Quoted Text

Bush created the immigration mess
Froma Harrop is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Froma Harrop

   Immigration reform was to be George W. Bush’s legacy. It’s now clear that he won’t have a legacy to stand on.
   The president’s visit to the Capitol was supposed to restart the immigration “grand bargain,” currently in a mid-air stall. As is his habit, he painted scary scenarios if things don’t go his way. (Note how he lists the dire consequences of pulling out of the mess he created in Iraq.) On immigration, he warns that “the status quo is unacceptable.”
   And we can thank him for that unacceptable status quo. As America’s chief executive, it was Bush’s duty to enforce the laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
   And for seven years, he did next to nothing. No, he did worse than nothing. In 2004, he publicly vowed to “match any willing worker with any willing employer,” thus ending the tradition that stressed the interests of American labor in making immigration policy. The message was heard as intended, setting off a new surge of illegal entrants.
   One recalls the famous line in the movie “Touch of Evil,” when Orson Welles, a corrupt U.S. cop, asks Marlene Dietrich, a fortune-telling madam in Tijuana, to read his future. “You haven’t got any,” she says ominously. “Your future is all used up.”
   The same can be said of Bush’s future as a leader on immigration reform. The president’s credibility is all used up by his conscious strategy to neglect immigration enforcement — part of a shameful drive to cheapen American labor for the advantage of business.
   Bush also pulled a bait-and-switch. He always spoke of amnesty as something that would be extended to illegal aliens who’ve been here a long time and paid their back taxes. But the bill he supports gives amnesty to people who crashed the border as recently as six months ago, and it drops the part about back taxes.
   So small wonder that Americans greet Bush’s views on the immigration bill with either hostility or utter indifference. They sense that the fix is in — that illegal-alien advocates and big business have combined with lawmakers to sell them out.
   And they don’t want to fall for a repeat of the 1986 grand bargain, which promised amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in return for fines against employers who hire them. The amnesty came off, while the employer sanctions were sabotaged. The original proposal called for a computerized registry against which employers would have to verify the right of all job applicants to work in the United States. It was ditched and replaced with an “honor system” that let employers accept documents that looked OK to them. Thus, a new era of counterfeiting was born.
   Here’s a simple idea to build public support for an immigration compromise: Have Congress pass the part of the bill that would force employers to check all new hires’ eligibility to work in the United States with a database (and fine those who don’t). Once that’s being done to the public’s satisfaction, we can discuss what to do about the illegal immigrants living here and whether to increase the number of legal visas.
   The latest round of threats has it that if Congress doesn’t pass comprehensive immigration reform right away, the issue will get lost in the upcoming presidential campaigns. Wrong. On the contrary, the American people will have the opportunity to press the candidates on what they would do about a matter that affects their wages, health care, taxes and the environment.
   There are worse things than the status quo. Bush has shown time and again that he knows how to create them. Now, if he would only just go away.

Quoted Text

English courses overwhelmed by immigrant influx
BY MIRIAM JORDAN The Wall Street Journal

   Queens Community House in Jackson Heights, N.Y., doesn’t advertise its free English courses, but for many years its lotteries for places in the class drew hordes that required police presence. A new system has eliminated the crowds — and the need for cops — but competition for spaces remains fierce: Three out of four applicants are turned away.
   “People plead and cry on the day the names are posted,” says director K.C. Williams, an 18-year veteran of English-language programs. “You cannot imagine how much these immigrants want to learn English. Demand is off the charts.”
   And demand for English instruction is likely to explode in coming years. An immigration bill in the Senate would require 12 million illegal immigrants to show profi - ciency in English in order to qualify for legal permanent residency, or a green card.
   Yet, already, providers can’t keep up with demand because of a dearth of publicly funded classes. Across the United States, “the problem is not the unwillingness of immigrants to learn English,” says Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New Immigration Coalition, an advocacy group. “The problem is we don’t provide enough classes.” The cost of attending private language centers is out of reach for most new immigrants.
   Since the 1960s, programs that teach English-as-a-second-language (ESL) have been funded through the federal government’s adult-education program, as well as money from states and municipalities. Typically, immigrants attend classes at community centers, libraries and nonprofit organizations that compete for public funds each year.
   Immigrant resettlement organizations, such the United Jewish Appeal, offer ESL programs using private philanthropy and some public funds. Religious organizations sometimes offer English classes taught by volunteers. Immigrants normally attend for free or pay only a nominal fee.
EXPLODING DEMAND
   But amid a record influx of immigrants, there are not enough seats in these courses to meet exploding demand. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, there were 1.1 million ESL students enrolled in programs backed by public funds. A survey conducted last year by the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund of 184 ESL providers in 22 cities found that 57 percent maintained waiting lists.
   In Phoenix, the state’s largest provider had a waiting list of more than 1,000 people, with waiting times of up to 18 months for evening classes. In Boston, at least 16,725 adults were on waiting lists, some of them for three years. In Albuquerque, providers reported waiting times of up to 14 months. In New York City, most ESL programs no longer keep waiting lists due to huge demand.
   To close the gap, in recent years there has been a proliferation of private ESL programs, offered by colleges and language schools. However, private instruction, which can cost up to several thousand dollars per semester, is out of reach for most working-class newcomers.
   Some employers, including many hospitals, offer on-site English training for their foreign work force. However, by and large, U.S. companies don’t provide or finance English classes for their employees. Thus, programs administered with public funds are likely to represent the lion’s share of all ESL seats for the foreseeable future, experts say.
   “The government and private sector should work together to increase capacity,” says Elyse Rudolph, executive director of the Literacy Assistance Center, a hub of technical assistance and training for adult-education programs in New York state.
OPPONENTS OBJECT
   Opponents say the U.S. government shouldn’t be in the business of paying language instruction for immigrants.
   “We don’t agree with the idea that the government owes it to them to pay for their English proficiency,” says Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. As FAIR sees it, he says, exploding demand for English classes is an indication that “the flow of immigration needs to slow down.”
   Some politicians, radio talkshow hosts and anti-immigrant groups express concern that the swelling ranks of Spanish speakers, whom they perceive as not wanting to learn English, are diluting U.S. culture. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 21.3 million residents (less than 10 percent) report speaking English “less than very well.” Since the 1990s, several states have passed “English-only” laws designed to assert the dominance of English.
   The primary federal source for ESL programs is through Title II of the Workforce Investment Act for adult education and literacy. Despite ballooning demand, the allocation hasn’t kept pace, having stagnated at $570 million for the last three years. In 2005, the Bush administration proposed scaling back funding to $207 million for the 2006 fiscal year. State education offi cials fought back, averting the cut. But they say the episode highlights the fragile nature of federal support.
   Although the general public sometimes assumes that newcomers can learn English by carrying out their daily activities, experts estimate that between 500 and 1,000 hours of instruction are needed to master basic English verbal and literacy skills. Typically, a student enrolls for one-year, taking three cycles of 150 hours each, with the average class being 12 hours per week.
POPULATION GROWTH
   Immigrants are expected to account for most of the growth in the U.S. work force over the next two decades and to be key to the country’s economic health. Research has indicated that knowledge of English is closely correlated with professional success and socioeconomic advancement.
   A 2005 study by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that median weekly earnings of proficient English speakers were 225 percent higher than those at a below basic level.
   Students at the Queens Community House, which occupies several rooms in an office building near henna tattoo shops, halal butchers and other ethnic businesses, hail from more than 30 countries. But about 70 percent of the 650 students are native Spanish speakers, reflecting the booming numbers of Latin American immigrants to New York.  

Quoted Text

US Latinos see 2008 vote as their 'moment'
by Marie Sanz
Sun Jun 17,

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Hispanic community, galvanized by a drive to reform US immigration law and wooed by presidential candidates, has become a political player ahead of the 2008 vote.

Hispanics mobilized to pressure congressional passage of the most sweeping immigration overhaul in 20 years, hoping to bring some 12 million illegal immigrants, mostly Latin Americans, out of the shadows.

Latinos became key voters ahead of the Republican and Democratic parties' primary elections next year as several states with huge Hispanic populations have moved their primaries to earlier dates.

The rallying cry of Latino organizations has become "It is our moment, we have a voice."

Hispanics have surpassed African-Americans as the largest minority group in recent years, making up 14.8 percent of the 300 million people living in America.

Two-thirds of Hispanic residents live in nine states that will hold primary votes on February 5 or earlier, including California, Nevada, Florida and New York.

The primaries will be "historic" because of the Latino vote, which has become more important than it has ever been, said Adam Segal, director of the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University.

Hispanic groups and the widely watched, Spanish-language television channel Univision are urging Latinos to apply for US citizenship and then to register to vote.

White House hopefuls are well aware of the importance of Hispanic voters.

