Previously Posted by NILC:
Posted on Wed, Oct. 31, 2007
Undocumented Gomez brothers' parents deported
Miami Herald
BY CASEY WOODS
Brothers Juan and Alex Gomez bid wrenching goodbyes to their parents and grandmother Tuesday afternoon at Miami International Airport as the three were deported to their native Colombia.
The family was ordered deported in July, but a passionate lobbying campaign by Juan's high school classmates garnered the backing of several South Florida lawmakers, who helped him and his brother get a temporary stay of deportation.
For the brothers' parents, Julio and Liliana, and 85-year-old grandmother Carmen, time ran out Tuesday.
''I'm feeling such a tremendous pain, because I don't know what's going to happen to us,'' said Liliana Gomez, 43, as she wept in the check-in line. ``I don't know when I'm going to see my sons again.''
Juan, 18, and Alex, 19, were granted an additional reprieve. Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart, R-Miami, filed a private bill in Congress that, if passed, would allow the brothers to remain in the United States. They may be allowed to stay until the bill is taken up by Congress, sometime by early 2009.
Juan -- an outgoing and popular Killian High School honors graduate now attending Miami Dade College Honors College -- was all but mute at the airport, with only a ''no comment'' for the crush of reporters. He offered a few tearful words for his family.
''I love you,'' he said to his father in English as his parents headed to the airport security line.
The family came to South Florida on a six-month tourist visa in 1991, when the brothers were toddlers. They stayed and built a small catering company. They eventually filed an asylum petition that was denied more than a decade later, leading to their deportation order in 2003.
After they were detained by immigration officials on July 25, their lawyers filed a motion to reopen their asylum case, saying that several family members had been killed in Colombia's civil war since they were ordered deported. The effort failed.
With their parents gone, Juan and Alex, also a student at MDC, are looking for work to support themselves while they continue going to school, said their lawyer Cheryl Little, of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center.
''This is literally tearing a family apart,'' Little said. ``It's so un-American.''
Those who favor stopping illegal immigration disagree.
''If the parents think it's important they should have children with them, their kids should go home with them,'' said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank. ``Illegal immigrants are moral actors. They're grown-ups, and we're treating them like they're children in this debate. It's not like they didn't decide to come here.''
The family will go first to Bogotá, then to their native town of Pereira in western Colombia.
''I have so much pain but also much hope,'' said Julio Gomez, 51. ``Our sons will keep fighting, not just for them but for the thousands of kids who have the same problem.''
A few hours after the family said goodbye, dozens of the brothers' classmates at Miami Dade College's downtown campus held a rally to protest the recent failure of the DREAM Act, a bill aimed at allowing undocumented students such as the Gomezes the opportunity to apply for citizenship after two years of college or military service.
The legislation died last week after the Senate refused to take it up for debate.
''The DREAM Act is important because thousands of children who have lived here most of their lives are being deported, and families like Juan Gomez's are being destroyed,'' said Felipe Matos, president of MDC's Wolfson Campus Student Government Association. ``We're not going to give up.''
http://www.miamiherald.com/top_stories/story/290318.html
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Post DREAM ACT Vote
How do you pretend you are for something, but inside you know you are faking? Perhaps a number of poltiicians (esp. democrats) are doing this now that immigration has become such a hot potato.
I wonder how all this will influence the 2008 presidential election.
_____
The GOP’s deep internal divisions over how to fix the problem also have contributed to the congressional stalemate.
Local votes could be immigration kingpin
By: Gebe Martinez
Politico.com
Oct 30, 2007 06:52 PM EST
...In Virginia, three-fourths of voters surveyed recently by The Washington Post said the immigration issue would be important in their votes for the state legislature. A year ago, the issue ranked near the bottom of state voters’ concerns.
But many Democrats have yet to be convinced immigration is the third rail of politics, despite that pronouncement by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.
...“It’s clear that this is the weapon of choice for Republicans right now. They have nothing else going,” said Chris Dorval, a Democratic activist who has pulled together campaign professionals to study the impact of the immigration issue on the elections. His group found that, in 2006, candidates who specifically focused on immigration usually lost.
...Last week, they drove the defeat of the bipartisan Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, Act, which would have allowed children of illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and lived here at least five years to gain conditional legal status and eventual citizenship if they were to attend college or serve in military for at least two years.
And in playing to the conservative base — while ignoring the party’s business community, which favored a comprehensive immigration plan — the GOP presidential primary race has become a wrestling match over who can throw down illegal immigrants faster. By doing so, they have written off the minority vote that is critical to winning the presidency.
“They are playing the game they are in right now, which is to win the primaries,” Autry said of the Republican presidential candidates. “I don’t think they are thinking one iota about the general election right now.”
Meanwhile, the Democrats — more specifically, Emanuel and House Democratic leaders — have run away from the immigration debate but have not escaped voters’ demands that the federal government do something about it. Sounding like they want to crack down on illegal immigration, but doing nothing about it, may be worse, Dorval conceded.
The more Democrats “keep kicking the can down the road and pretend they hate [illegal] immigrants, too, the worse it’s going to get,” Dorval said. “People are very smart, and they are tired of the issue...”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6614.html
I wonder how all this will influence the 2008 presidential election.
_____
The GOP’s deep internal divisions over how to fix the problem also have contributed to the congressional stalemate.
Local votes could be immigration kingpin
By: Gebe Martinez
Politico.com
Oct 30, 2007 06:52 PM EST
...In Virginia, three-fourths of voters surveyed recently by The Washington Post said the immigration issue would be important in their votes for the state legislature. A year ago, the issue ranked near the bottom of state voters’ concerns.
But many Democrats have yet to be convinced immigration is the third rail of politics, despite that pronouncement by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.
...“It’s clear that this is the weapon of choice for Republicans right now. They have nothing else going,” said Chris Dorval, a Democratic activist who has pulled together campaign professionals to study the impact of the immigration issue on the elections. His group found that, in 2006, candidates who specifically focused on immigration usually lost.
...Last week, they drove the defeat of the bipartisan Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, Act, which would have allowed children of illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and lived here at least five years to gain conditional legal status and eventual citizenship if they were to attend college or serve in military for at least two years.
And in playing to the conservative base — while ignoring the party’s business community, which favored a comprehensive immigration plan — the GOP presidential primary race has become a wrestling match over who can throw down illegal immigrants faster. By doing so, they have written off the minority vote that is critical to winning the presidency.
“They are playing the game they are in right now, which is to win the primaries,” Autry said of the Republican presidential candidates. “I don’t think they are thinking one iota about the general election right now.”
Meanwhile, the Democrats — more specifically, Emanuel and House Democratic leaders — have run away from the immigration debate but have not escaped voters’ demands that the federal government do something about it. Sounding like they want to crack down on illegal immigration, but doing nothing about it, may be worse, Dorval conceded.
The more Democrats “keep kicking the can down the road and pretend they hate [illegal] immigrants, too, the worse it’s going to get,” Dorval said. “People are very smart, and they are tired of the issue...”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6614.html
Debate on Immigration in the U.K.
An editorial in today's London Independent describes the current anti-immigration debate in the U.K. It sounds similar to what is happening in the U.S.
One comment:
"In the public debate on this subject, there always seems to be a strong assumption that immigration is something to be feared. Not only is that a slur on the character of the vast majority of immigrants"
The editorial says its hypocritical for the UK to complain about immigrants when the economy has profited so much from them. Isn't that what has happened here?
The mob mentality that is taking over is strange, especially when editorials like this and the one from the NY Times on illegality keep appearing.
It reminds me of when in the middle ages the Jews were blamed for the outbreak of the plague - and many were killed or banished from cities.
This rabid emotion that shows on the face of Lou Dobbs and his followers seems like a plague. And yes its very contagious. Could it be happening again and we are sending the blame the wrong way?
-----
Leading article: The stench of hypocrisy
Published: 31 October 2007
London Independent
An unseemly anger against immigrants seems to be boiling over in the country. A speech by Tory leader David Cameron calling for a cap on migrant numbers has been given a warm reception. An underestimation by ministers of the number of foreign workers in Britain has been seized upon with glee by the usual reactionary subjects. And yesterday the Government announced not only that it will retain the restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigration, but also that it will plough ahead with its Australian-style points system – a Conservative cast-off – for migrant workers.
In the public debate on this subject, there always seems to be a strong assumption that immigration is something to be feared. Not only is that a slur on the character of the vast majority of immigrants, it flies in the face of the reality of the British economy. It is a debate that demeans us as a nation. Take the blunder over figures. It is certainly embarrassing for ministers that they used the wrong statistics. But consider the implications of the true figures. What they show is that more than half of the new jobs that have been created since 1997 have been filled by immigrants, even more than previously stated. This confirms the crucial role immigration has played in our economic vibrancy. It is this economic contribution that exposes the wrong-headedness of Mr Cameron's protectionist proposal to curb migrant numbers regardless of the demand for their labour. Is this the party that prides itself on its free-market principles?
The Government has been just as hypocritical. While taking credit for strong economic growth, it is dancing to the tune of the anti-immigrant lobby. The restrictions on Bulgaria and Romania fly in the face of the principle of free movement of labour within the EU. Meanwhile, the points system will discriminate unfairly against unskilled workers from outside the EU; one also wonders if ministers are really best-placed to dictate to the marketplace over hiring policies.
One argument from the anti-immigrant lobby that contains an element of truth is that immigration puts a strain on housing and transport. But whose fault is it if the Government has failed to build enough houses and neglected the national transport infrastructure? Ministers should concentrate on how best to absorb the inflow of migrants rather than dreaming up devious ways of keeping down numbers. After all, immigrants have put more than enough into the Exchequer in the form of tax revenues over the years to pay for these improvements. But, sadly, such a rational approach seems a distant prospect while our society insists on regarding immigration as a problem rather than a benefit.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3112790.ece
One comment:
"In the public debate on this subject, there always seems to be a strong assumption that immigration is something to be feared. Not only is that a slur on the character of the vast majority of immigrants"
The editorial says its hypocritical for the UK to complain about immigrants when the economy has profited so much from them. Isn't that what has happened here?
The mob mentality that is taking over is strange, especially when editorials like this and the one from the NY Times on illegality keep appearing.
It reminds me of when in the middle ages the Jews were blamed for the outbreak of the plague - and many were killed or banished from cities.
This rabid emotion that shows on the face of Lou Dobbs and his followers seems like a plague. And yes its very contagious. Could it be happening again and we are sending the blame the wrong way?
-----
Leading article: The stench of hypocrisy
Published: 31 October 2007
London Independent
An unseemly anger against immigrants seems to be boiling over in the country. A speech by Tory leader David Cameron calling for a cap on migrant numbers has been given a warm reception. An underestimation by ministers of the number of foreign workers in Britain has been seized upon with glee by the usual reactionary subjects. And yesterday the Government announced not only that it will retain the restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigration, but also that it will plough ahead with its Australian-style points system – a Conservative cast-off – for migrant workers.
In the public debate on this subject, there always seems to be a strong assumption that immigration is something to be feared. Not only is that a slur on the character of the vast majority of immigrants, it flies in the face of the reality of the British economy. It is a debate that demeans us as a nation. Take the blunder over figures. It is certainly embarrassing for ministers that they used the wrong statistics. But consider the implications of the true figures. What they show is that more than half of the new jobs that have been created since 1997 have been filled by immigrants, even more than previously stated. This confirms the crucial role immigration has played in our economic vibrancy. It is this economic contribution that exposes the wrong-headedness of Mr Cameron's protectionist proposal to curb migrant numbers regardless of the demand for their labour. Is this the party that prides itself on its free-market principles?
The Government has been just as hypocritical. While taking credit for strong economic growth, it is dancing to the tune of the anti-immigrant lobby. The restrictions on Bulgaria and Romania fly in the face of the principle of free movement of labour within the EU. Meanwhile, the points system will discriminate unfairly against unskilled workers from outside the EU; one also wonders if ministers are really best-placed to dictate to the marketplace over hiring policies.
One argument from the anti-immigrant lobby that contains an element of truth is that immigration puts a strain on housing and transport. But whose fault is it if the Government has failed to build enough houses and neglected the national transport infrastructure? Ministers should concentrate on how best to absorb the inflow of migrants rather than dreaming up devious ways of keeping down numbers. After all, immigrants have put more than enough into the Exchequer in the form of tax revenues over the years to pay for these improvements. But, sadly, such a rational approach seems a distant prospect while our society insists on regarding immigration as a problem rather than a benefit.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3112790.ece
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
What We Are Afraid Of
David Williford wrote an angry letter to the Houston Chronicle. He is very concerned that the DREAM ACT would have been amnesty. His most ludicrious statement was "that there would be no verification process that they were in fact part of that person's family" actually he framed it as a question, but it still looks like he believes such a prepostorous notion. Was he thinking DNA tests?
His other statement which sounds more mean spirited than the Chronicle did in presenting the GOP as a bunch of non-caring people is that the DREAM ACT would allow any: thug, murderer, criminal, whomever could have waltzed right into the United States
Mr. Williford has not read or doesn't believe any of the results from the numerous studies (a number from independent sources, government agencies etc.) that immigrants have a much lower crime rate.
In the meantime the NYT labels its Letters to the Editor on its "Illegal" editorial as "Unleasing a Storm" -- a number of letters were posted and only one agreed that using the word illegal was inappropriate. I guess that means that they recieved an overwhelming number of negative responses -
When I asked people about all this those that are wanting the border to close say the U.S. is losing everything from the quality of neighborhoods, to safety, to its culture etc. The fear is extraordinary. For those who are having such intense reactions of hatred, I urge them to re-think such extreme responses. Sounds like their terror is about losing the most precious thing they have - or even perhaps their lives.
Its true that immigration changes lots of things. But the real change is what is going on with the earth and the future of our landscape where we'll be seeing many more natural disasters like Katrina and the California wildfires.. Or that so many of our young people are dying in Iraq. It could hit any family except perhaps that of an upper level government official or corporate administrator. Yes, your regular America is at risk. But its not from the guy that crosses the desert in the dark.
-----
Houston Chronicle Letters to the Editor
DREAM editorial's failures
October 30, 2007
THE editorial board's comments regarding the DREAM Act were selected to paint a picture of a mean-spirited Republican Congress but failed to explain how it was that the DREAM Act was nothing more than amnesty. (Please see Monday's editorial "Mean achievement.") Why did the editorial not also mention that there is no deportation once a person is eligible per the act, that a person can bring over an unlimited number of family members, but that there would be no verification process that they were in fact part of that person's family? Or that it would overburden the government to try to prove that persons were in this country before the age of 16, and given the plethora of false identification circulating in the illegal commu-nity, it would be easy enough to show the most minimal of evidence for verification? Since verification would have been almost impossible, any thug, murderer, criminal, whomever could have waltzed right into the United States.
DAVID WILLIFORD
Houston
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5256152.html
His other statement which sounds more mean spirited than the Chronicle did in presenting the GOP as a bunch of non-caring people is that the DREAM ACT would allow any: thug, murderer, criminal, whomever could have waltzed right into the United States
Mr. Williford has not read or doesn't believe any of the results from the numerous studies (a number from independent sources, government agencies etc.) that immigrants have a much lower crime rate.
In the meantime the NYT labels its Letters to the Editor on its "Illegal" editorial as "Unleasing a Storm" -- a number of letters were posted and only one agreed that using the word illegal was inappropriate. I guess that means that they recieved an overwhelming number of negative responses -
When I asked people about all this those that are wanting the border to close say the U.S. is losing everything from the quality of neighborhoods, to safety, to its culture etc. The fear is extraordinary. For those who are having such intense reactions of hatred, I urge them to re-think such extreme responses. Sounds like their terror is about losing the most precious thing they have - or even perhaps their lives.
Its true that immigration changes lots of things. But the real change is what is going on with the earth and the future of our landscape where we'll be seeing many more natural disasters like Katrina and the California wildfires.. Or that so many of our young people are dying in Iraq. It could hit any family except perhaps that of an upper level government official or corporate administrator. Yes, your regular America is at risk. But its not from the guy that crosses the desert in the dark.
-----
Houston Chronicle Letters to the Editor
DREAM editorial's failures
October 30, 2007
THE editorial board's comments regarding the DREAM Act were selected to paint a picture of a mean-spirited Republican Congress but failed to explain how it was that the DREAM Act was nothing more than amnesty. (Please see Monday's editorial "Mean achievement.") Why did the editorial not also mention that there is no deportation once a person is eligible per the act, that a person can bring over an unlimited number of family members, but that there would be no verification process that they were in fact part of that person's family? Or that it would overburden the government to try to prove that persons were in this country before the age of 16, and given the plethora of false identification circulating in the illegal commu-nity, it would be easy enough to show the most minimal of evidence for verification? Since verification would have been almost impossible, any thug, murderer, criminal, whomever could have waltzed right into the United States.
