to introduce a bill next year to prevent illegal immigrants from getting state and local benefits -- which critics say is already the case.
A similar bill was introduced last session, but the Judiciary Committee blocked it from advancing.
http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=8778200&nav=menu606_2_8
Heineman spoke Friday at the Fremont Rotary. He says there can't be 50 states and thousands of cities doing it differently.
Heineman wouldn't comment specifically on the city's recently defeated proposed ordinance that would have banned renting to, harboring and hiring illegal immigrants.
Heineman talked about his plans to introduce a bill next year to prevent illegal immigrants from getting state and local benefits -- which critics say is already the case.
A similar bill was introduced last session, but the Judiciary Committee blocked it from advancing.
http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=8778200&nav=menu606_2_8
Software and Information Industries Urge Passage of Bipartisan Immigration Reform Legislation
The Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA), the principal trade association of the software and online content industries, today called on congressional leaders to support H.R. 5882, bipartisan immigration reform legislation sponsored by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI).
"The software and information industries are a major driver of the U.S. economy, yet these industries are facing a workforce skills shortage that has risen to crisis level," said David LeDuc, SIIA Director of Public Policy. "The bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Lofgren and Sensenbrenner would provide critical workforce relief to American businesses by allowing foreign-born highly skilled workers to continue to working in the United States."
H.R. 5882 would help reduce the U.S. workforce shortage by making available to highly skilled foreign-born workers those employment-based green cards from previous years that have gone unused because of government processing delays.
As part of its effort to support immigration reform, SIIA sent a letter to the House of Representatives today, in which SIIA President Ken Wasch says:
"On behalf of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) and its more than 550 member companies, I urge your support for H.R. 5882, bipartisan legislation that would provide critical workforce relief for U.S. businesses. H.R. 5882 would help to alleviate the current U.S. skills shortage by enabling much-needed, highly-skilled foreign workers to contribute to our innovation-based economy...
"The software and information industries are a major engine of growth for the U.S. economy, and are among the fastest growing and highest paying industries in the country...Yet, the software and information industries face a workforce skills shortage that is rising to crisis proportions. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that demand for computer software engineers alone will increase by almost 450,000 jobs by the year 2016, to a total of nearly 1.2 million.
"In the Information Age, intellect and innovation give the United States its competitive edge in the global marketplace and make a highly educated and skilled workforce essential. If H.R. 5882 is not enacted this year, thousands of the talented professionals that currently work for American employers -- many of whom were educated at U.S. colleges and universities -- will be forced to leave to take jobs with competitors abroad."
For the full text of SIIA President Ken Wasch's letter to Members of Congress, please visit:
http://www.siia.net/govt/docs/pub/SIIA_HR5882-King_073008.pdf
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/software-information-industries-urge-passage/story.aspx?guid=%7BB7714095-892F-4020-B86A-B935B352E9AB%7D&dist=hppr
"The software and information industries are a major driver of the U.S. economy, yet these industries are facing a workforce skills shortage that has risen to crisis level," said David LeDuc, SIIA Director of Public Policy. "The bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Lofgren and Sensenbrenner would provide critical workforce relief to American businesses by allowing foreign-born highly skilled workers to continue to working in the United States."
H.R. 5882 would help reduce the U.S. workforce shortage by making available to highly skilled foreign-born workers those employment-based green cards from previous years that have gone unused because of government processing delays.
As part of its effort to support immigration reform, SIIA sent a letter to the House of Representatives today, in which SIIA President Ken Wasch says:
"On behalf of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) and its more than 550 member companies, I urge your support for H.R. 5882, bipartisan legislation that would provide critical workforce relief for U.S. businesses. H.R. 5882 would help to alleviate the current U.S. skills shortage by enabling much-needed, highly-skilled foreign workers to contribute to our innovation-based economy...
"The software and information industries are a major engine of growth for the U.S. economy, and are among the fastest growing and highest paying industries in the country...Yet, the software and information industries face a workforce skills shortage that is rising to crisis proportions. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that demand for computer software engineers alone will increase by almost 450,000 jobs by the year 2016, to a total of nearly 1.2 million.
"In the Information Age, intellect and innovation give the United States its competitive edge in the global marketplace and make a highly educated and skilled workforce essential. If H.R. 5882 is not enacted this year, thousands of the talented professionals that currently work for American employers -- many of whom were educated at U.S. colleges and universities -- will be forced to leave to take jobs with competitors abroad."
For the full text of SIIA President Ken Wasch's letter to Members of Congress, please visit:
http://www.siia.net/govt/docs/pub/SIIA_HR5882-King_073008.pdf
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/software-information-industries-urge-passage/story.aspx?guid=%7BB7714095-892F-4020-B86A-B935B352E9AB%7D&dist=hppr
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Federal Employees May Have Purchased Diplomas, Degrees
Immigration officials are looking through a list of more than 9,000 names to see how many federal employees may have bought a phony high school or college degree from a Spokane, Washington-based diploma mill.
Immigration officials are looking into a Washington diploma mill. This stock photo shows what some of the fake diplomas might look like.
The Spokesman-Review newspaper obtained the list and published the names on its Web site Monday. The Justice Department has refused to release the list, which grew out of a lengthy investigation by the U.S. attorney for the Eastern district of Washington.
The list included some people who apparently work for government, educational institutions and the military, according to their e-mail addresses that ended in .gov, .edu or .mil., according to the newspaper report.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, one of the federal agencies that investigates document fraud, is going through the list of 9,612 names and searching for federal employees, agency spokesman Brandon Alvarez-Montgomery said.
It is not known how many Homeland Security Department employees are on this list, he said. But the department's inspector general is investigating what ICE finds. ICE is part of the 208,000-strong department.
Authorities contended the bogus degrees could be used to circumvent U.S. immigration laws and to help the degree holders win promotions and pay raises in government jobs. A task force of state and federal agents served search warrants in August 2005 after investigators found many of the phony degrees were sold in Saudi Arabia, raising national security concerns.
As ICE officials go through the list and identify the federal employees, their names will be sent to their respective agencies for inspector general review, Alvarez-Montgomery said. If a federal employee used a fake degree for personal gain or to get a job with the government, it would be up to the individual agency to take action.
There is no Justice Department investigation into people on the list, Alvarez-Montgomery said.
The newspaper reported that at least nine people with .gov domains worked for federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Health and Human Services Department, the National Security Agency and the CIA.
Indictments in the case were returned in 2005, contending that operators of the diploma mill sold fake high school or college degrees to more than 9,000 people in 131 countries, generating more than $1 million in sales.
The conspirators also made and sold counterfeit copies of degrees and transcripts from legitimate universities, court documents claimed.
The phony diplomas used names such as St. Regis University, James Monroe University and Robertstown University, lawyers said. Counterfeit degrees also were sold in the names of the University of Maryland, the University of Tennessee, Texas A&M and George Washington University.
Investigators also said more than $43,000 in bribes were paid to three Liberian diplomats, including one payment that was videotaped by Secret Service agents at a hotel in Washington, D.C. Government lawyers have said diplomatic immunity precludes charges against the diplomats.
The Liberian "Board of Education" offered accreditation for the diploma mills in exchange for the bribes, according to court filings.
The leader of a diploma mill, Dixie Ellen Randock, 58, earlier this month was sentenced to three years in prison for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. Randock's daughter, Heidi Kae Lorhan, was sentenced to a year in prison.
Dixie's husband, Steven K. Randock Sr., 68, who is recovering from open-heart surgery, will be sentenced Aug. 5.
The Randocks and Lorhan were indicted in October 2005 and pleaded guilty March 26, the eve of their trial, to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. In the plea agreement, the U.S. attorney's office dropped charges of money laundering, which carried longer sentences.