The campaign website of former senator        John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate, has a page in "Espanol" with the slogan "El Manana Comienza Hoy," or "Tomorrow Begins Today."

Democratic Senator Barack Obama is getting help from a Mexican-American who created the website "Amigos de Obama," or "Friends of Obama," which is unaffiliated with his campaign, aimed at reaching out to Hispanics.

The website even features a song in a popular Latino-flavored reggae beat called reggaeton, with the chorus: "Como se dice?/Como se llama? OBAMA! OBAMA!" ("How do you say it? What is his name? OBAMA!")

The leading Democratic candidate, Senator        Hillary Clinton, has already secured the key endorsement of Antonio Villaraigosa, the Latino mayor of Los Angeles, a city of four million -- nearly half of whom are Hispanic.

One Democrat could make history if he becomes the first Hispanic US president.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a former UN ambassador who was born to a Mexican mother, has said he was running as "an American, proud to be Hispanic."

One of the top Republican hopefuls, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has hired Hispanic consultants in Florida, a key voting state where the largely Republican Cuban-American population has a powerful voice.

Although Hispanics tend to vote for Democrats,        President George W. Bush garnered 42 percent of their ballots in the 2004 election.

But 73 percent of Hispanics voted for Democratic candidates in November's legislative election, which gave Bush's foes control of Congress.

Republicans face an "enormous challenge" to gain Hispanic support, said Gabriel Escobar of Pew Hispanic Center, a research institution.

Although Hispanics represent just nine percent of the US electorate, their numbers are "already significant and growing" in some states, Escobar said.

Quoted Text

Popular but problematic

   Immigration reform is dead for now, and the “no amnesty” activists — who really mean “no path to citizenship ever for anyone who illegally crossed the border at any time” — are understandably gloating.
   We agree with opponents that enforcement got short shrift in the bill and that probationary visas would have been granted with indefensible haste.
   But many illegals have sunk deep roots and are assets to the economy. Most are not going home no matter how much anyone might wish. That’s why we believe it is neither rational nor humane to keep them in a twilight zone forever by equating any path to citizenship with an amnesty for undeserving criminals.
   The defeat of the immigration reform package no doubt represents a triumph of popular sentiment. But it is also safe to say that the public does not like the status quo. And yet it is hard to see how any meaningful immigration bill can pass Congress given the present balance of political power.
   --The Rocky Mountain News

Quoted Text

Immigration Bill Hides $1 Trillion Time Bomb
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Monday, June 18, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The immigration bill being debated by the Senate would allow more than 2 million illegal workers who received Social Security numbers prior to 2004 to receive more than $966 billion in Social Security benefits by 2040, warns the Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors' advocacy organization based in Alexandria, Va.

Despite a provision in the bill that would prevent individuals who performed illegal work and then obtained a Social Security number after 2007 from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid in previous years, the legislation, according to the League, does nothing to prevent aliens who illegally obtained "non-work" Social Security numbers prior to 2004 from claiming benefits.

Between 1974 and 2003, the Social Security Administration issued more than seven million "non-work" Social Security numbers, which entitled some foreign nationals – some of whom were illegal aliens – to services such as Medicaid and food stamps, says Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst for the League.

According to the League, the majority of non-work Social Security numbers were issued during an era of less restrictive immigration policy; in some cases, aliens didn't need proof of citizenship to receive a number.

Despite their "non-work" status, the League maintains that millions performed unlawful work, and under the Senate legislation currently being considered, this group would be eligible for Social Security benefits.

"The Senate is telling the American people that illegal aliens wouldn't be able to collect Social Security benefits under this immigration deal, and that is flat wrong," says Shannon Benton, executive director of TREA Senior Citizens League. "The truth is that illegal aliens would receive more than double in Social Security benefits what American taxpayers have spent so far on the war in Iraq."

According to the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be completely exhausted by 2041.

Phillips: The original Section 607 of the immigration bill would prevent individuals receiving a Social Security number after 2007 from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid in previous years. But that doesn't preclude those who received a Social Security number PRIOR to 2007 -- including those who received these "non-work" Social Security numbers from 1974 through 2003, even if they were illegal workers -- from collecting on their illegally performed work.

Phillips: Yes, an amendment offered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., would re-write the provision to preclude Social Security credits for periods without work authorization, and reads: "Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of subsections (a) and (b), no quarter of coverage shall be credited for any calendar year beginning on or after January 1, 2004, with respect to an individual who is not a natural-born United States citizen, unless the Commissioner of Social Security determines, on the basis of information provided to the Commissioner in accordance with an agreement entered into under subsection (d) or otherwise, that the individual was authorized to be employed in the United States during such quarter."

That's still problematic, because as you can see, it doesn't deal with any dates prior to 2004, which is the period which we are concerned with. The language would need to be amended to deal with either dates prior to 2004, or to deal with "non-work" Social Security numbers.

Phillips: The Hutchison amendment passed – but, unfortunately, in final form it covered only through 2004. It's still useless for the "non-work" people, since the "non-work" period was 1974-2003.

Perhaps an article in today's Houston Chronicle best explains what happened: "Hutchison sought to deny Social Security credit for all time worked under illegal status. But her amendment, accepted by the Senate during the earlier floor debate, was pared to deny work credits only to illegal immigrants who obtained legitimate Social Security numbers after January 2004. Otherwise, the amendment could have required changes in the 2004 Social Security Protection Act, triggering the opposition of powerful senators."

Phillips: Between 1974 and 2003, the Social Security Administration issued more than seven million "non-work" Social Security numbers. According to Government Accountability Office testimony, the non-work cards are for people not eligible to work in the United States. The SSA sends recipients of these SSNs a card that bears the inscription NOT VAID FOR EMPLOYMENT.

To be issued these cards, non-citizens who do not have DHS [Department of Homeland Security] permission to work must have been found eligible to receive a federally-funded benefit or are subject to a state or local law that requires them to have an SSN to get public benefits. Examples include SSI, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.

The SS numbers continue to be issued but SSA has greatly reduced the number it issues. In 2005 the number was fewer than 15,000.

NewsMax: Say, someone who worked illegally on a not valid for employment card files in the future for benefits. Why wouldn't the feds be free to simply say ‘nice try' but you weren't eligible to work in such-in-such a period, go away?

Phillips: That's the trillion dollar question. It would require a change in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004. Based on Senator Hutchison's comments, she faced stiff opposition from the other side when she tried to do so, so she had no other choice but to let it go. That's just my speculation, though.

At NewsMax's request, the League's Mary Johnson threw some more light on this nettlesome 2004 Social Security Protection Act.

She explained that according to the Congressional Research Service, the 2004 Social Security Protection Act restricts payment of Social Security benefits to certain immigrants who file an application for benefits based on a Social Security number assigned on or after January 1, 2004.

Specifically, a non-citizen who files an application for benefits based on an SSN assigned on or after January 1, 2004 is required to have work authorization at the time an SSN is assigned or at some later time, to gain insured status under Social Security.


If an individual gains work authorization at some point, Johnson adds, all of his or her earnings would count toward insured status and in figuring the initial retirement benefit, even earnings while working illegally.

"Moreover, the Congressional Research Service has opined that a non-citizen who files an application for benefits on an SSN assigned before January 1, 2004, is NOT subject to the work authorization requirement," Johnson says.

"Thus, all of the individual's Social Security covered earnings would count toward insured status REGARDLESS of his or her work authorization status. In other words, those immigrants may qualify for Social Security without ever having legally worked," Johnson concludes.

Johnson further explains that her League lobbies for the law to be changed to better protect Social Security from the costs of illegal work. "We do not know the specific reasons why members of Congress would resist Hutchinson's attempt to strengthen this aspect of law protecting Social Security and the benefits of their constituents."

Quoted from bumblethru

I agree...but it should be taken out like 401k's. Through our employers as opposed to the government taking it for us.

The downside...what about the people who don't work? Be it by choice or unfortunate circumstance. Who will support them? And where will their supportive money come from?

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March  
163 Princetown Road, Rotterdam, NY 12306
PH 518-847-6897  


President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500



Dear President Bush:

We are absolutely disgusted with your support of S. 1348, a bill which would grant amnesty to millions of lawbreakers and hurt millions of Americans who find it difficult to find work. This is not the legacy you want.

Some people say that businesses need more workers. Others say that there are jobs that Americans just won't do. This is a load of codswallop. There are millions of Americans who are currently seeking jobs so that they may give their families a better life. Why are you seeking to destroy their chances?

S. 1348 includes a guestworker program. These provisions, along with many others, are farces. Guest worker programs will lead to more future illegal immigration, there is no exit system to stop future illegal aliens from overstaying their visas, the watered-down enforcement measures aren't paid for but the amnesty (legal residence and right to work) is guaranteed, and all of the enforcement "triggers" have been carefully worded so that they are all about procedures and not about results.