DAVID WILLIFORD
Houston
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5256152.html
Who Are Those 800,000 Who Watch Lou Dobbs Every Night?
Who are those 800,000 Americans that watch Lou Dobbs everynight? What is going on inside their minds that makes them think his information is accurate?
I watched his show for about 5 minutes last week. He looked so incredibly angry - with a sneer on his face. If so many people are watching him, does that mean they are just as angry - you know this kind of thing is contagious. Like the bug going around that can't be cured... it destroys you from the inside, your mind and your soul.
Sitting in front of the tv, I thought for a moment of another orator who was great at mobilizing the masses. He came into power in the early 1930s in Germany. He was angry too.
-----
Dobbs clarifies his 'idiot' line
The CNN host apologizes for so labeling N.Y.'s governor but says Spitzer's views on driver's licenses for illegals are 'idiotic.'
By Larry McShane, Associated Press
Los Angeles Times
October 29, 2007
NEW YORK -- Lou Dobbs is sorry about calling Gov. Eliot Spitzer an idiot.
Sincerely.
As for ripping the New York Democrat as arrogant, spineless and "a spoiled rich-kid brat," the host of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" stands by those nationally broadcast broadsides.
Absolutely.
Dobbs has made Spitzer an almost daily target over his recent plan to ease restrictions on illegal immigrants seeking New York state driver's licenses, mixing vitriol with sarcasm while endlessly lambasting the governor's decision.
The lifelong Republican has taken on politicians of every stripe, as when he blasted the Bush administration over port security. But his nightly diatribe against Spitzer is notable for its intensity and for elevating a state proposal onto the national stage.
"What he's doing is an outrageous, arrogant abuse of power," Dobbs said before a recent show. "He's pandering to a constituency aligned directly against the interests of U.S. and New York state citizens."
Dobbs' ire boiled over Tuesday night when he ripped Spitzer as an idiot -- and then offered an on-air mea culpa.
"I'm the idiot," Dobbs said. "Governor, I apologize for calling you one. Your policies are idiotic. But I have to apologize for calling you an idiot."
Dobbs shouldn't hold his breath waiting for a bouquet of roses (the state flower) and a thank-you note from Spitzer.
"Mr. Dobbs has clearly demonstrated that he is not interested in a real debate on New York's driver's license policy change," said Jennifer Givner, a Spitzer spokeswoman. "He has repeatedly refused to offer balanced coverage of the issue."
Dobbs has turned the first-term governor into a verbal piñata over his September announcement that illegal immigrants with valid foreign passports could obtain a driver's license.
Spitzer has said the plan, set to go into effect in December, would make New York safer by bringing its 1 million illegal immigrants "out of the shadows."
The decision reversed a 2002 order by then-Gov. George Pataki issued after the 9/11 attacks and placed Spitzer directly in Dobbs' cable cross hairs. But Dobbs, while perhaps the highest-profile critic of the plan, is not alone: A state poll showed 72% of New Yorkers opposed Spitzer on this issue, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also expressed skepticism.
Spitzer, in a speech last week, noted that "despite the hysteria this policy has created in some circles, it is simply a return to the policy we had for most of our state's history."
Dobbs is hardly swayed by the history lesson, complaining that the relaxed license requirement could produce voter fraud and raise security issues. Spitzer has ignored repeated invitations to appear on the program, Dobbs said; the show has turned down guests supporting Spitzer, including former national counter-terrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, according to Givner.
Dobbs, who has made immigration one of his show's centerpiece issues, was criticized last week in a New York Times editorial for his Spitzer bashing.
"Mr. Dobbs has trained his biggest guns on Mr. Spitzer, branding him with puerile epithets like 'spoiled rich-kid brat' and depicting his policy as some sort of sanctuary program for the 9/11 hijackers," the Times wrote. "Someday there may be a calm debate, in Albany and nationally, about immigrant drivers. With Mr. Dobbs at the megaphone, for now there is only histrionics and outrage."
Dobbs isn't expecting any apology from the Times. And he has few kind words for the newspaper.
"The New York Times is the house organ for Gov. Spitzer," Dobbs said. "They're wrong on this issue, as they are on many others."
Dobbs draws a nightly audience of roughly 800,000, making him second in CNN viewers to Larry King's nightly program. He has no intention of lightening up on Spitzer.
"Why should I?" Dobbs asked. "He's wrong. This issue is of vital importance to the state of New York and the nation. My job as an advocacy journalist is to confront directly abuses of power and wrongheaded politics."
And sure enough, 24 hours after his "idiot" apology, Dobbs was again taking shots at Spitzer.
"This governor is irresponsible," Dobbs told his audience. "It's clear arrogance. . . . He has declared himself to be what people hoped he would not be -- and that is an arrogant tool of special interests."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-loudobbs29oct29,1,3393180.story
cartoon: http://skeptically.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/freespeech-media-megacorp.jpg
Takoma Park: A City That Goes Against the Tide:
Amazingly there are places in the U.S. that are not crying out that there is an invasion. Congratulations to Takoma Park. As one of their residents stated that the city "is a place where I can feel not just physically safe but politically safe."
I think this whole issue is about fear anyway. People are afraid... and the fear is being focused on undocumented immigrants. There is a lot to be afraid of these days: Our president saying there could be a WWIII, our housing market collapsing, an unknown bug that can't be eradicated.
Perhaps worst of all is that many people agree with the man from Takoma Park, but they are afraid to speak out because they know they are being watched, listened to and their emails are being read.
-----
Takoma Park Stays Immigrant 'Sanctuary'
By Steve Hendrix
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 30, 2007; Page B01
The Takoma Park council voted unanimously last night to reaffirm the town's status as a "sanctuary city" where police and other municipal employees are forbidden from enforcing federal immigration laws, an action members say is meant to set the community pointedly apart from localities roiled by the illegal immigration debate.
It comes two weeks after they turned down a request by the police chief for more flexibility in executing immigration warrants for possible deported felons.
"I hope it comes out very clearly that Takoma Park is going in the opposite direction as some of these other communities," Mayor Kathy Porter said.
In recent months, a handful of local jurisdictions have taken action against illegal immigrants. Prince William County, for example, has authorized its police force to check the immigration status of certain crime suspects and has voted, along with Loudoun County, to curtail government services to illegal immigrants. Herndon has closed a day-laborer center used by many immigrants.
Takoma Park has long been known for its independent stands. In the past, it has declared itself a nuclear-free zone, and earlier this year, the council voted to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The town also allows residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections.
The flurry of activity on immigration was sparked this year when a Guatemalan man was deported after a traffic stop by Takoma Park police. An immigration warrant for the man showed up on the National Crime Information Center database, and the officer contacted federal authorities, not knowing that the city's sanctuary law prohibited him from doing so.
The law was originally passed in 1985, but immigration warrants were added to the crime database only in 2002.
Takoma Park Police Chief Ronald Ricucci, who took over the department in February, instituted rules to keep his officers in compliance with town law. But he also asked the council to loosen restrictions for one particular category of illegal immigrant: those who were once convicted of violent felonies and were deported after serving their sentences.
To check for such violators, Ricucci asked that his officers be allowed to follow up on the database hits with a call to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If the warrant was for an ordinary immigration violation, police would go no further and let the person go. If it was for a deported violent felon, they would detain him for federal authorities.
"It's very rare," Ricucci said. "We've only gotten three ICE hits this year out of hundreds of checks we make a day. But I thought it was my duty to bring it up."
Ricucci said he had positive meetings on the issue with council members and the advocacy group CASA of Maryland, whose objections focused on the reported unreliability of the federal crime database and with the importance of not fraying the immigrant community's trust in the police. The request turned into a discussion on Takoma Park's commitment to its sanctuary law.
A series of hearings in recent weeks featured often emotional testimony, frequently from residents who see the law as central to the town's reputation as a hub of social and political activism.
Takoma Park "is a sanctuary for me against what is going on in this country," said resident Jenny Hughes at an Oct. 15 hearing. "I have always been proud of the fact that our city is a place where I can feel not just physically safe but politically safe."
The few residents who spoke in favor of the change said the chief should be granted the powers he sought.
"We want police enforcement. We want law enforcement," Steve Davies said. "But this guy comes in and tries to propose something to protect officers and the public, and you're not agreeing with him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR2007102902241.html
I think this whole issue is about fear anyway. People are afraid... and the fear is being focused on undocumented immigrants. There is a lot to be afraid of these days: Our president saying there could be a WWIII, our housing market collapsing, an unknown bug that can't be eradicated.
Perhaps worst of all is that many people agree with the man from Takoma Park, but they are afraid to speak out because they know they are being watched, listened to and their emails are being read.
-----
Takoma Park Stays Immigrant 'Sanctuary'
By Steve Hendrix
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 30, 2007; Page B01
The Takoma Park council voted unanimously last night to reaffirm the town's status as a "sanctuary city" where police and other municipal employees are forbidden from enforcing federal immigration laws, an action members say is meant to set the community pointedly apart from localities roiled by the illegal immigration debate.
It comes two weeks after they turned down a request by the police chief for more flexibility in executing immigration warrants for possible deported felons.
"I hope it comes out very clearly that Takoma Park is going in the opposite direction as some of these other communities," Mayor Kathy Porter said.
In recent months, a handful of local jurisdictions have taken action against illegal immigrants. Prince William County, for example, has authorized its police force to check the immigration status of certain crime suspects and has voted, along with Loudoun County, to curtail government services to illegal immigrants. Herndon has closed a day-laborer center used by many immigrants.
Takoma Park has long been known for its independent stands. In the past, it has declared itself a nuclear-free zone, and earlier this year, the council voted to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The town also allows residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections.
The flurry of activity on immigration was sparked this year when a Guatemalan man was deported after a traffic stop by Takoma Park police. An immigration warrant for the man showed up on the National Crime Information Center database, and the officer contacted federal authorities, not knowing that the city's sanctuary law prohibited him from doing so.
The law was originally passed in 1985, but immigration warrants were added to the crime database only in 2002.
Takoma Park Police Chief Ronald Ricucci, who took over the department in February, instituted rules to keep his officers in compliance with town law. But he also asked the council to loosen restrictions for one particular category of illegal immigrant: those who were once convicted of violent felonies and were deported after serving their sentences.
To check for such violators, Ricucci asked that his officers be allowed to follow up on the database hits with a call to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). If the warrant was for an ordinary immigration violation, police would go no further and let the person go. If it was for a deported violent felon, they would detain him for federal authorities.
"It's very rare," Ricucci said. "We've only gotten three ICE hits this year out of hundreds of checks we make a day. But I thought it was my duty to bring it up."
Ricucci said he had positive meetings on the issue with council members and the advocacy group CASA of Maryland, whose objections focused on the reported unreliability of the federal crime database and with the importance of not fraying the immigrant community's trust in the police. The request turned into a discussion on Takoma Park's commitment to its sanctuary law.
A series of hearings in recent weeks featured often emotional testimony, frequently from residents who see the law as central to the town's reputation as a hub of social and political activism.
Takoma Park "is a sanctuary for me against what is going on in this country," said resident Jenny Hughes at an Oct. 15 hearing. "I have always been proud of the fact that our city is a place where I can feel not just physically safe but politically safe."
The few residents who spoke in favor of the change said the chief should be granted the powers he sought.
"We want police enforcement. We want law enforcement," Steve Davies said. "But this guy comes in and tries to propose something to protect officers and the public, and you're not agreeing with him."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR2007102902241.html
Monday, October 29, 2007
Cornyn: Dream Act Has Nothing to Do With Helping Children
Senator Cornyn sent me an email today. I can't remember what it was about, but I do know it didn't mention the DREAM ACT. He had a link to his web page so I thought I'd look it up and see if he mentioned anything.
The day the vote went down on the DREAM ACT, Cornyn sent out a press release that really surprised me.
His comment on the DREAM ACT:
"this bill had nothing to do with helping children"
The man must be blind.
-----
Cornyn: Americans Deserve Action On Immigration Reform, Not Political Posturing
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement today regarding his vote against the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act (S. 2205), which was introduced by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. The motion to proceed, which required 60 votes, was rejected by a bipartisan vote of 52 to 44.
“This was a difficult vote because I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of children who have no moral culpability for being in this country illegally. Congress must continue seeking reasonable and responsible ways they can complete their education and achieve opportunity.
“Unfortunately, this bill had nothing to do with helping children or addressing the critical issue of immigration reform, and everything to do with political posturing and partisan gamesmanship by the Senate Democratic leadership. This lack of seriousness was demonstrated by the decision to prevent any amendments to even be considered, including one that I sought to introduce which would have added a graduation requirement to the bill. If the goal is to promote education and strengthen our skilled workforce, and the proponents of the Durbin bill were serious about that objective, then one has to wonder why the bill did not even require students to complete a degree.
“Further, the decision to prohibit amendments left open the gaping loopholes that would allow certain categories of criminals, including gang members, to apply, while tying the hands of law enforcement by denying them basic information on the backgrounds of these individuals.
“The reality is that America is facing a critical immigration problem, and the American people deserve bipartisan action from their leaders in government. I stand ready to work with my colleagues in both parties to address this issue in a comprehensive and bipartisan way. I am disappointed, however, that once again today we saw a lack of commitment by some to doing the hard work that the American people deserve.”
Sen. Cornyn serves on the Armed Services, Judiciary and Budget Committees. In addition, he is Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Refugees subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee’s Airland subcommittee.
The day the vote went down on the DREAM ACT, Cornyn sent out a press release that really surprised me.
His comment on the DREAM ACT:
"this bill had nothing to do with helping children"
The man must be blind.
-----
Cornyn: Americans Deserve Action On Immigration Reform, Not Political Posturing
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement today regarding his vote against the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act (S. 2205), which was introduced by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. The motion to proceed, which required 60 votes, was rejected by a bipartisan vote of 52 to 44.
“This was a difficult vote because I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of children who have no moral culpability for being in this country illegally. Congress must continue seeking reasonable and responsible ways they can complete their education and achieve opportunity.
“Unfortunately, this bill had nothing to do with helping children or addressing the critical issue of immigration reform, and everything to do with political posturing and partisan gamesmanship by the Senate Democratic leadership. This lack of seriousness was demonstrated by the decision to prevent any amendments to even be considered, including one that I sought to introduce which would have added a graduation requirement to the bill. If the goal is to promote education and strengthen our skilled workforce, and the proponents of the Durbin bill were serious about that objective, then one has to wonder why the bill did not even require students to complete a degree.
“Further, the decision to prohibit amendments left open the gaping loopholes that would allow certain categories of criminals, including gang members, to apply, while tying the hands of law enforcement by denying them basic information on the backgrounds of these individuals.
“The reality is that America is facing a critical immigration problem, and the American people deserve bipartisan action from their leaders in government. I stand ready to work with my colleagues in both parties to address this issue in a comprehensive and bipartisan way. I am disappointed, however, that once again today we saw a lack of commitment by some to doing the hard work that the American people deserve.”
Sen. Cornyn serves on the Armed Services, Judiciary and Budget Committees. In addition, he is Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Refugees subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee’s Airland subcommittee.
Showing of Film Made About DREAMERS
FILM -
Loz Invenzivlez/Our Invincible Youth
Indiannapolis Museum of Art
Saturday November 3 5 pm
for more information:
Kathy Souchet-Moura (765) 617-5224
Felipe Vargas (210) 844-0005
-----
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 24, 2007
Contact(s): Kathy Souchet-Moura Felipe Vargas
(765) 617-5224 (210) 844-0005
YOUTH FILMMAKERS SHINE THE SPOTLIGHT ON EDUCATION
Indianapolis, IN – Local elementary, high school and college students have created a documentary, Loz Invenzivlez/Our Invincible Youth, exploring the educational dreams, realities, and sometimes nightmares of Latin@ children who immigrated to Indianapolis. Loz Invenzivlez/Our Invincible Youth will premiere on November 3, 2007, from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Indianapolis Museum of Art as part of the 2007 Spirit & Place Festival. The film explores issues of education, immigration and identity through the eyes of youth, who rarely speak and are seldom heard on such issues important to Indiana and our nation.
