USA ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona law for now, strikes down other provisions

2012-06-25T22:10:00.003-04:00

But the ruling, which reinforced the federal government’s primacy in immigration policy, also vindicated the Obama administration’s decision to challenge the Arizona law almost from the moment it was passed.

The justices will rule on Thursday on the constitutionality of President Obama’s most important priority before the court: the health-care law, his signature domestic achievement. It will be the final day of a term that has been dominated by questions about the power of the federal government.

The immigration decision comes as the issue has taken a central spot in the nation’s political conversation and domestic agenda, even as the numbers of illegal immigrants coming to this country have fallen. It is likely to be just one in a series of court decisions about the role states may play in combatting illegal immigration; five states have adopted laws similar to Arizona’s, and others are waiting in the wings.

Obama recently ignited new controversy by announcing that many immigrants under age 30 who were brought to this country illegally by their parents would not be deported. In an unusual moment Monday, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned Obama’s policy as he spoke from the bench to criticize the majority’s decision.

In oral arguments on the Arizona law, the justices had seemed skeptical of the administration’s vision of the subordinate role states must play in immigration matters.

But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spelled out states’ limited role, even as he acknowledged criticism that the failure of Congress and the executive branch to form a comprehensive immigration strategy has led to severe hardships.

“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues,” he wrote, “but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down several key parts of Arizona’s tough law on illegal immigrants, but it left standing a controversial provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they detain and suspect to be in the country illegally.

The 5 to 3 decision upholding the so-called “show me your papers” provision came with a warning that the courts would be watching its implementation. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) declared victory and said police could enforce the law without resorting to racial

profiling.

The court threw out three such provisions in the Arizona law. It said the state cannot make it a misdemeanor if immigrants do not carry registration documents; criminalize the act of an illegal immigrant seeking employment; or authorize state officers to arrest someone on the belief that the person has committed an offense that makes him deportable.

Kennedy wrote for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she had worked on it while serving as Obama’s solicitor general.

Scalia and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote dissents from the decision. In reading his dissent, Scalia made clear the extent of his disagreement.

Barack Obama Immigration speech gets heckled by reporter

2012-06-15T21:30:00.000-04:00

President Obama was heckled by a reporter during his immigration remarks on Friday.

Obama announced that the Department of Homeland Security will stop deportations and grant work permits for students who meet certain requirements. The policy change will apply to those who arrived in the U.S. before turning 16, who have been in the country for at least five years, and are under the age of 30.

During his remarks, Obama suddenly addressed a person in the crowd, telling him that he was not yet taking questions. "Excuse me, sir, it's not time for questions, sir," Obama said. "Not while I'm speaking."

At the end of his speech, Obama referred back to the person who interrupted him. "And the answer to your question is sir, and the next time I prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question, is this is the right thing to do for the American people...I didn't ask for an argument. I'm answering your question," he said, speaking over the man's protests. "It is the right thing to do for the American people."

The camera flashed to a man in a suit wearing sunglasses. He was quickly identified as The Daily Caller's Neil Munro, who wrote about the news of Obama's announcement on Friday.

ABC's Diane Sawyer, who was anchoring the network's breaking news coverage with George Stephanopoulos, described the man who interrupted Obama as someone who was "clearly considered a heckler." Former George W. Bush spokesman Tony Fratto tweeted, "Reporters don't interrupt presidential statements. Period. @NeilMunroDC should be banned from WH. #fb."

According to the site's masthead, Munro is the White House correspondent at The Daily Caller. Tucker Carlson, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller, defended Munro in an interview with the The Huffington Post's Michael Calderone shortly after the incident.

"This is what reporters are supposed to do," Carlson said by phone. "They're supposed to get their questions answered.""It's hard to know what's wrong with asking the president a question," he continued. When told that Sawyer referred to Munro as a "heckler," Carlson said he "doesn't remember anyone saying that about Sam Donaldson," the aggressive former ABC News White House correspondent, if Donaldson interrupted the president. Carlson suggested Sawyer would probably describe Donaldson as "being a tough reporter."

"Politicians don’t get to make a statement and then retreat to a fortified castle," Carlson said, adding that "our job is to find out what's going on with federal government on our time-table."

As for those criticizing Munro for interrupting Obama, Carlson responded that the Daily Caller's "critics ought to make it official and take a gig at the White House."

Munro spoke out about his actions in a post published on the Daily Caller's website.

"I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our president. I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States," he said.

Later, Munro published a piece about Obama's remarks and reported that the president "declined to take any questions," even though two reporters called out questions to him.

"The president has often used this no-questions strategy when making important or poll-boosting announcements," he wrote.

The full exchange between Obama and Munro was cited in the official White House transcript. When Obama responded to Munro's first interruption, the Daily Caller reporter was quoted as saying, "No, you have to take questions."

Obama Administration To Stop Deporting Younger Undocumented Immigrants And Grant Work Permits(Video)

2012-06-15T15:25:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration responded to years of pressure from immigrants rights groups on Friday with an announcement that it will stop deportations and begin granting work permits for some Dream Act-eligible students.

"They pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper," President Barack Obama said of those young people in a press conference announcing the policy change.

Some 800,000 people are expected to come forward to receive deferred action from deportation, as first reported by the Associated Press on Friday morning. The policy change will apply to young undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children, along the same lines as the Dream Act, a decade-old bill that passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate in 2010.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters that the policy change is part of a general shift by the Obama administration to focus on deporting high-priority undocumented immigrants.

"This grant of deferred action is not immunity," she said. "It is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system. It will help us to continue to streamline immigration enforcement and ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low-priority cases involving productive young people."

"More important, I believe this action is the right thing to do," she continued.

The policy change will effectively enable Dream Act-eligible young people, often called DREAMers, to stay in the United States without fear of deportation, and without legislation from a Congress that is unlikely to pass a bill.

Undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years can apply for the relief, so long as they are under the age of 30, according to a memo from DHS. They also must be either an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces, or a student who has graduated from high school or obtained a GED. Immigrants will not be eligible if they "post a threat to national security or public safety," including having been convicted of a felony, a "significant" misdemeanor or multiple misdemeanors.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border Protection, were instructed in a memo to immediately react by reviewing individual cases and preventing eligible immigrants from being put in removal proceedings. Those already in proceedings could be granted deferred action for two years, and then may apply for renewal. They will be given work authorization on a case-by-case basis.

A senior administration official told reporters on the condition of anonymity that most eligible undocumented immigrants will be required to go to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide documents and pay a fee.

Still, there will be no pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants eligible for the policy change, because "Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights," according to the DHS announcement.

The administration has been under intense pressure from immigrant rights groups, some led by undocumented youth themselves, to make an executive order protecting DREAMers from deportation. Previously, though, officials had said the administration did not have the power to make an executive order blocking deportations for undocumented young people.

Asked about that change, a different senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that this is "the next step of prosecutorial discretion" along the same lines as it is already being applied, and not inconsistent with past statements.

The administration also emphasized that the policy change is no substitute for legislation on the issue. Obama called out Republicans -- some, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), by name, and others, like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), more vaguely -- for supporting immigration reform in the past but opposing it now. Hatch was one of the original cosponsors of the Dream Act in 2001, but voted against it in 2010. In time, Obama said he thinks Republicans will come around to support the bill as well.

"I've said time and time and time again to Congress, send me the Dream Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away," Obama said. "Both parties wrote this legislation."

McCain responded in a statement, calling the action "a politically-motivated power grab that does nothing to further the debate but instead adds additional confusion and uncertainty to our broken immigration system."

The announcement comes several months before the presidential election, where Obama hopes to win a significant portion of the vote from the Latino population, which supports the Dream Act by large margins. The majority of the population at large also supports the Dream Act, as defined by the 2010 bill, although by lower margins. The announcement also comes on the heels of Obama announcing his support for same-sex marriage -- similarly after years of urging from advocacy groups.

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would veto the Dream Act under the 2010 framework, but has expressed some openness to considering upcoming legislation on young undocumented immigrants from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). That plan, which has yet to be introduced, would allow some undocumented immigrants who came as children to stay legally, but without any path to citizenship. A spokesman for Rubio did not respond to a request for comment on the administration announcement by the time of publication, nor did the Romney campaign.

A senior adviser for Romney told MSNBC's Chris Cilliza later Friday that the candidate will "focus intently on the economy," including in his message to Latino voters.

Rubio later said in a statement that the administration's action would hurt "broad support" for the idea that undocumented young people should be helped, but without encouraging unauthorized immigration. He said the new policy "will make [it] harder to achieve in the long run."

"Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem," Rubio said. "And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one."

Republicans in Congress have largely decried legislation on the issue as amnesty. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said on Fox News Friday that the policy change could be "a backdoor opportunity to allow people to vote" -- though eligible young people would not be given voting rights under the new policy -- and that it should go through the legislative process instead.

Some Republicans plan to swiftly investigate whether the administration overstepped its authority by making the policy change. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced in a statement that he will launch "an immediate review into the possibility that DHS will direct Border Patrol agents to conduct selective enforcement" and that it could encourage more immigrants to enter the country without authorization. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Judiciary committee, which focuses on immigration, said in a statement that the policy change will serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants -- although only those already in the country would be eligible.