The public isn't as stupid as the architects of this bill would like to believe. We know to be suspicious when a bill touted as the largest overhaul of our immigration laws is written behind closed doors, we know what a loophole is, and we know that if we steal a car, we don't get to keep the car by paying a fine and passing a driving test.

By supporting this bill, you are placing yourself among the architects of this bill and, considering the public outcry over S. 1348, that is not the place I would want to be.  
Sincerely,

Mr. Kevin March  

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March  
163 Princetown Road, Rotterdam, NY 12306
PH 518-847-6897  


Senator Charles Schumer
SH-313, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510



Dear Senator Schumer:

Your vote against the Coburn Amendment to S. 1348 was a vote against current immigration law.

SA 1311 would have added some teeth to the underlying measure's so-called enforcement "triggers" and would surely have delayed the granting of any amnesty to illegal aliens or the importation of any additional "temporary" non-immigrant workers. Specifically, the Coburn Amendment required DHS, in addition to the mechanisms needed to "trigger" implementation of the bill's amnesty and guestworker provisions, to certify the implementation of various border security and interior enforcement measures (e.g., all statutorily-required border fencing has been constructed, US-VISIT is fully operational, "sanctuary cities" are prohibited, denying aliens who are likely to become public charges admission into the United States, etc.). It also required the president to certify that all of these "triggering" mechanisms are fully implemented and operational and, subsequently, required Congress to approve the certification -- all of this prior to implementation of amnesty and guestworker provisions.

It would behoove you to remember that most of the voters who elected you decry amnesty.  
Sincerely,

Mr. Kevin March  

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March  
163 Princetown Road, Rotterdam, NY 12306
PH 518-847-6897  


Senator Hillary Clinton
SR - 476, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515



Dear Senator Clinton:

I'm counting on you to resist pressure to revive the S. 1348 guestworker-amnesty zombie.


This idea to give massive rewards to illegal aliens and illegal employers just won't seem to die. The House killed the idea last year. Then, the Senate killed it again last week by voting against cloture on S. 1348.

But like a zombie, it has risen from the dead yet again and is haunting the halls of Congress this week.

This bill needs to stay dead. Not only would it give access to permanent legal residence and jobs to 12-20 million illegal aliens, but it includes giant loopholes in enforcement that will ensure that illegal immigration will continue at a rapid pace in the future. Plus, it would dramatically increase Chain Migration for the next 18 years.

Let this idea rest in peace. Please, finally do SOMETHING for the residents of New York State. I know that there's not much in consideration for people who live above the city line, but there are many of us and we are outraged at this type of thing.

If you are in the Senate to help the residents of New York State, then just think what voting for this bill means. Millions of additional constituents...for other senators across the United States, especially in the southwest. Where is the money that you would fight to get for New York State going to go? To pay for the medical bills and for the daily living of these residents instead of the New York State Taxpayers.  
Phone me if you would like to talk about this,

Mr. Kevin March  

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March  
163 Princetown Road, Rotterdam, NY 12306
PH 518-847-6897  


Representative Michael McNulty
2161 Rayburn House Office Building, U.S. House
Washington, DC 20515



Dear Representative McNulty:

Please become a member of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

A 2006 Zogby poll found that Americans want less, not more, immigration. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said immigration should be reduced so those already here are allowed to assimilate.

When given a neutral choice (avoiding terms like "amnesty" and "illegal alien"), Americans favor the enforcement-only approach of H.R. 4437, which was passed by the House in the 109th Congress over Senate proposals of last year to legalize illegal aliens and double annual immigration from one to two million – and they do so by a margin of more than two to one (64 percent to 30 percent).

In light of this, it seems to me that joining the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, which is working for an enforcement-only approach, is one of the best things you can do to win favor with your constituents.

If you do decide that this is something that you would still like, please explain to me how you think it would benefit you. In fact, with this number of people becoming legal residents of this country, it would have a great impact on the House of Representatives. This, in fact, could go as far as causing redistricting to need to be done, sending additional seats to represent these new "Legal Residents." Well, since the House of Representatives stays at 435 seats, no matter what the population of the Unites States is, it seems that there would be more districts in the southwest, and therefore, fewer in New York State. Voting Yes on this bill could cost you your job in one of two ways. Either from an election standpoint (I will make it evident to everyone in your district your stance, or non-response on this) to vote you out of your office. Unless you would like the other option. Maybe your district will be broken up into parts of other districts, just like has been discussed with doing with Schenectady County at times in the past. Please stand up and let the people be heard that we do NOT want this bill passed.  
Phone me if you would like to talk about this,

Mr. Kevin March  

Quoted Text

Curiosity expressed over reaction to Schwarzenegger's 'learn English' comment
Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com
June 20, 2007


An official English language advocate says he can't understand why recent comments by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger about the importance of immigrants learning English are being viewed by some as controversial.



Governor Schwarzenegger told the National Association of Hispanic Journalists that immigrants should avoid Spanish language media if they want to learn English quickly. He was responding to a question about how Hispanic students can improve academic performance. The California governor shared that when he emigrated from Austria to the United States, he rarely spoke German to anyone.
Jim Boulet, executive director of English First, says he cannot understand why some people are up in arms about his comments. "I just think that it's appalling for the governor to say, 'learn English,' and have that be considered a controversial statement in America," he observes.
Boulet believes those who have a problem with Schwarzenegger's stance are found only in a certain segment of the immigrant population. "The legal immigrants don't play that game," he says. "The illegal immigrants and the people who claim to represent them -- they're the ones who want to divide us all linguistically. And the people claim to represent them for one obvious reason; we've lost sight of the melting pot."
In addition, says Boulet, many Spanish-language media outlets do not relish the idea of immigrants learning English -- because then they would no longer be dependent on those outlets and the biases they project. "These publications are not disinterested purveyors of objective truth," he says. "Just like any other newspaper or radio program, they have a point of view."

Quoted Text

Queens Community House in Jackson Heights, N.Y., doesn’t advertise its free English courses, but for many years its lotteries for places in the class drew hordes that required police presence. A new system has eliminated the crowds — and the need for cops — but competition for spaces remains fierce: Three out of four applicants are turned away.

Quoted from bumblethru

I agree...but it should be taken out like 401k's. Through our employers as opposed to the government taking it for us.

The downside...what about the people who don't work? Be it by choice or unfortunate circumstance. Who will support them? And where will their supportive money come from?

Quoted Text

Senate heads toward more votes on immigration bill
BY JIM ABRAMS The Associated Press

   WASHINGTON — Senators pushing a new immigration policy appealed Sunday to wavering supporters ahead of renewed debate on securing the borders and dealing with 12 million undocumented immigrants.
   A fragile compromise was pulled from the Senate in early June, then resurrected after bipartisan negotiations with the White House. The bill awaits a crucial test vote this week. With several senators distancing themselves from the proposal, the outcome was too close to call.
   “We’ll see if between the two parties we have 60 votes” needed to keep the bill moving toward a final vote, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
   The measure would tighten borders, require workplace verification and create a guest worker program. It also would lay out a way by which the estimated 12 million people illegally in the U.S. could gain legal status and work toward citizenship.
   President Bush long has advocated an immigration overhaul. On Saturday, he urged lawmakers to “summon the courage” to support what could be the last major legislative achievement of his presidency. “The status quo is unacceptable,” he said in his weekly radio address.
   But he faces dissension from fellow Republicans who demand better border security and oppose any policy that suggests amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
   Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., last week said his support for the bill hinges on the outcome of a series of amendments agreed to as part of the compromise to revive the legislation.
   Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who has faced critical ads back home over his support for the bill, said Sunday, “I’m not committed to voting for the final product. The wheels may come off. But I am committed to trying.”
   Democrats have taken hits from their normal allies, including labor and some Hispanic groups. They say the proposal is bad for workers or that provisions for obtaining visas place too much emphasis on skills, to the disadvantage of family ties.
   “We know what they’re against. What are they for?” asked Sen. Edward Kennedy, DMass. He noted that since the Sept. 11 attacks, there have been 39 hearings on immigration, 23 days of debate in the Senate and 52 amendments.
   “We have a terrible problem in this country that demands an answer,” he said.
   But Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading critic of the legislation, argued that support for the bill continues to plummet, both among senators thought to be behind it and among the public.
   “We are going to use every effort to slow this process down and continue to hold up the bill,” he said.
   Senate passage would send the issue to the House, where Democratic leaders have promised to take it up at an early date.  

Quoted Text

Mr. Kevin March
163 Princetown Road
Schenectady, NY 12306-1023

Dear Mr. March

I am in receipt of your communication regarding immigration.

I support secure borders and our country needs to do a much better job in that regard.