More than a varriomentary film debut, the event will engage participants in dialogues led by youth with the goal of raising consciousness and moving the audience from empathy to solidarity. Youth will engage community members in participatory theatre exercises to better understand the significant mutual impact the immigration experience has had on Indianapolis. We all want to know what has been learned. “Like all of us, immigrant youth are just trying to make a good life for themselves,” says IUPUI Professor José Rosario, director of El Puente Project, a partner in the event. “And like all of us, they long to share what that means to them. So it is fitting that we be generous of heart and listen to their story. “
The Loz Invenzivlez/Our Invincible Youth event is free and open to the public. Sponsors include: El Puente Project, FIRME (Film Inquiry Research Media Education), Indianapolis Museum of Art, IU School of Education, IUPUI, National Society of Hispanic MBAs - Indianapolis Chapter and Provocate. Please visit www.elpuenteproject.com and www.firmeprodcutions.com for additional information.
Who: El Puente Project, FIRME (Film Inquiry Research Media Education), Indianapolis Museum of Art, IU School of Education, IUPUI, National Society of Hispanic MBAs - Indianapolis Chapter and Provocate.
What: Spirit & Place Festival debuts film, Loz Invenzivlez/Our Invincible Youth, created by Local elementary, high school and college students.
When: Saturday, November 3, 2007: 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Where: Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA)
4000 Michigan Rd.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Why: To raise consciousness and move the audience from empathy to solidarity
Contact: Kathy Souchet-Moura (765) 617-5224
Felipe Vargas (210) 844-0005
Cornyn's Vote Against the DREAM ACT
Maybe John Cornyn was looking ahead at his re-election campaign. Maybe he thought there were enough mean-spirited voters in Texas that he could win their approval if he said no to the DREAM ACT. Who knows what his motivation was, but for sure, it was a sad day for Cornyn and the DREAM ACT kids.
The one person who supported the DREAM ACt (which surprised many of us) was Kay Bailey Hutchisen. I had been told by people who know her that she is the last one to be reasonable in these sort of things. Maybe she is thinking about the Texas Governors race.
Either way, as usual with politics, things are not done because of compassion, they are done to win votes.
Lets hope voters remember Cornyn's lack of emphathy in the next election
-----
Editorial
Oct. 29, 2007, 5:53AM
Mean achievement
Lawmakers, including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, slam the door on young immigrants eager to serve.
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
It was a dismal day's work in the U.S. Senate Wednesday, when lawmakers, including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, shot down the DREAM Act. The bill would have given some high-performing children of illegal immigrants a chance for legal status if they had clean records, had spent more than five years in the United States and attended college or served in the military.
Even after the divisive effort to reform U.S. immigration policy, the DREAM Act inspired substantial bipartisan support in Congress. That's because it neither rewarded, or even applied to, immigrants who chose to come here illegally. The measure singled out their children, brought here without their say, who nevertheless aspired to college and military service.
By the time the measure appeared before the Senate last week, it had lost even a provision allowing these youngsters in-state tuition.
Simply, the bill tested lawmakers' ability to rationally address a small, blameless and high-achieving fraction of young people caught up in our chaotic immigration status quo.
The failures in that test glared harshly. There was the Bush White House, which failed to rouse support for comprehensive reform, but rallied just in time to undercut a much narrower bill that was much like its own past proposals.
Attacking the DREAM Act Wednesday morning, the White House Office of Management and Budget stated, "Any resolution of [the students'] status ... must be careful not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has brought the nation to this point."
The DREAM Act couldn't incentivize any illegal conduct. Eligibility for it would have ended five years before the bill's passage.
The vote also exposed the full depth of U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's pension for bullying. When immigrant students joined Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., at a news conference Tuesday, Tancredo called on immigration agents to perform a raid. (The demand was ignored, and the students all had legal status, anyway).
And Cornyn — lawmaker in one of the 13 states that have a partial version of the DREAM Act — voted against the national form, which would have given students legal status. His objection? Loopholes such as the fact that DREAM Act students didn't have to graduate from college before receiving legal status.
But this excuse fails the test of plausibility. He could easily have worked behind the scenes to improve the bill, which is what Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison did.
Hutchison, who voted for the DREAM Act, quietly secured a commitment to tailor it later to satisfy Republican concerns. She wanted to ensure the undocumented students could not jump ahead of legal immigrants in processing their green cards.
"[I]t's a situation that's just not of the students' making, and they're the young people we want in our workforce," she explained later in a telephone conference. Hutchison's conduct reflected both a moral center and a practical refusal to waste human capital. It was an exemplar of good leadership that too many of her colleagues failed to equal.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5252855.html
The one person who supported the DREAM ACt (which surprised many of us) was Kay Bailey Hutchisen. I had been told by people who know her that she is the last one to be reasonable in these sort of things. Maybe she is thinking about the Texas Governors race.
Either way, as usual with politics, things are not done because of compassion, they are done to win votes.
Lets hope voters remember Cornyn's lack of emphathy in the next election
-----
Editorial
Oct. 29, 2007, 5:53AM
Mean achievement
Lawmakers, including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, slam the door on young immigrants eager to serve.
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
It was a dismal day's work in the U.S. Senate Wednesday, when lawmakers, including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, shot down the DREAM Act. The bill would have given some high-performing children of illegal immigrants a chance for legal status if they had clean records, had spent more than five years in the United States and attended college or served in the military.
Even after the divisive effort to reform U.S. immigration policy, the DREAM Act inspired substantial bipartisan support in Congress. That's because it neither rewarded, or even applied to, immigrants who chose to come here illegally. The measure singled out their children, brought here without their say, who nevertheless aspired to college and military service.
By the time the measure appeared before the Senate last week, it had lost even a provision allowing these youngsters in-state tuition.
Simply, the bill tested lawmakers' ability to rationally address a small, blameless and high-achieving fraction of young people caught up in our chaotic immigration status quo.
The failures in that test glared harshly. There was the Bush White House, which failed to rouse support for comprehensive reform, but rallied just in time to undercut a much narrower bill that was much like its own past proposals.
Attacking the DREAM Act Wednesday morning, the White House Office of Management and Budget stated, "Any resolution of [the students'] status ... must be careful not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has brought the nation to this point."
The DREAM Act couldn't incentivize any illegal conduct. Eligibility for it would have ended five years before the bill's passage.
The vote also exposed the full depth of U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's pension for bullying. When immigrant students joined Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., at a news conference Tuesday, Tancredo called on immigration agents to perform a raid. (The demand was ignored, and the students all had legal status, anyway).
And Cornyn — lawmaker in one of the 13 states that have a partial version of the DREAM Act — voted against the national form, which would have given students legal status. His objection? Loopholes such as the fact that DREAM Act students didn't have to graduate from college before receiving legal status.
But this excuse fails the test of plausibility. He could easily have worked behind the scenes to improve the bill, which is what Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison did.
Hutchison, who voted for the DREAM Act, quietly secured a commitment to tailor it later to satisfy Republican concerns. She wanted to ensure the undocumented students could not jump ahead of legal immigrants in processing their green cards.
"[I]t's a situation that's just not of the students' making, and they're the young people we want in our workforce," she explained later in a telephone conference. Hutchison's conduct reflected both a moral center and a practical refusal to waste human capital. It was an exemplar of good leadership that too many of her colleagues failed to equal.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5252855.html
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Columbus Did Not Have a Visa
Did Columbus Have His Papers?Lawrence Downes of the NYT has a great point when he says that the word illegal can be erased as long as you are not an undocumented immigrant. Martha Stewart went to prison - even this hasn't kept her from coming back full force as the nation's home interior design queen.
Let's see who else has been illegal.
Scooter Libby
Richard Nixon
JFK's father (producing and distributing alchoholic beverages during Prohibition)
Jesse James (Brad Pitt makes us forget James was a bad guy)
Oliver North (Iran Contra)
The Bush twins (underage drinking)
Duke of Windsor (for collaborating with the Nazis)
Jim Bowie (Alamo hero - for importing slaves after 1807, when it became illegal)
Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando as the Godfather)
George W. Bush (for DWI)
Senator David Vitter (for visiting prostitutes)
President Lyndon Johnson (for lots of things)
Robert MacNamara (for lying about the Vietnam War)
Dick Cheney (for shooting his friend)
Rudy Guiliani (for being a repeated adulterer)
These are just a few examples. Yet in everycase, the stigma of being "illegal" has been erased. Even Don Vito Corleone looks like a cool guy now.
But why is it that people who committed a misdemeanor by entering this country without permission are permanently given the stiff sentence of being called "illegal?" This is because the word illegal means something more. As Downes states, the word "illegal" is a code word - even if Lou Dobbs denies it.
The translation for this code is:
unwanted
dark skinned
uneducated
Spanish-Speaking
_____
October 28, 2007
Editorial Observer
What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand?
By LAWRENCE DOWNES
New York Times
I am a human pileup of illegality. I am an illegal driver and an illegal parker and even an illegal walker, having at various times stretched or broken various laws and regulations that govern those parts of life. The offenses were trivial, and I feel sure I could endure the punishments — penalties and fines — and get on with my life. Nobody would deny me the chance to rehabilitate myself. Look at Martha Stewart, illegal stock trader, and George Steinbrenner, illegal campaign donor, to name two illegals whose crimes exceeded mine.
Good thing I am not an illegal immigrant. There is no way out of that trap. It’s the crime you can’t make amends for. Nothing short of deportation will free you from it, such is the mood of the country today. And that is a problem.
America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it. Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.
“Illegal” is accurate insofar as it describes a person’s immigration status. About 60 percent of the people it applies to entered the country unlawfully. The rest are those who entered legally but did not leave when they were supposed to. The statutory penalties associated with their misdeeds are not insignificant, but neither are they criminal. You get caught, you get sent home.
Since the word modifies not the crime but the whole person, it goes too far. It spreads, like a stain that cannot wash out. It leaves its target diminished as a human, a lifetime member of a presumptive criminal class. People are often surprised to learn that illegal immigrants have rights. Really? Constitutional rights? But aren’t they illegal? Of course they have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all people, not just citizens.
Many people object to the alternate word “undocumented” as a politically correct euphemism, and they have a point. Someone who sneaked over the border and faked a Social Security number has little right to say: “Oops, I’m undocumented. I’m sure I have my papers here somewhere.”
But at least “undocumented” — and an even better word, “unauthorized” — contain the possibility of reparation and atonement, and allow for a sensible reaction proportional to the offense. The paralysis in Congress and the country over fixing our immigration laws stems from our inability to get our heads around the wrenching change involved in making an illegal person legal. Think of doing that with a crime, like cocaine dealing or arson. Unthinkable!
So people who want to enact sensible immigration policies to help everybody — to make the roads safer, as Gov. Eliot Spitzer would with his driver’s license plan, or to allow immigrants’ children to go to college or serve in the military — face the inevitable incredulity and outrage. How dare you! They’re illegal.
Meanwhile, out on the edges of the debate — edges that are coming closer to the mainstream every day — bigots pour all their loathing of Spanish-speaking people into the word. Rant about “illegals” — call them congenital criminals, lepers, thieves, unclean — and people will nod and applaud. They will send money to your Web site and heed your calls to deluge lawmakers with phone calls and faxes. Your TV ratings will go way up.
This is not only ugly, it is counterproductive, paralyzing any effort toward immigration reform. Comprehensive legislation in Congress and sensible policies at the state and local level have all been stymied and will be forever, as long as anything positive can be branded as “amnesty for illegals.”
We are stuck with a bogus, deceptive strategy — a 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border to stop a fraction of border crossers who are only 60 percent of the problem anyway, and scattershot raids to capture a few thousand members of a group of 12 million.
None of those enforcement policies have a trace of honesty or realism. At least they don’t reward illegals, and that, for now, is all this country wants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28sun4.html?pagewanted=print
Image: http://www.currierandives.info/founding/1492-Columbus.gif
Driving in New York Part II: A License that Marks You as Undocumented
Spitzer has negotiated with the NY legislature and with Michael Chertoff and has come up with a license for undocumented drivers. Only thing is... the license is not like everyone elses. It won't work to board planes or entering government facilities..
The new license plan has not been welcomed by pro-immigration groups: "...advocates for immigrants said the multi-tiered system of identification and the clear marking of one license as “not valid for federal purposes” would stigmatize those who carry it and could potentially make the police suspicious..."
In fact, clerks from two New York counties actually stated that they would report those who could not prove residency. It doesn't sound like such a good deal if applying for a license could bring an ICE agent to one's door.
However, this latest round of drivers license negotiations is no surprise considering our current xenophobic environment.
-----
October 28, 2007
Spitzer Tries New Tack on Immigrant Licenses
New York Times
By DANNY HAKIM
ALBANY, Oct. 27 — In a major shift, Gov. Eliot Spitzer is backing off his plan to allow illegal immigrants to obtain the same kind of driver’s licenses as other New Yorkers, after weeks of furor over the proposal.
Instead, the governor said on Saturday, illegal immigrants in the state would be able to obtain a license that would permit them to drive but would not be accepted as identification to board planes or cross borders.
Other New Yorkers who can prove that they are legal residents of the United States would be eligible for federally recognized ID cards. These would serve as driver’s licenses and would be accepted as identification for a number of purposes, including boarding planes and entering federal facilities.
The move followed a wave of criticism over the governor’s proposal, with many Democrats warning that Mr. Spitzer had put the state party in political peril. The new plan also reflects the increasingly complicated security requirements that have been developed by the federal government since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The plan will probably do little if anything to quell the controversy over the issue, as people on both sides of the debate in New York expressed concern about it on Saturday.
And the State Legislature, which has expressed concern about any extension of licenses to illegal immigrants, would probably be required to provide the funds for the new system, which is expected to be costly.
And even though Mr. Spitzer announced his new plan at a news conference in Washington with Michael Chertoff, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Chertoff explicitly did not condone the move by New York and some other states to allow illegal immigrants to apply for any kind of driver’s license.
“I don’t endorse giving licenses to people who are not here legally, but federal law does allow states to make that choice,” Mr. Chertoff said in a statement. “What we can do is insist that licenses that do not meet federal requirements be clearly so labeled. New York has agreed to do that.” Still, he said the plan in total “represents a major step forward for security, both for New York and for the country.”
In an interview, the governor called the new plan “the perfect resolution” and said it was “not at all a shift” from what he had previously laid out.
Under the plan, New Yorkers who are here legally can obtain a federally recognized identification card known as a Real ID. The highly secure identification card is expected to be phased in nationwide by 2013, but would be introduced in New York next year. It could be used for identification to board domestic flights instead of a passport.
In addition, for frequent border crossers, like residents near the Canadian border, an even more secure license could be used to cross borders as well as board planes. This license, almost a substitute for a passport, would comply with the stricter requirements of a program called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and would require applicants to prove they are citizens.
The most limited class of license, available to both citizens and illegal immigrants, would not require proof of legal residency. This final kind of license would have a lower fee than the other licenses, would be demarcated “not valid for federal purposes,” or some similar designation, and could not be used to board planes or cross borders.
Citizens will have to apply at the Department of Motor Vehicles for the first two kinds of licenses, but could potentially continue to renew by mail for the third kind.
“This is the perfect policy outcome,” the governor said. “You get Real ID, which Congress has determined is the right security measure, you get driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, which I believe is the right policy at every level, and we are getting the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.” Mr. Spitzer insisted that his plan was not a compromise with the federal government.
Yet he and Mr. Chertoff both made it clear that several related issues had been resolved at the same time, suggesting horse-trading between Albany and Washington over the thorny issues of illegal aliens, national identification cards and easy crossing of the New York-Canadian border.
Mr. Spitzer stressed that the agreement was the result of an “evolution” in talks between New York and the Department of Homeland Security over how to define and implement the Real ID program. Only eight states do not require drivers to prove legal status to obtain driver’s licenses: Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington.
Under Mr. Spitzer’s plan, New York is likely to become one of the first states to offer the new federal license; it intends to start as soon as the middle of next year. The governor had previously opposed granting two classes of driver’s license right away, but did not rule out eventually creating a second class of license that would comply with new federal Real ID regulations. By moving up the timetable for complying with the federal license, after two weeks of negotiations with Mr. Chertoff, the governor said he was getting a better outcome, and he emphatically denied he was shifting course.
The Spitzer administration emphasized that there would not be a special class just for illegal immigrants, saying that some citizens who did not travel often might opt for the cheaper class of license. However, advocates for immigrants said the multi-tiered system of identification and the clear marking of one license as “not valid for federal purposes” would stigmatize those who carry it and could potentially make the police suspicious. .
Mr. Spitzer’s move displeased some people on both sides of the debate.
Frank Merola, the clerk in Rensselaer County who said he would refuse to carry out the governor’s policy, said that the latest twist was “a sign of desperation.”
“No matter how he wants to cut this into different pieces, he’s still giving licenses to people who are here illegally,” he added.
Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat, who had supported the governor’s initial policy, expressed disappointment. “That’s a position that, initially, many of the advocates and myself opposed, a two-tier,” he said. “It’s separate, but certainly not equal.”