The Randocks also agreed to forfeit $535,000 in cash and their late-model Jaguar.
Defendants Blake Alan Carlson, Richard John Novak, Kenneth Wade Pearson and Amy Leann Hensley await sentencing after pleading guilty and agreeing to cooperate with authorities in exchange for lighter sentences.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=5487221&page=2
Immigration officials are looking into a Washington diploma mill. This stock photo shows what some of the fake diplomas might look like.
The Spokesman-Review newspaper obtained the list and published the names on its Web site Monday. The Justice Department has refused to release the list, which grew out of a lengthy investigation by the U.S. attorney for the Eastern district of Washington.
The list included some people who apparently work for government, educational institutions and the military, according to their e-mail addresses that ended in .gov, .edu or .mil., according to the newspaper report.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, one of the federal agencies that investigates document fraud, is going through the list of 9,612 names and searching for federal employees, agency spokesman Brandon Alvarez-Montgomery said.
It is not known how many Homeland Security Department employees are on this list, he said. But the department's inspector general is investigating what ICE finds. ICE is part of the 208,000-strong department.
Authorities contended the bogus degrees could be used to circumvent U.S. immigration laws and to help the degree holders win promotions and pay raises in government jobs. A task force of state and federal agents served search warrants in August 2005 after investigators found many of the phony degrees were sold in Saudi Arabia, raising national security concerns.
As ICE officials go through the list and identify the federal employees, their names will be sent to their respective agencies for inspector general review, Alvarez-Montgomery said. If a federal employee used a fake degree for personal gain or to get a job with the government, it would be up to the individual agency to take action.
There is no Justice Department investigation into people on the list, Alvarez-Montgomery said.
The newspaper reported that at least nine people with .gov domains worked for federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Health and Human Services Department, the National Security Agency and the CIA.
Indictments in the case were returned in 2005, contending that operators of the diploma mill sold fake high school or college degrees to more than 9,000 people in 131 countries, generating more than $1 million in sales.
The conspirators also made and sold counterfeit copies of degrees and transcripts from legitimate universities, court documents claimed.
The phony diplomas used names such as St. Regis University, James Monroe University and Robertstown University, lawyers said. Counterfeit degrees also were sold in the names of the University of Maryland, the University of Tennessee, Texas A&M and George Washington University.
Investigators also said more than $43,000 in bribes were paid to three Liberian diplomats, including one payment that was videotaped by Secret Service agents at a hotel in Washington, D.C. Government lawyers have said diplomatic immunity precludes charges against the diplomats.
The Liberian "Board of Education" offered accreditation for the diploma mills in exchange for the bribes, according to court filings.
The leader of a diploma mill, Dixie Ellen Randock, 58, earlier this month was sentenced to three years in prison for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. Randock's daughter, Heidi Kae Lorhan, was sentenced to a year in prison.
Dixie's husband, Steven K. Randock Sr., 68, who is recovering from open-heart surgery, will be sentenced Aug. 5.
The Randocks and Lorhan were indicted in October 2005 and pleaded guilty March 26, the eve of their trial, to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. In the plea agreement, the U.S. attorney's office dropped charges of money laundering, which carried longer sentences.
The Randocks also agreed to forfeit $535,000 in cash and their late-model Jaguar.
Defendants Blake Alan Carlson, Richard John Novak, Kenneth Wade Pearson and Amy Leann Hensley await sentencing after pleading guilty and agreeing to cooperate with authorities in exchange for lighter sentences.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=5487221&page=2
Still in the same old boat
IMMIGRATION Minister Chris Evans announced this week that, under a new set of values to be legislated by the Rudd Government, "the current model of immigration detention is fundamentally overturned". There was almost universal praise for the announcement, which was hailed for being positive and more humane, effectively overturning mandatory detention and, in Evans's words, part of "tackling the worst excesses of the Howard (government's) immigration legacy".
Only Opposition immigration spokesman Chris Ellison criticised the plan as promoting "a more relaxed attitude" to border security that would send the wrong message to potential refugees and people smugglers.
Indeed, the reforms were welcome and more humane. Refugee groups were hesitant to criticise the positive steps towards overturning immigration detention, and Evans's announcement was generally endorsed. Yet there should have been more criticism of the Labor Government for not going further and honouring all its election promises in word and spirit. What's more, Ellison's attack would have been more credibly applied to the Government's cant and political dissembling.
The simple fact is that the Evans proposals do not alter the basic building block of Australia's bipartisan immigration policy of the past 15 years: mandatory detention. It doesn't matter what you do to finesse the implementation; the character of any system will be determined by its basic philosophy.
What Evans has done - reversing the onus on detention, guaranteeing children will not be detained, expanding access to legal advice and improving physical conditions for detention - is worthy and he is to be congratulated.
But the Labor Government wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Evans's announcement was full of rhetoric about how low the immigration system had sunk, the worst excesses of the Howard government, continued punishment, inhumanity and harsh systems.
"The Rudd Government will reform our immigration detention policies in a way that reflects the compassion and tolerance of the Australian community," Evans said.
"In the future the immigration system will be characterised by strong border security, firm deterrence of unauthorised arrivals, effective and robust immigration processes, and respect for the rule of law and the humanity of those seeking migration outcomes."
What Evans is proposing, though, is further refinement of the system of immigration detention based on mandatory detention. This includes the Howard government's detention centres, commercial management of detention centres, excision of Australian territory from the Immigration Act, detention while security and health checks are completed, continued detention if identification cannot be made, naval patrols, interdiction of boatpeople and the keeping in reserve of the Christmas Island detention centre in case of a surge of boatpeople arrivals.
And why is all this policy and paraphernalia being left in place? Because the Labor Government intends to continue to decide who comes into Australia and how. And why does it want to be like the Howard government on immigration detention? For the same reason the Howard government continued the Keating government's policy of mandatory detention and keeping people, including children, behind barbed wire: the integrity of the migration system.
Labor has an even greater incentive than the Coalition to preserve the integrity of the immigration system. The Rudd Government is expanding permanent and temporary immigration and attempting to do it without fanfare.
At the same time, it also has to satisfy its election commitments on the heartland Labor social justice issue of refugees and detention.
Hence Evans's declaration this week: "The challenge for Labor, having tackled the worst excesses of the Howard immigration legacy, is to introduce a new set of values to immigration detention, values that seek to emphasise a risk-based approach to detention and prompt resolution of cases rather than punishment. The best deterrent is to ensure that people who have no right to remain in Australia are removed expeditiously."
But, in his exposition of the rest of Labor's policy, he committed to "maintain mandatory detention and the excision of certain places from the migration zone", "extensive patrolling of our borders by defence, customs and other law enforcement agencies", and declared that "unauthorised arrivals will be processed at Christmas Island" and those who fail the refugee test will be removed expeditiously. All these are to be kept to "support the integrity of Australia's immigration program".
Evans is attempting to offer relief for detainees through an improved and faster assessment for security and health reasons, yet this has been the bugbear of governments for decades. Indeed, in 1993, Philip Ruddock attacked the immigration minister at the time, Gerry Hand, not over mandatory detention but over delays in processing.
While the onus will be on the department to say why someone should not be released into the community if they are not a risk, Evans concedes people will be held until they can be identified and given security clearance.
He also concedes that means people will be held for long periods, even if he hopes it is fewer people and for overall shorter periods. The minister's experience in how long such things can take demonstrates the difficulty of trying to expedite immigration cases. Four months ago he undertook a review of 72 of the longest serving cases in the detention centres. He found 31 could be released but that 24 should be deported.