I believe in a reasoned approach to immigration legislation and I am carefully reviewing any proposals affecting our national immigration policy.

Thank you for contacting me.  Please feel free to do so whenever there is a matter of interest or concern.

Sincerely
/s/
Michael R. McNulty
Member of Congress

MRM/jgs

Quoted Text

Immigration Bill Fails Crucial Test Vote
Thursday, June 28, 2007

By Major Garrett and Trish Turner



WASHINGTON —  A defiant group of senators refused to continue down the path of a widely unpopular immigration reform bill Thursday, putting up a roadblock on a procedural debate and squeezing out any time left to work on one of President Bush's top domestic priorities.

Even before the end of the vote, FOX News had tallied 15 vote changes from two days earlier, putting an end to the doomed legislation.

As day broke Thursday ahead of a vote to cut off debate, it appeared only the White House believed the bill could be saved. An increasing number of senior Senate aides and outside lobbyists who support the bill reconciled themselves to defeat.

"I'm not building my afternoon around the idea we save this bill," a senior Republican Senate aide told FOX News.

"We're doing everything we can, but things do not look good and, honestly, it will take a miracle to keep it alive," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a key advocacy group that helped draft the legislation.

"All we're hoping for is senator's waking up, looking in the mirror and changing their mind and keeping the bill alive," said another pro-bill lobbyist.

Senate leaders began to see the writing on the wall as tallies for the necessary 60 votes on Thursday morning's crucial procedural vote had lost critical support.

Republican Sens. Pete Sessions of Alabama and Jim DeMint of South Carolina remarked on the Senate floor that the sergeant-at-arms' office told them that the volume of calls leading up to the immigration vote was so high it had crashed the phone system, and no one was able to get through during morning debate.

Before the vote on the Senate floor, bill supporters made one last, passionate pitch to keep the bill alive.

"This is a vote of enormous importance," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a co-author of the bill along with Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl. "This is really the vital vote about the future of the country or the past. Every person that votes no has to know this situation is going to get worse and worse and worse."

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called the bill "the very best that can be done."

"Let us finish this bill," implored Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "To cut this bill off now is a huge mistake. We are so close."

Despite those pleas, a FOX News tally of senators ahead of the vote revealed that at least four of the 64 senators who voted Tuesday to bring the bill back to the Senate were going to vote to curtail debate.

Another eight other senators who also voted to bring the bill back before the Senate now described themselves as leaning against the vote or undecided.

Opponents appeared to sense that victory was within grasp. DeMint said the whole debate demonstrated why Americans are feeling a "crisis of confidence" in their government.

"This immigration bill has become a war between the American people and their government. ... This vote today is really not about immigration, it's about whether we're going to listen to the American people," he said.

"I don't pretend to know that I am on the right side or the wrong side of the American people," responded Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a supporter of the bill who added that once the provisions are explained to Americans, polls show they overwhelmingly support it.

Another Republican, New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici once supported the bill. Up for re-election in 2008, he told FOX News that Republicans are "getting hammered here at home and for what? Something that doesn't even have the chance of becoming law? No. This bill is going down. ... Why are we having all these big amendments? They (supporters) don't even know what's in this bill. We learned it's not even enforceable. I just don't think I can support this bill."

Many lawmakers who changed their mind and voted against the bill added that they didn't see the point of wasting their time when the bill was going to die in the House of Representatives. On Tuesday, only 23 of the 201 Republican congressman said they supported the bill.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus also were unsuccessful in lobbying their colleagues in the upper chamber, canceling a morning meeting to make last-minute calls for passage.

Quoted Text

Immigration Defeat Helps Democrats in ‘08

Thursday’s defeat of the immigration bill will boost the chances of a Democratic victory in 2008, giving Hillary Clinton – the probable Democratic candidate – a strong advantage, according to political strategist private Morris.

"Hispanic voters will undoubtedly blame the Republicans for the failure of the bill,” says Morris, co-author with Eileen McGann of the new book "Outrage: How Illegal Immigration, the United Nations, Congressional Ripoffs, Student Loan Overcharges, Tobacco Companies, Trade Protection, and Drug Companies Are Ripping Us Off . . . and What to Do About It."

"In 2004, George Bush made progress among Latino voters, coming within 10 points of John Kerry among Hispanics after losing them by 30 points to Al Gore four years before. But in 2006, Latinos voted Democrat by more than 40 points, according to exit polls, because of their anger at the harsh Republican immigration proposals.

"Now that the Republicans have defeated the immigration bill, they will very likely pay a steep price at the polls in 2008.”


Supporters of President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.


Morris added that the price Republicans will pay "is likely to be compounded by the probability that a Democratic Congress and president after the 2008 election will pass some form of immigration reform, probably a bill even more to the liking of the Hispanic community than the Bush proposal Congress just defeated.”

Quoted Text

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1639 )  
Vote Number:  235 Vote Date:  June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM
Required For Majority:  3/5 Vote Result:  Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number:  S. 1639
Measure Title:  A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 46
NAYs 53
Not Voting 1

Grouped by Home State
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea

Quoted Text

Price: “Our first and foremost priority is securing our nations borders and enforcing the rule of law.”
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Washington, DC – Rep. Tom Price (GA-06-R) issued the following statement after the Democrat Senate passed a motion to proceed with debate on the immigration compromise legislation (S. 1639).

“Many Americans are guarded and suspicious of the action taken by the Democrat Senate yesterday,” said Price, “and I join with them in expressing our reasonable concerns. We have little faith in a government that has promised border security in the past, coupled it with a path to citizenship, and then only enacted the latter half. We should not go down the same path again.

“Comprehensive reform can only occur if we proceed in an orderly and sequential fashion where certain parameters and benchmarks of success are met before moving forward. Logically, border security must come first. It is the cornerstone of any realistic reform. Once we establish security at the border and actually stop the leak in our boat, then we can move forward with a plan to address the consequences caused by years of inaction.

“Thankfully, border security is not only imperative to earn back the trust of the American people; it is the common thread that is present throughout all immigration reform proposals. Before we take on the momentous challenge of working out our differences, let’s build on something upon which we can all agree: border security and border control.”

Quoted Text

Price: “Our first and foremost priority is securing our nations borders and enforcing the rule of law.”
Washington, DC – Rep. Tom Price (GA-06-R) issued the following statement after the Democrat Senate passed a motion to proceed with debate on the immigration compromise legislation (S. 1639).

“Many Americans are guarded and suspicious of the action taken by the Democrat Senate yesterday,” said Price, “and I join with them in expressing our reasonable concerns. We have little faith in a government that has promised border security in the past, coupled it with a path to citizenship, and then only enacted the latter half. We should not go down the same path again.

“Comprehensive reform can only occur if we proceed in an orderly and sequential fashion where certain parameters and benchmarks of success are met before moving forward. Logically, border security must come first. It is the cornerstone of any realistic reform. Once we establish security at the border and actually stop the leak in our boat, then we can move forward with a plan to address the consequences caused by years of inaction.

“Thankfully, border security is not only imperative to earn back the trust of the American people; it is the common thread that is present throughout all immigration reform proposals. Before we take on the momentous challenge of working out our differences, let’s build on something upon which we can all agree: border security and border control.”

Quoted Text

“Comprehensive reform can only occur if we proceed in an orderly and sequential fashion where certain parameters and benchmarks of success are met before moving forward. Logically, border security must come first. It is the cornerstone of any realistic reform. Once we establish security at the border and actually stop the leak in our boat, then we can move forward with a plan to address the consequences caused by years of inaction.

Quoted Text

Cops say men were in country illegally  
  
By JORDAN CARLEO-EVANGLIST, Staff writer
Tuesday, July 3, 2007

NEW BALTIMORE -- Two illegal immigrants carrying forged identification documents were arrested early this morning on the Thruway in Greene County after troopers watched their car pull over to the side of road and discovered the pair were intoxicated, State Police said.
  
When troopers stopped to check on the men, they discovered both were allegedly intoxicated and admitted being in the country illegally.

Mario Veles-Francisco, 28, of Mexico City, was charged with driving while intoxicated and possessing a forged social security card, police said.

Edward Lopez, 26, of Malancha, Guatemala, was charged with possessing a forged resident alien card, police said.

The men were arraigned in New Baltimore and ordered held at the Greene County Jail with no bail and are also being detained on a federal immigration hold, authorities said.

Quoted Text

Immigration Reform Bill was a misnomer

The “immigration reform bill” is dead! But if Congress had been required to adhere to the truth in advertising laws with which we citizens must, the bill would have been titled “The Cheap Labor and Communicable Disease Importation Act.”
JOHN FUGAZZI
Scotia

Quoted Text

E.J. Dionne
Distrust in gov’t killed immigration bill
E.J. Dionne is a nationally syndicated columnist.