Among other things, he and other advocates have worried that creating a separate class of license that illegal immigrants could obtain would make them fearful of doing so, lest they attract attention to their status.
“I think the administration could have handled this a little bit better,” Mr. Espaillat added.
But Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo, chairwoman of the New York State Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force, said in a statement that the new plan “not only satisfies his promise of fairness to the immigrant community but ensures that New York has a driver’s license that is nationally recognized as the most secure system in the country.”
Bill Sherman, the chief of staff for the Assembly Republican leader, James N. Tedisco, said, “today’s flip-flop by Governor Spitzer shows his policy was wrong.”
He said any plan to offer illegal immigrants a license was reason for concern. “We’re still asking the governor to delay any changes to the policy until everything is sorted out,” he said.
The governor faced a firestorm of criticism both from Republicans and from within his own party since he unveiled his policy last month. More than a dozen county clerks, who operate Department of Motor Vehicles offices upstate, have refused to carry out the policy, even though they are considered agents of the governor’s administration.
Last week, in Erie and Niagara Counties, the clerks — including a Democratic appointee of the governor’s — even said they would report those who could not prove residency to the local sheriff.
James Risen contributed reporting from Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28spitzer.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
The new license plan has not been welcomed by pro-immigration groups: "...advocates for immigrants said the multi-tiered system of identification and the clear marking of one license as “not valid for federal purposes” would stigmatize those who carry it and could potentially make the police suspicious..."
In fact, clerks from two New York counties actually stated that they would report those who could not prove residency. It doesn't sound like such a good deal if applying for a license could bring an ICE agent to one's door.
However, this latest round of drivers license negotiations is no surprise considering our current xenophobic environment.
-----
October 28, 2007
Spitzer Tries New Tack on Immigrant Licenses
New York Times
By DANNY HAKIM
ALBANY, Oct. 27 — In a major shift, Gov. Eliot Spitzer is backing off his plan to allow illegal immigrants to obtain the same kind of driver’s licenses as other New Yorkers, after weeks of furor over the proposal.
Instead, the governor said on Saturday, illegal immigrants in the state would be able to obtain a license that would permit them to drive but would not be accepted as identification to board planes or cross borders.
Other New Yorkers who can prove that they are legal residents of the United States would be eligible for federally recognized ID cards. These would serve as driver’s licenses and would be accepted as identification for a number of purposes, including boarding planes and entering federal facilities.
The move followed a wave of criticism over the governor’s proposal, with many Democrats warning that Mr. Spitzer had put the state party in political peril. The new plan also reflects the increasingly complicated security requirements that have been developed by the federal government since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The plan will probably do little if anything to quell the controversy over the issue, as people on both sides of the debate in New York expressed concern about it on Saturday.
And the State Legislature, which has expressed concern about any extension of licenses to illegal immigrants, would probably be required to provide the funds for the new system, which is expected to be costly.
And even though Mr. Spitzer announced his new plan at a news conference in Washington with Michael Chertoff, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Chertoff explicitly did not condone the move by New York and some other states to allow illegal immigrants to apply for any kind of driver’s license.
“I don’t endorse giving licenses to people who are not here legally, but federal law does allow states to make that choice,” Mr. Chertoff said in a statement. “What we can do is insist that licenses that do not meet federal requirements be clearly so labeled. New York has agreed to do that.” Still, he said the plan in total “represents a major step forward for security, both for New York and for the country.”
In an interview, the governor called the new plan “the perfect resolution” and said it was “not at all a shift” from what he had previously laid out.
Under the plan, New Yorkers who are here legally can obtain a federally recognized identification card known as a Real ID. The highly secure identification card is expected to be phased in nationwide by 2013, but would be introduced in New York next year. It could be used for identification to board domestic flights instead of a passport.
In addition, for frequent border crossers, like residents near the Canadian border, an even more secure license could be used to cross borders as well as board planes. This license, almost a substitute for a passport, would comply with the stricter requirements of a program called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and would require applicants to prove they are citizens.
The most limited class of license, available to both citizens and illegal immigrants, would not require proof of legal residency. This final kind of license would have a lower fee than the other licenses, would be demarcated “not valid for federal purposes,” or some similar designation, and could not be used to board planes or cross borders.
Citizens will have to apply at the Department of Motor Vehicles for the first two kinds of licenses, but could potentially continue to renew by mail for the third kind.
“This is the perfect policy outcome,” the governor said. “You get Real ID, which Congress has determined is the right security measure, you get driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, which I believe is the right policy at every level, and we are getting the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.” Mr. Spitzer insisted that his plan was not a compromise with the federal government.
Yet he and Mr. Chertoff both made it clear that several related issues had been resolved at the same time, suggesting horse-trading between Albany and Washington over the thorny issues of illegal aliens, national identification cards and easy crossing of the New York-Canadian border.
Mr. Spitzer stressed that the agreement was the result of an “evolution” in talks between New York and the Department of Homeland Security over how to define and implement the Real ID program. Only eight states do not require drivers to prove legal status to obtain driver’s licenses: Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington.
Under Mr. Spitzer’s plan, New York is likely to become one of the first states to offer the new federal license; it intends to start as soon as the middle of next year. The governor had previously opposed granting two classes of driver’s license right away, but did not rule out eventually creating a second class of license that would comply with new federal Real ID regulations. By moving up the timetable for complying with the federal license, after two weeks of negotiations with Mr. Chertoff, the governor said he was getting a better outcome, and he emphatically denied he was shifting course.
The Spitzer administration emphasized that there would not be a special class just for illegal immigrants, saying that some citizens who did not travel often might opt for the cheaper class of license. However, advocates for immigrants said the multi-tiered system of identification and the clear marking of one license as “not valid for federal purposes” would stigmatize those who carry it and could potentially make the police suspicious. .
Mr. Spitzer’s move displeased some people on both sides of the debate.
Frank Merola, the clerk in Rensselaer County who said he would refuse to carry out the governor’s policy, said that the latest twist was “a sign of desperation.”
“No matter how he wants to cut this into different pieces, he’s still giving licenses to people who are here illegally,” he added.
Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat, who had supported the governor’s initial policy, expressed disappointment. “That’s a position that, initially, many of the advocates and myself opposed, a two-tier,” he said. “It’s separate, but certainly not equal.”
Among other things, he and other advocates have worried that creating a separate class of license that illegal immigrants could obtain would make them fearful of doing so, lest they attract attention to their status.
“I think the administration could have handled this a little bit better,” Mr. Espaillat added.
But Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo, chairwoman of the New York State Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force, said in a statement that the new plan “not only satisfies his promise of fairness to the immigrant community but ensures that New York has a driver’s license that is nationally recognized as the most secure system in the country.”
Bill Sherman, the chief of staff for the Assembly Republican leader, James N. Tedisco, said, “today’s flip-flop by Governor Spitzer shows his policy was wrong.”
He said any plan to offer illegal immigrants a license was reason for concern. “We’re still asking the governor to delay any changes to the policy until everything is sorted out,” he said.
The governor faced a firestorm of criticism both from Republicans and from within his own party since he unveiled his policy last month. More than a dozen county clerks, who operate Department of Motor Vehicles offices upstate, have refused to carry out the policy, even though they are considered agents of the governor’s administration.
Last week, in Erie and Niagara Counties, the clerks — including a Democratic appointee of the governor’s — even said they would report those who could not prove residency to the local sheriff.
James Risen contributed reporting from Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28spitzer.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
Southern California Fires Bring in Border Agents
The Border Agents made their presence known. Undocumented immigrants were afraid to seek shelter because officials were asking for ID's. Worse still, the ACLU is saying that some of the migrant camps were not warned to evacuate when fires were approaching.
_____
Evacuations raise deportation fears
Seeing U.S. agents and being asked for ID at rescue centers spark concern among illegal immigrants, making them wary of seeking help.
By Richard Marosi and Ari B. Bloomekatz
Los Angeles Times
October 28, 2007
SAN DIEGO -- Flames were only one worry for some illegal immigrants in the fire zone. Equally scary were the crowded roads and evacuation centers, heavy with law enforcement officers, including U.S. Border Patrol agents.
Some wondered if they would be deported if they went to shelters.
"We decided that we wouldn't go because they ask for your name and everything," said day laborer Jose Salgado, waiting for work off the 5 Freeway near Rancho Santa Fe.
His friends working in the nearby tomato fields had different concerns, he said: "They didn't know if they would have a job when they got back."
Disasters can magnify the marginalized status of people here illegally. Seeking help can mean taking risks, and decisions can be informed as much by rumor and miscommunication as by facts and actual events.
In response to recent rumors, U.S. authorities deny that they have been rounding up illegal immigrants at evacuation centers, and Mexican Consulate officials in San Diego who visited numerous sites have found no evidence to support the rumors. "We are not arresting fire evacuees. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise," said Lauren Mack, spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Immigrant rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, however, claim that authorities have created a climate of intimidation through neglect and such policies as asking for identification at some shelters.
During the wildfires, more than 100 federal agents were redeployed from their border posts to lend assistance. They helped evacuate homes, staff checkpoints, guard against looters and assist at evacuation shelters.
At Qualcomm Stadium, a Border Patrol communications vehicle provided key logistics support. Agents in their distinct green uniforms mingled with law enforcement from all over the county.
The mere presence of Border Patrol was enough to scare off some immigrants. "Having people at evacuation sites in Border Patrol uniforms is asinine," said Enrique Morones, president of the Border Angels, an immigrant rights group.
Rumors of deportations grew Wednesday when San Diego police arrested a Mexican family at Qualcomm Stadium for allegedly stealing food they intended to resell. After being handed over to border agents, the family, which had been living in the U.S. for several years, was deported. Footage of their arrest was replayed numerous times on local television stations.
Though Mexican consular officials and some immigrant rights groups said the arrests appeared to be an isolated incident, some migrants avoided going to Qualcomm. "They were petrified," said Remy Bermudez, a teacher who served as a volunteer at the stadium. "They said, 'After what happened . . . we're afraid.' "
The ACLU and immigrant rights groups claim illegal immigrants were subjected to racial profiling at Qualcomm and were abused by some volunteers who questioned their legal status. They have also said the city did not go out to migrant camps to tell people to evacuate.
Fred Sainz, a spokesman for San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, said identification wasn't required to enter shelters. And if people living in remote migrant camps were not told to evacuate, he said, it wasn't part of any calculated effort to hurt migrants.
The mayor, he said, has always looked out for the needs of the migrant community and has tried to protect them from encounters with Minutemen and other groups that oppose illegal immigration.
"The mayor has bent over backward to protect the migrant population," said Sainz.
Critics say local and federal officials should be more sensitive to how immigrants might perceive things. A checkpoint that might seem inconvenient but understandable to a citizen could represent potential deportation to an immigrant, they say.
richard.marosi@latimes.com
ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-border28oct28,1,2904297.story
_____
Evacuations raise deportation fears
Seeing U.S. agents and being asked for ID at rescue centers spark concern among illegal immigrants, making them wary of seeking help.
By Richard Marosi and Ari B. Bloomekatz
Los Angeles Times
October 28, 2007
SAN DIEGO -- Flames were only one worry for some illegal immigrants in the fire zone. Equally scary were the crowded roads and evacuation centers, heavy with law enforcement officers, including U.S. Border Patrol agents.
Some wondered if they would be deported if they went to shelters.
"We decided that we wouldn't go because they ask for your name and everything," said day laborer Jose Salgado, waiting for work off the 5 Freeway near Rancho Santa Fe.
His friends working in the nearby tomato fields had different concerns, he said: "They didn't know if they would have a job when they got back."
Disasters can magnify the marginalized status of people here illegally. Seeking help can mean taking risks, and decisions can be informed as much by rumor and miscommunication as by facts and actual events.
In response to recent rumors, U.S. authorities deny that they have been rounding up illegal immigrants at evacuation centers, and Mexican Consulate officials in San Diego who visited numerous sites have found no evidence to support the rumors. "We are not arresting fire evacuees. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise," said Lauren Mack, spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Immigrant rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, however, claim that authorities have created a climate of intimidation through neglect and such policies as asking for identification at some shelters.
During the wildfires, more than 100 federal agents were redeployed from their border posts to lend assistance. They helped evacuate homes, staff checkpoints, guard against looters and assist at evacuation shelters.
At Qualcomm Stadium, a Border Patrol communications vehicle provided key logistics support. Agents in their distinct green uniforms mingled with law enforcement from all over the county.
The mere presence of Border Patrol was enough to scare off some immigrants. "Having people at evacuation sites in Border Patrol uniforms is asinine," said Enrique Morones, president of the Border Angels, an immigrant rights group.
Rumors of deportations grew Wednesday when San Diego police arrested a Mexican family at Qualcomm Stadium for allegedly stealing food they intended to resell. After being handed over to border agents, the family, which had been living in the U.S. for several years, was deported. Footage of their arrest was replayed numerous times on local television stations.
Though Mexican consular officials and some immigrant rights groups said the arrests appeared to be an isolated incident, some migrants avoided going to Qualcomm. "They were petrified," said Remy Bermudez, a teacher who served as a volunteer at the stadium. "They said, 'After what happened . . . we're afraid.' "
The ACLU and immigrant rights groups claim illegal immigrants were subjected to racial profiling at Qualcomm and were abused by some volunteers who questioned their legal status. They have also said the city did not go out to migrant camps to tell people to evacuate.
Fred Sainz, a spokesman for San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, said identification wasn't required to enter shelters. And if people living in remote migrant camps were not told to evacuate, he said, it wasn't part of any calculated effort to hurt migrants.
The mayor, he said, has always looked out for the needs of the migrant community and has tried to protect them from encounters with Minutemen and other groups that oppose illegal immigration.
"The mayor has bent over backward to protect the migrant population," said Sainz.
Critics say local and federal officials should be more sensitive to how immigrants might perceive things. A checkpoint that might seem inconvenient but understandable to a citizen could represent potential deportation to an immigrant, they say.
richard.marosi@latimes.com
ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-border28oct28,1,2904297.story
The Battlefield of Names: Anti Immigration Candidate Changes Obama's Name
Romney is a scary figure. Remember he helped nix in-state tuition for DREAMERS in Massechussetts. He has announced some of the most virulent anti-immigration ideas - battling to sound worse than Rudy Guiliani. This week the New Yorker published a very descriptive article on Romney's background - makes you wonder what he's made of.
Yesterday he mis-spoke Barack Obama's name - called him the name of someone known as America's arch enemy. I just don't believe this was a Freudian slip (posted below New Yorker article)
-----
The New Yorker
The Political Scene
The Mission
Mitt Romney’s strategies for success.
by Ryan Lizza
October 29, 2007
..Romney’s transition from the boardroom to the campaign trail has been clumsy ... According to “Turnaround,” at Bain Capital, the investment firm that Romney headed, the partners suspected that their boss fostered a cutthroat competitive environment in order to motivate them. When he greets voters, this competitiveness often surfaces as posturing; chitchat turns into one-upmanship. After a voter at the New Hampshire diner told Romney, “My daughter goes to Michigan State,” he replied, “Oh, does she, really? My brother’s on the board of Michigan State.” When another patron said that she was from Illinois, Romney told her, “I won the straw poll at the Illinois Republican convention!” Romney’s most seemingly innocuous comments can be head-scratchers. Later that afternoon, standing next to a local supporter who had escorted him to several Derry businesses, Romney told reporters, “Now I understand why I’m going to be gaining a couple of pounds with him, because we’ve eaten everywhere we’ve gone, almost.” Romney, a fitness buff who is shown jogging in a recent campaign ad, had about half a frappe at the diner (he threw the rest away) and a cookie at a bakery—nothing at an Italian restaurant, a feed store, a scrapbook shop, or a hardware store.
Whatever gene causes hyper-competitive perfectionists always to go one step beyond their adversaries, or anyone else, Romney has it. Republican candidates inevitably criticize, with some accuracy, Democratic proposals on health care or taxes as being closer to the way things are done in Europe. Earlier in the day, before a crowd of New Hampshire college students, Romney said that the policies of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards were similar to those of a Communist dictatorship. Their ideas, he said pointedly, “didn’t work for the Soviet Union...”
...Romney is a sixth-generation Mormon”—what scholars call a DNA Mormon. “His ancestors were some of the very first converts...”