As of yesterday, that all-important expeditious deportation had occurred in nine of the 24 cases. That means 15 illegal entrants slated for deportation are still here four months after a personal intervention by the minister when the detention system has a population of just 357, the lowest since March 1997.
Because refugees come in waves, sometimes years apart, anyone who thinks Labor has relaxed our border protection or has solved the issue of long-term detention during a time of high refugee arrivals is deluded.
The Rudd Government's principles on unauthorised arrivals and maintaining the integrity of the general immigration program are little different from the Howard government's principles, which were little different from the Keating government's, and for the same reason.
Before the election, Kevin Rudd declared he'd turn back the boats and keep mandatory detention. This week's policy hasn't changed any of that.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24108105-7583,00.html
Only Opposition immigration spokesman Chris Ellison criticised the plan as promoting "a more relaxed attitude" to border security that would send the wrong message to potential refugees and people smugglers.
Indeed, the reforms were welcome and more humane. Refugee groups were hesitant to criticise the positive steps towards overturning immigration detention, and Evans's announcement was generally endorsed. Yet there should have been more criticism of the Labor Government for not going further and honouring all its election promises in word and spirit. What's more, Ellison's attack would have been more credibly applied to the Government's cant and political dissembling.
The simple fact is that the Evans proposals do not alter the basic building block of Australia's bipartisan immigration policy of the past 15 years: mandatory detention. It doesn't matter what you do to finesse the implementation; the character of any system will be determined by its basic philosophy.
What Evans has done - reversing the onus on detention, guaranteeing children will not be detained, expanding access to legal advice and improving physical conditions for detention - is worthy and he is to be congratulated.
But the Labor Government wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Evans's announcement was full of rhetoric about how low the immigration system had sunk, the worst excesses of the Howard government, continued punishment, inhumanity and harsh systems.
"The Rudd Government will reform our immigration detention policies in a way that reflects the compassion and tolerance of the Australian community," Evans said.
"In the future the immigration system will be characterised by strong border security, firm deterrence of unauthorised arrivals, effective and robust immigration processes, and respect for the rule of law and the humanity of those seeking migration outcomes."
What Evans is proposing, though, is further refinement of the system of immigration detention based on mandatory detention. This includes the Howard government's detention centres, commercial management of detention centres, excision of Australian territory from the Immigration Act, detention while security and health checks are completed, continued detention if identification cannot be made, naval patrols, interdiction of boatpeople and the keeping in reserve of the Christmas Island detention centre in case of a surge of boatpeople arrivals.
And why is all this policy and paraphernalia being left in place? Because the Labor Government intends to continue to decide who comes into Australia and how. And why does it want to be like the Howard government on immigration detention? For the same reason the Howard government continued the Keating government's policy of mandatory detention and keeping people, including children, behind barbed wire: the integrity of the migration system.
Labor has an even greater incentive than the Coalition to preserve the integrity of the immigration system. The Rudd Government is expanding permanent and temporary immigration and attempting to do it without fanfare.
At the same time, it also has to satisfy its election commitments on the heartland Labor social justice issue of refugees and detention.
Hence Evans's declaration this week: "The challenge for Labor, having tackled the worst excesses of the Howard immigration legacy, is to introduce a new set of values to immigration detention, values that seek to emphasise a risk-based approach to detention and prompt resolution of cases rather than punishment. The best deterrent is to ensure that people who have no right to remain in Australia are removed expeditiously."
But, in his exposition of the rest of Labor's policy, he committed to "maintain mandatory detention and the excision of certain places from the migration zone", "extensive patrolling of our borders by defence, customs and other law enforcement agencies", and declared that "unauthorised arrivals will be processed at Christmas Island" and those who fail the refugee test will be removed expeditiously. All these are to be kept to "support the integrity of Australia's immigration program".
Evans is attempting to offer relief for detainees through an improved and faster assessment for security and health reasons, yet this has been the bugbear of governments for decades. Indeed, in 1993, Philip Ruddock attacked the immigration minister at the time, Gerry Hand, not over mandatory detention but over delays in processing.
While the onus will be on the department to say why someone should not be released into the community if they are not a risk, Evans concedes people will be held until they can be identified and given security clearance.
He also concedes that means people will be held for long periods, even if he hopes it is fewer people and for overall shorter periods. The minister's experience in how long such things can take demonstrates the difficulty of trying to expedite immigration cases. Four months ago he undertook a review of 72 of the longest serving cases in the detention centres. He found 31 could be released but that 24 should be deported.
As of yesterday, that all-important expeditious deportation had occurred in nine of the 24 cases. That means 15 illegal entrants slated for deportation are still here four months after a personal intervention by the minister when the detention system has a population of just 357, the lowest since March 1997.
Because refugees come in waves, sometimes years apart, anyone who thinks Labor has relaxed our border protection or has solved the issue of long-term detention during a time of high refugee arrivals is deluded.
The Rudd Government's principles on unauthorised arrivals and maintaining the integrity of the general immigration program are little different from the Howard government's principles, which were little different from the Keating government's, and for the same reason.
Before the election, Kevin Rudd declared he'd turn back the boats and keep mandatory detention. This week's policy hasn't changed any of that.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24108105-7583,00.html
Illegal immigration: Foreign students who miss lectures will be reported
However, foreigners will be able to avoid the new requirements if they opt to enter the UK as a "student visitor", rather than under a student visa.
The Conservatives said that this was a potential loophole which could be exploited by unscrupulous immigrants who had no intention of studying here.
The moves were announced by the immigration minister Liam Byrne as part of a shake-up of the student visa system to crack down on bogus colleges.
Universities and colleges will also have to apply for a £400 licence to recruit international students and could be blacklisted if they fail to comply with new regulations.
The proposals form Tier 4 of the Government's new points-based immigration system. It will force colleges offering courses longer than six months to accept responsibility for a student while he or she is in the UK.
They will have to keep up-to-date contact details for all students and report to the Home Office if a student misses 10 lectures in a row, fails to enrol on time or quits college.
If this happened to a number of students, the Home Office would consider the college's "overall suitability" as a licensed college to teach international students.
Once accepted on a course by a licensed college, each student will have to prove to the UK Border Agency that he or she has enough money to pay their fees and support themselves and any dependants.
They will also have to prove they have a track record in achieving qualifications before coming to the UK.
If successful they will be allowed to stay in the UK for up to four years, longer than under present rules.
They will also be allowed to work in the country for up to two years after completing their studies - 12 months more than at present, as discloseed by The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
Immigration minister Liam Byrne said: "All those who come to Britain must play by the rules. It is right that foreign students wanting to take advantage of our world-class universities and colleges must meet strict criteria.
"By locking people to one identity with ID cards, alongside a tough new sponsorship system, we will know exactly who is coming here to study and crack down on bogus colleges."
In 2006, 309,000 people from outside Europe came to Britain on student visas - but this figure does not include those coming as short-term student visitors.
The Home Office said that student visitors had to pass an "intentions test" showing they support themselves and will leave after completing their course.
But shadow immigration minister Damian Green said: "This new system is so full of loopholes it will be useless at best and might even encourage the growth of bogus colleges or applications."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2475689/Illegal-immigration-Foreign-students-who-miss-lectures-will-be-reported.html
The Conservatives said that this was a potential loophole which could be exploited by unscrupulous immigrants who had no intention of studying here.
The moves were announced by the immigration minister Liam Byrne as part of a shake-up of the student visa system to crack down on bogus colleges.
Universities and colleges will also have to apply for a £400 licence to recruit international students and could be blacklisted if they fail to comply with new regulations.
The proposals form Tier 4 of the Government's new points-based immigration system. It will force colleges offering courses longer than six months to accept responsibility for a student while he or she is in the UK.
