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
Thursday, July 31, 2008
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
City Council to Hold Hearings on Immigration
Led by 25th Ward Alderman Danny Solis, immigration rights activists and several aldermen announced that they will hold hearings next week to investigate claims that city and county officials allegedly violated immigrants civil rights. "We understand the value that immigrants hold in our society, whether documented or undocumented," said Solis. The allegations include charges that undocumented immigrants are being held in custody longer than the 48 hours required by law, and that city police have been pulling over Latino drivers to inquire about their immigration status. Such profiling is prohibited by a 2006 city ordinance. "This is a very serious issue," said County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado.
Last month, officials at Cook County Jail, where three federal immigration and customs officers are stationed daily, admitted that at least one immigrant inmate was detained longer than 48 hours. "We are mandated to enforce the nation's immigrations laws and we continue to aggressively do so," Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Gail Montenegro said. "ICE is here and available to work with any law enforcement that requests assistance," adding that ICE does not racially profile, or encourage holding immigrants for longer than 48 hours."
Chicago police deny the allegations. "We do not tolerate racial profiling," said police spokeswoman Monique Bond. "We do not inquire about an individual's Immigration status."
Last month, officials at Cook County Jail, where three federal immigration and customs officers are stationed daily, admitted that at least one immigrant inmate was detained longer than 48 hours. "We are mandated to enforce the nation's immigrations laws and we continue to aggressively do so," Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Gail Montenegro said. "ICE is here and available to work with any law enforcement that requests assistance," adding that ICE does not racially profile, or encourage holding immigrants for longer than 48 hours."
Chicago police deny the allegations. "We do not tolerate racial profiling," said police spokeswoman Monique Bond. "We do not inquire about an individual's Immigration status."
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Immigration / Asylum and Withholding from Removal / False Identity Asylum Petitions
Dhital v. Mukasey
No. 06-75043 (07/17/08)
Before Circuit Judges O’Scannlain, Hawkins, and District Judge Selna for the Central District of California http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68063EB0FBD0A8098825748900508DA4/$file/0675043.pdf?openelement
Dhital legally entered the United States to enroll in college using a student visa. Five years later, Dhital failed to enroll full time as a student. Consequentially, immigration officials served Dhital with a notice to appear because his student visa was void.
Dhital conceded removability before an Immigration Judge (IJ), but plead for asylum, withholding from removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Additionally, Dhital produced a grant of asylum under a false identity he had obtained earlier from U.S. Immigration. The IJ denied all Dhital’s claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed. First, the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits asylum after a frivolous application for asylum using a false identity. Second, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires immigrants to petition for asylum after one year of entry into the U.S. unless changed circumstances materially affected the applicant’s eligibility or extraordinary circumstances related to the delay in filing. Third, the Ninth Circuit found that an applicant must establish as more likely than not that persecution based on removal would occur for the court to grant
withholding of removal. Finally, CAT applicants must show that it is
more likely than not that they would suffer torture, not just persecution, by a particularized threat of torture with the consent of a public authority. Therefore, the IJ properly denied all of Dhital’s claims.
DENIED. Concurrence by Judge O’Scannlain.
No. 06-75043 (07/17/08)
Before Circuit Judges O’Scannlain, Hawkins, and District Judge Selna for the Central District of California http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68063EB0FBD0A8098825748900508DA4/$file/0675043.pdf?openelement
Dhital legally entered the United States to enroll in college using a student visa. Five years later, Dhital failed to enroll full time as a student. Consequentially, immigration officials served Dhital with a notice to appear because his student visa was void.
Dhital conceded removability before an Immigration Judge (IJ), but plead for asylum, withholding from removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Additionally, Dhital produced a grant of asylum under a false identity he had obtained earlier from U.S. Immigration. The IJ denied all Dhital’s claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed. First, the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits asylum after a frivolous application for asylum using a false identity. Second, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires immigrants to petition for asylum after one year of entry into the U.S. unless changed circumstances materially affected the applicant’s eligibility or extraordinary circumstances related to the delay in filing. Third, the Ninth Circuit found that an applicant must establish as more likely than not that persecution based on removal would occur for the court to grant
withholding of removal. Finally, CAT applicants must show that it is
more likely than not that they would suffer torture, not just persecution, by a particularized threat of torture with the consent of a public authority. Therefore, the IJ properly denied all of Dhital’s claims.
DENIED. Concurrence by Judge O’Scannlain.