Romney’s ancestors had important roles at every turning point in the Mormons’ dramatic nineteenth-century history. Mormonism was founded in western New York, in 1830, by Joseph Smith, after he claimed to have been visited by an angel who directed him to gold plates with inscriptions, which he “translated” into the Book of Mormon. In the eighteen-forties, Romney’s forefathers were present in Nauvoo, Illinois, a settlement established by Smith. After Smith’s murder, in 1844, which forced many persecuted Mormons to move westward, it was Mitt Romney’s great-great-grandfather who first explored the mountain pass leading down to the Salt Lake Valley, according to “Turnaround.” When, in the eighteen-nineties, the federal government cracked down on polygamy, again scattering Mormon families, Romney’s great-grandfather, who had five wives, was among those who fled to Mexico, where Romney’s father, George, was born, in 1907...
-----
Romney trips over his tongue
They say Osama, he says Obama -- but don't look for him to call the whole thing off.
By TOP OF THE TICKET, DON FREDERICK AND ANDREW MALCOLM
October 28, 2007
Los Angeles Times
So, Mitt Romney is in South Carolina talking to a Chamber of Commerce meeting about terrorism, which Republicans tend to do a lot more than Democrats. He was apparently referring to a recent audiotape, allegedly of Osama bin Laden calling on jihadists to assemble for the main fight in Iraq.
"Actually," Romney said, "just look at what Osam -- Barack Obama -- said yesterday. Barack Obama calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield."
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden immediately admitted the mistake: "He misspoke. He was referring to the audiotape of Osama bin Laden and misspoke. It was just a mix-up."
Mix-ups are also opposition opportunities. Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, "Apparently, Mitt Romney can switch names just as casually as he switches positions."
-----
LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ticket28oct28,0,2497649.story?coll=la-home-nation
The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fact_lizza
photo: http://itchmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/mitt_romney.jpg
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Ultimate Nightmare: Lou Dobbs Voter Will Decide U.S. Presidential Election?
Immigration Prof Blog noted an article that gave me the chills. It states that Lou Dobbs will be the biggest influence on American voters in the 2008 presidential election - that the elites of both parties are underestimating his influence on everyday Americans.
Perhaps this is so. Our defective public education system has not taught students to think criticially or see the long term consequences of dangerous public policy. Its natural for this voting generation to be swayed by Mr. Dobbs' silver tongue. What is so incredible about all of this is that he fragrantly publicizes mis-information about immigration - has been confronted with this and refuses to correct his statements... and people continue to believe him!
If one were to believe in re-incarnation, who would Lou Dobbs have been in a past life?
_____
‘Lou Dobbs voters' will decide '08
By: Christopher Gacek
Politico.com
October 22, 2007 03:42 PM EST
CNN anchor Lou Dobbs may be the most important person in the 2008 presidential election aside from the candidates themselves. The bundle of concerns that Dobbs and his audience have about globalization, trade, diminished American sovereignty and immigration will be ignored by politicians at their own peril.
The elites of the Democratic and Republican parties don’t realize the deep political vein Dobbs has struck. In fact, they tend to be quite scornful of him. Nevertheless, the presidential candidate who pursues and captures the “Lou Dobbs voter” will win the 2008 election.
In 1980, Dobbs began his career at CNN, where he gained national prominence hosting “Moneyline.” Currently, his “Lou Dobbs Tonight” reviews the daily news while focusing on stories related to U.S. sovereignty, immigration and trade policy.
The program includes an ongoing, popular segment called “The War Against the Middle Class.”
Dobbs is denounced by conservatives as a protectionist, but this is grossly inaccurate. Reciprocity is the key to Dobbs’ thinking on trade. That is, he believes the Congress should reject agreements that give other countries the right to charge higher tariffs than the United States can for the same or similar products.
Dobbs’ thunderous jeremiads focus on the nonreciprocal trade provisions that our trade negotiators routinely accept.
For example, on July 9, Dobbs reported that the Chinese-made Chery car will face a 2.5 percent tariff when entering America, while U.S. cars imported into China will be taxed at 25 percent.
Dobbs is also highly critical of U.S. immigration policy. It isn’t just that the lawlessness of mass illegal alien migration offends him but that Washington and Wall Street elites are allowing immigration (and trade) policies to undermine America’s own political, economic and cultural institutions.
Dobbs is an American who prefers his own nation to multinational and supranational political institutions — he is not a “globalist,” and neither are American voters.
The fact that the Beltway establishment’s full-court push for immigration amnesty was defeated twice this year by an alternative-media-led populist rebellion indicates the political power of these issues. It isn’t just about immigration.
Middle-class families are deeply concerned about the impact of globalization — i.e., nonreciprocal arrangements for open borders allowing people and goods into the U.S. — on their ability to survive economically.
The politics of the Lou Dobbs voters are still fluid, because neither party has moved to gain their support. The Democrats are too busy kowtowing to immigration interest groups as they look to import future voting blocs, and the Republicans are too beholden to big business globalists, trade ideologues and open-border libertarians.
The pre-Clinton Democrats could have approached these voters on trade issues, but Democrats have abandoned the New Deal party. President Bill Clinton and his Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, turned the Democrats into a European-style corporatist party committed to globalism.
Consequently, they signed off on NAFTA, the World Trade Organization and most-favored-nation status for China — all items for which GOP senators and representatives provided congressional majorities.
The Democratic presidential candidates are no better. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards oppose measures to meaningfully stop illegal immigration. It won’t help that a spokesman for Sen. Clinton attacked Dobbs after a recent Spanish-only debate held in Miami.
On trade, the House Democrats have taken the lead in slowing down the trade agreement sausage factory, but it is hard to imagine that a Clinton II administration would be different from that of Clinton I in this regard.
The GOP may not be able to adapt, either. The party depends on a donor base that wants to import cheap illegal labor while moving manufacturing jobs to lower-cost locales abroad. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney have been weak on illegal immigration in the past. Romney seems to be taking a tougher line now, but on the “Glenn Beck” show recently, Giuliani defended his record supporting “sanctuary cities” in New York.
All three show little understanding of the effects of trade on the middle class. Fred Thompson looks tough on immigration but has not indicated an awareness about our trade problems.
Only the GOP candidates polling in single digits — Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul — might appeal to the Lou Dobbs voter on both trade and immigration. This goes to a deeper point about the GOP.
Even though evangelical voters are being blamed for waning party support in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, it is the “values voters” — e.g., supporters of traditional marriage in Ohio’s November 2004 referendum — who are saving the GOP in the industrial states, where many voters have clearly been alienated by the party’s trade policies.
There is no doubt that the pro-marriage voters defeated John F. Kerry in Ohio.
For both Democrats and Republicans, winning the Lou Dobbs voter would greatly increase the chances of victory in November 2008. The question becomes: Will either party make the necessary changes to reach for the brass ring?
Christopher Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council; the views expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the FRC.
previously posted on Immigration Prof Blog
cartoon: http://i.b5z.net/i/ui/4000668/i/lou_dobbs_55_ezr.JPG
Immigrant Advocate Nora Sandigo
Posted on Sat, Oct. 27, 2007
Ex Contra activist represents U.S. children of illegal immigrants
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ
AP Hispanic Affairs Writer
Experts say Nora Sandigo's bid to get the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants with U.S.-born children hasn't a prayer.
Sandigo just nods - she's heard it all before.
Naysayers scoffed when the Miami immigration activist and former Contra rebel supporter pushed to stop the deportation of thousands of Central Americans immigrants who'd fled their region's civil wars in the 1980s. Then Sandigo helped bring a class-action lawsuit for them, prompting Congress to pass a law protecting them in 1997. Experts said the same thing before she helped thousands more Central Americans win temporary protection after natural disasters struck several years later.
"We have to try. The worst battle is the one not waged," said Sandigo, a petit, stylish, single mother of two.
Already, illegal immigrants living in Florida, New York, California and Illinois have asked Sandigo to become the legal guardian of their 600 children, so she could help the children if the parents are deported. About 100 children have been entered into the lawsuit. Ultimately, it would cover an estimated 4 million children of illegally immigrants who have no criminal background.
Those born in the U.S. are automatically citizens, even if their parents are illegal immigrants. If their parents are deported, they are allowed to stay. The question is with whom? Most have to return with their parents to a country and culture they've never known.
Sandigo's lawsuit seeks to allow the parents to stay in the U.S. until Congress passes an immigration bill that would give them legal status or until the Department of Homeland Security provides them another avenue to remain.
Sandigo, 42, is in many ways an unlikely immigration activist. Although she has worked with Democrats such as Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on immigration, her virulent opposition to Nicaragua's socialist Sandinista government has won her respect among conservative Republicans in Congress, as has her support for free trade. She's visited the White House at least five times in the last year.
"It is so good to have Nora be so involved at the local, state and federal level on immigration reform because it balances the ideological spectrum," said U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., who has known Sandigo for more than a decade.
Sandigo fled Nicaragua as a teen, leaving her own parents behind, after the socialist Sandinista government confiscated her family's farm. During the 1980s, she provided the U.S.-backed Contra insurgents with clothes and "everything that was needed" and later spirited her brother out of the country at age 16 before he could be drafted into the military. She became a U.S. citizen in the early 1990s.
Her support for free trade agreements with Latin America also puts her at odds many immigrant advocates who fear such deals won't sufficiently protect worker rights and small businesses.
Sandigo says free trade and immigration go together.
"I don't want people to say we are just trying to bring more immigrants to the U.S. I want people to be able to stay in their countries and find work," she said.
But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors strict limits on immigration, said the lawsuit will only encourage more people to come.
"Family relationships and employment are what bring people here," he said. "On the other hand, if having a U.S.-born child is a guaranteed get-out-of-jail-free card, then it will become a magnet. No question about it."
Sandigo said she's not asking for open borders and favors more border security. She simply believes those immigrants who've worked for years in the U.S. shouldn't be separated from their children or forced to uproot them.
Among the children in her lawsuit are 15-year-old Teresa Flores of Yakima, Wash., and Ivan Torres, 8, of San Jose, Calif.
Teresa and her four siblings awoke in April 2006 to see her mother hauled off by immigration agents. She dropped out of school to take care of her younger brother before returning to the Mexican town of La Huerta, Jalisco, where her mother now works as a waitress. In the U.S., where she lived for more than a decade, Teresa's mother earned enough at a fruit packing plant to provide the basics for her children. In Mexico, she did not. Teresa again was forced to work and eventually returned to the U.S. to live with another family and catch up in school.
"As a citizen, I want to be heard. I want to be with her," Teresa said.
Ivan's mother hasn't been tapped by immigration authorities, but she and her husband, who run a janitorial service, say they fear they will be caught any day. That's why they signed up Ivan.
"I don't want to get to that point. I was too afraid even to go to a lawyer, because you hear cases of fraud," said Noemi Salas, 29, of Durango, Mexico, who came to the U.S. in 1999 on a temporary work permit and never left.
Attorney Alfonso Oviedo initially filed the lawsuit in a Florida federal court, naming President Bush and Homeland Security. But he withdrew that lawsuit and instead filed it directly with the Supreme Court because federal law has severely limited lower courts' abilities to hear deportation cases, and in particular, class-action lawsuits.
It is a long shot. The Supreme Court rarely takes cases that have yet to move through the lower courts. Sandigo is still lobbying Congress for a bill to support her case. But she said a lawsuit was the best option after the U.S. Senate failed Wednesday to revive a bill to allow some illegal immigrant students to seek U.S. residency - likely dooming any immigration bills this year.
University of Virginia law Professor David Martin, who served as Immigration and Naturalization Services general counsel under President Clinton, says even if the Supreme Court accepts the case, the odds against Sandigo are great. Courts have typically ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about a U.S. child being forced to live outside the country, he said.
"It's up to the parents to figure out the custody case. The child suffers no risk to his or her citizenship status," he said. He added that cases like Sandigo's will likely bolster arguments by those who support removing the automatic citizenship of immigrants' children born in the U.S.
Miami immigration attorney Ira Kurzban, who helped bring Sandigo's lawsuit on behalf of Nicaraguans in the 1990s, agreed the case has little chance. Yet he dismissed the notion that simply raising the issue would ultimately hurt immigrants.
"Should we be putting (parents) in the situation that if the they don't want to take the children, the children have to be public charges? Or, should we have a humane policy that would allow parents to stay under certain conditions?" he questioned.
Sandigo leaves the legal details to others. Besides running the nonprofit immigrant advocacy group American Fraternity, she owns a senior care center and a small real estate investment firm.
But she is adamant about one thing.
"By sending parents back, what are you creating here? You're creating children who are going to be resentful, angry," she said. "You're creating enemies within the country."
© 2007 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Ex Contra activist represents U.S. children of illegal immigrants
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ
AP Hispanic Affairs Writer
Experts say Nora Sandigo's bid to get the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants with U.S.-born children hasn't a prayer.
Sandigo just nods - she's heard it all before.
Naysayers scoffed when the Miami immigration activist and former Contra rebel supporter pushed to stop the deportation of thousands of Central Americans immigrants who'd fled their region's civil wars in the 1980s. Then Sandigo helped bring a class-action lawsuit for them, prompting Congress to pass a law protecting them in 1997. Experts said the same thing before she helped thousands more Central Americans win temporary protection after natural disasters struck several years later.
"We have to try. The worst battle is the one not waged," said Sandigo, a petit, stylish, single mother of two.
Already, illegal immigrants living in Florida, New York, California and Illinois have asked Sandigo to become the legal guardian of their 600 children, so she could help the children if the parents are deported. About 100 children have been entered into the lawsuit. Ultimately, it would cover an estimated 4 million children of illegally immigrants who have no criminal background.
Those born in the U.S. are automatically citizens, even if their parents are illegal immigrants. If their parents are deported, they are allowed to stay. The question is with whom? Most have to return with their parents to a country and culture they've never known.
Sandigo's lawsuit seeks to allow the parents to stay in the U.S. until Congress passes an immigration bill that would give them legal status or until the Department of Homeland Security provides them another avenue to remain.
Sandigo, 42, is in many ways an unlikely immigration activist. Although she has worked with Democrats such as Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on immigration, her virulent opposition to Nicaragua's socialist Sandinista government has won her respect among conservative Republicans in Congress, as has her support for free trade. She's visited the White House at least five times in the last year.
"It is so good to have Nora be so involved at the local, state and federal level on immigration reform because it balances the ideological spectrum," said U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., who has known Sandigo for more than a decade.
Sandigo fled Nicaragua as a teen, leaving her own parents behind, after the socialist Sandinista government confiscated her family's farm. During the 1980s, she provided the U.S.-backed Contra insurgents with clothes and "everything that was needed" and later spirited her brother out of the country at age 16 before he could be drafted into the military. She became a U.S. citizen in the early 1990s.
Her support for free trade agreements with Latin America also puts her at odds many immigrant advocates who fear such deals won't sufficiently protect worker rights and small businesses.
Sandigo says free trade and immigration go together.
"I don't want people to say we are just trying to bring more immigrants to the U.S. I want people to be able to stay in their countries and find work," she said.
But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors strict limits on immigration, said the lawsuit will only encourage more people to come.
"Family relationships and employment are what bring people here," he said. "On the other hand, if having a U.S.-born child is a guaranteed get-out-of-jail-free card, then it will become a magnet. No question about it."
Sandigo said she's not asking for open borders and favors more border security. She simply believes those immigrants who've worked for years in the U.S. shouldn't be separated from their children or forced to uproot them.
Among the children in her lawsuit are 15-year-old Teresa Flores of Yakima, Wash., and Ivan Torres, 8, of San Jose, Calif.
Teresa and her four siblings awoke in April 2006 to see her mother hauled off by immigration agents. She dropped out of school to take care of her younger brother before returning to the Mexican town of La Huerta, Jalisco, where her mother now works as a waitress. In the U.S., where she lived for more than a decade, Teresa's mother earned enough at a fruit packing plant to provide the basics for her children. In Mexico, she did not. Teresa again was forced to work and eventually returned to the U.S. to live with another family and catch up in school.
"As a citizen, I want to be heard. I want to be with her," Teresa said.
Ivan's mother hasn't been tapped by immigration authorities, but she and her husband, who run a janitorial service, say they fear they will be caught any day. That's why they signed up Ivan.
"I don't want to get to that point. I was too afraid even to go to a lawyer, because you hear cases of fraud," said Noemi Salas, 29, of Durango, Mexico, who came to the U.S. in 1999 on a temporary work permit and never left.
Attorney Alfonso Oviedo initially filed the lawsuit in a Florida federal court, naming President Bush and Homeland Security. But he withdrew that lawsuit and instead filed it directly with the Supreme Court because federal law has severely limited lower courts' abilities to hear deportation cases, and in particular, class-action lawsuits.
It is a long shot. The Supreme Court rarely takes cases that have yet to move through the lower courts. Sandigo is still lobbying Congress for a bill to support her case. But she said a lawsuit was the best option after the U.S. Senate failed Wednesday to revive a bill to allow some illegal immigrant students to seek U.S. residency - likely dooming any immigration bills this year.