They will have to keep up-to-date contact details for all students and report to the Home Office if a student misses 10 lectures in a row, fails to enrol on time or quits college.
If this happened to a number of students, the Home Office would consider the college's "overall suitability" as a licensed college to teach international students.
Once accepted on a course by a licensed college, each student will have to prove to the UK Border Agency that he or she has enough money to pay their fees and support themselves and any dependants.
They will also have to prove they have a track record in achieving qualifications before coming to the UK.
If successful they will be allowed to stay in the UK for up to four years, longer than under present rules.
They will also be allowed to work in the country for up to two years after completing their studies - 12 months more than at present, as discloseed by The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
Immigration minister Liam Byrne said: "All those who come to Britain must play by the rules. It is right that foreign students wanting to take advantage of our world-class universities and colleges must meet strict criteria.
"By locking people to one identity with ID cards, alongside a tough new sponsorship system, we will know exactly who is coming here to study and crack down on bogus colleges."
In 2006, 309,000 people from outside Europe came to Britain on student visas - but this figure does not include those coming as short-term student visitors.
The Home Office said that student visitors had to pass an "intentions test" showing they support themselves and will leave after completing their course.
But shadow immigration minister Damian Green said: "This new system is so full of loopholes it will be useless at best and might even encourage the growth of bogus colleges or applications."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2475689/Illegal-immigration-Foreign-students-who-miss-lectures-will-be-reported.html
Guatemalan Embassy Works to Reduce Sentences of Workers Arrested in Immigration Raid
Representatives from the Guatemalan Embassy have been in eastern Iowa, talking with the U.S. Attorney's office. Earlier this week, the embassy asked for reduced sentences for dozens of Guatemalan citizens arrested during the May 12th immigration raid at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville.
Most are serving five month sentences for carrying fake ID's. Early release might allow some of the illegal immigrants to return home with their families. The U.S. Attorney's office will not comment on what, if any, action will be taken.
http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8759762
Most are serving five month sentences for carrying fake ID's. Early release might allow some of the illegal immigrants to return home with their families. The U.S. Attorney's office will not comment on what, if any, action will be taken.
http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8759762
Politically Connected Immigration Judges Unlikely to Face Consequences
Justice Department officials likely broke the law in getting Francis Cramer his job. But that doesn't mean he's going to have to give it up any time soon.
About 40 judges got their jobs on the immigration bench through political connections and loyalty to President Bush and the Republican party, an internal Justice Department investigation found this week.
Bush appointees gave Cramer, a longtime friend of Karl Rove, a coveted seat as a federal immigration judge in 2004. He was one of several dozen judges who got their jobs on the immigration bench in a system that based appointments on political connections, beliefs and loyalty to President Bush and the Republican party, an internal Justice Department investigation found this week.
Taking political persuasion into account in these positions is against the law because immigration judges are considered career civil service jobs not political ones. Once these judges are in, they are almost certainly in for good, experts say. And many fear their appointment will have serious consequences for the way immigrants' cases will be judged.
"There is no accountability," says Nancy Morawetz, an immigration law professor at New York University Law School. "The net effect is that the people still on the bench are people appointed through an improper process."
There was little in Cramer's background as a New Hampshire-based commercial and personal injury lawyer that exposed him to immigration law. But Cramer had something better: political connections. He'd worked for Republican Sen. Judd Gregg and most importantly, the report found, he was childhood friends with Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors.
Cramer's connections helped him win a nomination to the U.S Tax court, the IG found, but his nomination stalled after the American Bar Association raised questions about his qualifications. So in 2004, D. Kyle Sampson, then counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, who knew Cramer was a Rove loyalist, helped Cramer land a job as an immigration judge in Boston in 2004, according to the inspector general report.
Cramer's situation was hardly an anomaly. Beginning late in Attorney General John Ashcroft's tenure and under Gonzales, political appointees at the Justice Department took over the hiring of immigration judges from career staff, routinely taking names from the White House, Republican senators and other party loyalist, the inspector general report found.
Another example was the case of Garry Malphrus, who had worked with Sampson on the Senate Judiciary Committee and later served as an associate director on the Domestic Policy Council in the Bush White House. When Malphrus contacted Sampson in November 2004, asking about an immigration judge post, it didn't take long for Malphrus to get a spot in Arlington, Va., without ever submitting an application or having an interview, as applicants historically have, according to the report.
And after his appointment, Malphrus, and another Bush administration appointed immigration judge Mark Metcalf in Florida, continued to help Justice Department officials with recommendations of candidates, the report said. Among Malphrus' criteria for recommendations was loyalty, which he told inspector general investigators meant "loyalty to the Bush Administration."
"If you're picking judges based on political affiliation, Democrat, Republican or whatever, rather than on their experience and knowledge, then you are going to have a decision making process that's not as good," says Bo Cooper, a former general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service now in private practice. "The chances are very high of long term negative implications for the immigration court system."
Indeed, when Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine was asked about this today he replied: "Can I guarantee that all are qualified immigration judges? No, I can't."
He continued: "I think it is a concern. That's the harm of this process because they weren't required to compete against all the other qualified candidates who didn't get an opportunity to do it."
The implications on particular immigration cases will depend on the individual judge, but many immigration attorneys worry that unqualified appointments could have particularly dire consequences on those cases because of the central role judges play in the process.
Unlike in state or federal courts, immigration courts don't guarantee individuals a government-appointed attorney so most appear before a judge without representation. What's more, because of the huge backlog in immigration cases appeals are very limited, making the efforts of the initial judge all the more critical, say immigration attorneys.
In his testimony, Fine emphasized, the number of people appointed under this flawed process was small, between 20 and 40 out of 230 judges, and some did not make it past the probationary period.
And, he added, the best way to handle the situation was to ask officials at the Executive Office for Immigration Review to manage the program carefully "and if they're not and are not able to be immigration judges, they ought to take action."
The inspector general's report found that key Justice Department officials, including former White House liaison Monica Goodling and Sampson, "violated federal law and Department policy" when they "inappropriately considered political or ideological affiliations in evaluating and selecting candidates" for career positions. This flawed process only came to a halt in 2007 after a civil lawsuit challenged the newly designed appointment system, the report found.
Of course, political connections alone don't determine how a judge will rule. And immigration attorneys say not all of them have been bad. Harvey Kaplan, an immigration attorney in Boston, says he's worried about how some judges have treated his clients. But others, like Cramer, have "turned out to be a good judge," he says.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5480673&page=2
About 40 judges got their jobs on the immigration bench through political connections and loyalty to President Bush and the Republican party, an internal Justice Department investigation found this week.
Bush appointees gave Cramer, a longtime friend of Karl Rove, a coveted seat as a federal immigration judge in 2004. He was one of several dozen judges who got their jobs on the immigration bench in a system that based appointments on political connections, beliefs and loyalty to President Bush and the Republican party, an internal Justice Department investigation found this week.
Taking political persuasion into account in these positions is against the law because immigration judges are considered career civil service jobs not political ones. Once these judges are in, they are almost certainly in for good, experts say. And many fear their appointment will have serious consequences for the way immigrants' cases will be judged.
"There is no accountability," says Nancy Morawetz, an immigration law professor at New York University Law School. "The net effect is that the people still on the bench are people appointed through an improper process."
There was little in Cramer's background as a New Hampshire-based commercial and personal injury lawyer that exposed him to immigration law. But Cramer had something better: political connections. He'd worked for Republican Sen. Judd Gregg and most importantly, the report found, he was childhood friends with Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors.