Some Republicans plan to swiftly investigate whether the administration overstepped its authority by making the policy change. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced in a statement that he will launch "an immediate review into the possibility that DHS will direct Border Patrol agents to conduct selective enforcement." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) later told Mike Huckabee that he plans to sue to block implementation of the policy. Earlier, a spokeswoman for King, one of the biggest critics of the president on immigration reform, did not respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Judiciary committee, which focuses on immigration, said in a statement that the policy change will serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants -- although only those already in the country would be eligible.

"President Obama's decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with the American people," Smith said. "It also blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy. This huge policy shift has horrible consequences for unemployed Americans looking for jobs and violates President Obama's oath to uphold the laws of this land."

A spokesperson for Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), who leads the House subcommittee dealing with immigration issues, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democratic supporters of the Dream Act applauded the decision. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of the most vocal critics of the administration on immigration, called the announcement a "tremendous first step," while Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he was "profoundly grateful" and that the policy change "will change [DREAMers'] lives forever." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the Dream Act in 2001, called it a "historic humanitarian moment."

"This action will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home," Durbin said in a statement.

DREAMers said on Friday they were cautiously optimistic about the news, but happy that the administration responded to their concerns.

Lizbeth Mateo, an undocumented 27-year-old who works with the National Immigrant Youth Alliance, said she has been disappointed before by seemingly positive announcements from the administration on immigration, such as when it took up stronger application of prosecutorial discretion, with the stated intent to close a number of deportation cases. Although many cases have been closed, immigrant rights groups argue that the policy has fallen short.

Another undocumented advocate for the Dream Act, Gaby Pacheco, said she, too, is waiting to see how far the policy goes in implementation.

"We feel that the work that we have been doing for the past couple of years has really come to fruition," she said. "A community has been able to organize and to speak out, and the president has responded."

U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law

2012-04-28T18:07:00.001-04:00

Emboldened by signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law, legislators and activists across the country say they are gearing up to push for similar get-tough measures in their states.

"We're getting our national network ready to run with the ball, and saturate state legislatures with versions of the law," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. "We believe we can pass it in most states."

That goal may be a stretch, but lawmakers in about a dozen states told The Associated Press they were interested in proposing Arizona-style laws if its key components are upheld by the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in June on the Department of Justice's appeal that the law conflicts with federal immigration policy.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he was encouraged that several justices suggested during Wednesday's oral arguments that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law — a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally. Another provision allows suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without warrants

"The justices sent a clear signal that there's a huge zone for state action in this area," Stein said. "There will be an enormous amount of energy spent in next few months examining the full range of possibilities."

For starters, a ruling in favor of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 would likely enable Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah to put move forward with comparable measures that were enacted but have been on hold pending the high court's decision.

"If Arizona does very well, we'll do very well," said Alabama Sen. Scott Beason, sponsor of a law that in some respects is tougher than Arizona's. In addition to requiring police to determine citizenship status during traffic stops, it directs government offices to verify legal residency for transactions like obtaining a car license, enrolling a child in school and getting a job.

Lawmakers in such diverse states as Mississippi and Pennsylvania said they would be eager to follow the Arizona/Alabama model if the Supreme Court gives a green light.

"You look at poll after poll after poll, whether they're a business owner or employee or small business owner or executive, the majority of Americans support bills like 1070," said Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican who chairs the House State Government Committee.

Metcalfe has already introduced a bill that incorporates Arizona's law and is waiting for a favorableSupreme Court ruling to bring it up in his committee.

In Mississippi, a get-tough immigration bill passed the House earlier this year but died in a Senate committee. Its backers plan to try again next year, and hope for a Supreme Court ruling that gives them guidance.

"This just ensures to the taxpayers of Mississippi that when we pass the law, we won't end up in a long court battle," said Republican Rep. Becky Currie.

As in Mississippi, South Dakota lawmakers also have rejected a measure based on the Arizona law, but its sponsor, Republican Rep. Manny Steele of Sioux Falls, says he's ready to try again.

"I would be excited to get another bill going back in there, according to what the Supreme Courtdecision is," Steele said.

In Rhode Island, Rep. Peter Palumbo said he was pleased by the Supreme Court's apparent support for allowing states to enforce immigration law.

"It's tremendous," said Palumbo, a Democrat who would like to empower the state police to help federal authorities with immigration enforcement.

In several states where neither major party has a monopoly on power — Iowa, Colorado, Montana and Kentucky, among them — lawmakers said the fate of any hardline immigration bill likely will depend on the outcome of state elections in November.

One of Kentucky's leading critics of illegal immigration, Republican Rep. Stan Lee, said an Arizona-style bill has little chance of overcoming staunch opposition from the Democratic majority in the House.

"Even if the Supreme Court upholds all or virtually all of that, I don't expect to pursue any of that type of legislation unless there's a significant change in the makeup of the House," Lee said. "The votes, as I've discovered, just aren't there."

In Minnesota, Republican Rep. Steve Drazkowski said he'll consider proposing a bill modeled in part on the Arizona law but acknowledged that it could well be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, whose term runs until 2014.

In Kansas, where Republicans dominate, GOP legislators are split over immigration, preventing action both on proposals to crack down on illegal immigration and a business-backed program to place some immigrants in hard-to-fill jobs in farming and other sectors.

Among the leaders of the get-tough faction in Kansas is Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a former law professor who helped write the Arizona and Alabama laws. Kobach said the Supreme Court arguments bolstered his view that the most controversial part of the Arizona law — the "show your papers" provision — would withstand a legal challenge.

If the Supreme Court upholds key parts of the law, "it will be a huge green light," he said. "All of the other states will have a blueprint that they can copy."

In Virginia, which already has numerous restrictive immigration laws, Republican Delegate David Albo said there may not be room for many more.

"We're already bumping up against the legal limits of what we're allowed to do," said Albo, author of a law that denies adult illegal immigrants non-emergency public benefits such as food stamps and welfare benefits.

In many states, there is little or no prospect for adopting Arizona-style laws anytime soon. In some cases, such as in Idaho, it's because the agriculture industry worries about losing needed workers; elsewhere it's a question of immigrant-friendly politics.

"I can't envision the state adopting the position that we should be enforcing immigrant laws," said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, noting that his state has ample law enforcement challenges on its plate already.

In Illinois, which has some of the most immigrant-friendly laws in the nation, Republican Rep. Randy Ramey has tried four times to propose an Arizona-style law but failed to get a measure out of committee. Heartened by the Supreme Court arguments, Ramey said he may try again despite the odds.

"It encourages me, but doesn't mean anything will move here as long as Democrats are in charge," he said. "They'll just laugh at it."

Stands on the issue don't always follow predictable party lines. Republican Govs. Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada — both Hispanics — say Arizona-style laws aren't needed in their states. Hispanics account for 46 percent of the population in New Mexico, the highest proportion of any state.

"Gov. Martinez fully believes that any policies addressing illegal immigration have to begin at the federal level," said her spokesman, Greg Blair.

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Of that total, roughly 6.1 million are from Mexico, down from nearly 7 million in 2007, according to a Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday. That decline has coincided with a cooling-off of the immigration debate in some states, such as Tennessee.

"It doesn't seem to have the same numbers that were here a couple of years ago," said state Sen. Bill Ketron, a Republican who has sponsored a number of bills targeting illegal immigrants.

Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization, predicted that most states — regardless of the Supreme Court's decision — would stay away from Arizona-type laws out of self-interest.

"For most of them, the balance sheets do not add up," she said, referring to the Alabama law that has created burdens for some business and caused farmers to complain about lack of workers to pick their crops.

Vermont, where a growing number of Hispanic migrants work in the dairy industry, is among a handful of states overtly welcoming immigrants regardless of their legal status. Last fall, Gov. Peter Shumlin urged police to "look the other way" when the only legal problem might be an immigration violation.

"Vermont is the antithesis of Arizona," said Rep. Suzi Wizowaty of Burlington, who has backed a bill to require police to follow such policies. "Our goal in Vermont is to be the kind of place that welcomes all kinds of people."

The welcome mat is out in Alaska, also.

"We want more immigrants," said Republican Rep. Paul Seaton. "There just aren't people from here to do the work."

___

Arizona’s illegal-immigration law heads to Supreme Court

2012-04-23T23:37:00.000-04:00

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the country's toughest illegal-immigration bill into law two years ago, setting off a long legal battle with the Obama administration and inspiring half a dozen states to emulate Arizona and pass similar laws. On Wednesday, the federal government and Arizona will face off at the Supreme Court, where Justice Department lawyers will try to convince the court that the law is an unconstitutional invasion into the federal government's turf.

A federal judge blocked four major aspects of the law before they ever went into effect, including the provision that local police officers check the immigration status of people during stops if they have reason to suspect they lack legal status. Provisions making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, or for any immigrant to fail to carry immigration papers, were also blocked. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision and shot down most of the law.

Although public opinion polls showed that most Americans supported the law's provisions after it passed, the minority opposition was passionate, and it set off a national debate about illegal immigration that has permeated the presidential elections. Opponents argued that the law would encourage racial profiling and branded Arizona the "show me your papers" state. More than 100 different parties, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and dozens of states, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs weighing in on the law.