University of Virginia law Professor David Martin, who served as Immigration and Naturalization Services general counsel under President Clinton, says even if the Supreme Court accepts the case, the odds against Sandigo are great. Courts have typically ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about a U.S. child being forced to live outside the country, he said.
"It's up to the parents to figure out the custody case. The child suffers no risk to his or her citizenship status," he said. He added that cases like Sandigo's will likely bolster arguments by those who support removing the automatic citizenship of immigrants' children born in the U.S.
Miami immigration attorney Ira Kurzban, who helped bring Sandigo's lawsuit on behalf of Nicaraguans in the 1990s, agreed the case has little chance. Yet he dismissed the notion that simply raising the issue would ultimately hurt immigrants.
"Should we be putting (parents) in the situation that if the they don't want to take the children, the children have to be public charges? Or, should we have a humane policy that would allow parents to stay under certain conditions?" he questioned.
Sandigo leaves the legal details to others. Besides running the nonprofit immigrant advocacy group American Fraternity, she owns a senior care center and a small real estate investment firm.
But she is adamant about one thing.
"By sending parents back, what are you creating here? You're creating children who are going to be resentful, angry," she said. "You're creating enemies within the country."
© 2007 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Blog Conversation on the DREAM ACT - Washington Post
"A very sad moment."
A Washington Post blog thread on the DREAM ACT. Much of the comments responding to Dionne seem to be inaccurrate - but its still worth reading and responding to.
-----
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post published this comment on 10 26 07:
OK, I understand that many Americans worried about illegal immigration have honest concerns about the law and our inability to control our borders. But I really cannot believe that the Senate killed the Dream Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin. As Karin Brulliard reported in the Post, the bill "would have given conditional legal status to illegal immigrants now younger than 30 who graduated from American high schools, came to the United States before they were 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years. They would be eligible for permanent residency after two years of college or military service." The bill got 52 votes, eight votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate. "What crime did these children commit? They committed the crime of obeying their parents, following their parents to this country," Durbin said. "Give them a chance to prove themselves to this country." Sounds right to me, but not to Senator James Inhofe who said: "This or any other type of an amnesty bill would be a slap in the face of all of those who came in legally." Give me a break. This bill is trying to reward kids who do the right thing and who cannot be blamed for failing --when they were five or 10 years old -- to tell their parents, "Oh, no, Mom and Dad, don't cross that border illegally." It's also amazing, as The Post editorialized, that the Bush Administration "having supported a comprehensive immigration reform bill containing essentially the same provision, came out against the bill on the morning of the vote." What's your take on what I see as a very sad moment?
-----
There have been over 50 responses so far. Worth reading some of them. Perhaps some DREAMERS can write in and correct some of the mis-information being published on these posts.
The address is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a1d815998-efbb-465a-8a40-74441676780fDiscussion%3a1488523d-2908-4d6c-8a00-64c6a22d3518
A Washington Post blog thread on the DREAM ACT. Much of the comments responding to Dionne seem to be inaccurrate - but its still worth reading and responding to.
-----
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post published this comment on 10 26 07:
OK, I understand that many Americans worried about illegal immigration have honest concerns about the law and our inability to control our borders. But I really cannot believe that the Senate killed the Dream Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin. As Karin Brulliard reported in the Post, the bill "would have given conditional legal status to illegal immigrants now younger than 30 who graduated from American high schools, came to the United States before they were 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years. They would be eligible for permanent residency after two years of college or military service." The bill got 52 votes, eight votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate. "What crime did these children commit? They committed the crime of obeying their parents, following their parents to this country," Durbin said. "Give them a chance to prove themselves to this country." Sounds right to me, but not to Senator James Inhofe who said: "This or any other type of an amnesty bill would be a slap in the face of all of those who came in legally." Give me a break. This bill is trying to reward kids who do the right thing and who cannot be blamed for failing --when they were five or 10 years old -- to tell their parents, "Oh, no, Mom and Dad, don't cross that border illegally." It's also amazing, as The Post editorialized, that the Bush Administration "having supported a comprehensive immigration reform bill containing essentially the same provision, came out against the bill on the morning of the vote." What's your take on what I see as a very sad moment?
-----
There have been over 50 responses so far. Worth reading some of them. Perhaps some DREAMERS can write in and correct some of the mis-information being published on these posts.
The address is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a1d815998-efbb-465a-8a40-74441676780fDiscussion%3a1488523d-2908-4d6c-8a00-64c6a22d3518
Friday, October 26, 2007
New "Zero Tolerance" for Undocumented Immigrants on the Border
It will be hard to distinguish who has and doesn't have papers in Laredo. Most of the city speaks Spanish. Many are originally from Mexico. The Bush Administration's new "zero tolerance" operation is rather frightening. Actually Michael Chertoff is too. I saw a photograph of him in the 1980's with his colleague Rudy Guiliani. Guess Cherthoff has always been a law and order man. Maybe he wants to clean up the U.S. like his friend Guiliani cleaned up New York.
In most states "cleaning up" means getting rid of the Latinos. However, the thing is, you can't "clean up" Laredo. Its too Mexican. People constantly cross over the river to work, shop and go to school on the American side.
Thank goodness this isn't 1940. If it would have happened then, ICE officers in Laredo would have picked up my father.
-----
Immigration crackdown expands along border
Laredo effort signals an end to return without prosecutions
By JAMES PINKERTON
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
October 26, 2007
The U.S. Border Patrol plans to announce today a "zero tolerance" operation to prosecute, jail and deport all illegal immigrants caught in the bustling Laredo area, marking a significant tightening of immigration enforcement along a key U.S. border corridor.
This stepped-up effort is an expansion of the Border Patrol's "Operation Streamline" project in the Del Rio and Yuma, Ariz., sectors, which sharply reduced illegal entries. That is being expanded to the sprawling Laredo sector beginning Wednesday, officials confirmed.
Extending the operation to a large, populous sector such as Laredo — the nation's largest inland port and a growing commercial center — signals a major expansion of a strategy officials plan to implement along the entire Southwest border.
It is a key facet of a Bush administration crackdown not only on the border — where National Guard troops now work with Border Patrol agents — but in the interior, where immigration agents have raided work sites and are targeting fraudulent work documents.
"This program is sending the message we're not letting illegal border-crossers have a free ride," Border Patrol assistant chief Ramon Rivera said. "We're hoping it goes nationwide."
Reactions to the project range from strong support to serious doubts about clogging already overloaded federal courts. More arrests mean more prosecutions, more court dates.
"The idea of doing in Laredo what they do in Del Rio is really terrifying for us," said Marjorie Meyers, who heads the Federal Public Defenders office in Houston, which oversees the Laredo area. "There is no way we can handle it."
Rivera said after the operation began in the Del Rio sector, apprehensions dropped by 46 percent from October 2006 to August, compared with the 2005-06 fiscal year. Agency intelligence indicated that human traffickers have shifted operations downriver to Laredo, he said.
The "zero tolerance" effort ends voluntary return in Laredo, a historic shift in enforcement. For decades, illegal immigrants from Mexico detained on the border were allowed to return home — if they did not have criminal records — without being prosecuted, often the same day they were apprehended.
And last year, Border Patrol ended "catch-and-release," the practice of freeing non-Mexican illegal immigrants after giving them a notice to appear before an immigration judge. Most immigrants never kept their court dates, officials acknowledged.
Dockets will fill up
The Laredo sector takes in 171 miles of Rio Grande frontage, extending to the Oklahoma border and including San Antonio and Dallas.
Details of the operation's coverage within the sector would be released today, officials said.
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, supports the operation but acknowledged it could add to strained border dockets.
"At the beginning, you'll see a spike in cases in the court but after awhile it will go down because it will be a deterrent," Cuellar said. "There's a criminal (smuggling) network out there ... and they'll get the message pretty quickly that if they come they're going to serve time."
Cuellar said he has sponsored legislation to add three federal judges to South Texas, and hopes one will be assigned to Laredo.
Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas, a retired FBI official, said the government has a duty to enforce the law but he's not certain it will work.
Salinas instead favors an expanded guest worker program for immigrants.
"The underlying solution to illegal immigration is solid, comprehensive reform legislation now — the longer we wait, the worse it gets," he said.
Mexican officials, who have been invited to attend today's announcement at sector headquarters in Laredo, said they would wait to comment.
"'It's very important for us," said Javier Abud, the Mexican consul in Laredo. "It's a very sensitive operation for our Mexican nationals."
Misdemeanor charge
When the pilot program began in Del Rio in December 2005, courtrooms were packed with undocumented immigrants who were prosecuted, jailed and then deported. But despite the crowding, there was sufficient space in area jails to house the immigrants.
The majority of the illegal immigrants are expected to be charged with entry without inspection, Border Patrol officials said. The misdemeanor charge carries a maximum 180-day jail sentence.
After they serve their time, they are deported. Those with previous deportations, or criminal convictions, face more serious felony charges carrying maximum penalties of up to 20 years in prison.
Rivera said the Laredo area has sufficient detention space in three jails.
Meanwhile, Meyers, with the Federal Public Defenders office, is concerned that the 17 attorneys in the Laredo office won't be able to provide effective representation to an expected influx of indigent clients.
"These cases are not simple," Meyers said. "We've had cases with people who thought they were aliens and turned out they were U.S. citizens. So it's not something where you say, 'OK, you're guilty, see you later.' "
'They've done just fine'
U.S. court officials in Laredo referred questions about staffing issues to Houston officials, who were not available for comment.
However, Rivera said the Laredo operation is a joint effort of the Border Patrol, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the U.S. courts, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Marshals Service and other agencies.
"The same question was brought up in the Del Rio sector, and they've done just fine," said Rivera, referring to legal representation. "Remember, we're working in collaboration with other entities ... everybody is working overtime on this."
And, the Border Patrol is expecting big results in the Laredo sector.
"Laredo has a bigger city on the Mexican side, so we're hoping we get a better return out of this operation than in Del Rio," Rivera said.
james.pinkerton@chron.com
In most states "cleaning up" means getting rid of the Latinos. However, the thing is, you can't "clean up" Laredo. Its too Mexican. People constantly cross over the river to work, shop and go to school on the American side.
Thank goodness this isn't 1940. If it would have happened then, ICE officers in Laredo would have picked up my father.
-----
Immigration crackdown expands along border
Laredo effort signals an end to return without prosecutions
By JAMES PINKERTON
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
October 26, 2007
The U.S. Border Patrol plans to announce today a "zero tolerance" operation to prosecute, jail and deport all illegal immigrants caught in the bustling Laredo area, marking a significant tightening of immigration enforcement along a key U.S. border corridor.
This stepped-up effort is an expansion of the Border Patrol's "Operation Streamline" project in the Del Rio and Yuma, Ariz., sectors, which sharply reduced illegal entries. That is being expanded to the sprawling Laredo sector beginning Wednesday, officials confirmed.
Extending the operation to a large, populous sector such as Laredo — the nation's largest inland port and a growing commercial center — signals a major expansion of a strategy officials plan to implement along the entire Southwest border.
It is a key facet of a Bush administration crackdown not only on the border — where National Guard troops now work with Border Patrol agents — but in the interior, where immigration agents have raided work sites and are targeting fraudulent work documents.
"This program is sending the message we're not letting illegal border-crossers have a free ride," Border Patrol assistant chief Ramon Rivera said. "We're hoping it goes nationwide."
Reactions to the project range from strong support to serious doubts about clogging already overloaded federal courts. More arrests mean more prosecutions, more court dates.
"The idea of doing in Laredo what they do in Del Rio is really terrifying for us," said Marjorie Meyers, who heads the Federal Public Defenders office in Houston, which oversees the Laredo area. "There is no way we can handle it."
Rivera said after the operation began in the Del Rio sector, apprehensions dropped by 46 percent from October 2006 to August, compared with the 2005-06 fiscal year. Agency intelligence indicated that human traffickers have shifted operations downriver to Laredo, he said.
The "zero tolerance" effort ends voluntary return in Laredo, a historic shift in enforcement. For decades, illegal immigrants from Mexico detained on the border were allowed to return home — if they did not have criminal records — without being prosecuted, often the same day they were apprehended.
And last year, Border Patrol ended "catch-and-release," the practice of freeing non-Mexican illegal immigrants after giving them a notice to appear before an immigration judge. Most immigrants never kept their court dates, officials acknowledged.
Dockets will fill up
The Laredo sector takes in 171 miles of Rio Grande frontage, extending to the Oklahoma border and including San Antonio and Dallas.
Details of the operation's coverage within the sector would be released today, officials said.
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, supports the operation but acknowledged it could add to strained border dockets.
"At the beginning, you'll see a spike in cases in the court but after awhile it will go down because it will be a deterrent," Cuellar said. "There's a criminal (smuggling) network out there ... and they'll get the message pretty quickly that if they come they're going to serve time."
Cuellar said he has sponsored legislation to add three federal judges to South Texas, and hopes one will be assigned to Laredo.
Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas, a retired FBI official, said the government has a duty to enforce the law but he's not certain it will work.
Salinas instead favors an expanded guest worker program for immigrants.
"The underlying solution to illegal immigration is solid, comprehensive reform legislation now — the longer we wait, the worse it gets," he said.
Mexican officials, who have been invited to attend today's announcement at sector headquarters in Laredo, said they would wait to comment.
"'It's very important for us," said Javier Abud, the Mexican consul in Laredo. "It's a very sensitive operation for our Mexican nationals."
Misdemeanor charge
When the pilot program began in Del Rio in December 2005, courtrooms were packed with undocumented immigrants who were prosecuted, jailed and then deported. But despite the crowding, there was sufficient space in area jails to house the immigrants.
The majority of the illegal immigrants are expected to be charged with entry without inspection, Border Patrol officials said. The misdemeanor charge carries a maximum 180-day jail sentence.
After they serve their time, they are deported. Those with previous deportations, or criminal convictions, face more serious felony charges carrying maximum penalties of up to 20 years in prison.
Rivera said the Laredo area has sufficient detention space in three jails.
Meanwhile, Meyers, with the Federal Public Defenders office, is concerned that the 17 attorneys in the Laredo office won't be able to provide effective representation to an expected influx of indigent clients.
"These cases are not simple," Meyers said. "We've had cases with people who thought they were aliens and turned out they were U.S. citizens. So it's not something where you say, 'OK, you're guilty, see you later.' "
'They've done just fine'
U.S. court officials in Laredo referred questions about staffing issues to Houston officials, who were not available for comment.
However, Rivera said the Laredo operation is a joint effort of the Border Patrol, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the U.S. courts, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Marshals Service and other agencies.
"The same question was brought up in the Del Rio sector, and they've done just fine," said Rivera, referring to legal representation. "Remember, we're working in collaboration with other entities ... everybody is working overtime on this."
And, the Border Patrol is expecting big results in the Laredo sector.
"Laredo has a bigger city on the Mexican side, so we're hoping we get a better return out of this operation than in Del Rio," Rivera said.
james.pinkerton@chron.com
La Jornada: El Sueno Perdido. DREAM ACT Vote
La Jornada
Mexico City
October 24, 2007
Rechaza Casa Blanca proyecto para legalizar a jóvenes indocumentados
Agencias / La Jornada On Line
La OMB señaló que la Dream Act "es cuestionable y llevará inevitablemente a un fraude de documentos a larga escala". Dicha propuesta pide legalizar a quienes se inscriban a la universidad o fuerzas armadas.
Washington. La Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto de la Casa Blanca (OMB) rechazó hoy miércoles un proyecto de ley para legalizar a jóvenes indocumentados que se inscriban a la universidad o las fuerzas armadas, ante la posibilidad de fraudes.
La “naturaleza abierta” de la llamada Ley para el Desarrollo, Alivio y Educación de Menores Extranjeros (Dream Act) “es cuestionable y llevará inevitablemente a un fraude de documentos a larga escala”, señaló la OMB en un comunicado.
“El camino a la ciudadanía (en la Dream Act) queda abierto por décadas, creando así una fuerte tentación para que futuros inmigrantes ilegales compren documentos fraudulentos en un floreciente mercado negro”, indicó la entidad.
La OMB aseguró que la Casa Blanca simpatiza con los jóvenes que cuando eran niños fueron traídos ilegalmente a Estados Unidos, pero aclaró que cualquier propuesta del Senado no debe ser un incentivo para que se repita una conducta ilegal.
“Al crear un camino especial a la ciudadanía que no está disponible a otros inmigrantes potenciales, incluyendo a jóvenes cuyos padres respetaron las leyes de inmigración del país, la propuesta (.) deja mucho que desear”, manifestó.