   The United States is a cranky nation in a crabby mood. To relieve our distemper, we need leadership we’re now lacking and a citizenry with greater hope in its democratic capacities.
   The defeat last week of the immigration bill is the most obvious manifestation of how economic anxiety and a loss of faith in the federal government’s competence have conspired to make it far easier for politicians to say “no” than “yes,” to reject compromise on difficult questions, and to assume that voters will respond to big initiatives with mistrust.
   Let it be said that while the bill suffered from disinformation campaigns and some ugly anti-Latino agitation, opposition to this well-meaning but ungainly immigration compromise was certainly not confined to mean-spirited nativists.
   As a matter of simple political math, the bill’s opponents were more mobilized and more ardent than its supporters. Concessions designed to buy conservative support won few converts among restrictionists, but drove down the enthusiasm level among Latinos, business groups and liberals favorably disposed toward granting a path to citizenship for some 12 million illegal immigrants.
   Under the circumstances, it was politically more attractive to make Lou Dobbs happy than to give President Bush a victory. Republican senators — three-quarters of whom voted to block the bill — seemed eager to declare their independence from Bush and to appease an angry part of the electorate whose votes they need next year. They will pay a price among Latino voters — a price these Republicans decided was worth paying.
   But there was a larger reason why this bill crashed. About two weeks before it died, I sat down with Sen. Evan Bayh, DInd., who up to that point had voted to let the bill go forward. Bayh was blue about the legislation’s prospects and his explanation had more to do with the political climate than with its particulars — although he cited some of those in explaining why he voted, in the end, to block a measure he called “a theoretical hodgepodge.”
   “The timing of this is all wrong,” Bayh said. “There’s a tremendous amount of middle-class anxiety in the country right now,” and anger over immigration reflected “the complete lack of a domestic agenda to address the needs of the middle class” in areas such as health care, pensions and education. When voters saw Congress directing its attention to 12 million illegal immigrants, he said, “they asked: ’When are you going to get around to me? Are you going to get around to me?’”
   Bayh himself strongly favors legalizing the status of the 12 million. He opposed some of the bill’s more punitive sections and sided with Latino groups in trying to strengthen the rules on family reunifi cation.
   But he said he understood why many voters weren’t buying immigration reform this year. “When people are feeling more secure about their own situations, they’re more willing to welcome others,” he said in a follow-up interview on Monday. “If we had moved first to address the middle class’ anxieties, we would have had a much better chance of success.”
   And the strongest arguments in the restrictionists’ arsenal played on a widespread belief that the federal government was too incompetent to enforce whatever tough provisions the bill contained. Bayh pointed to poor planning for the Iraq War and the failure to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina as leading inevitably to skepticism. “A government that’s going to permit that is suddenly going to know how to make an entirely new employment system work?” Bayh asked.
   The skepticism about government is currently directed against Bush, against conservatives and against Republicans. But this should give Democrats little comfort. As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg argues in the current issue of The American Prospect, “there is a perverse consequence brought about by the scale of conservatives’ failure.”
   The problem, Greenberg says, “is that conservatives have failed in ways that have undermined Americans’ sense of collective capacity. Their failure has communicated not just their own incompetence, but also the message that government in general is incompetent.
   ”By failing so dramatically,“ Greenberg continues, ”conservatives have created a significant roadblock for Democrats: They have undermined people’s faith in the very instrument that we as progressives want to use to solve problems.“
   The belief that government action is futile ultimately killed the immigration bill, and it could block large-scale reform efforts for a long time to come. A cranky nation rarely undertakes great tasks, especially when achieving them demands a degree of trust, and hope.  

Quoted Text

Immigration complexities lead to mushy moderation
Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Mona Charen

   “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
— Thomas Jefferson
   It was not his finest moment. Jefferson was writing from Paris and referring not, as is commonly believed, to the French Revolution (which was yet two years off) but to Shays’ Rebellion. Still, it refl ected his views on the French Revolution as well, as he would later write, “Rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated.”
   But while a tolerance for bloodshed in the name of liberty evokes a shudder, Jefferson’s insight that the spirit of liberty needs refreshing from time to time does recommend itself — and it is relevant to our current divisions over immigration.
   I’ve been quiet on this debate because I find myself in the unfamiliar position of moderate. I cannot rejoice with so many of my conservative friends over the defeat of immigration reform, yet neither would I have been happy to see the legislation passed in the form it was offered. I don’t think we have begun to deal properly with the immigration problem because I believe it implicates other questions, like those of education, welfare and national identity.
   I persist in feeling well disposed toward those who wish to become Americans (particularly Catholics from Latin America, as I believe these are eminently assimilable populations), and I do fret that the Republican Party may have inflicted serious political damage on itself by appearing to be antiimmigrant. I have heard nothing to convince me that the illegal immigration problem is not a reflection of legal immigration quotas that are too low. We have a full employment economy and a poor neighbor to the south. Is it any shock that employers are loath to turn away willing workers or that impoverished people are streaming across the Rio Grande? Are these low-skilled workers? You bet. Do we need them? Arguably yes.
   According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only about half of the population aged 25-29 in 1950 held a high school diploma. By 2000, the black high school graduation rate was 83.7 percent and the white rate was 91.8 percent. High school graduates tend not to seek agricultural, household, meatpacking or lawn work.
   On the other hand, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation and others who point out the heavy demands immigrants place on the social welfare system are very persuasive. They argue that with the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, education, health costs and other programs, each legal immigrant is actually a net drain on the public purse (and though few say so out loud, the obvious corollary is that illegals are actually a fiscal bargain, though this is hardly an argument for permitting widespread flouting of the law).
   Honest advocates of the failed immigration law, like economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute, acknowledge this and respond that we have a “welfare problem not an immigration problem.”
   I agree. But let’s be realistic. What are the chances of passing welfare reform when the Republican Party is ailing? And what are the chances of passing an immigration reform that would deny to new immigrants access to welfare when the Democrats’ criticism of the existing bill was that it was insufficiently generous?
   What then of Jefferson? The greatest benefit of immigration by far is not what it does for the immigrant (though that is huge) but what it does for America — assuring a steady stream of newcomers who do not take the blessings of liberty for granted but cherish them. Many opponents of immigration are worried about diluting our culture. I’m far more worried about the hollowing out from within. We scarcely teach our own children to love America, far less inculcate patriotism in immigrants.
   If I were writing the law all by myself, I’d increase the legal immigration levels, beef up border enforcement, establish a national ID card so that we could really know who is here, and reform welfare so that only those who truly want to work would be tempted to immigrate. I’d also reform education to convey the greatness of this nation (warts and all). So here I am, in the awkward middle.

Quoted Text

   What then of Jefferson? The greatest benefit of immigration by far is not what it does for the immigrant (though that is huge) but what it does for America — assuring a steady stream of newcomers who do not take the blessings of liberty for granted but cherish them. Many opponents of immigration are worried about diluting our culture. I’m far more worried about the hollowing out from within. We scarcely teach our own children to love America, far less inculcate patriotism in immigrants.

Quoted Text

   If I were writing the law all by myself, I’d increase the legal immigration levels,

Quoted Text

beef up border enforcement,

Quoted Text

and reform welfare so that only those who truly want to work would be tempted to immigrate.

Quoted Text

I’d also reform education to convey the greatness of this nation (warts and all). So here I am, in the awkward middle.

Quoted Text

Some immigrants denied marriage licenses  
  
By TRAVIS LOLLER, Associated Press
Thursday, July 12, 2007

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A federal law that requires people to supply their Social Security number when applying for a marriage license has forced thousands of couples around the country, particularly illegal immigrants, to put their wedding plans on hold.
  
The law has been on the books for about a decade and was intended to make it easier to collect child support payments. But in some places it has prevented even legal immigrants and some American citizens from getting married.

Some couples are traveling to other states or other counties willing to issue them marriage licenses.

Jonadad Luque, a Honduran immigrant legally in the U.S., wants to marry his girlfriend, with whom he has two children, ages 1 and 5. But the county clerk in Nashville would not issue them a license because his girlfriend is in the country illegally and does not have a Social Security number.

"I have a Social Security number, a driver's license and permission to work," Luque said in Spanish. "We want to get married, but we'll have to wait until they change the law."

John Arriola, the county clerk in Nashville, said he would like to see the law changed, but for now he has to obey it.

Federal law requires states to record the Social Security numbers of all applicants for a professional license, driver's license, recreational license or marriage license. And Social Security numbers are not available to those who are in this country illegally or do not have permission to work.

But whether and how the law is enforced varies dramatically from state to state, and even from county to county, with some authorities interpreting the law as saying that only those people who already have Social Security numbers need to supply them.