Three interesting twists are likely to make this case even more high-profile—and political—than it already has been. First of all, Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates for the presidency have blasted the Obama administration for suing Arizona in the first place, using it as a way to paint the president as soft on illegal immigration and intrusive on states' rights. Secondly, a familiar face will represent Arizona's case: Paul Clement, the lawyer who argued against Obama's health care law before the Supreme Court earlier this month, will once again take center stage. Lastly, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case because she was solicitor general when the government first filed suit against Arizona. That means the court could theoretically split 4-4 in its decision. If this happens, the 9th Circuit decision stands and the law will remain blocked. But that outcome would give little guidance to states not in the 9th Circuit that have passed or want to pass laws similar to Arizona's, and would leave unsettled the question of how far states can go in combating illegal immigration.

Here's a brief rundown of each side's line of reasoning:

Arizona's argument

Arizona must prove that its law represents an honest attempt to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing existing immigration laws—and that it isn't trying to create its own immigration policy.

Clement argues in his brief that national immigration law provides for state-federal cooperation, even requiring states to send and receive information about the immigration status of suspects in some cases. The federal government runs a 24-hour database where state and local law enforcement officers can look up the immigration status of accused criminals. This suggests that states can and even should help enforce civil immigration law, he argues, particularly in the scenario where an officer has lawfully stopped someone he suspects of a crime. Interestingly, Clement quotes Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 case where the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law barring undocumented children from K-12 public schools, to support his assertion that states can pass laws sanctioning illegal immigrants.

Clement also briefly dismisses the argument that Arizona's law is interfering with the United States' foreign relations, saying it cannot be an interference if it helps the federal government combat illegal immigration.

The federal government's case

The government hit Arizona particularly hard on two of the law's provisions: criminalizing those not carrying immigration papers, and criminalizing illegal immigrants who are looking for work. National immigration laws make working while unauthorized only a civil offense, and applying for work is not even a civil crime. (Lying on a federal work form about citizenship or providing false documents is a criminal offense.) This, the lawyers argue, is an example of Arizona making its own immigration policy, not just trying to help the federal government enforce its existing laws.

The government's other main argument just might be its strongest: that Arizona's law infringes on the federal government's ability to control foreign relations. (The Constitution makes clear that the states have no legal role in foreign policy and affairs.) Arizona State University law professor Paul Bender tells Yahoo News that this is the government's best shot. "To have 50 states able to decide on their own who they're going to detain and put in jail without the federal government's permission is an invitation to disaster," he says. In the majority opinion, the 9th Circuit mentioned that five out of six Mexican border governors declined an invitation to travel to a conference in Arizona in protest of the law, and that the leaders of dozens of foreign countries and United Nations human rights officials had publicly criticized it. One 9th Circuit judge rejected this argument in his dissent, calling it a "heckler's veto."

The federal government's toughest job will most likely be to convince the justices that the Constitution prevents the policy of requiring police officers to ask people about their immigration status during stops. That's because Clement brings up fairly convincing examples of pre-existing cooperation between the federal and local governments in this case, through the 24-hour database and other programs.

Immigrants trickling back to Alabama despite crackdown

2012-02-19T20:43:00.000-05:00

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Ana Jimenez and her husband were so terrified of being sent back to their native Mexico when Alabama's tough crackdown on illegal immigrants took effect that they fled more than 2,000 miles to Los Angeles, cramming into a two-bedroom apartment with more than 20 other relatives.

Now they are among the families coming back to cities like Birmingham, as the mass deportations never materialized and courts blocked parts of the law. No one knows how many people initially left the state, so it's impossible to say how many have returned. But some illegal immigrants are trickling back, unable to find work elsewhere and missing the place that had been home for years.

Of 18 Hispanic immigrants interviewed by The Associated Press in the Birmingham area, six said they had friends or relatives who had returned to Alabama after fleeing because of the law.

As for Jimenez, she left Birmingham with her husband, father and brother three days after the law took effect. Now, all except her brother are back. Jimenez said through a translator that not much had changed, though she can't reclaim her job at a McDonald's restaurant because managers are checking citizenship papers.

"Everything is the same. I just can't work now," Jimenez said through a translator. She said the family is living off the income of her husband, who installs carpet and flooring.

The Obama administration, immigrant groups and others sued over Alabama's law, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to consider arguments about it on March 1. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments a month later over Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration, which isn't considered as strict as Alabama's.

Republicans who supported the crackdown had said they hoped the tough provisions — which made it difficult if not impossible to legally find work and housing, among other things — would force people to "self-deport" and move out of the state.

Among those who self-deported were Verenece Flores and her husband. They sold their home in metro Birmingham and moved with their three young children to Chicago. But the couple, originally from Mexico and living in the U.S. without legal documents, also could not find work, and relatives told them people weren't being deported after traffic stops as some had feared.

The family is staying with relatives and doesn't have their own place, and Flores remains "a little scared" of the law. But she said she was happy to be back. Flores had lived here for 15 years before the short move to Chicago, and her children are happier and her husband is back working construction jobs.

"I missed everything about it — friends, family, the weather," Flores said. She knows two more families that left Alabama for Washington state only to return.

Estela Fuentes said friends of hers moved to Atlanta because the law required that public schools verify the citizenship status of students, yet they returned late last month after learning courts had put that section of the law on hold. The family was sad throughout its exile to Georgia, she said through a translator.

"One of their daughters cried and cried because she had no friends over there," said Fuentes, who is originally from El Salvador.

And while there are families returning, some officials say they haven't heard anything to suggest the numbers are huge. Zayne Smith, an immigration attorney with the nonprofit Alabama Appleseed legal center in Montgomery, said she had been hearing that some people wanted to wait until after the 11th Circuit considers the case in March.

State agriculture officials who say the new law led to a chronic shortage in agricultural labor said they haven't seen evidence of large numbers of immigrants returning to the state. Many immigrants worked in the state's poultry processing plants or out in tomato fields, planting and harvesting crops.

Gwen Ferreti, a researcher and activist in the Hispanic community, said some immigrants remain wary but are coming back because of their deep ties to the state.

Some initially feared the law would mean that people would be rounded up, or that "you'd be stopped just for being Hispanic," said Ferreti, an anthropologist from the University of Texas who is living in Tuscaloosa, about 60 miles southwest of Birmingham, for her studies. "That has not happened, but people are aware that racial profiling is going on if you are Hispanic. They are still uneasy."

Court won't lift stay on Arizona immigration law

2011-04-11T22:31:00.000-04:00

PHOENIX – A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a stay blocking major parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect and said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the controversial law is unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. She had asked the appeals court to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.

The U.S Justice Department sued to block the law, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution because enforcing immigration law is a federal issue.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction preventing four major parts of the law from going into effect pending a trial. Monday's ruling by the three-judge appeals court panel upheld that injunction.

The panel's opinion said the government is likely to succeed in its arguments that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws, and that Arizona's law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. One judge dissented.

Brewer's lawyers said the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and that the state law will assist federal authorities.

"I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute," Brewer said in a statement.

The governor's office said Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and their legal team — in conjunction with counsel for the Arizona Legislature — will be considering their legal options, including appealing to a larger 9th Circuit panel or seeking an immediate petition for the U.S. Supreme Court, to lift the injunction.

The bill's author, state Sen. Russell Pearce, issued a statement saying the appeals court ruling was "utterly predictable."

"SB 1070 is constitutionally sound, and that will be proven when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case and makes the proper ruling," he said. "This battle is a battle of epic proportions. It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."

"We're obviously pleased with the ruling, but we understand that there could be a long way to go with this litigation," said Robby Sherwood, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney for Arizona.

Parts of the law blocked from taking effect while the case works its way through the courts include a provision requiring police to question people's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

Other provisions that are on hold include: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.

In a separate opinion concurring with the panel's ruling, Appeals Court Judge John T. Noonan noted the intent of the state statute is clear and goes beyond what federal law allows.

"If we read Section 1 of the statute, the statute states the purpose of providing a solution to illegal immigration in the United States. So read, the statute is a singular entry into the foreign policy of the United States by a single state," he wrote.

Judge Carlos Bea would uphold two of the provisions — those allowing police to question people about their immigration status and to make warrantless arrests — and wrote a pointed dissent.

"As I see it, Congress has clearly expressed its intention that state officials should assist federal officials in checking the immigration status of aliens," he wrote. He also included a footnote that quoted Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" to criticize what he called the majority's convoluted reasoning.

The passage of SB 1070 last year reignited an immigration debate that has simmered in Arizona and across the nation for years.

Opponents of the law protested in the streets as it was about to take effect and called for a boycott of the state.

Proponents called the law a long-overdue effort by a state that has been overburdened by illegal immigration and a lack of federal action on the issue.

Opponents of the law hailed the decision and said other states considering similar legislation should take note.

"Today's decision rightly rejects SB 1070's assault on the core American values of fairness and equality," said Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project. "Legislators in other states should pay close attention to today's ringing condemnation of Arizona's racial profiling law and refrain from going down the same unconstitutional path."