Cramer's connections helped him win a nomination to the U.S Tax court, the IG found, but his nomination stalled after the American Bar Association raised questions about his qualifications. So in 2004, D. Kyle Sampson, then counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, who knew Cramer was a Rove loyalist, helped Cramer land a job as an immigration judge in Boston in 2004, according to the inspector general report.
Cramer's situation was hardly an anomaly. Beginning late in Attorney General John Ashcroft's tenure and under Gonzales, political appointees at the Justice Department took over the hiring of immigration judges from career staff, routinely taking names from the White House, Republican senators and other party loyalist, the inspector general report found.
Another example was the case of Garry Malphrus, who had worked with Sampson on the Senate Judiciary Committee and later served as an associate director on the Domestic Policy Council in the Bush White House. When Malphrus contacted Sampson in November 2004, asking about an immigration judge post, it didn't take long for Malphrus to get a spot in Arlington, Va., without ever submitting an application or having an interview, as applicants historically have, according to the report.
And after his appointment, Malphrus, and another Bush administration appointed immigration judge Mark Metcalf in Florida, continued to help Justice Department officials with recommendations of candidates, the report said. Among Malphrus' criteria for recommendations was loyalty, which he told inspector general investigators meant "loyalty to the Bush Administration."
"If you're picking judges based on political affiliation, Democrat, Republican or whatever, rather than on their experience and knowledge, then you are going to have a decision making process that's not as good," says Bo Cooper, a former general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service now in private practice. "The chances are very high of long term negative implications for the immigration court system."
Indeed, when Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine was asked about this today he replied: "Can I guarantee that all are qualified immigration judges? No, I can't."
He continued: "I think it is a concern. That's the harm of this process because they weren't required to compete against all the other qualified candidates who didn't get an opportunity to do it."
The implications on particular immigration cases will depend on the individual judge, but many immigration attorneys worry that unqualified appointments could have particularly dire consequences on those cases because of the central role judges play in the process.
Unlike in state or federal courts, immigration courts don't guarantee individuals a government-appointed attorney so most appear before a judge without representation. What's more, because of the huge backlog in immigration cases appeals are very limited, making the efforts of the initial judge all the more critical, say immigration attorneys.
In his testimony, Fine emphasized, the number of people appointed under this flawed process was small, between 20 and 40 out of 230 judges, and some did not make it past the probationary period.
And, he added, the best way to handle the situation was to ask officials at the Executive Office for Immigration Review to manage the program carefully "and if they're not and are not able to be immigration judges, they ought to take action."
The inspector general's report found that key Justice Department officials, including former White House liaison Monica Goodling and Sampson, "violated federal law and Department policy" when they "inappropriately considered political or ideological affiliations in evaluating and selecting candidates" for career positions. This flawed process only came to a halt in 2007 after a civil lawsuit challenged the newly designed appointment system, the report found.
Of course, political connections alone don't determine how a judge will rule. And immigration attorneys say not all of them have been bad. Harvey Kaplan, an immigration attorney in Boston, says he's worried about how some judges have treated his clients. But others, like Cramer, have "turned out to be a good judge," he says.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5480673&page=2
Former USCIS head: president must push immigration
It's unlikely any comprehensive immigration bill will be passed if its creation is left up to Congress, according to the former head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Emilio T. Gonzalez, who stepped down in April and subsequently took the helm at the U.S. subsidiary of Spanish technology firm Indra Sistemas S.A., told The Associated Press that immigration is just too complex and politically charged. He also said he doesn't expect such legislation to emerge early in the next presidential administration.
"Immigration is very difficult, and it's very complex," Gonzalez explained. "You've got to get dirty, and you're going to get beat up. I can't imagine somebody burning political capital in a honeymoon period tackling immigration."
Gonzalez, a native of Cuba who was raised in Florida and has long made Miami his home, looked relaxed in a pink guayabera shirt, as he spoke in an interview Tuesday from his offices at Indra USA about the future of immigration policy. Gone are the days of government suits and being attacked for not doing enough — or doing too much — for immigrants.
He said, ultimately, the nation's president will have to be the one to lead the charge on new immigration legislation.
"I think this will get done when it comes from on high — that is to say when a president really puts it on the line and basically crafts the bill and says: 'Congress, this is what I want,'" Gonzalez told AP from his offices in Miami's financial district.
Gonzalez lamented that the loudest voices in the immigration debate remain on the extremes — either in favor of letting everyone in or trying to keep everyone out while ignoring the roughly 12 million already here illegally.
Gonzalez called it "logistically impossible" to send all illegal immigrants home.
He said he hoped a Senate bill last year that required illegal immigrants pay heavy fines and go to the back of the line in requesting citizenship would help assuage concerns about an amnesty, but the bill failed by 14 votes. Two-thirds of Republican senators voted against it.
"Congress essentially said, 'you haven't done enough on interior enforcement,'" Gonzalez said, adding that recent raids on large U.S. businesses will hopefully change lawmakers' minds.
During his tenure, Gonzalez was criticized particularly by Democrats and immigration groups for huge backlogs in processing citizens that followed a rush of applications in advance of fee hikes. The backup worsened as many immigrants, who tend to vote more Democratic, sought citizenship in time to vote in this year's presidential election.
Gonzalez said he is proud of his two-year tenure, in which he rolled out a new immigration exam with tougher, more relevant questions, added personnel and expanded training. He even went undercover during his early months to test customer service for himself and found it wasn't client-friendly.
Prior to his work at USCIS, Gonzalez headed western affairs at the National Security Council. Now he is preparing a new kind of agency overhaul, beefing up Indra's U.S. operations.
The company registered about $3.4 billion in revenue last year, but only 3 percent of that was in the United States.
The company and its subsidiaries have provided technology around the globe including voting systems for Venezuela, unmanned drones in Europe and the development, along with Russian scientists, of a prototype laser protection system for large aircraft.
One of the company's subsidiaries, based in the Orlando area, has provided aircraft and weapons simulators for the Department of Defense.
Indra USA is separate. The company will focus on technology for toll roads, financial institutions and municipal governments, including simulators for first responders and law enforcement to help them practice driving their vehicles in urban environments during emergencies.
Gonzalez's immigration experience will also come in handy. Indra happens to provide technology for so-called "smart fences," such as the ones in the works for the U.S.-Mexican border, which combine electronic virtual surveillance with a physical barrier in some cases.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ireRT3uGtg8UGYCRiilNKP5Vg3_AD928DIV00
Emilio T. Gonzalez, who stepped down in April and subsequently took the helm at the U.S. subsidiary of Spanish technology firm Indra Sistemas S.A., told The Associated Press that immigration is just too complex and politically charged. He also said he doesn't expect such legislation to emerge early in the next presidential administration.
"Immigration is very difficult, and it's very complex," Gonzalez explained. "You've got to get dirty, and you're going to get beat up. I can't imagine somebody burning political capital in a honeymoon period tackling immigration."
Gonzalez, a native of Cuba who was raised in Florida and has long made Miami his home, looked relaxed in a pink guayabera shirt, as he spoke in an interview Tuesday from his offices at Indra USA about the future of immigration policy. Gone are the days of government suits and being attacked for not doing enough — or doing too much — for immigrants.
He said, ultimately, the nation's president will have to be the one to lead the charge on new immigration legislation.
"I think this will get done when it comes from on high — that is to say when a president really puts it on the line and basically crafts the bill and says: 'Congress, this is what I want,'" Gonzalez told AP from his offices in Miami's financial district.
Gonzalez lamented that the loudest voices in the immigration debate remain on the extremes — either in favor of letting everyone in or trying to keep everyone out while ignoring the roughly 12 million already here illegally.
Gonzalez called it "logistically impossible" to send all illegal immigrants home.