“Por lo tanto, la administración (del presidente George W. Bush) se opone al proyecto”, recalcó la OMB.
En una votación de 52 a 44, los promotores de la Dream Act se quedaron este miércoles a ocho votos de superar la oposición de la minoría republicana y de algunos demócratas conservadores para someter la propuesta a votación final en el Senado.
El proyecto podría beneficiar a cientos de miles de ilegales, en particular a estudiantes que llegaron a Estados Unidos cuando tenían menos de 16 años, son menores de 30 años, han vivido en el país al menos cinco años y se inscriban para la universidad o las fuerzas armadas.
La OMB indicó que el camino a la ciudadanía bajo la Dream Act excluye a otros inmigrantes y permitiría que indocumentados regularicen su situación antes que otras personas que ya han iniciado el proceso.
Agregó que el proyecto autoriza a los beneficiarios a agregar a sus familiares cercanos en el país, lo cual los coloca en la “vía rápida” para la ciudadanía, además de que pueden recibir cierta asistencia pública en un lapso de cinco años.
Por otro lado, el proyecto tiene vacíos legales que permitirían la legalización permanente de ciertos indocumentados condenados por delitos menores múltiples, o incluso delitos graves, advirtió la entidad federal.
La OMB reiteró que la Casa Blanca cree en una reforma migratoria integral que incluya un mayor control fronterizo, aplicación interna de las leyes, un programa de trabajadores temporales y la legalización de millones de indocumentados.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2007/10/24/rechaza-casa-blanca-proyecto-para-legalizar-a-jovenes-indocumentados
Mexico City
October 24, 2007
Rechaza Casa Blanca proyecto para legalizar a jóvenes indocumentados
Agencias / La Jornada On Line
La OMB señaló que la Dream Act "es cuestionable y llevará inevitablemente a un fraude de documentos a larga escala". Dicha propuesta pide legalizar a quienes se inscriban a la universidad o fuerzas armadas.
Washington. La Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto de la Casa Blanca (OMB) rechazó hoy miércoles un proyecto de ley para legalizar a jóvenes indocumentados que se inscriban a la universidad o las fuerzas armadas, ante la posibilidad de fraudes.
La “naturaleza abierta” de la llamada Ley para el Desarrollo, Alivio y Educación de Menores Extranjeros (Dream Act) “es cuestionable y llevará inevitablemente a un fraude de documentos a larga escala”, señaló la OMB en un comunicado.
“El camino a la ciudadanía (en la Dream Act) queda abierto por décadas, creando así una fuerte tentación para que futuros inmigrantes ilegales compren documentos fraudulentos en un floreciente mercado negro”, indicó la entidad.
La OMB aseguró que la Casa Blanca simpatiza con los jóvenes que cuando eran niños fueron traídos ilegalmente a Estados Unidos, pero aclaró que cualquier propuesta del Senado no debe ser un incentivo para que se repita una conducta ilegal.
“Al crear un camino especial a la ciudadanía que no está disponible a otros inmigrantes potenciales, incluyendo a jóvenes cuyos padres respetaron las leyes de inmigración del país, la propuesta (.) deja mucho que desear”, manifestó.
“Por lo tanto, la administración (del presidente George W. Bush) se opone al proyecto”, recalcó la OMB.
En una votación de 52 a 44, los promotores de la Dream Act se quedaron este miércoles a ocho votos de superar la oposición de la minoría republicana y de algunos demócratas conservadores para someter la propuesta a votación final en el Senado.
El proyecto podría beneficiar a cientos de miles de ilegales, en particular a estudiantes que llegaron a Estados Unidos cuando tenían menos de 16 años, son menores de 30 años, han vivido en el país al menos cinco años y se inscriban para la universidad o las fuerzas armadas.
La OMB indicó que el camino a la ciudadanía bajo la Dream Act excluye a otros inmigrantes y permitiría que indocumentados regularicen su situación antes que otras personas que ya han iniciado el proceso.
Agregó que el proyecto autoriza a los beneficiarios a agregar a sus familiares cercanos en el país, lo cual los coloca en la “vía rápida” para la ciudadanía, además de que pueden recibir cierta asistencia pública en un lapso de cinco años.
Por otro lado, el proyecto tiene vacíos legales que permitirían la legalización permanente de ciertos indocumentados condenados por delitos menores múltiples, o incluso delitos graves, advirtió la entidad federal.
La OMB reiteró que la Casa Blanca cree en una reforma migratoria integral que incluya un mayor control fronterizo, aplicación interna de las leyes, un programa de trabajadores temporales y la legalización de millones de indocumentados.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2007/10/24/rechaza-casa-blanca-proyecto-para-legalizar-a-jovenes-indocumentados
European Views on the Blue Card and Immigration
Since most anti-immigration people do not take reports from U.S. universities or policy organizations seriously. Perhaps a report from someone who was previously at the World Bank would be of help.
Below are only excerpts from von Weizsäcker's report, which was released in 2006, but still highly relevant. The complete text can be found at:
http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/revue/IMG/pdf/article_JakobVonWeizsacker2.pdf
The author is:
Jakob von Weizsäcker, a German citizen, joined Bruegel from the World Bank inWashington (2002-2005) where he was Country Economist for Tajikistan.Previously, he worked for the Federal Economics Ministry in Berlin (2001-2002) where he headed the office of a junior minister and Vesta, a venture capital firm(2000-2001). Before that, he held research positions at the Center for Economic Studies in Munich and CIRED in Paris.
Bruegel is a business focused economic policy think tank in Brussels. Bruegel.org
-----
A European Card Proposal
by Jakob von Weizsäcker
Horizons Strategiques
Centre de'analyse strategique
July 2006
This contribution argues that the EU should open up to skilled immigrants through a points system via a European “Blue Card” granting access to its entire labour market. This European version of the Green Card could become a powerful complement to any national effort to attract top talent. In addition, students graduating with a Masters degree or equivalent from European universities or from top universities abroad should be automatically eligible for a Blue Card. This “Blue Diploma” would help attract young talent early. Finally, in future rounds of EU enlargement, higher-skilled workers should be
welcome immediately, provided they reach an earnings threshold: the “External Minimum Wage”. To motivate the discussion, a tentative explanation why countries like Germany and France are lagging behind in the global competition for talent is provided. In Section 2, the basic facts of migration, its skill content, and the increasing supply of skills worldwide are examined. In Section 3 the basic efficiency and distribution arguments for and against high and low-skilled migration are analysed. The impact of emigration - “brawn drain” and “brain drain” - on developing source countries is also discussed. Finally, Section 4 proposes potential policy options for Europe...
Over the coming years, migration rates and migration pressures might well increase further. Globalisation is rapidly “shrinking” the world without shrinking worldwide income differences quite as fast. There are concerns in Europe over this influx of immigrants, and low-skilled immigrants in particular. At the same time, to become a competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy as spelled out in the Lisbon agenda, Europe will need to become much better at attracting talent from the rest of the world. The European Commission has accordingly become active in this area (Box 1).However, progress has been slow. Some of the reasons for this have already been mentioned in the previous section. In addition, many relevant stakeholders still use problematic economic concepts to discuss migration, most importantly the “lump-of-labour” fallacy according to which the number of jobs in an economy is fixed. This policy brief argues that the issue of economic migration should instead be framed in terms of the skill level of immigrants.
...Immigration rates in the EU-15 and the US remained at relatively moderate levels during the 1960s,1970s, and most of the 1980s, as shown in Chart 1. Migration rates only shot up in the late eighties and early nineties. They rose again substantially in the early 2000s in Europe in particular, driven by immigration to the EU-15 from Eastern Europe. In addition, there is significant illegal immigration...
As one particular variant of the Blue Card, an entirely qualification-based “Blue Diploma” could be introduced. Any graduate of a Masters programme (or equivalent) from a participating university could be made eligible for a Blue Card by virtue of his or her degree. Such a comprehensive and predictable arrangement would greatly help to attract foreign talent to European universities and to the European labour market afterwards. In principle, it would make sense to extend Blue Diplomas to universities outside Europe also. For a start, the top 100 non-European universities, as measured by academic excellence, should also be included in the scheme.
Even from a development perspective, the Blue Diploma could turn out to be beneficial. By providing guaranteed access to the European labour market without requiring a permanent presence, circular migration in the spirit of the proposal by Weil (2006) would be encouraged. The Blue Card would in effect act as an insurance policy for graduates from developing countries in case they would like to take the risk of going back home. They could always return to Europe for a second chance.
Borjas (2003) has pointed out, most of the empirical studies that fail to find a significant distributional impact of migration focus on the impact of immigration on wages in small geographic areas. But such an approach fails to control for the endogeneity of migration. Migrants tend to be attracted to locations that have the most vibrant local economies and therefore typically the most attractive wages. Hence, any negative wage impact of immigration might be hidden by above-average wages in areas that manage to attract the largest numbers of migrants
Dangers of an Ethnic Underclass
There are signs that certain immigrant communities in Europe are developing into an ethnic underclass. It is clear that much better education and improved economic opportunities for the children of low-skilled migrants already in Europe, need to be provided. Migration policies can usefully complement such integration measures by creating a high-skill bias among fresh immigrants. Low-skilled immigrants already in Europe are the closest labour market substitutes to new low-skill immigrants. Hence, by reducing the inflow of additional low-skilled immigrants, the economic prospects of existing low-skilled immigrant communities could probably be improved. For the source country, low-skilled emigration or “brawn drain” typically improves welfare as it improves both efficiency and redistribution. This positive impact of low-skilled emigration is
reinforced by remittances. Low-skilled emigrants will often help to support poor relatives in the source country with their higher earnings abroad.
By contrast, the welfare impact of high-skilled emigration or “brain drain” is ambiguous. The source country may suffer from an adverse efficiency and distributional impact as a result of the brain drain. There will be fiscal loss since high-skilled emigrants will no longer pay taxes in their home country. And just as high-skilled migrants help to uplift their ethnic communities abroad, they could have made notable contributions to public life had they stayed at home.
But a brain drain is not all bad for the source country. The option to emigrate may substantially increase the expected returns to education, thereby improving education incentive. Finally, if migrants return to their country of origin, and many of them do, the skills and savings they have acquired abroad become a powerful force of development. Therefore, moderate levels of brain drain may actually be beneficial for the source country as, for example, argued in Beine et al. (2003).
Economic migration can loosely be defined as any cross-border migration that occurs to take on a better paid job. If pay is broadly in line with productivity, a move to a better paid job thus increases global economic output. This is the fundamental efficiency argument in favour of migration.
But most people would prefer to stay at home if it wasn’t for the money. Therefore, why not upgrade productivity where the people currently are instead of having people chase more productive jobs abroad? International trade and cross-border movement of capital are helping to do just that. According to the classic factor price equalisation theorem of trade theory, wages might in principle be equalised internationally through the trade of goods alone! However, there are important reasons why migration pressures are likely to persist even under free trade, full mobility of capital, and flexible labour markets
domestically.
First, many poor countries suffer from an inferior “production function” because of poor institutions.
Despite recent development success stories, upgrading poor institutions is a slow process. In thmeantime, workers in many developing countries will continue to suffer from inferior wages. Migration can short-circuit this development problem by allowing workers move to locations with a better“production function” immediately.
Second, agglomeration effects are an important rationale for migration. For example, France and the UK are large countries with fairly uniform institutions, free trade and free movement of capital. Nevertheless, workers continue to migrate to extremely expensive and crowded places like London or Paris. The reason is that people become more productive by virtue of geographic concentration. By moving to a large agglomeration, often in a foreign country, they can also hope to greatly improve the match between their skill and their job, thus boosting their productivity.
The findings of the previous sections are summarised...high-skilled migration tends to improve the welfare of the host country while the welfare impact of migration on the source country is ambiguous. By contrast, low-skilled migration has an ambiguous welfare impact on the host country while generally improving welfare of the source country. Hence, there need not be a conflict of interest between source and host country but there may well be. This raises the question how could the positions of host and source country be reconciled, if indeed there were a conflict.
complete text: http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/revue/IMG/pdf/article_JakobVonWeizsacker2.pdf
More on the EU's Blue Card
TECHWEB
October 25, 2007 Thursday 3:10 PM GMT
Could Europe's New 'Blue Card' Cause Global Tech Talent To Shun U.S.?
The European Union hopes that its proposed blue-card program will provide a more attractive alternative to the U.S. green-card program, which critics say is plagued by backlogs, cumbersome processes, and insufficient quotas.
While the United States continues to argue about whether to raise the H-1B visa cap and reform green-card processes to allow more foreign tech workers into the country, the European Union wants to make it much easier for highly skilled workers from abroad to land jobs in the EU's 27 member countries.
The EU, which is predicting a severe workforce crisis over the next several decades as its Baby Boomer generation retires, aims to attract 20 million workers from the outside in the years to come.
The EU hopes that a new proposed "blue card" will help fill that void, providing a more attractive alternative to the U.S. green-card program, which critics say is plagued by backlogs, cumbersome processes, and insufficient quotas.
The blue card would provide educated immigrants, including tech professionals, with a two-year, renewable permit to work and reside in an EU member nation. Because the EU aims for a worker's blue-card application process to take less than three months, the visa would provide a fast track for foreign-born individuals to land jobs in EU member countries.
By contrast, the U.S. green-card process can take anywhere from five to 10 years for an individual to gain permanent residency. And the 85,000 annual quota on H-1B visas for temporary foreign tech workers has been running out quickly for the last few years, forcing many prospective workers to take jobs elsewhere.
In addition to being an alternative to the U.S. green card, the blue-card program will also provide an option to foreign-born individuals who might have considered taking jobs in Canada or Australia, two other favorite destinations for the highly-skilled international workforce.
The EU's unveiling of the blue-card program this week comes at the same time that the U.S. Senate approved a spending bill amendment that could raise employers' H-1B visa fees to $5,000 per worker from $1,500. The additional fees will be used to fund new scholarship programs for U.S. students pursuing technology, math, and science-related degrees.
Compete America, a coalition of technology companies that has been lobbying Congress for several years to raise the H-1B visa cap and make green-card reforms, blasted the fee hikes and expressed worry about the blue card's potential impact on the U.S. tech workforce."Europe has sent a message. They're aggressively pursuing the professional talent they need to compete on the global stage," said Robert Hoffman, VP for government and public affairs at Oracle and co-chair of Compete America, in a statement.
"The Senate has unfortunately also sent a message, and it doesn't bode well for the U.S. economy," Hoffman said.
October 25, 2007 Thursday 3:10 PM GMT
Could Europe's New 'Blue Card' Cause Global Tech Talent To Shun U.S.?
The European Union hopes that its proposed blue-card program will provide a more attractive alternative to the U.S. green-card program, which critics say is plagued by backlogs, cumbersome processes, and insufficient quotas.
While the United States continues to argue about whether to raise the H-1B visa cap and reform green-card processes to allow more foreign tech workers into the country, the European Union wants to make it much easier for highly skilled workers from abroad to land jobs in the EU's 27 member countries.
The EU, which is predicting a severe workforce crisis over the next several decades as its Baby Boomer generation retires, aims to attract 20 million workers from the outside in the years to come.
The EU hopes that a new proposed "blue card" will help fill that void, providing a more attractive alternative to the U.S. green-card program, which critics say is plagued by backlogs, cumbersome processes, and insufficient quotas.
The blue card would provide educated immigrants, including tech professionals, with a two-year, renewable permit to work and reside in an EU member nation. Because the EU aims for a worker's blue-card application process to take less than three months, the visa would provide a fast track for foreign-born individuals to land jobs in EU member countries.
By contrast, the U.S. green-card process can take anywhere from five to 10 years for an individual to gain permanent residency. And the 85,000 annual quota on H-1B visas for temporary foreign tech workers has been running out quickly for the last few years, forcing many prospective workers to take jobs elsewhere.
In addition to being an alternative to the U.S. green card, the blue-card program will also provide an option to foreign-born individuals who might have considered taking jobs in Canada or Australia, two other favorite destinations for the highly-skilled international workforce.
The EU's unveiling of the blue-card program this week comes at the same time that the U.S. Senate approved a spending bill amendment that could raise employers' H-1B visa fees to $5,000 per worker from $1,500. The additional fees will be used to fund new scholarship programs for U.S. students pursuing technology, math, and science-related degrees.
Compete America, a coalition of technology companies that has been lobbying Congress for several years to raise the H-1B visa cap and make green-card reforms, blasted the fee hikes and expressed worry about the blue card's potential impact on the U.S. tech workforce."Europe has sent a message. They're aggressively pursuing the professional talent they need to compete on the global stage," said Robert Hoffman, VP for government and public affairs at Oracle and co-chair of Compete America, in a statement.