Feds targeting fake immigration lawyers; Utah Approves Guest Worker Program for Illegals

2011-03-09T21:30:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON – A top federal immigration official is asking states' attorneys general to help him crack down on fake immigration lawyers and educate immigrants on how to spot them.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director Alejandro Mayorkas told a group of attorneys general in Washington for a spring meeting that the federal government is eager to work with them to protect vulnerable immigrants and prosecute those who prey on them.
His agency and other federal and state agencies are launching an effort to warn people about the fake immigration lawyers known as "notarios" who charge exorbitant fees and give fraudulent advice to people seeking citizenship, green cards or other immigration benefits.
Seven cities Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, Fresno, Calif., Los Angeles, New York and San Antonio will serve as test sites.

Utah Approves Guest Worker Program for Illegals
Immigrants Plan seeks middle ground but still faces legal hurdles

Proposed Texas immigration law contains convenient loophole for ‘the help’

2011-03-03T13:15:00.000-05:00

Texas has long been a hotbed of controversy on immigration issues. And a proposed immigration bill in the Texas state House is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows. The bill would make hiring an "unauthorized alien" a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine, unless that is, they are hired to do household chores.

Yes, under the House Bill 2012 introduced by a tea party favorite state Rep. Debbie Riddle -- who's been saying for some time that she'd like to see Texas institute an Arizona-style immigration law -- hiring an undocumented maid, caretaker, lawnworker or any type of houseworker would be allowed. Why? As Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, also a Republican, told CNN, without the exemption, "a large segment of the Texas population" would wind up in prison if the bill became law.
"When it comes to household employees or yard workers it is extremely common for Texans to hire people who are likely undocumented workers," Pena told the news giant. "It is so common it is overlooked."
Jon English, Rep. Riddle's chief of staff explained that the exemption was an attempt to avoid "stifling the economic engine" in Texas, which today is, somewhat ironically, celebrating its declaring independence from Mexico in 1836.
"Excepting household workers from a anti-immigration laws renders the law impotent and self-contradictory, just like the current U.S. immigration policy, of which it is almost a perfect microcosm," legal ethics writer Jack Marshall wrote on his blog. "It guarantees a measure without integrity that sends a mixed enforcement message and does nothing to stop the long-standing deplorable 'we don't want you but somebody has to do those menial jobs' attitude that has paralyzed our immigration policy for decades."
Rep. Riddle made headlines last year when she claimed unnamed FBI officials had told her that pregnant women from the Middle East were traveling to America as tourists to give birth, and then raising their children to be terrorists who could later enter the U.S. freely as citizens -- so-called "terror babies," a devious offshoot of "anchor babies." She became somewhat infamous on the web when she stumbled repeatedly in a CNN interview about the claims, complaining later that host Anderson Cooper's line of questioning was more intense than she had prepared for.
"They did not tell me you were going to grill me on specific information that I was not ready to give to you tonight," Riddle said when Cooper pressed her for more details. "They did not tell me that, sir."

Large group of illegal immigrants found in Ariz.

2011-02-23T20:54:00.000-05:00

PHOENIX – Border agents said Wednesday they arrested an unusually large group of illegal immigrants crossing through the western Arizona desert in what authorities said is proof that increased border technology is working.

Border Patrol surveillance video operators Friday morning spotted a group of more than 100 people walking just north of the Mexico border about 15 miles west of Lukeville, Ariz., Agent Eric Cantu said.
When agents responded, Cantu said they were able to arrest 22 people but the rest of the group scattered.
A helicopter team found much of the group hiding in thick brush, and agents arrested 106 additional illegal immigrants. The smugglers and other suspected illegal immigrants may have gotten away, Cantu said.
The 128 men who were apprehended have either been returned to Mexico or were jailed because of prior convictions.
The Border Patrol's Tucson sector typically sees such large groups of border crossers no more than once or twice a year, Cantu said. Illegal immigrants typically travel in groups of five to 15, he said, because larger groups are much easier to detect.
"Before in remote areas we didn't have the technology or infrastructure or personnel to actively patrol and monitor the more remote areas," he said. "The larger groups are easier to spot so they're getting rarer and rarer. We're getting to the point where it's almost impossible to cross in groups so large."
Cantu said it didn't make sense why smugglers attempted to take last week's large group into the U.S.
He said several smugglers likely were with the group but either got away or successfully blended in with the immigrants and went undetected as smugglers.
"Normally smugglers are the first ones to run, and they'll abandon the group and leave the group to fend for themselves," Cantu said.

Arizona Immigration Law: Jan Brewer Countersues Federal Government Over SB 1070

2011-02-11T15:38:00.000-05:00

PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer sued the federal government Thursday for failing to control Arizona's border with Mexico and enforce immigration laws, and for sticking the state with huge costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

The lawsuit claims the federal government has failed to protect Arizona from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. It seeks increased reimbursements and extra safeguards, such as additional border fences.
Brewer's court filing serves as a countersuit in the federal government's legal challenge to Arizona's new enforcement immigration law. The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to invalidate the law.
"Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens of Arizona, I am left with no other choice," Brewer said as sign-carrying protesters yelled chants at her and at other champions of the immigration law.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment on the filing. But a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of policing the country's borders, called Brewer's lawsuit a meritless action and said Border Patrol staffing is higher than ever.
"Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," spokesman Matthew Chandler said. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges."
Brewer's lawsuit seeks a court order that would require the federal government to take extra steps to protect Arizona – such as more border fences – until the border is controlled. Brewer also asks for additional border agents and technology along the state's border with Mexico.
The governor isn't seeking a lump-sum award, but rather asks for policy changes in the way the federal government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants who are convicted of state crimes. Such changes would give the state more reimbursement.
Arizona's enforcement law was passed amid years of complaints that the federal government hasn't done enough to lessen the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entry point. Its passage ignited protests over whether the law would lead to racial profiling, and prompted lawsuits by the Justice Department, civil rights groups and other opponents seeking to have it thrown out.
The law would have required police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers had reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally. That requirement was put on hold by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, along with a mandate that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers.
The judge, however, let other parts of the law take effect, such as a provision that bans people from blocking traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.
Brewer challenged Bolton's decision in an appeals court in San Francisco. She argued the judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law might burden legal immigrants, and by concluding the federal government likely would prevail. Brewer's appeal is still pending.
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, one of the lawyers defending the law on behalf of the state, said Arizona bears staggering costs from illegal immigration, yet the federal government maintains the state is prevented from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
Horne said Washington has failed to protect the state against an invasion by illegal immigrants.
"The word 'invasion' does not necessarily mean invasion of one country by another country," Horne said. "It can mean large numbers of illegal immigrants from various countries."
The governor's filing hammers on the issue of the state's unreimbursed costs for jailed illegal immigrants. Brewer's predecessor, Janet Napolitano, who is now the Homeland Security secretary, regularly sent the Justice Department invoices seeking such reimbursement when she was governor.
The lawsuit doesn't say exactly how much reimbursement money the state is seeking. Instead, it asks the court to interpret the criteria on which the reimbursements are based, which the state believes will ensure it gets more funding.
Brewer's filing noted Arizona's latest annual reimbursement from the federal government totaled nearly $10 million and the state had to eat an additional $125 million.
Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix, an opponent of the law, said Brewer's filing was intended to draw attention from the state's budget woes. Sinema noted the federal government has hired 8,000 new Border Patrol agents and added hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years.
"The state will be hard-pressed to show that we have been denied any promised benefit," Sinema said.

U.S. fast food caught in immigration crosshairs

2011-02-07T23:41:00.000-05:00

LOS ANGELES/DALLAS (Reuters) – Chipotle Mexican Grill has a lot going for it -- an upscale burrito concept, a hip and eco-friendly image, expansion plans galore and a 500 percent-plus stock price gain in just over two years.

And then it has something not going its way -- a federal crackdown on its immigrant labor force that has so far forced Chipotle to fire hundreds of allegedly illegal workers in the state of Minnesota, perhaps more than half its staff there.
The probe is widening. Co-Chief Executive Monty Moran told Reuters on Friday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has also issued "notices of inspection" for restaurants in Washington D.C. and Virginia.
Investors in the Wall Street darling are taking note and one firm, Calvert Investments, plans to talk to Chipotle about the large number of undocumented workers uncovered.
Dependence on illegal labor is the elephant in the room for the U.S. restaurant business. And experts say the Chipotle ICE investigations are a wake-up call for an industry that is one of America's biggest employers and generates over $300 billion in annual sales, according to research firm IBISWorld Inc.
Chipotle -- a Denver-based company whose motto is "Food With Integrity" -- is one of the most well-known names caught in the immigration enforcement shift that began two years ago.
At that time, Barack Obama, a proponent of immigration reform to help manage the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, became president. Also at that time, immigrant hiring by restaurants began to rebound.
Obama has had to walk a fine line on the issue. He must uphold the law and appease Americans resentful of illegal immigrants working as the unemployment rate stubbornly sits at 9 percent. But he needs to do it in a way palatable to Hispanic voters who will be key to his re-election in 2012.
Gone are the days of big raids that snared large numbers of workers, mostly from Mexico and Central America. Under Obama, immigration enforcement agents are cracking down on employers with so-called "I-9 audits" -- I-9 being the employment eligibility verification form.
ICE says that means companies' hiring practices could be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as their bookkeeping is by the Internal Revenue Service.
"When you get a big name like Chipotle, it stands out and sends a message," said Jacqueline Longnecker, president of Reno-based Employment Verification Resources Inc.
"The onus is on employers now ... It sends the message that nobody is going to be excused from this," she said, adding that many companies -- both large and small -- do not recognize the potential liabilities they now face.
Chipotle believes it has not been singled out.
"ICE has vowed to increase pressure on employers to avoid employing undocumented workers ... We are one of a large and growing number of companies to go through this process," Moran told Reuters by e-mail.
But to date, the majority of audits that have come to light in the restaurant business have been limited to small operators or franchisees of big chains, like Subway.