Illegal immigrants are encountering less trouble getting married in places that have established immigrant communities. In Texas and New York City, for instance, officials ask for Social Security numbers but do not require them.

The Los Angeles County registrar's office says it does not require any proof of residency or citizenship status. And in North Carolina, people without Social Security numbers can present an affidavit stating they are ineligible for one.

The laws are often more strict in states where large immigrant populations are a recent phenomenon. In Tennessee and Alabama, for example, some county clerks are using the law to prevent illegal immigrants from getting marriage licenses.

Immigration attorneys say the law was not designed to keep people from getting married.

"There's a fundamental U.S. constitutional right to marry," said Charles Baesler, an immigration lawyer in Kentucky and chairman of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Southeast chapter.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled last month that a county official could not require a man to prove he was legally in the country before issuing a marriage license to him and his American fiancee.

The Rev. Joseph Breen of Nashville's St. Edward Catholic Church, which has a large Hispanic congregation, said he became concerned about the number of couples in his parish, some with children, who had been unable to marry legally.
So the church drove about 20 couples across the state line to Kentucky for licenses and a civil wedding ceremony before bringing them back to Nashville for a church wedding.
"We call ourselves a Christian country, but you've got to go to Georgia or Kentucky in order to get married," Breen said. "We're supposed to be pro-family."

The Rev. Neil Pezzulo, a Roman Catholic priest in rural Arkansas' Scott County, said immigrant couples keep coming in with marriage licenses issued in a neighboring county with a more liberal policy.

Scott County Clerk Sandy Staggs said state law requires a Social Security number, but for people who don't have one, her office also accepts a birth certificate, translated into English, and a photo ID.

As for how the policy could differ from one county to the next, Pezzulo said: "My suspicion is it has to do more with religious and political agendas than an understanding of the law."

Quoted Text

'No Drug Smuggler Left Behind!'
by Ann Coulter  

President Bush was so buoyed by the warm reception he was given in Albania that he immediately gave all 3 million Albanians American citizenship, provided they learn Spanish. The offer was withdrawn when Bush found out most Albanians haven't broken any U.S. laws.

Bush keeps claiming he's dying to enforce the border, but he just can't do it unless we immediately grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. I wonder if that worked on Laura Bush:

Laura: George, it's time you quit drinking.

George: OK, honey, let's discuss it over cocktails.


How about Bush enforce the border and then we'll discuss his amnesty plan?

He assures us that granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already here won't inspire millions more to run across the border because ... he's going to put infrared lights at the border!

Well, that's a relief. What precisely will infrared lights do again? This is worse than those fake cameras they sell at hardware stores to make it look like you have cameras outside your house. We still need something or someone -- say, a wall or a Border Patrol agent -- to stop the Mexicans illegally crossing the border as we watch them on the infrared cameras.  

Bush won't build a wall and he keeps prosecuting law enforcement officers who stop illegal border crossers. But trust him: He'll get right on that border enforcement business as soon as we grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean are normally the sort of Mexican-Americans Bush would tear up at while promoting amnesty for illegal aliens. Both served in the military and are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. They've been risking their lives as Border Patrol agents for years.

Ramos was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year in 2005. His nomination received a major setback when the Bush administration decided to put him in prison instead. Ramos and Compean are now serving more than 10 years apiece in solitary confinement for chasing a drug-running illegal alien back to Mexico.

Bush's pal, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, gave immunity to a Mexican drug dealer hauling a million dollars worth of drugs across the border so that the drug dealer could testify against two Border Patrol agents who shot him in the buttocks.

The border patrol agents were presumed guilty of an unlawful shooting because they neglected to fill out the proper paperwork. For busting a cap in the butt of a drug courier crossing the border illegally -- who was so mortally wounded that he proceeded to scamper back to Mexico -- they were supposed to spend five hours filling out paperwork. This is what the Bush administration means when it talks about a "cover-up." As U.S. prosecutor Debra Kanof said, "You have to report any discharge of a firearm."

Intriguingly, Kanof also says: "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone." (Hence, the oft-heard warning of the border agent in hot pursuit, "Stop or I'll ... do absolutely nothing!") Can we apply this rule to meter maids and tax collectors? At least now border agents will be able to watch the illegal aliens they can't pursue on infrared cameras!

But wait -- that's not all! The Border Patrol agents also exceeded the speed limit. "In order to exceed the speed limit," Kanof said, "you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not." It's just so hard to fill out a written request to exceed the speed limit when you're off-roading at 65 mph. There's a whispering campaign suggesting that Ramos and Compean failed to use their turn signal.

As I understand it, you're also supposed to not cross the border illegally from Mexico with a van full of drugs. But the Bush administration has no interest in enforcing those laws. Ninety-eight percent of illegal aliens captured crossing the border illegally are not prosecuted. Those drugs are doing the job American drugs just won't do!

The Bush administration pulls out the big guns only for serious violations like a Border Patrol officer not filling out paperwork.

In addition to giving the illegal alien drug smuggler full immunity to testify against U.S. Border Patrol agents, the government gave him taxpayer-funded medical care for his buttocks wound, an unconditional border-crossing card, the right to sue the U.S. for "civil rights" violations, and a GAP gift card. The drug runner is also on the short-list to replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

He's now suing the U.S. for $5 million, but the Bush administration is hoping to bargain him down to $10 million.

That border-crossing card came in handy when the winged illegal alien brought in another load of drugs a short eight months later -- for which he has still not been charged, nearly two years later. Who does he think he is? Rep. William Jefferson?

Bush's pal Sutton keeps defending his decision to prosecute Border Patrol agents for paperwork violations, rather than an illegal alien for drug trafficking, on the grounds that the drug dealer has not been charged with any crimes. Let's see, whose job is it to charge that Mexican drug runner with a crime? Why, I believe that would be Johnny Sutton!

Maybe Sutton was too busy prosecuting another Mexican-American law enforcement officer for trying to stop illegal aliens from crossing our border. Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez shot at the tires of a van full of illegal aliens, inadvertently wounding one of them. Sutton prosecuted Hernandez. The government proceeded to give the illegal aliens green cards and $100,000 each.

I didn't realize "living in the shadows" meant in the shadows of palm trees around the pools at taxpayer-funded houses.

Illegal aliens might want to rethink Bush's amnesty plan. The only Hispanics Bush seems to prosecute are the ones who are law-abiding U.S. citizens.

Quoted Text

Immigration issue is really about cheap labor
MARIO CASSELLA Fort Johnson

   The July 8 column by E.J. Dionne fails to mention the fact that crossing our border illegally is not immigration. There is a system in place. I know, because my father used it years ago. This is about cheap labor. Let’s tell it as it is.

Quoted Text

IFCO foreman enters guilty plea
Probe continues as prosecutors say he helped steer undocumented workers to firm with plant in Guilderland  
  
By JORDAN CARLEO-EVANGELIST, Staff writer
First published: Tuesday, July 17, 2007

ALBANY -- For years, Abelino Chicas helped steer illegal workers to pallet plants in Texas and across the country -- arranging to transport and train them and calming their fears of detection by immigration officials.
Chicas, 41, admitted Monday to his role in what prosecutors call IFCO Systems North America's systematic hiring of illegal labor, an alleged practice that lies at the heart of an ongoing federal investigation.

  
In pleading guilty to helping harbor and transport illegal immigrant workers, Chicas admitted to, among other things, ignoring that many of the workers often had no documentation or had work papers that were clearly fake.

The guilty plea, the latest development in a sprawling nationwide immigration crackdown with its nexus in suburban Albany, was seventh among current and former midlevel managers at IFCO -- all of whom had some ties to the company's Guilderland Center plant.

Chicas, a native of El Salvador who later became a U.S. citizen, served since 1990 as a recruiter of Hispanic workers first for Texas Pallet Company and later IFCO, which bought the company in 2000, according to prosecutors.

It was in that capacity that Chicas, who was based in Houston, came to the company's plant at Northeastern Industrial Park.

There, he helped local managers recruit workers and later tried to convince some to come back to work in 2005 after federal immigration authorities raided one of the houses where the company had been boarding them.

Chicas faces up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines for the felony conviction. He said little during the 30-minute hearing in federal court, other than answering standard questions from U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. The questions were translated into Spanish for Chicas by an interpreter.

Chicas, who worked as a foreman and systems manager in a Houston area plant, is the third IFCO employee to admit to a felony. Four others have admitted to misdemeanors linked to hiring the illegal workers.

The cases against two others continue. William Hoskins, a manager at the company's Cincinnati plant, was indicted in April for his alleged role. Misael Romero, who prosecutors say is an illegal immigrant from Honduras and a former foreman at the Guilderland plant, remains at large.