He said he hoped a Senate bill last year that required illegal immigrants pay heavy fines and go to the back of the line in requesting citizenship would help assuage concerns about an amnesty, but the bill failed by 14 votes. Two-thirds of Republican senators voted against it.
"Congress essentially said, 'you haven't done enough on interior enforcement,'" Gonzalez said, adding that recent raids on large U.S. businesses will hopefully change lawmakers' minds.
During his tenure, Gonzalez was criticized particularly by Democrats and immigration groups for huge backlogs in processing citizens that followed a rush of applications in advance of fee hikes. The backup worsened as many immigrants, who tend to vote more Democratic, sought citizenship in time to vote in this year's presidential election.
Gonzalez said he is proud of his two-year tenure, in which he rolled out a new immigration exam with tougher, more relevant questions, added personnel and expanded training. He even went undercover during his early months to test customer service for himself and found it wasn't client-friendly.
Prior to his work at USCIS, Gonzalez headed western affairs at the National Security Council. Now he is preparing a new kind of agency overhaul, beefing up Indra's U.S. operations.
The company registered about $3.4 billion in revenue last year, but only 3 percent of that was in the United States.
The company and its subsidiaries have provided technology around the globe including voting systems for Venezuela, unmanned drones in Europe and the development, along with Russian scientists, of a prototype laser protection system for large aircraft.
One of the company's subsidiaries, based in the Orlando area, has provided aircraft and weapons simulators for the Department of Defense.
Indra USA is separate. The company will focus on technology for toll roads, financial institutions and municipal governments, including simulators for first responders and law enforcement to help them practice driving their vehicles in urban environments during emergencies.
Gonzalez's immigration experience will also come in handy. Indra happens to provide technology for so-called "smart fences," such as the ones in the works for the U.S.-Mexican border, which combine electronic virtual surveillance with a physical barrier in some cases.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ireRT3uGtg8UGYCRiilNKP5Vg3_AD928DIV00
Mexico federal police to escort migrant transfers
Mexican federal police will guard all government vehicles transporting detained migrants after gunmen hijacked a bus carrying 33 Cubans, the government said Wednesday.
Immigration officers previously could ask police for extra security while transporting illegal migrants to detention centers or back to their home countries. Federal police presence will now be mandatory for all such trips, said Interior Secretary Juan Camilo Mourino.
Gunmen seized the detained Cubans on June 11 after forcing unarmed immigration officials and two drivers off a bus heading to an immigration detention center in southern Mexico. Some of the Cubans were later found in Texas.
Two immigration officials were later fired because they contradicted themselves under questioning in the case.
Cubans are increasingly going through Mexico to get to the United States, hoping to avoid detection by U.S. Coast Guard officials. Mexican and U.S. officials say violent criminal organizations are often involved.
Mexico also has long been a transit route for Central and South Americans trying to get to the United States. On Tuesday, two Ecuadorean migrants died during a shootout between authorities and suspected smugglers.
Mourino said federal police will also help guard immigration detention centers, if necessary.
"All around migration routes, there are criminal bands that profit from human suffering," Mourino said. "Migrants are exposed to many dangers, and it's our duty to protect them."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jp00SrqIgGbN2YFObqTgpsIfci1gD928D8F00
Immigration officers previously could ask police for extra security while transporting illegal migrants to detention centers or back to their home countries. Federal police presence will now be mandatory for all such trips, said Interior Secretary Juan Camilo Mourino.
Gunmen seized the detained Cubans on June 11 after forcing unarmed immigration officials and two drivers off a bus heading to an immigration detention center in southern Mexico. Some of the Cubans were later found in Texas.
Two immigration officials were later fired because they contradicted themselves under questioning in the case.
Cubans are increasingly going through Mexico to get to the United States, hoping to avoid detection by U.S. Coast Guard officials. Mexican and U.S. officials say violent criminal organizations are often involved.
Mexico also has long been a transit route for Central and South Americans trying to get to the United States. On Tuesday, two Ecuadorean migrants died during a shootout between authorities and suspected smugglers.
Mourino said federal police will also help guard immigration detention centers, if necessary.
"All around migration routes, there are criminal bands that profit from human suffering," Mourino said. "Migrants are exposed to many dangers, and it's our duty to protect them."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jp00SrqIgGbN2YFObqTgpsIfci1gD928D8F00
Nebraska senator on illegal immigration fact-finding mission
State senator Brad Ashford of Omaha is hoping to gain some perspective into how Nebraska communities are dealing with illegal immigration.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee is involved in an interim study examining South Sioux City, Lexington, Grand Island, Scottsbluff, North Platte and Omaha. In particular he's looking at how illegal immigration education, employment and social services.
He says the cities were chosen based on location, demographics and employers.
Ashford says citizenship needs to be respected but that must be balanced with policies that reflect what's really happening in communities.
http://www.kcautv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8763511&nav=1kgl
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee is involved in an interim study examining South Sioux City, Lexington, Grand Island, Scottsbluff, North Platte and Omaha. In particular he's looking at how illegal immigration education, employment and social services.
He says the cities were chosen based on location, demographics and employers.
Ashford says citizenship needs to be respected but that must be balanced with policies that reflect what's really happening in communities.
http://www.kcautv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8763511&nav=1kgl
Minuteman Project protests San Francisco's sanctuary policy
A small group of Minuteman Project activists demonstrated Wednesday against this city's sanctuary policy, but their call for Mayor Gavin Newsom's ouster was drowned out by hundreds of chanting immigration rights supporters.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."Newsom, he said, is "indirectly" responsible for the June 22 deaths of Anthony Bologna, 48, and his sons Matthew, 16, and Michael, 20, who were gunned down in their Honda Civic while heading home from a family get-together.Three days later, police arrested Edwin Ramos, 21, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador with alleged ties to the Mara Salvatrucha gang. Police initially said the killings occurred after Bologna inadvertently blocked Ramos' car on a narrow street and the suspect pulled up and started shooting.But Lt. Michael Stasko, head of the San Francisco Police Department's homicide unit, said Monday that the killing was probably a "gang-related" case of mistaken identity and "had nothing to do with road rage."Addressing the Board of Supervisors' public safety committee, Stasko said: "We have an idea that apparently the people in the car [the Bolognas] were similar to Hispanic males, and they were targeted because of being Hispanic males."The slayings drew national attention last week after the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Ramos had been convicted of felonies twice as a juvenile. Because of the sanctuary city policy, however, he was never handed over to federal immigration authorities.Defense attorney Robert Amparan did not respond to requests for comment.The Minuteman Project is best known for its citizen patrol of the U.S.-Mexico border by volunteers whom President Bush has described as "vigilantes."But Wednesday, Gilchrist said his organization was now going to begin targeting sanctuary cities nationwide.Retired San Francisco probation officer Judith Terracina was one of a dozen or so Minuteman supporters in front of City Hall on Wednesday. Although she is not a member of the group, she said she approved of its efforts to overturn sanctuary city policies.In the adult probation department, she said, "we had big issues regarding illegal aliens. The issue had to do with our hands being tied. We were ordered not to report them" to federal immigration authorities.Under the San Francisco policy, no city employee is permitted to spend city money to assist U.S. immigration officials. An exception to the original ordinance was for adult undocumented felons or those arrested on felony charges.Newsom recently ordered that juvenile felons also be handed over to federal authorities if they are believed to be in the country illegally."Is the mayor going to resign? No," said Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard. "This policy has been met with controversy for 20 years. The mayor stands by the spirit of the sanctuary city policy. However, there have been some issues with its implementation."Renee Saucedo, an attorney with an organization called La Raza Centro Legal, appeared at the protest "to send a message that we . . . represent inclusiveness and acceptance and not hate and scapegoating."maria.laganga@latimes.com
Report about dwindling illegal immigration sparks debate
A conservative think tank's announcement that illegal immigration to New York and other states is dropping dramatically has ignited a debate about the size of America's population of undocumented workers.The Center for Immigration Studies, which calls for tighter enforcement of immigration laws, estimated yesterday that illegal immigration plunged across the country by 11 percent in the past year. "This may be due to the economy, or it may be due to the fact that places like Long Island have become more enforcement-oriented," said Steven Camarota, the group's research director.Organizations that support immigrants' rights criticize the counting methods and deride the report as unscientific. "It's wishful thinking that as the economy gets worse, as we throw more money on the border and as the presidential candidates stop talking about it, somehow that'll solve illegal immigration," said Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Policy Center in Washington, D.C.The controversial report, "Homeward Bound," puts the number of undocumented residents nationwide at 11.2 million, 1.3 million fewer than last summer. At that rate, that number would be halved in five years, the report adds.