EMPLOYEE CHURN

The U.S. fast-food industry historically has offered relatively low pay and paltry benefits to legal workers and, as a result, has struggled with high employee turnover.
Longnecker and other experts said restaurant owners are attracted to illegal laborers because they work hard, are loyal and will go the extra mile to hold down a job.
It is hard to know the extent of hiring of illegal immigrants in restaurants. But immigrants -- both legal and illegal -- account for about a quarter of workers in the restaurant and food services industry and their numbers are up in recent years.
Their share fell from 24.5 percent in March 2006 to 21.4 percent in March 2008 -- before and during the recession -- but then recovered to 23.6 percent in March 2009 and March 2010, according to an analysis of the government's Current Population Survey (CPS) data conducted for Reuters by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
The overall number of immigrants employed in the sector climbed from just over 1.7 million in 2008 to 1.8 million in 2010, according to this data, even as native employment fell from 6.4 million to 5.9 million.
The Pew Hispanic Center -- whose demographic and labor market work is highly regarded -- estimated in a 2009 report that 12 percent of the workforce in food preparation and serving in 2008 was undocumented.
Chipotle, which has more than 1,000 restaurants mostly in the United States and plans to open as many as 145 more in 2011, pays its workers more than the average burger flipper but its building binge has stoked its appetite for new hires.
Alejandro, one of the Chipotle workers fired in Minnesota who asked that his last name not be published for fear of reprisals, worked there for five years and earned $9.42 per hour, taking home $1,200 a month. That allowed him to send up to $800 per month to his daughters to keep studying in Mexico.
"I thought it was a good company," said Alejandro, who lost his job in December along with 10 of his 20 co-workers. "I was even going to get training to be promoted to kitchen manager."

PROBLEMS WITH PAPERS

Alejandro, 37, and co-worker Tanya, a 35-year-old mother of four, admit they are in the United States illegally and had to use false documents to get their jobs at Chipotle.
"I believe that when you go to apply there, they know beforehand that you don't have papers," Tanya said by phone. "And after the six years I worked there, or the 10 years of some of my colleagues, they get rid of us without warning."
The false documents, which include things such as driver's licenses, Social Security cards and residence permits, are easy to come by "on the street," said Tanya. "Many people offer them. It is part of coming here and trying to make a better life for your children."
But Moran says that Chipotle has "always taken this issue very seriously, and over the last five years we have done a great deal to improve our systems, and our document review capabilities and procedures."
"Certainly this incident has been eye-opening for us and caused us to redouble our efforts to make sure we are doing all we can short of running afoul of the mandate of the Department of Justice," said Moran, adding that Chipotle performs two document reviews for each employee hired, one by the hiring manager and another by its human resources department.
The company, which has gained a cult-like following by serving natural and organic food where possible, stands out as one of the industry's top performers when it comes to sales at established restaurants and stock gains. Its stock price is flirting with $250 compared to under $40 in November 2008.
It also differs from other public traded chains in another very important way. Unlike McDonald's Corp and most other restaurant companies, it does not rely on franchisees to own and operate restaurants, which means it might be easier to hold its head office more accountable for infractions.

INVESTOR URGES 'BETTER SYSTEMS'

Investors, however, may not see much risk to Chipotle or other fast food companies from their immigration quandaries. Chipotle stock still ended 3 percent higher on Friday after the news of the widening immigration probe.
After all, the companies can simply go out and hire others or pay fines to ICE that probably won't dent their bottom lines. Total ICE fines last year were a paltry $7 million.
But Maryland-based Calvert Investments said it was surprised by the extent of Chipotle's undocumented workers because the company scores high on the issues Calvert monitors -- good social, environmental and corporate governance.
"We would urge them to put better systems in place so that the likelihood of this occurring again is slim," said Ellen Kennedy, senior sustainability research analyst at Calvert, which oversees $14.5 billion in assets.
Chipotle, which reports fourth-quarter earnings on Thursday, recognizes it is big deal for its operations.
"This incident has caused a lot of disruption -- both to us and in the lives of so many of our people," said Moran, whose company reported 22,250 employees at the end of 2009. "In addition, it's been a heartbreaking situation for us to lose so many excellent employees."
Indeed, it is not just a few workers who need to be hired and trained to keep the places running. Chipotle will not disclose the total number fired, but it could be as many as 700 of its estimated 1,200 Minnesota workers.
Those are the figures circulating among the Minneapolis legal community, according to Javier Morillo, the president of labor union SEIU Local 26, which does not represent the fast food sector but is helping the workers because of its interest in immigration reform.
The need for reform is where labor and business agree.
"We need those businesses that are being audited to speak up and say to the government this is insanity and it is not solving a thing," said Morillo.
Chipotle's Moran does speak up, saying in his email: "The system clearly isn't working very well as it is, and reform is absolutely necessary."
As for Tanya and Alejandro, they are fairly confident they will get new jobs in restaurants or factories in Minneapolis, but they probably won't get the good salary or long run they had at Chipotle.

Arizona proposal: Candidates must prove US birth

2011-01-28T23:26:00.000-05:00

Associated Press – Fri Jan 28, 8:07 pm ET

PHOENIX – Arizona legislators have reintroduced legislation aimed at making President Barack Obama prove his U.S. nationality by birth.
The measure in the Arizona House would prohibit placing presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the state's ballot unless they submit specified documentation of their U.S. birth and other constitutional requirements.
Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's birth in that state, but so-called "birthers" contend Obama was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland.
The state House narrowly passed a version of the bill in 2010 but it died in the Senate without a vote in the closing days of the legislative session. Secretary of State Ken Bennett had voiced concerns about the 2010 legislation's provision that would have prohibited his office from placing a candidate on the ballot if documents submitted on behalf of a candidate left reasonable doubt about the candidate's eligibility. That would have left the secretary of state with too much discretion, Bennett said through a spokesman at the time.
On Friday, Bennett noted that the reasonable doubt wording is not included in the 2011 version; instead, it mandates submissions of specific sworn statements and a copy of a birth certificate with specific information.
Bennett said he has questions about the new legislation's proposed requirements, noting that required information, including names of a hospital, attending physician and witnesses, might not be on all birth certificates. It would be best if federal-level processes assured the eligibility of presidential candidates, Bennett said.
"But it seems to be obvious that they must not have a process sufficiently implemented at the federal level or we wouldn't still be having questions about the president's birth status."
Bennett, a Republican and a former state Senate president, said he personally believes Obama was born in Hawaii.
This year's bill has not yet been assigned to a committee for a possible hearing. It has 41 co-sponsors, all Republicans and one more than last year. The Legislature has 90 members, with both chambers controlled by Republicans.
The bill's main sponsor, Republican Rep. Judy Burgess of Skull Valley, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Similar bills have been introduced in other states, including Georgia, Missouri, Nebraska, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Texas.
Meanwhile, a legislative bill introduced in Hawaii would change a privacy law barring the release of birth records unless the requester is someone with a tangible interest, such as a close family member.
The Hawaii bill, intended by Obama supporters to dispel claims that Obama was not born in the state, would allow anyone to get a copy of his birth records for a $100 fee.

News Web site News .House OKs amended illegal immigration bill

2011-01-28T23:23:00.000-05:00

The version of an illegal immigration bill that passed the House Thursday has new provisions that may be too tough for one party and too lenient for the other.

District 53 Rep. Bobby Moak, D-Bogue Chitto, said the amended version of Senate Bill 2179, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2011, contains stiff penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants and a sweetener for local law enforcement agencies who jail them.
"You need to shut the door right there," said Moak, who presented the bill on the House floor. "What the House did was hear from Mississippians who said the cause of this problem is people who continue to bring these folks in illegally. That's what needs to stop."
The amended legislation now stipulates businesses found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants may face fines of not less than $5,000 per day and not more than $25,000 per day, with those funds placed in an account accessible by local governments for reimbursement of costs or to pay for more training for law enforcement officers. The amount of the fine is up to the judge, Moak said.
Employers found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants will likewise be stripped of tax benefits, bonds and grants, and the state auditor's office will be charged with recovering any money the state has invested in that company.
Illegal immigrants found guilty of a non-violent crime would serve one-third of their sentence and then be eligible to be returned to their country of origin under a federal program, Moak said. If that illegal immigrant is caught in Mississippi a second time, they will serve the remainder of the sentence with no chance for parole, he said.
House leaders removed a provision in the original bill that would have allowed any Mississippi citizen to bring suit against local law enforcement agencies or governments suspected of refusing to enforce the immigration law.
Instead, agencies that comply and jail illegal immigrants will be reimbursed $36 per day on a program similar to the money the state sends to local jails for housing state inmates. The latter rate is $20 per day.
"Suing is not the answer," Moak said. "Let's say you win. Who gets to pay for it? You do, the local taxpayers."
The bill now returns to the Senate for review, where it could be amended even more.
"If it was up to me, it's either take it or leave it," Moak said.
District 92 Rep. Becky Currie, R-Brookhaven, said Republicans supported the amended version of the bill in force in order to keep it alive in the Legislature, but not all GOP members are happy with the House's changes. She said the bill underwent 55 deletions and 43 insertions of new language that she fears has crippled its ability to be enforced.
"For Democrats to walk away from this and say, 'Well, we passed the immigration bill,' no one needs to be fooled by that," Currie said. "Not everything in it is terrible, but it's just watered down."
Still, Currie - who introduced her own Arizona-style immigration bill in the House - called the passing of the bill "absolutely a step in the right direction" and commended Moak for the way he handled the bill on the floor.
"We'll do what the people of Mississippi want us to do - take care of the illegal immigration problem," she said. "The federal government won't do its job, so the states will have to step up and do theirs."