The case went public in April 2006 when federal immigration authorities raided more than 40 IFCO plants around the country, rounding up nearly 1,200 illegal workers. At the time, the raids were the largest of their kind.

Six of the defendants were to have been sentenced in June, but a federal judge postponed the proceedings. The reasons were never made public, but the delay could mean prosecutors are banking on their help to prosecute Hoskins and other IFCO managers they continue to investigate.

On Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tina Sciocchetti would say only that the investigation continues.

In February, federal prosecutors vowed to try to target higher-level IFCO officials who also may have been involved in hiring illegal workers. But IFCO has denied intentionally pursuing illegal labor describing those arrested as "lower-level IFCO employees" who "were not part of any companywide plan, scheme or practice to violate the United States immigration laws."

Jordan Carleo-Evangelist can be reached at 454-5445 or by e-mail at jcarleo-evangelist@timesunion.com.

Quoted Text

Immigration key to U.S. population control
Froma Harrop is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Froma Harrop

   “Population Explosion” was a call to arms for American environmentalists 40 years ago, amid fears that baby boomers would have big families. That didn’t happen, but hyper-population-growth is occurring now due to large-scale immigration.
   California has just projected a population of 60 million by mid-century, up 5 million from its forecast of only three years ago. We’re talking about a 75 percent leap between 2000 and 2050 — by any measure, a population explosion.
   That’s the truth, but one that has sent many environmental leaders into hiding. Most of California’s population growth will come from immigrants and their relatively high birthrates, but the Sierra Club refuses to touch the matter. Once a tiger on U.S. population growth, it has retreated behind calls for a global approach that, it contends, will reduce the demands to immigrate to the United States.
   Problem. Despite great strides in reducing birthrates in many poor countries — Mexico is one of the success stories — the world’s population is still expected to jump to 9 billion from 6 billion by 2050. Mass immigration to the United States, if anything, eases the pressure on other governments to promote family planning.
   Not a few Sierra Club members have challenged the group’s spineless response to a spiraling American population. Prominent among them is private Lamm, the former Democratic governor of Colorado.
   “I can’t believe my friends who are still jerking their knees out of the ’60s,” says the always outspoken Lamm. “It’s really important to be sensitive, but I can’t understand the fact that we are not talking about issues that are fundamental to America’s future.”
   The prospect of 25 million more Californians in a mere 40 years — and the added cars, shopping malls, sprawling developments and lost species that implies — alarms a splinter group called Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization (www. susps.org).
   “With that kind of overpopulation, California is going to be importing virtually all the resources needed to sustain ourselves,” warns the faction’s co-chairman, private Schneider.
   A consultant on citizens’ growth-control ballot measures, Schneider says that California cities and towns will be pretty much on their own. Some may try to set zoning that balances their goals for open space, quality of life and projections for growth. That will require fighting off the real-estate developers who often dominate local governments and accepting a loss of state money.
   Demographers say that the population boom could be slowed if Californians refuse to build the roads and other infrastructure needed to accommodate the surge. The resulting congestion would stall the economy — attracting fewer people and prompting more Californians to relocate. This emigration, already well under way, would export California’s population pressures to Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and other Western states.
   This is what passes for population policy in the United States: Make people so miserable that they leave.
   There have been glimmers of liberal courage. In 1996, President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development called for a halt in population growth, citing mass immigration as a main driver. Population concerns took a back seat during the recent struggle over immigration reform. But because the bill would have vastly accelerated the numbers of legal entrants, its defeat ended up serving the cause.
   It really is time for a national population policy — an honest one.  

Quoted Text

Demographers say that the population boom could be slowed if Californians refuse to build the roads and other infrastructure needed to accommodate the surge. The resulting congestion would stall the economy — attracting fewer people and prompting more Californians to relocate. This emigration, already well under way, would export California’s population pressures to Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and other Western states.

Quoted Text

Immigration solution End economic disparity to resolve Mexican influx
BY EDWIN D. REILLY JR. For the Sunday Gazette

   I wrote last month that I’d tell you my solution to the problem of illegal immigration — as soon as I thought of one.
Here goes.
   Once there was a war, a very unpopular war. It almost started over a skirmish along the disputed Mexican border during the administration of Andrew Jackson, but he would have none of it. He had seen enough war even though his reputation was made when his forces won the Battle of New Orleans on Jan. 8, 1815.
   Actually, the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 had been signed on Dec. 24, 1814, but news of the peace did not reach New Orleans until February. In those days, the low-horsepower Internet moved messages at the rate of about 10 kilobits per month. Snail mail!
   Three presidents followed Jackson and then, in 1845, along came another administration and another skirmish, and the new president decided to give those Mexicans a Polk in the eye, principally to fulfill our Manifest Destiny.
MAJOR ACQUISITION
   Despite the temporary setback at the Alamo, superior force defeated the Mexican army and in 1848 the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave us undisputed control of Texas and, for an imposed payment of $15 million, close to half of Mexico’s former territory. Half!
   That was enough to give us California and all or parts of what eventually became the states of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming. The war and its outcome was vociferously opposed by young Congressman Abraham Lincoln, and a month before the end of the war, President James Polk was censured by Congress for “a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States.” (Sound familiar?)
   And as late as 1885, as former general and president Ulysses S. Grant composed his critically acclaimed memoirs on his deathbed, he wrote “to this day I regard the [Mexican] war as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.”
   The annexed territories contained about 8,000 Mexican families. Some moved farther south to what was left of Mexico; but the great majority remained in place and were declared citizens. And as is still the case, their children and a child born of any woman who happens to be in this country, legally or otherwise, is automatically a constitutional “natural born citizen” who, upon reaching age 35, is eligible to run for president.
PRESENT-DAY
   Now, fast forward to the present day. Even at half its original size, Mexico, a country of 109 million people, is the fifth largest country in the Americas and the 14th largest in the world. So why do so many Mexicans want to enter the United States? Because it is slightly cooler on our side of the border? Because of the simple human desire that so many of us have to at least visit, if not stay, in their ancestral homeland, the lands of their great-great-great-great grandparents? Well, most Mexican immigrants do settle in the Southwest, but no reader is likely to buy the theory just espoused. Almost certainly, the reason is economic.
   As evidence, consider this: Our northern border with Canada is just as porous as, and even longer than, that of our border with Mexico. But Canadians are not streaming into our country to get warmer or richer; their standard of living is comparable to ours. Judged by per capita income, Canada is the 19th most prosperous country of some 200 in the world, only 13 rungs below our own rank of six. (In case you are wondering, those ahead of us are Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark and Iceland. Just below us, from seven to 10, are Sweden, Ireland, Japan, and the United Kingdom.)
   Now, Mexico, on the whole, is not a poor country. It is the 45th most prosperous in the world, quite a bit above average, and its citizens have an average per capita income equal to that of Russia.
   Ah, but 45th is 39 steps below that of the United States. Nowhere else in the world are there two countries with a border anywhere near the length of ours with Mexico and Canada for which the disparity in rank is that large.
   More evidence: The 27 countries that compose the European Union allow any resident of one of them to move to another just as easily as we might move from one of our states to another. The fact that their citizens come in slightly different hues and collectively embrace 23 different languages is of no concern. They are all members of the same race — the human race.
   But consider these examples of how similar their rank is in per capita income: Netherlands 14, Belgium 15, Germany 16, France 17 and Italy 22. Another unifying factor is that 13 of the 27 countries use the euro as currency, and in due course, more will certainly follow.
   So, one way to curb illegal immigration from Mexico is for the United States to reduce the disparity in our respective per capita incomes. But this would require a great deal of American investment in Mexico, building industries and organizations that create jobs. There is not much chance that Congress would embark on the massive subsidies that would be needed to encourage this, but even gradual steps would help.
TWO TRENDS
   In fact, there are two trends that are tending to reduce the cited disparity. One is that Mexican-Americans in the United States send $20 billion per year back to kin in Mexico, an income stream second only to that country’s oil revenue. Another is the astounding fact that fully 25 percent of all Americans living abroad live in Mexico. (My definition of an astounding fact is one I learn while doing research for my opinion pieces.)
   A faster way to minimize income disparity would be to just buy Mexico. Since $15 million bought half of it in 1848, one might think that the 2007 equivalent of that, a trillion dollars perhaps, would be enough to buy the rest of it, with one proviso: When we “bought” half of Mexico, there was a national government left to give it to. This time, there wouldn’t be, so we’d have to allocate the money to the governors of their respective states in accord with their populations (or better, inversely to their current wealth).
   We would have to consolidate the new lands into fewer states, of course; two per each of 31 current Mexican states, 62, would be a bit much. In accord with a population proportionate to our own, the newly annexed lands would deserve only 36 senators.
   A better alternative would be to keep the current 31 Mexican states, but amend the Constitution to grant only one senator to each of the net 81 states. That would save the salaries of 19 senators, make it less likely that we’d ever elect a president who loses the popular vote, and lead to a new flag whose union would contain nine rows of nine stars, forming a perfect square. How fitting. Its very preamble states that the Constitution was ordained and established “in order to form a more perfect union.” Case closed.