Immigration / Application for Asylum / Denial Because of Adverse Creditability
Tekle v. Mukasey
No. 05-76841 (07/18/08)
Before Circuit Judges Noonan, Fletcher, and Bea http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/730C76BFE2C9EBA288257489007CC9E5/$file/0576841.pdf?openelement
Tekle appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ), which the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, denying her application for asylum. Tekle is a citizen of Ethiopia and an active member of the Oromo racial group that was being discriminated and mistreated in Ethiopia. Tekle testified that she was tortured during her arrest in Ethiopia and believed she would be arrested again if she were forced to return. The IJ did not believe her testimony, and the BIA affirmed, because there were slight variations in her story and her brother’s. Although the IJ found there were bad conditions in Ethiopia that the U.S. government acknowledged, Tekle’s story was not credible enough for asylum. The Ninth Circuit found that Tekle’s story was believable and the small variations were not significant enough for the IJ to discount Tekle’s need for asylum. In their analysis, the Ninth Circuit also stated the IJ based his decision on bad interpretations, not the truth, and that the IJ did not give Tekle a chance to explain the slight variations. The Ninth Circuit granted Tekle’s petition for review and remanded the case to a different IJ. GRANTED AND REMANDED.
No. 05-76841 (07/18/08)
Before Circuit Judges Noonan, Fletcher, and Bea http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/730C76BFE2C9EBA288257489007CC9E5/$file/0576841.pdf?openelement
Tekle appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ), which the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, denying her application for asylum. Tekle is a citizen of Ethiopia and an active member of the Oromo racial group that was being discriminated and mistreated in Ethiopia. Tekle testified that she was tortured during her arrest in Ethiopia and believed she would be arrested again if she were forced to return. The IJ did not believe her testimony, and the BIA affirmed, because there were slight variations in her story and her brother’s. Although the IJ found there were bad conditions in Ethiopia that the U.S. government acknowledged, Tekle’s story was not credible enough for asylum. The Ninth Circuit found that Tekle’s story was believable and the small variations were not significant enough for the IJ to discount Tekle’s need for asylum. In their analysis, the Ninth Circuit also stated the IJ based his decision on bad interpretations, not the truth, and that the IJ did not give Tekle a chance to explain the slight variations. The Ninth Circuit granted Tekle’s petition for review and remanded the case to a different IJ. GRANTED AND REMANDED.
Immigration / Aggravated Identity Theft / Knowledge that Identification Belongs to Another
United States v. Miranda-Lopez
No. 07-50123 (07/17/2008)
Before Circuit Judges Silverman, Berzon, and Bybee http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6000AD948C9117C0882574890050B569/$file/0750123.pdf?openelement
Miranda-Lopez is a citizen of El Salvador who was previously deported from the United States. He was arrested when crossing the border using another’s resident alien card. He challenged his conviction of aggravated identity theft, claiming that knowledge that the identification belongs to another person is necessary. In addition, he claimed the district court erred in its jury instructions and in denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal made a week after the jury’s verdict. The Ninth Circuit held that the statute is ambiguous as to how far Congress intended for the word "knowingly" to apply in the statute and applied the rule of lenity to find the standard of "plain error" applied to the jury instructions. There was an error, but it was not plain, as the statute was ambiguous and there is a circuit split on the issue. The district court improperly denied his Rule 29 motion on waiver grounds since Rule 29(c) expressly allows such motions within seven days of a jury verdict and does not require that the motion be made prior to jury discharge. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to reconsider his Rule 29 motion.
No. 07-50123 (07/17/2008)
Before Circuit Judges Silverman, Berzon, and Bybee http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6000AD948C9117C0882574890050B569/$file/0750123.pdf?openelement
Miranda-Lopez is a citizen of El Salvador who was previously deported from the United States. He was arrested when crossing the border using another’s resident alien card. He challenged his conviction of aggravated identity theft, claiming that knowledge that the identification belongs to another person is necessary. In addition, he claimed the district court erred in its jury instructions and in denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal made a week after the jury’s verdict. The Ninth Circuit held that the statute is ambiguous as to how far Congress intended for the word "knowingly" to apply in the statute and applied the rule of lenity to find the standard of "plain error" applied to the jury instructions. There was an error, but it was not plain, as the statute was ambiguous and there is a circuit split on the issue. The district court improperly denied his Rule 29 motion on waiver grounds since Rule 29(c) expressly allows such motions within seven days of a jury verdict and does not require that the motion be made prior to jury discharge. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to reconsider his Rule 29 motion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