The Center for Immigration Studies says those dramatic figures are based on counts of Hispanic men without high school diplomas, as tallied in the Current Population Survey, the rough data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. Such statistics are "imperfect measures," Camarota admitted."It's a pretty tenuous assumption, especially in New York State, where there are plenty of undocumented immigrants who are not Hispanic males that didn't finish high school," said David Kallick, a Senior Fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute in Manhattan.While the Center for Immigration Studies defines itself as nonpartisan, some liberal groups say it is a thinly-veiled Republican group started 20 years ago as a spinoff of the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform.The New York Immigration Coalition, which advocates for undocumented workers, said Long Islanders shouldn't cheer any loss of immigrants. "Local economies take a painful hit when immigrants leave," said spokesman Norman Eng. "Housing goes vacant, property values drop and businesses go under."
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-liimmi315783229jul31,0,1628101.story
The Center for Immigration Studies says those dramatic figures are based on counts of Hispanic men without high school diplomas, as tallied in the Current Population Survey, the rough data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. Such statistics are "imperfect measures," Camarota admitted."It's a pretty tenuous assumption, especially in New York State, where there are plenty of undocumented immigrants who are not Hispanic males that didn't finish high school," said David Kallick, a Senior Fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute in Manhattan.While the Center for Immigration Studies defines itself as nonpartisan, some liberal groups say it is a thinly-veiled Republican group started 20 years ago as a spinoff of the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform.The New York Immigration Coalition, which advocates for undocumented workers, said Long Islanders shouldn't cheer any loss of immigrants. "Local economies take a painful hit when immigrants leave," said spokesman Norman Eng. "Housing goes vacant, property values drop and businesses go under."
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-liimmi315783229jul31,0,1628101.story
Illegal immigrants returning home in large numbers
By several measures, illegal immigrants appear to be returning home in large numbers, pushed by enforcement efforts and the sagging economy.
A report issued Wednesday in Washington put the size of the exodus at more than a million over the last year, though its methodology was criticized.
Also Wednesday, Mexico's central bank said that remittances – payments sent home by Mexicans working abroad – have slowed after years of steep increases. That announcement came as the Mexican government considers ways to receive and help find work for returnees.
In Dallas, officials said nearly 500 families have gone to the Mexican consulate this year seeking documents needed to enroll their children in Mexican schools. That's twice as many as in all of last year.
The last time Mexico – the country that sends the U.S. the most legal and illegal immigrants – saw a repatriation of significant magnitude was in the 1950s.
This time, the drivers appear to be concerns about the job market and stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws, said Roberto Suro, a University of Southern California professor who formerly directed the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.
"There is every reason to suspect there is some response to the enforcement efforts that have created an atmosphere of fear," he said, "but knowing what number to put on it is very, very difficult."
Census data
The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank, did put a number on the migration: 1.3 million over the last year.
That estimate was based on data collected monthly by the Census Bureau on the number of foreign-born adults living in the U.S. The latest data was from May. And the estimates are based on the assumption that the "overwhelming majority" of the estimated 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally are Hispanics who are younger adults with relatively little education.
Other groups were quick to criticize that assumption, and the assertion that the population of illegal immigrants peaked last August as Congress debated legislation that would have provided legal status to those here illegally. Critics of the report also said that a lost job doesn't necessarily force a construction worker to leave the country.
Less cash
But construction job losses are affecting remittances, Bank of Mexico President Guillermo Ortiz said Wednesday. He said about 22 percent of Mexican workers in the U.S. have jobs in construction, an industry that has slowed sharply.
Gone are the days when migrants came back to Mexico each year flush with cash, then returned to jobs waiting in the United States, as they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2006.
Now, more migrants rounded up by U.S. immigration officials are being sent home penniless. Others have decided to return for good.
'I want to stay here'
Among them is Nancy Romero, 27, who waited Wednesday for documents from the Mexican consulate in Dallas.
She was with her two boys, ages 6 and 4, but not her husband, who was deported 15 days ago. He was detained after being involved in a traffic accident.
Ms. Romero said, "Returning to my country fills me with emotion. But I also feel for my children because they have so many opportunities here."
Her 6-year-old, Jose, a U.S. citizen, interrupted the conversation to say, "I want to stay here, so I can learn English."
That sentiment is common, according to the Mexican consul in Dallas, Enrique Hubbard, who spends many mornings talking to people about their plans.
"People say they have been out of a job for a long time, or people worry they will be arrested and have to go back," Mr. Hubbard said. "Practically all of them say they have children born here ... and then when the kids grow up, they will have to choose what country they live in. It is very sad, heartbreaking."
Veronica Escobedo, a U.S. citizen raised in Mexico, has three children. She fears for her husband, an illegal immigrant.
"We have family members that have been deported," she said. "My husband is scared and said, 'I don't want the same thing to happen to me.' "
The consul said discussing such emotional decisions is tricky.
"Sometimes, we start questioning the reasons for them to go back and we give the false impression that we don't want them," says Mr. Hubbard, a former ambassador. "They are welcome. It is their home."
Welcomed home
The Mexican government is considering building reception facilities for returnees at four border points, including Nuevo Laredo and Ciudad Juárez, Mr. Hubbard said. A group of Mexican governors is lobbying for preferential hiring of returning immigrants for large infrastructure projects, he noted.
Such a move comes after two Mexican governors came to Dallas last summer to meet with immigrants, who angrily asked them why there was no plan for jobs when they return.
Now, a Mexican government Web site for the Interior Ministry shows a group of Mexicans in line at a metal fence in San Ysidro, California. The headline reads: "Program of Human Repatriation." The subtext: "The federal, state and municipal government and civil society are organizing to help you with dignified treatment so that you can return to your community of origin. We will provide: Medical and psychological help, shelter and food, and communication with your loved ones and information on your options for employment."
Self-deportation
Against this backdrop, the U.S. government detailed Wednesday a pilot program for self-deportation aimed at illegal immigrants from multiple countries who live in five cities. None are in Texas. U.S. immigration officials said there are about 460,000 illegal immigrants who have been given final orders to leave the country but have no criminal charges filed against them.
The migrants would be given 90 days to plan their return to their homelands.
On Wednesday afternoon, Juan and Lucia Estevez and their two boys could only think of returning to Mexico. The couple said they're tired of living as illegal immigrants. They came here hoping to buy a house, but instead saved money to build a home in Mexico City. They plan to leave Friday, over the objections of their 13-year-old son.
Staff writers Javier García and Brendan Case and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-exodus_31met.ART.State.Edition2.4d7274b.html
A report issued Wednesday in Washington put the size of the exodus at more than a million over the last year, though its methodology was criticized.