US cancels 'virtual fence' along Mexican border. What's Plan B?

2011-01-16T14:08:00.000-05:00

Christian Science Monitor - The dream of a high-tech barrier stretching from one end of America’s southern border to the other – originally hailed by then-President George W. Bush as “the most technically advanced border security initiative” ever – is officially burst.

In announcing that it would pull the plug on the troubled “virtual fence” project, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday it would instead pursue a region-by-region approach, with different parts of the US border protected in different ways as dictated by terrain and other area-specific conditions.
“This new strategy is tailored to the unique needs of each border region, providing faster deployment of technology, better coverage, and a more effective balance between cost and capability,” said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement.
Almost from the onset, the virtual fence – known as the Secure Border Initiative network, or SBInet – ran into problems. As pilot projects were built in two spots in Arizona along the border with Mexico, cost overruns mounted. Just as worrisome was that the technology – in the form of camera-topped surveillance towers that was supposed to pinpoint for border agents in a distant command post the exact location of illegal border-crossers – was often flummoxed by conditions on the ground such as terrain and weather.
“Cameras don’t come down off the poles and grab people by the ankle and arrest them,” T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council representing border patrol agents, told the Monitor in 2009. The technology, he said at the time, was effective only on level ground; in terrain with mountains and valleys it was ineffective beyond a few hundred feet.
In all, the government spent almost $1 billion on the virtual fence project since its inception in 2005, as contractor Boeing Co. endeavored to work out the kinks and refine SBInet’s capabilities. In the end, though, the cost per mile of coverage made it grossly inefficient: It is operational along 53 miles of Arizona’s 386-mile border with Mexico.
By contrast, the DHS expects that security for the rest of Arizona’s border can be buttressed for $750 million, by using commercially available surveillance measures, unmanned drones, thermal imaging, and other equipment.
“SBInet cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border-security technology solution,” Secretary Napolitano said Friday. It now falls to her department to propose alternative, region-by-region plans for improving border security, which she said would come later this year. In surrendering the “one-size-fits-all” solution offered by the virtual fence, DHS expects to use some of its proven components elsewhere.
The Obama administration has from the beginning made a point of highlighting its efforts to improve border security, knowing it will stand no chance of reforming America’s broken immigration policy unless it demonstrates to Congress and the public that it has first moved aggressively to prevent illegal entry into the US. Indeed, the DREAM Act, a bill to resolve the status of some illegal immigrants already in the US, failed to pass the Senate late last year.
The president, for his part, last year signed legislation to spend $600 million on two more unmanned drones to patrol the border and on 1,500 additional Border Patrol agents and other law-enforcement personnel to crack down on illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. And DHS noted Friday that Border Patrol manpower has doubled – now at a force of 20,500 – since 2004.
Few lamented the demise of the virtual fence project – even those who have criticized the Obama administration for not doing enough to tighten the southern border.
Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, now chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told The New York Times that the Obama administration should have ended SBInet before now.
Nor did Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona object to ending the project in his home state. “I am pleased to hear that Secretary Napolitano finally allowed the SBInet contract to expire,” he told The Arizona Republic. “A complete and thorough investigation should be conducted related to this waste.”

Maslink Overselling the American dream overseas

2010-12-22T17:27:00.000-05:00

SHANGHAI/CHICAGO (Reuters) – In a conference room in an office building in downtown Shanghai, Jason Lee is literally selling the American dream.

Lee runs Maslink, a firm that connects cash-hungry American businesses with Chinese investors keen to move to the United States. His company is part of a global cottage industry that has popped up in recent years to profit from a program that allows foreigners who invest in certain small U.S. businesses to get on the fast track to U.S. residency and citizenship.
Interest in the immigration program, known as EB-5, is so high that Maslink, which already has offices in Shanghai, Beijing, Hangzhou and Chongqing, is expanding to two more Chinese cities.
Firms like Maslink, and the U.S. companies that pay them, promote EB-5 as a quick, easy way to gain legal entry to the United States -- and to make a potential profit in the bargain.
The pitch is effective. In 2010, nearly 2,000 would-be immigrants, many from China, applied for EB-5 visas, the most ever in a single year, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that oversees the program. The surge has been driven in part by a 20-fold increase in the number of U.S. companies looking to participate.
But an examination of EB-5 by Reuters suggests immigrants should think twice before investing in the limited partnerships and unregistered securities that U.S. companies and promoters like Maslink are encouraging them to buy.
Over the past two decades, thousands of immigrants have been burned by misrepresentations that EB-5 promoters make about the program, both inside and outside the United States. Many have lost not only their money but their chance at winning U.S. citizenship.
"I always tell the people who approach me that the EB-5 investment program is a risky business," said Brian Su, a Springfield, Illinois-based immigration consultant who publishes a popular blog on the program. "If you cannot bear the loss, the total loss of your investment, don't play this game."
But those risks are downplayed by almost everyone involved in the program -- including the USCIS itself. Chris Bentley, the agency's spokesman, for instance, said "the overwhelming majority" of EB-5 investors and their dependents go on to qualify for permanent resident status. An analysis of USCIS's own data, however, suggests that's not true. Nearly half the immigrant investors who won EB-5 visas during its 20-year history have failed to obtain permanent residency.
The rise in recent years of an unregulated industry paid to fill the EB-5 pipeline with rich foreigners has only added to the dangers. The U.S. businesses the immigrants are now steered to -- by firms like Maslink and by U.S. immigration attorneys -- are often the ones paying the highest commissions, not the ones offering the best investments, according to the industry insiders who spoke to Reuters.
"It's the Wild West," said Henry Liebman, a Seattle attorney and developer who has been doing EB-5 funded projects almost since the program's inception.
"You're dealing with a bunch of unregulated companies, most of them small, that aren't registered with anyone and can do whatever they want," he said. "It's definitely buyer beware."

Youth Immigration Bill Blocked by Republicans

2010-12-18T16:45:00.000-05:00

AP – Undocumented UCLA student Leslie Perez, 22, weeps while watching a televised debate of the Dream Act.

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Saturday doomed an effort that would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a path to legal status if they enrolled in college or joined the military.
Sponsors of the Dream Act fell five votes short of the 60 they needed to break through largely GOP opposition and win its enactment before Republicans take over the House and narrow Democrats' majority in the Senate next month.
President Barack Obama called the vote "incredibly disappointing."

"A minority of senators prevented the Senate from doing what most Americans understand is best for the country," Obama said. "There was simply no reason not to pass this important legislation."
Dozens of immigrants wearing graduation mortarboards watched from the Senate's visitors gallery, disappointment on their faces, as the 55-41 vote was announced.
"This is a dark day in America," said Jorje-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles. "The Senate has ... thrown under the bus the lives and hard work of thousands and thousands of students who love this country like their own home, and, in fact, they have no other home."
Hispanic activists and immigrant advocates had looked to the bill as a down payment on what they had hoped would be broader action by Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress to give the nation's 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants a chance at legal status.
It targeted the most sympathetic of the millions of illegal immigrants — those brought to the United States as children, who in many cases consider themselves American, speak English and have no ties to or family living in their native countries.
"They stand in the classrooms and pledge allegiance to our flag," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the bill's chief sponsor. "This is the only country they have ever known. All they're asking for is a chance to serve this nation."
Critics called the bill a backdoor grant of amnesty that would encourage more foreigners to sneak into the United States in hopes of being legalized eventually.
"Treating the symptoms of the problem might make us feel better ... but it can allow the underlying problem to metastasize," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Unfortunately, that's what's happening at our border."

Rare immigration bills pass Congress

2010-12-16T16:05:00.000-05:00

AP - NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Congress has taken the unusual step of waiving immigration restrictions for two Japanese citizens fighting to live in the United States.

