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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