Quoted Text

Immigration sense  
First published: Thursday, August 9, 2007

It never made much sense to build an expensive wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to keep illegal immigrants from pouring into this country. And it made little sense for some members of Congress to lock horns with President Bush over the best way to crack down on a growing illegal immigrant population already here -- a battle that accomplished nothing and ended last June with Mr. Bush's proposed immigration reform bill dying in the Senate.
In our view, and the view of many others, there has always been a much easier and more effective solution to this issue: Go after the U.S. employers who hire illegal workers, rather than chase, or try to fence out, the immigrants themselves. The only reason so many men and women from Mexico and Central America try to sneak into this country is the chance to work at higher wages than they would earn back home. For this opportunity, they literally put their lives on the line. And American employers welcome them as a ready source of cheap labor.

But if this cycle is broken -- that is, if there are no jobs for illegal workers who can be exploited by unscrupulous U.S. employers -- then the flow across our southern border will soon ebb. The trouble is, so many employers have come to depend on this labor pool that any attempt at reform, including a crackdown on employers, threatens their economic livelihood, and they have made their voices heard in Washington.

Nonetheless, it is encouraging that the Bush administration has decided to address the problem head-on. It is poised to levy heavy fines against employers who willingly hire workers with fake Social Security numbers. From now on, employers will have to pay more attention to so-called "no match" letters from the Social Security Administration. If they don't, they will pay the consequences.

As for Congress, it must address the issue of illegal immigration more responsibly. It isn't about the flow of illegal workers, which can be stopped by tough rules for employers. It's about the best way to treat foreigners who want to come here for work, and those already here who would like to become citizens. Republicans have to stop denouncing good-faith re@@hyphen@@form proposals as tantamount to amnesty. Democrats need to be less critical of Mr. Bush's guest worker visa proposal. Instead of denouncing the visa plan as too restrictive, these lawmakers should strive to find a compromise solution.

What's needed now is a more cooperative spirit. What there is no need for, however, is more demonizing of foreign workers who simply want a chance to better their lives by coming to America.
THE ISSUE:Federal authorities will punish employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.
THE STAKES:Without enforcement immigration reform will remain elusive.

Quoted Text

Fewer illegals risk crossing at border
Tighter security, raids discourage many
BY TRACI CARL The Associated Press

   TECATE, Mexico — Mexican shelters, usually the last stop for northbound migrants, are filling with southbound deportees. Fewer migrants are crossing in the windswept deserts along an increasingly fortified border. Far to the north, fields are empty at harvest time as workplace raids become more common.
   Mexicans are increasingly giving up on the American dream and staying home, and the federal crackdown on undocumented workers announced Friday should discourage even potential migrants from taking the risks as the United States purges itself of its illegal population.
   U.S. border agents detained 55,545 illegal migrants jumping over border walls, walking through the desert and swimming across the Rio Grande River between October and June. That’s down 38 percent for the entire border compared to the same period a year before.
   U.S. and Mexican officials say increased border security, including 6,000 National Guard troops, remote surveillance technology and drone planes, have thwarted smugglers who had succeeded for years at beating the system.
   Migrants also say they feel Americans are increasingly hostile toward immigrants.
   “It’s the discrimination,” said 28-year-old George Guevara, who was deported to Tijuana last month after living in the U.S. for 18 years. “It’s making people step back. It’s just too much of a risk. It’s better to be out here.”
   Guevara, who speaks perfect English and has only distant memories of Mexico, was living at a Tijuana migrant shelter filled with deportees, many of whom are Mexican-born but find themselves in a country that is foreign to them.
   “I barely remember living here,” Guevara said. “But I see this as an opportunity. I’m going to go back to Guadalajara to see my family and forget what happened.”
   While some migrants try to set up new lives, others are caught between two worlds. Salvador Perez still has a pregnant wife and three small children in Bakersfield, Calif., where he worked on a pistachio ranch before he was deported. He’s tried to cross the rocky, snake-infested mountains near Tecate three times this summer to get back to them, but failed each time.
   “I want to try again, but I’m scared something will happen,” Perez said.
   The biggest drop in Border Patrol detentions — a 68 percent decrease — was in the remote, heatseared desert surrounding Yuma, Ariz., once popular with smugglers. Border Patrol spokesman Jeremy Chappell credits the additional troops and tougher security.
   “Where an alien before was able to sneak across, now he has the National Guard watching him,” Chappell said.
   The only area that has seen an increase — 1.5 percent — is the San Diego sector, which runs along the California border and includes the harsh, roadless desert surrounding Tecate. The Border Patrol has responded with helicopters and increased intelligence from detained migrants.
   Crossing there requires hiking up to six miles, scrambling over or under the border fence, then walking some more, usually in the dead of night. The region is difficult to patrol, making it one of the few places migrants believe they can still get through.
   That’s why 22-year-old Romeo, a Salvadoran who refused to give his last name for fear of reprisals, was in Tecate’s town square after failing twice to sneak into El Paso, Texas, once in a car and once on foot. He was flown back to El Salvador each time.
   “They tell me this is the best place to cross, but it isn’t easy anywhere,” Romeo said.
   Deportations also are up for illegal immigrants who have lived in the States for years. Some are caught for minor infractions like a burned-out headlight. Others are rounded up in workplace raids that the Bush administration has vowed to intensify.
   The new measures announced Friday will force employers to fire anyone who cannot prove their Social Security numbers are legitimate.
   U.S. employers are already complaining, especially those in agriculture, where most workers are believed to be working with false documents. On a recent visit to Mexico, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire said some crops are already rotting in the fields for lack of workers. Many employers join President Bush in blaming Congress for stalling an accord that would allow more people to work legally. “Pretty shortly people are going to be knocking on people’s doors saying ‘Man we’re running out of workers,’ ” Bush said.
   Mexican President Felipe Calderon also lashed out Thursday. “The U.S. Congress, which today turns its back on reality, knows full well that the American economy could not move forward without the labor of Mexicans,” he said.
   Fewer Mexicans are sending home cash remittances — Mexico’s biggest source of foreign income after oil — leaving many Mexican relatives with no other resources, the Inter-American Development Bank reported Wednesday.
   Despite all this, some migrants are still trying to beat the odds.
   Isaac Mendiola, 41, mapped out how he would cross near Tecate.
   “We start walking about 7 p.m., hit the Golden Casino on Highway 8 by 4 a.m.,” Mendiola explained. “Then we call this Indian guy from the reservation, and pay him $200 to take us to Oceanside, Calif. An American lady gets us past the checkpoint for another $200. Then we take public buses to Disneyland, and we are in L.A.”
   Still, even Mendiola wants to work in construction for only two more years, then return to Mexico to run a convenience store his family has opened with the money earned up north.
   “Crossing is getting a lot harder now,” he said. “You gotta stop sometime. This year and next, and boom, I’m done.”

Quoted Text

Crackdown on illegal aliens’ employers part of the solution
Ruben Navarrette is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Ruben Navarrette

   The national dialogue over immigration reform is like a delicate negotiation — one that works only if both sides deal in good faith. Which explains why the debate stalled. Neither side has been honest about what they really want and don’t want.
   We already knew that those on the right were being deceitful. They insist that border security is all they care about, when much of what drives them is a nativist impulse to reverse what they see as the “Mexican-ization” of the United States, complete with taco trucks, Mexican flags and Spanish-language billboards.
   But last week, we learned that those on the left — including openborder advocates, immigrant activists and Latino groups — can be just as disingenuous. They insist that they support increased border enforcement as part of a comprehensive reform package, but when the enforcement comes a la carte, they cry foul.
   These are some of the same people who also say we focus too much on the illegal immigrants and not enough on those who hire them. That’s what I hear whenever I speak to Latino groups: that authorities should concentrate on the farms, restaurants, hotels and other businesses that depend on illegal immigrants to do the jobs that Americans pass up.
   They have a point. It’s just more sporting when government goes after people who have the resources to strike back. As it stands, most employers get a free pass. They have a long list of excuses, claiming that they didn’t know a worker was illegal, that subcontractors do the hiring, that the documents presented looked real, or that they can’t deny jobs to people they suspect are undocumented, lest they get sued for discrimination. And on it goes.
   Yet when people make the argument that we focus too much on immigrants and not enough on employers, the implication is that they support cracking down on those doing the hiring. Apparently not. Otherwise the left wouldn’t be so upset over a new initiative fro