The private immigration bills passed by the House on Wednesday — they had already been passed by the Senate — are the first to be approved in more than five years. The measures now go to President Barack Obama for his signature.
One bill would clear the way for the granting of legal status to the widow of a Tennessee Marine who gave birth to their son after he was killed in Iraq in 2008. Another would provide relief to a Japanese man living in California whose mother was killed in a car crash when he was a teenager and who was never legally adopted.
"I have always seen myself as part of this whole American society, and I am American, just like my friends but without the status or papers," said the man, Shigeru Yamada, now 28. "For me to finally become, or have the potential to become a permanent resident, it means a great deal to me, it really does. I can't really express how happy I am."
Congress can vote to let individual immigrants in exceptional cases live in the country legally but hasn't done so since the 108th Congress, in 2003-04. Immigrant advocates see such bills as a last resort when other efforts to obtain a green card have failed.
"The logjam has been broken open for the first time in five years," said Brent Renison, an immigration attorney who represented Hotaru Nakama Ferschke, whose husband Marine Sgt. Michael Ferschke died in Iraq in 2008.
The couple married by telephone while she was in Japan and he was in Iraq. She was already pregnant with his child. But their marriage was not considered valid under immigration law because they did not consummate it, since he died in combat before they could be reunited.
The Marine's mother, Robin Ferschke, was elated when Republican congressman John Duncan of Tennessee called her in Maryville on Wednesday morning to tell her know Congress had passed the relief measure after many legislative setbacks. Ferschke hopes the actions open the door for more private bills to be considered by Congress.
"These bills are tragedies and they shouldn't just sit there for years," she said.
A private bill is one that benefits or provides relief to specified individuals or companies, often when no other remedy is available. Subjects of private bills include immigration, taxation, public lands, medical affairs and Armed services decorations.
Anywhere from a few dozen to more than a hundred private immigration bills are introduced each session of Congress, though most don't go anywhere, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.
Private immigration bills were more common until a corruption scandal involving payoffs for the sponsorship of legislation in the 1970s. Use of the bills declined further after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, with only four enacted in the 108th Congress, the report said.
But immigration attorneys say that even getting a member of Congress to introduce a private bill can help an immigrant facing deportation.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement holds off on deporting immigrants who have private bills pending in the Senate, or those whose cases have been vetted by the House immigration subcommittee and for whom an investigative report has been requested from ICE.
Carl Shusterman, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles, said he has four clients who have private bills pending in Congress — the only protection that keeps them from being deported.
The bills expire soon after the end of each session, and new ones are typically introduced when Congress starts up again. But most private bills don't pass.
"Some of our people are on their fourth private bills already," Shusterman said.
Lawmakers may use private bills to help individual citizens but also to gauge whether there's a need for broader changes in immigration policy.
Shigeru Yamada came to the United States on a visa with his mother from Japan when he was 10 years old. She was killed in a car crash three years later, in 1995, and he went to live with his aunt in Chula Vista, Calif., but was never formally adopted.
He finished high school and attended community college. But Yamada, known to his friends as "Shiggy," was arrested by U.S. immigration agents in 2004 while riding a bus to downtown San Diego.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Bob Filner introduced bills on behalf of Yamada, which prevented his deportation. On Wednesday, he planned to celebrate with friends after getting off work as a coordinator at a Lasik center, but noted that the president still must sign the bill into law.
Republican lawmakers have resisted passing private bills in recent years, arguing that immigration should be tackled on a policy, not an individual, level, said Gregory Chen, director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
The Ferschke case won them over, he said, and that led to a compromise with Democrats working on Yamada's behalf.
"To break an almost six-year blockade on these cases of private bills, I think, is an example of an opportunity to work together on these," Chen said. "It certainly eliminates arguments where people have been resisting private bills, saying private bills are not, as a policy, the way such matters should be handled."
Duncan had been working for more than a year on his private bill for the Ferschke family, along with Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, a combat Marine in Vietnam and former Navy secretary. Webb was the sponsor of the version that the House passed on a voice vote Wednesday. The two measures allow the Japanese citizens to be eligible for permanent resident status upon filing an application.
"Helping people caught up in extraordinary circumstances like the Ferschkes' is one of the most basic and important jobs of Congress," Duncan said, "and I am so grateful for all the bipartisan support in the House and Senate."
Since Michael Ferschke's death, his mother has only been able to see her grandson, Mikey, during temporary visits. Nearly two years old, he's starting to look a lot like his Marine father and is speaking English and Japanese words, she said.
"Just to hold that baby means so much to me," she said. "When I hold him, I am holding my Michael."

Advocates of Immigration hope 'Secure Communities' Documents Will Slow Controversial Immigrant Deportation Program

2010-12-15T17:41:00.000-05:00

Immigration activists are hoping internal documents a federal judge has ordered the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to release will shed light on why the Department of Homeland Security abruptly announced communities could no longer opt out of a controversial immigration enforcement program this fall.

Washington state and several municipalities like Arlington, Virginia have said they want to opt out of ICE's "Secure Communities" deportation program, which scours local jails for fingerprints of illegal immigrants to deport. Critics of the program point out that about a quarter of those deported had no criminal records, since suspects are fingerprinted for minor infractions, thereby permitting ICE officials to initiate deportation proceedings against them. Detractors also say the program, which has deported 50,000 since its creation in 2008, hampers communication between immigrants and law enforcement, since immigrants fearful of deportation are unlikely to come forward as witnesses in more serious legal proceedings.
At first, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seemed sympathetic to these concerns, writing in a September letter (pdf) to Rep. Zoe Lofgren that localities could opt out of the program if they wished. In August, ICE released a document, no longer available on its website, that also suggested there was a way for communities to opt out.
Then, on October 5, Napolitano said at a press conference that the program is mandatory for all, and will be implemented fully by 2013. So what happened?
We may be about to find out. A federal judge has ordered the DHS to release, by January 17, all internal documents related to whether Secure Communities is optional. Critics of the program hope the bevy of documents will shed light on the abrupt change in policy, and perhaps even halt the program's implementation. (The program's supporters, meanwhile, say it has produced a 70 percent increase in deportation of criminals since 2008, and that many non-criminals who get deported have lengthy rap sheets of dropped charges.)
"I think there are serious legal questions that remain about DHS's authority to mandate participation," says Chris Newman, the legal director for the National Day Laborers Organizing Network. The organization joined with two others to sue ICE to release the Secure Communities documents, and is also requesting an injunction on its enforcement. "Up until now this program that [ICE chief] John Morton said would revolutionize immigration enforcement has been rolled out in secret. I don't think any program that will revolutionize immigration enforcement should be done in a vacuum."
Margaret Huang, the executive director of civil liberties-focused Rights Working Group, says she thinks the documents may show that the agency was overwhelmed with requests from communities to opt out of the program, which is why they decided to reverse the opt-out plan. Huang worked with Arlington's city council in their attempt to opt out of Secure Communities, and she says the community is still confused about whether it can opt out because they have yet to receive a written document saying they cannot.
"I think Arlington County elected officials made a decision on this program based on hearing from their constituents, and they did it on the understanding, based on written communication, that it was an option. I think that raises a lot of questions about the appropriateness of the decision and perhaps also about the legality," she says.
The documents may also spark outrage if they show local officials were intentionally misled about the program's optionality.
"I think if the documents show that internally DHS...has intended and designed this program to be mandatory for states and localities, but that they've been giving a different impression all along, I think it will createÂ huge uproar among states and localities," said Greg Chen, advocacy director of the American Association of Immigration Lawyers.
ICE says it has been forthright with the public in promulgating new policy directives. "We have made a very high priority of transparency and candor," Beth Gibson, ICE assistant deputy director, told The Washington Post. "We have posted all our policies online . . . we are operating openly and forthrightly."

Arizona Border Patrol Agent Shot Dead

2010-12-15T17:15:00.002-05:00

PHOENIX (Reuters) – A U.S. Border Patrol agent was shot dead by assailants close to the Mexico border in southern Arizona and four suspects have been arrested, authorities said on Wednesday.

Agent Brian A. Terry was shot dead while on patrol near the border city of Nogales on Tuesday night, Tucson sector Border Patrol spokesman Mario Escalante said.
"We have four subjects in custody and we are continuing the search for more subjects," Escalante told Reuters.
Arizona straddles a furiously trafficked corridor for human and drug smugglers from Mexico. Escalante said the FBI was leading the investigation into the shooting and would provide further details during the day.

Men stand behind the border fence on the Mexican side as a U.S. border patrol officer walks on a path on the outskirts of San Diego, California

Democrats delay action on young immigrants bill

2010-12-09T17:40:00.001-05:00

AP - WASHINGTON – Democrats have delayed a showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally.

Facing GOP objections, Democrats are putting aside the so-called Dream Act. They're short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure.
Democratic officials say they'll try to move a House-passed version after the Senate acts on funding the government and extending tax cuts. Republicans have said they won't agree to consider anything else until those issues are addressed.
The bill grants hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military.

Filipinos sue CA hospital over English-only rule

2010-12-07T22:48:00.001-05:00

LOS ANGELES – Dozens of Filipino hospital workers in California sued their employer Tuesday alleging they were the sole ethnic group targeted by a rule requiring them to speak only English.
The group of 52 nurses and medical staff filed a complaint accusing Delano Regional Medical Center of banning them from speaking Tagalog and other Filipino languages while letting other workers speak Spanish and Hindi.
The plaintiffs are seeking to join an August complaint filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Kern County federal court over the hospital's enforcement of a rule requiring workers to speak English.
Filipino workers said they were called to a special meeting in August 2006 where they were warned not to speak Tagalog and told surveillance cameras would be installed, if necessary, to monitor them. Since then, workers said they were told on a daily basis by fellow staffers to speak only English, even on breaks.
"I felt like people were always watching us," said tearful 56-year-old Elnora Cayme, who worked for the hospital from 1980 to 2008. "Even when we spoke English ... people would come and approach us and tell us, 'English only.'"
A message was left at the hospital seeking comment.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC has accused the hospital in California's San Joaquin Valley of creating a hostile working environment for Filipinos by singling them out for reprimands and for encouraging other staff to report them. The agency is seeking an injunction to protect the workers against future discrimination.
The EEOC has seen an increase in complaints alleging discrimination based on national origin amid a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, said Anna Park, a regional attorney for the EEOC. That's especially the case in California's central valley, where a greater share of the complaints the agency receives relate to such issues than in the nation as a whole.
In this case, the current and former hospital workers filed a separate complaint under state law in part because monetary damages are capped by federal law, said Julie Su, litigation director for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, which represents the plaintiffs. They want the English-only policy to be changed and for hospital staff to be trained on the new rule.
Under California law, employers may require workers to speak English if there is a business necessity, Su said.
Delano Regional Medical Center is a 156-bed hospital located about 30 miles north of Bakersfield.