Also Wednesday, Mexico's central bank said that remittances – payments sent home by Mexicans working abroad – have slowed after years of steep increases. That announcement came as the Mexican government considers ways to receive and help find work for returnees.
In Dallas, officials said nearly 500 families have gone to the Mexican consulate this year seeking documents needed to enroll their children in Mexican schools. That's twice as many as in all of last year.
The last time Mexico – the country that sends the U.S. the most legal and illegal immigrants – saw a repatriation of significant magnitude was in the 1950s.
This time, the drivers appear to be concerns about the job market and stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws, said Roberto Suro, a University of Southern California professor who formerly directed the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.
"There is every reason to suspect there is some response to the enforcement efforts that have created an atmosphere of fear," he said, "but knowing what number to put on it is very, very difficult."
Census data
The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank, did put a number on the migration: 1.3 million over the last year.
That estimate was based on data collected monthly by the Census Bureau on the number of foreign-born adults living in the U.S. The latest data was from May. And the estimates are based on the assumption that the "overwhelming majority" of the estimated 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally are Hispanics who are younger adults with relatively little education.
Other groups were quick to criticize that assumption, and the assertion that the population of illegal immigrants peaked last August as Congress debated legislation that would have provided legal status to those here illegally. Critics of the report also said that a lost job doesn't necessarily force a construction worker to leave the country.
Less cash
But construction job losses are affecting remittances, Bank of Mexico President Guillermo Ortiz said Wednesday. He said about 22 percent of Mexican workers in the U.S. have jobs in construction, an industry that has slowed sharply.
Gone are the days when migrants came back to Mexico each year flush with cash, then returned to jobs waiting in the United States, as they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2006.
Now, more migrants rounded up by U.S. immigration officials are being sent home penniless. Others have decided to return for good.
'I want to stay here'
Among them is Nancy Romero, 27, who waited Wednesday for documents from the Mexican consulate in Dallas.
She was with her two boys, ages 6 and 4, but not her husband, who was deported 15 days ago. He was detained after being involved in a traffic accident.
Ms. Romero said, "Returning to my country fills me with emotion. But I also feel for my children because they have so many opportunities here."
Her 6-year-old, Jose, a U.S. citizen, interrupted the conversation to say, "I want to stay here, so I can learn English."
That sentiment is common, according to the Mexican consul in Dallas, Enrique Hubbard, who spends many mornings talking to people about their plans.
"People say they have been out of a job for a long time, or people worry they will be arrested and have to go back," Mr. Hubbard said. "Practically all of them say they have children born here ... and then when the kids grow up, they will have to choose what country they live in. It is very sad, heartbreaking."
Veronica Escobedo, a U.S. citizen raised in Mexico, has three children. She fears for her husband, an illegal immigrant.
"We have family members that have been deported," she said. "My husband is scared and said, 'I don't want the same thing to happen to me.' "
The consul said discussing such emotional decisions is tricky.
"Sometimes, we start questioning the reasons for them to go back and we give the false impression that we don't want them," says Mr. Hubbard, a former ambassador. "They are welcome. It is their home."
Welcomed home
The Mexican government is considering building reception facilities for returnees at four border points, including Nuevo Laredo and Ciudad Juárez, Mr. Hubbard said. A group of Mexican governors is lobbying for preferential hiring of returning immigrants for large infrastructure projects, he noted.
Such a move comes after two Mexican governors came to Dallas last summer to meet with immigrants, who angrily asked them why there was no plan for jobs when they return.
Now, a Mexican government Web site for the Interior Ministry shows a group of Mexicans in line at a metal fence in San Ysidro, California. The headline reads: "Program of Human Repatriation." The subtext: "The federal, state and municipal government and civil society are organizing to help you with dignified treatment so that you can return to your community of origin. We will provide: Medical and psychological help, shelter and food, and communication with your loved ones and information on your options for employment."
Self-deportation
Against this backdrop, the U.S. government detailed Wednesday a pilot program for self-deportation aimed at illegal immigrants from multiple countries who live in five cities. None are in Texas. U.S. immigration officials said there are about 460,000 illegal immigrants who have been given final orders to leave the country but have no criminal charges filed against them.
The migrants would be given 90 days to plan their return to their homelands.
On Wednesday afternoon, Juan and Lucia Estevez and their two boys could only think of returning to Mexico. The couple said they're tired of living as illegal immigrants. They came here hoping to buy a house, but instead saved money to build a home in Mexico City. They plan to leave Friday, over the objections of their 13-year-old son.
Staff writers Javier García and Brendan Case and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-exodus_31met.ART.State.Edition2.4d7274b.html
Government offers 'self-deport' plan
U.S. immigration officials plan to unveil a program next week that will allow illegal immigrants without criminal records to "self-deport" by turning themselves in to federal agents, the San Antonio Express-News reports.
Julie Myers, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told Spanish-language TV network Univision that Operation Scheduled Departure will give people a few weeks to pack their belongings and leave without being detained, the newspaper reports.
Douglas Rivlin, spokesman for the National Immigration Forum, told the Express-News the program is an "attempt to entice people to sign away their rights and get out of the country as quickly as possible before even talking to a lawyer." The paper reported 16,000 immigrants have accepted a similar offer by the U.S. Marshals Service.
Julie Myers, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told Spanish-language TV network Univision that Operation Scheduled Departure will give people a few weeks to pack their belongings and leave without being detained, the newspaper reports.
Douglas Rivlin, spokesman for the National Immigration Forum, told the Express-News the program is an "attempt to entice people to sign away their rights and get out of the country as quickly as possible before even talking to a lawyer." The paper reported 16,000 immigrants have accepted a similar offer by the U.S. Marshals Service.
U.S. Immigration Officials to Urge 'Fugitive Aliens' to Surrender
U.S. federal immigration officials announced their plans on Wednesday to give people who have been ordered by immigration courts to leave the country - or as officials put it, "fugitive aliens" – a maximum period of 90 days to turn their selves in, get their affairs in order and leave the U.S. The federal immigration officials also took in consideration "fugitive aliens" who do not have the money to leave. The new program will take care of them and make the arrangements to leave the United States. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the fugitive aliens would be able to avoid detention pending their removal.Under the program, each fugitive alien will have a record documenting when he leaves the country. The document will be helpful to authorities in case the person should seek to return legally. The program will start with a pilot version on Tuesday and run through August 22 in five U.S. cities. If it proves to be efficient, it will most likely expand to other cities, said Jim Hayes, ICE's acting director for detention and removal. The first cities involved in the program dubbed "Operation Scheduled Departure" will be Santa Ana, California; San Diego, California; Chicago, Illinois; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Phoenix, Arizona.Immigration officials estimated that there are as many as 500,000 fugitive aliens in the U.S. In 2007, the government sent about 30,000 fugitive aliens to their home countries using traditional methods. However, no official dared to guess how many fugitive aliens would be removed under the new program. Douglas Rivlin of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group, said the new program just doesn’t have any advantage over the traditional methods. "If you're really thinking about leaving the country anyway, I don't see the advantage of stopping into your local ICE office on your way to the airport," said Hayes. He added that immigrants would leave the country willingly if given the chance.The new program will also feature a toll-free telephone number that fugitive aliens can call to arrange appointments with ICE case officers. ICE officers will also gather biographic information and fingerprints from the aliens. Those who have not committed any crimes and are not considered a threat to the communities they live in will be given up to 90 days to leave the country.Officials said the toll-free telephone number will be operational next week and will be announced then.
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_US_Immigration_Officials_to_Urge_Fugitive_Aliens_to_Surrender_21233.html
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_US_Immigration_Officials_to_Urge_Fugitive_Aliens_to_Surrender_21233.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