Immigration - Minority - Majority

2010-12-07T21:36:00.002-05:00

Well over a year ago, the Census Bureau released a national projection through mid-century showing that the U.S. population will be minority white in the year 2042, creating much ballyhoo, as well as speculation about what it implies for the nation’s voting patterns, labor force and generational divides. That projection assumed an immigration trajectory of up to two million each year.
Never mind that there are now four states and a slew of cities with so called “minority majority” populations. The sense that the combined minority population would outnumber whites some 40 years out led to the usual outrage among those who feel our country is changing too fast, and that immigration is the major cause.
New Census projections will probably bring some comfort to those who prefer the status quo. One Census alternative to last year’s projection assumes a lower, and constant immigration of roughly one million new Americans annually over the 2010-2050 time span. This is broadly consistent with our experience of the last two decades, after averaging variations due to economic shifts.
The new, more realistic projection pushes the “minority majority” tipping point back eight years, to 2050. This scenario also estimates that the U.S. population will not reach the 400 million benchmark until just after 2050, compared with 2039 under the earlier projection.
Census also offered projections based on other immigration scenarios, with the highest assuming a rise to 2.4 million annual immigrants by mid-decade. Not surprisingly, this moves the minority white tipping point closer to the year 2040 and shows the 400 million mark reached already in 2035.

Thus, those concerned about long-term immigration are right to note that immigration levels do have consequences for the nation’s demographic future. Yet more so than its impact on race, the projections show the significance immigration holds for the near term size of our labor force.
This is made plain in a projection that shows what would happen if immigration were eliminated between now and 2050. Under that scenario, we would see an absolute decline of more than 7 million persons in our labor force. This would begin five years from now, and occur over the 20-year period when the large baby boom generation moves into prime retirement age.

It would make our predicament similar to that in immigration-wary nations of Europe or Japan, whose working-age populations are already diminishing.
In comparison, any of the Census Bureau’s positive immigration scenarios will fill the void and add from 31 million to 64 million working-age adults over the next 40 years. It is a demographic fact that continued immigration is necessary for this country to maintain a growing vital labor force.
Census’ “no immigration” projection also sends a message to those who would eliminate immigration because of race-ethnic diversity concerns: it is already too late to return to the predominantly white population of the past. If immigration stopped this year, we will continue to become more diverse simply due to the fertility and population momentum associated with minority-majority make up of today’s population. In this case, whites will comprise only 58 percent of the population at mid-century (compared to about two thirds today) and the under 5 population will become majority minority.
There is much to consider beyond mere numbers of people when we finally get serious about implementing an enlightened immigration policy reform. Since it’s nearly certain that immigration will continue at some level, these projections make fairly obvious that newcomers from across the world will change our race, ethnic and national-origin complexion in ways, it seems, that can only improve our interconnectedness to the global economy. Yet, because immigration is so crucial to the near- and long-term growth of our working population, it is imperative that any forthcoming reform pays close attention to matching the skill levels—both high and low—of new immigrant waves, to our forthcoming labor force needs.

Whites Predicted to be in Minority over the next 40 Years

2010-12-07T21:27:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON — Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.
In fact, demographers say this year could be the "tipping point" when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.
The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years. Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.
"Census projections suggest America may become a minority-majority country by the middle of the century. For America's children, the future is now," said Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire who researched many of the racial trends in a paper being released Wednesday.
Johnson explained there are now more Hispanic women of prime childbearing age who tend to have more children than women of other races. More white women are waiting until they are older to have children, but it is not yet known whether that will have a noticeable effect on the current trend of increasing minority newborns.
Broken down by race, about 52 percent of babies born in 2008 were white. That's compared to about 25 percent who were Hispanic, 15 percent black and 4 percent Asian. Another 4 percent were identified by their parents as multiracial.
The numbers highlight the nation's growing racial and age divide, seen in pockets of communities across the U.S., which could heighten tensions in current policy debates from immigration reform and education to health care and Social Security.
There are also strong implications for the 2010 population count, which begins in earnest next week, when more than 120 million U.S. households receive their census forms in the mail. The Census Bureau is running public service announcements this week to improve its tally of young children, particularly minorities, who are most often missed in the once-a-decade head count. The campaign features Nickelodeon's Dora the Explorer, the English- and Spanish-speaking cartoon character who helps "mommy fill out our census form."
The population figures are used to distribute federal aid and redraw legislative boundaries with racial and ethnic balance, as required by federal law.
The adults among themselves sometimes forget the census is about everyone, and kids should be counted," said Census Bureau director Robert Groves. "If we fail to count a newborn that is born this month, that newborn misses all the benefits of the census for 10 years."

Whites currently make up two-thirds of the total U.S. population, and recent census estimates suggest the number of minorities may not overtake the number of whites until 2050.
Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation's 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent. But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.
That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two. The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S. And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.
For example:
In Gwinnett County, Ga., an Atlanta suburb, the population has shifted from 16 percent minority in 1990 to 58 percent minority in 2008. The number of blacks and Hispanics nearly doubled, while the number of white young people stayed roughly the same.
The population of Dakota County, Neb., increased from 15 percent minority in 1990 to 54 percent in 2008, due largely to an influx of Hispanics who came looking for work in meatpacking and other labor.
In Lake County, Ind., a suburb of Chicago, the minority population grew from 43 percent in 1990 to 53 percent in 2008 as the number of white children declined, the number of blacks stayed stable and the number of Hispanics increased.
The 2008 census estimates used local records of births and deaths, tax records of people moving within the U.S., and census statistics on immigrants. The figures for "white" refer to those whites who are not of Hispanic ethnicity.

State lawmakers preparing citizenship legislation

2010-10-19T20:03:00.000-04:00

PHOENIX – The state senator in Arizona who wrote the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants said Tuesday he's collecting support across the country from legislators to challenge automatic U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce's target is the 14th Amendment, but it is unclear how the state lawmaker can or will influence a federal statue.
"This is a battle of epic proportions," Pearce said Tuesday during a news conference at the Arizona Capitol. "We've allowed the hijacking of the 14th Amendment."
Pearce declined to say how the legislation will differ from similar measures that have been introduced in each two-year congressional session since 2005. None of them made it out of committee.
He and another Arizona lawmaker did argue that wording in the amendment that guarantees citizenship to people born in the U.S. who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don't owe sole allegiance to the U.S.
The efforts by Pearce and the other lawmakers come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.
Changing the Constitution is difficult.
It requires approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress, an impossibility now because Democrats have the majority in both houses and most oppose such a measure. Even if Republicans gain power in November and legislation is passed, an amendment would still need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, said if the lawmakers focus their argument on the "subject to jurisdiction" wording, they won't get very far because the founders only meant it to apply to the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.
"If the British ambassador and his wife have a child in the U.S., that child is not a citizen because he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We cannot put him in jail, we cannot even give him a parking ticket," Bender said.
The 14th Amendment "could have easily have said you're a citizen if you owe your allegiance, but our Constitution doesn't say that," he said. "It says if you're born here, and you're not a diplomat's child, then you become a citizen, and that's the way its been for 100 years."
Carlos Galindo-Elvira, vice president of Valle del Sol, a Phoenix group that provides social services to community members and advocates for immigrants, said Pearce's interpretation of the amendment is an effort to "legitimize bullying babies."
He also questioned why lawmakers would focus on this issue rather than the country's economic woes and high unemployment rate. "All it does is split the country," he said.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the founder of a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment "greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws." He had a news conference Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., on the multistate endeavor.
The effort could run afoul of the language in the 14th Amendment and lead to a court battle over the constitutionality of the law. But Metcalfe said providing birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.
Metcalfe's office said lawmakers in at least 12 other states besides Arizona and Pennsylvania said they were making their own announcements about working on the citizenship legislation. Those other states: Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.
Pearce was the main sponsor of a tough new Arizona law that would require police enforcing other laws to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the U.S. illegally. It was to go into effect this summer, but a judge put on hold key provisions pending the resolution of a legal challenge.
Pearce also was the chief sponsor of a 2007 state law targeting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the 2010 law and who is championing the state's legal defense of it against a court challenge mounted by the U.S. Justice Department, was noncommittal when asked whether lawmakers should approve legislation on citizenship.
However, Brewer said she was "always concerned" by the possibility of involving the state in a court fight. "No one wants to be in court. No one wants to be fighting the federal government," she said.