"The Senate has unfortunately also sent a message, and it doesn't bode well for the U.S. economy," Hoffman said.
European Union's Blue Card for Technology Workers
EU 'Blue Card' to target skilled
BBC World News
October 23, 2007
The European Commission has unveiled a Blue Card for skilled immigrants, based on the US Green Card.
The plan would allow suitably qualified people and their families to live and work within the European Union.
The EU says it needs 20m skilled workers over the next two decades, and is very short of expertise in engineering and computer technology.
The scheme, which is more restrictive than the US Green Card, would need the approval of all 27 EU member states.
Correspondents say another aim of the plan is to reverse a current trend under which skilled migrants, mostly from Asia and Africa, emigrate to the US to find work.
'Centralisation too far'
The BBC's Mark Mardell in Brussels says the proposal is controversial and some countries are sure to oppose it.
Critics also fear that Europe's attempt to take the best and leave the rest will only encourage a brain-drain from poorer nations.
The UK, Ireland and Denmark could opt out, but the other EU members will have to take part.
UK ministers say they are studying it, but our correspondent says they are not keen on the card, preferring to develop an Australian-style points system.
Unveiled at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday afternoon, the Blue Card would enable holders and their families to live, work and travel within the EU.
To be eligible, new immigrants would need to show a recognised diploma and have at least three years professional experience.
They would also need the offer of a job, for a minimum one-year contract, which could not be filled by an EU citizen.
European Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said: "This is not an 'open doors' policy."
"If a given member-state needs engineers or doctors, it has to decide how many, and then I will provide a state with a common procedure," he added.
But some politicians in the Netherlands and Germany are hostile and the Austrian government has condemned the plan as "a centralisation too far".
Across Europe there is a real tension between politicians, who know voters are worried about immigration, and businesses demanding graduates from India and China, our correspondent says.
BLUE CARD V GREEN CARD
Blue Card
Does not give permanent residency
Valid up to two years, renewable
Allows holders and families to live, work and travel in EU
Applicant must have one-year EU job contract with salary of three times minimum wage
Permanent residency automatic after five years
Green Card
Gives holder permanent residency
Valid for 10 years, renewable
Allows holder to live, work and travel in the US
Five channels to seek a card: employment, family links, a lottery, investment, or resident since before 1972
Holders can become US citizens after five years
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7057575.stm
BBC World News
October 23, 2007
The European Commission has unveiled a Blue Card for skilled immigrants, based on the US Green Card.
The plan would allow suitably qualified people and their families to live and work within the European Union.
The EU says it needs 20m skilled workers over the next two decades, and is very short of expertise in engineering and computer technology.
The scheme, which is more restrictive than the US Green Card, would need the approval of all 27 EU member states.
Correspondents say another aim of the plan is to reverse a current trend under which skilled migrants, mostly from Asia and Africa, emigrate to the US to find work.
'Centralisation too far'
The BBC's Mark Mardell in Brussels says the proposal is controversial and some countries are sure to oppose it.
Critics also fear that Europe's attempt to take the best and leave the rest will only encourage a brain-drain from poorer nations.
The UK, Ireland and Denmark could opt out, but the other EU members will have to take part.
UK ministers say they are studying it, but our correspondent says they are not keen on the card, preferring to develop an Australian-style points system.
Unveiled at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday afternoon, the Blue Card would enable holders and their families to live, work and travel within the EU.
To be eligible, new immigrants would need to show a recognised diploma and have at least three years professional experience.
They would also need the offer of a job, for a minimum one-year contract, which could not be filled by an EU citizen.
European Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said: "This is not an 'open doors' policy."
"If a given member-state needs engineers or doctors, it has to decide how many, and then I will provide a state with a common procedure," he added.
But some politicians in the Netherlands and Germany are hostile and the Austrian government has condemned the plan as "a centralisation too far".
Across Europe there is a real tension between politicians, who know voters are worried about immigration, and businesses demanding graduates from India and China, our correspondent says.
BLUE CARD V GREEN CARD
Blue Card
Does not give permanent residency
Valid up to two years, renewable
Allows holders and families to live, work and travel in EU
Applicant must have one-year EU job contract with salary of three times minimum wage
Permanent residency automatic after five years
Green Card
Gives holder permanent residency
Valid for 10 years, renewable
Allows holder to live, work and travel in the US
Five channels to seek a card: employment, family links, a lottery, investment, or resident since before 1972
Holders can become US citizens after five years
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7057575.stm
SF Chronicle on Lost DREAM ACT Vote
The San Francisco Chronicle is saying that the new blue card in the European Union will welcome DREAM ACT graduates. However a BBC article states the graduates need 3 years professional experience, which is impossible to obtain if the DREAMERS are in the U.S.
'[U.S.] Technology lobbyists pointed with alarm at the decision this week by the European Union to offer legal status to educated immigrants in information technology and other skilled fields with a new blue card explicitly designed to divert such workers to Europe from the United States.
"The EU is saying, 'We're coming for your students. We know the U.S. produces the best math and science students coming out of college. And we're going to come get them,' " said Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs at Oracle, the Redwood Shores software giant.'
Otherwise the SFC tells just about the same story as all the other papers on the loss of the DREAM ACT
___
San Francisco Chronicle
October 25, 2007
(10-25) 04:00 PDT Washington- -- The Senate killed help Wednesday for the single most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants - those who were brought to the country as children and now wish to go to college or join the military - and seemed to dash the hopes of Silicon Valley technology companies and California farmers for more immigrant workers they say they desperately need.
The DREAM Act, sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children, live here more than five consecutive years and complete two years of college or military service. The bill, which goes by its acronym and is named the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, received a 52-44 majority, but that was far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
The vote split both parties: It was backed by 12 Republicans, but opposed by eight Democrats. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein voted for the bill; Sen. Barbara Boxer, also a Democrat, was touring the fire zone in California and missed the vote.
The legislation was the first major attempt since a broad immigration bill crashed in the Senate last June to split off elements that have significant support - without granting legal status to all of the estimated 12 million people living in the country illegally.
The University of California had pushed hard for the bill, with a plea from UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and news conferences with UC students caught in immigration limbo.
Anti-illegal immigration activists mobilized too, deriding the legislation as the nightmare act and stealth amnesty and warning that the measure would trigger a chain migration of sponsored relatives. Supporters vigorously denied those charges.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., went so far as to call for federal agents to round up illegal college students who lobbied for the bill.
Instead of gaining ground, the DREAM Act fractured the unlikely coalition of business and immigrant rights groups that had united earlier this year behind broader immigration overhaul legislation.
Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, conceded that with an election next year and anti-immigrant sentiment increasing, further efforts at immigration reform are probably doomed. That would include the so-called AgJobs bill to provide temporary permits for farmworkers that Feinstein had hoped to push through this year.
It also hampers recent efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to respond to a rising clamor from farms, resorts, high-tech companies, nursing homes and dozens of other industries that say they need workers, and immigrant rights groups who say illegal immigrants are being targeted by federal agents and local and state governments.
The moderate New Democrat Coalition, chaired by Rep. Ellen Tauscher of Walnut Creek, wrote Pelosi on Monday urging action on visas for scientists, mathematicians and engineers, warning that U.S. competitiveness is at stake. But objections arose from other Democrats wanting relief for illegal immigrants.
At the same time, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., one of Pelosi's top political lieutenants, was quoted as saying immigration "has emerged as the third rail of American politics, and anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people."
Technology lobbyists pointed with alarm at the decision this week by the European Union to offer legal status to educated immigrants in information technology and other skilled fields with a new blue card explicitly designed to divert such workers to Europe from the United States.
"The EU is saying, 'We're coming for your students. We know the U.S. produces the best math and science students coming out of college. And we're going to come get them,' " said Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs at Oracle, the Redwood Shores software giant.
Behind the scenes, business and immigrant rights groups blamed each other for the meltdown - and are refusing to back each other's legislation if they can't attach their own.
Durbin made an impassioned plea for young illegal immigrants who were raised in this country and know no other home yet cannot get permission to work or go to college. He said there is sentiment among Democrats that business groups should not come asking for more workers if they refuse to support such strivers who are already here.
"If we're going to tell these children to leave, that we don't need them, we don't need their talent, we don't need their education, how can you make an argument that we need to bring in more foreign talent to America?" Durbin said.
Technology lobbyists said they have never opposed the DREAM Act and accused Durbin of trying to kill expanded immigration benefits for high skilled legal immigrants at every turn.
"We've always believed we have anywhere from 80 to 90 votes in the U.S. Senate for high skilled immigration," and an equally overwhelming majority in the House, said Ralph Hellman, a top lobbyist with the Information Technology Industry Council. Hellman drew a sharp distinction between expansion of visas for legal immigrants, such as skilled workers on H-1B visas, and illegal immigrants.
"People have always used our issue in legal immigration as sweeteners to get their issue across the finish line. ...We have been a political football for three years on immigration, and we're tired of it," Hellman said. "Given what has happened in the EU, our competitors are going to lap us."
H-1B temporary visas for skilled workers are now running out the first day they are issued, and tech companies say they need them to attract foreign students who have earned math, science and engineering degrees from U.S. universities. Skilled H-1B workers who wish to remain in the United States also face a growing backlog for green cards that grant permanent resident status.
California farmers say the crackdown on the border with Mexico is preventing workers from coming north, and they face the prospect of rotting crops or moving their operations to Mexico.
Doris Meissner, chief of the federal immigration service under President Bill Clinton, who is now at the Migration Policy Institute, said the failure of the DREAM Act "certainly says the piecemeal approach is failing. Whether it means nothing will happen on something like H-1Bs, I don't know. H-1B has a very well organized lobby and it deals with changes in the legal immigration system. The DREAM Act and AgJobs and other things that fall into the realm of being branded amnesty are the ones that really just don't have any legs right now."
E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.
'[U.S.] Technology lobbyists pointed with alarm at the decision this week by the European Union to offer legal status to educated immigrants in information technology and other skilled fields with a new blue card explicitly designed to divert such workers to Europe from the United States.
"The EU is saying, 'We're coming for your students. We know the U.S. produces the best math and science students coming out of college. And we're going to come get them,' " said Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs at Oracle, the Redwood Shores software giant.'
Otherwise the SFC tells just about the same story as all the other papers on the loss of the DREAM ACT
___
San Francisco Chronicle
October 25, 2007
(10-25) 04:00 PDT Washington- -- The Senate killed help Wednesday for the single most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants - those who were brought to the country as children and now wish to go to college or join the military - and seemed to dash the hopes of Silicon Valley technology companies and California farmers for more immigrant workers they say they desperately need.
The DREAM Act, sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children, live here more than five consecutive years and complete two years of college or military service. The bill, which goes by its acronym and is named the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, received a 52-44 majority, but that was far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
The vote split both parties: It was backed by 12 Republicans, but opposed by eight Democrats. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein voted for the bill; Sen. Barbara Boxer, also a Democrat, was touring the fire zone in California and missed the vote.
The legislation was the first major attempt since a broad immigration bill crashed in the Senate last June to split off elements that have significant support - without granting legal status to all of the estimated 12 million people living in the country illegally.
The University of California had pushed hard for the bill, with a plea from UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and news conferences with UC students caught in immigration limbo.
Anti-illegal immigration activists mobilized too, deriding the legislation as the nightmare act and stealth amnesty and warning that the measure would trigger a chain migration of sponsored relatives. Supporters vigorously denied those charges.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., went so far as to call for federal agents to round up illegal college students who lobbied for the bill.
Instead of gaining ground, the DREAM Act fractured the unlikely coalition of business and immigrant rights groups that had united earlier this year behind broader immigration overhaul legislation.
Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, conceded that with an election next year and anti-immigrant sentiment increasing, further efforts at immigration reform are probably doomed. That would include the so-called AgJobs bill to provide temporary permits for farmworkers that Feinstein had hoped to push through this year.
It also hampers recent efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to respond to a rising clamor from farms, resorts, high-tech companies, nursing homes and dozens of other industries that say they need workers, and immigrant rights groups who say illegal immigrants are being targeted by federal agents and local and state governments.
The moderate New Democrat Coalition, chaired by Rep. Ellen Tauscher of Walnut Creek, wrote Pelosi on Monday urging action on visas for scientists, mathematicians and engineers, warning that U.S. competitiveness is at stake. But objections arose from other Democrats wanting relief for illegal immigrants.
At the same time, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., one of Pelosi's top political lieutenants, was quoted as saying immigration "has emerged as the third rail of American politics, and anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people."
Technology lobbyists pointed with alarm at the decision this week by the European Union to offer legal status to educated immigrants in information technology and other skilled fields with a new blue card explicitly designed to divert such workers to Europe from the United States.
"The EU is saying, 'We're coming for your students. We know the U.S. produces the best math and science students coming out of college. And we're going to come get them,' " said Robert Hoffman, vice president for government and public affairs at Oracle, the Redwood Shores software giant.
Behind the scenes, business and immigrant rights groups blamed each other for the meltdown - and are refusing to back each other's legislation if they can't attach their own.
Durbin made an impassioned plea for young illegal immigrants who were raised in this country and know no other home yet cannot get permission to work or go to college. He said there is sentiment among Democrats that business groups should not come asking for more workers if they refuse to support such strivers who are already here.
"If we're going to tell these children to leave, that we don't need them, we don't need their talent, we don't need their education, how can you make an argument that we need to bring in more foreign talent to America?" Durbin said.
Technology lobbyists said they have never opposed the DREAM Act and accused Durbin of trying to kill expanded immigration benefits for high skilled legal immigrants at every turn.
"We've always believed we have anywhere from 80 to 90 votes in the U.S. Senate for high skilled immigration," and an equally overwhelming majority in the House, said Ralph Hellman, a top lobbyist with the Information Technology Industry Council. Hellman drew a sharp distinction between expansion of visas for legal immigrants, such as skilled workers on H-1B visas, and illegal immigrants.
"People have always used our issue in legal immigration as sweeteners to get their issue across the finish line. ...We have been a political football for three years on immigration, and we're tired of it," Hellman said. "Given what has happened in the EU, our competitors are going to lap us."
H-1B temporary visas for skilled workers are now running out the first day they are issued, and tech companies say they need them to attract foreign students who have earned math, science and engineering degrees from U.S. universities. Skilled H-1B workers who wish to remain in the United States also face a growing backlog for green cards that grant permanent resident status.
California farmers say the crackdown on the border with Mexico is preventing workers from coming north, and they face the prospect of rotting crops or moving their operations to Mexico.
Doris Meissner, chief of the federal immigration service under President Bill Clinton, who is now at the Migration Policy Institute, said the failure of the DREAM Act "certainly says the piecemeal approach is failing. Whether it means nothing will happen on something like H-1Bs, I don't know. H-1B has a very well organized lobby and it deals with changes in the legal immigration system. The DREAM Act and AgJobs and other things that fall into the realm of being branded amnesty are the ones that really just don't have any legs right now."
E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.
Japan Joining the Crowd With Attitude Toward Foreigners
It no surprise that Japan would be requesting fingerprints of all entering non- resident foriegners. The country has been known for its nativism for centuries. Recently it was found that the genealogical line of the Japanese Emporer had roots in Korea. Of course this has been mostly kept a secret. (Info. from Marilyn Ivy's- "Discourses of the Vanishing," University of Chicago Press)
We could blame terrorists for this xenophobic move, but I think its much more complicated than just the activities of Osama Bin Laden and his cohort. There are many other reasons people are afraid.
----
October 26, 2007
Japan to Fingerprint Foreign Visitors
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:57 a.m. ET
TOKYO (AP) -- Japan hopes to thwart potential terrorists from entering the country by fingerprinting and photographing all foreigners aged 16 or over on entry starting next month, an official said Friday.
Only some permanent residents, diplomatic visitors, and children under 16 will be exempt from the measures after the system goes into effect Nov. 20, Immigration Bureau official Takumi Sato said.
Under the new system, all adults will be photographed and fingerprinted on arrival in Japan. Incoming aircraft and ship operators also will be obliged to provide passenger and crew lists before they arrive.
Resident foreigners will be required to go through the procedure every time they re-enter Japan.
Immigration officials will run the images and data through a database of international terror and crime suspects as well as against domestic crime records. People matching the data on file will be denied entry and deported.
''We hope the system will help keep terrorists out of the country, and also put at ease the minds of both the Japanese people and the foreigners who come here,'' Sato said.
The bureau plans to store the data for ''a long time,'' Sato said, while refusing to disclose how long due to security concerns.
It is unclear how many people will be affected; Japan saw 8.11 million foreign entries in 2006, Sato said.
Opponents of the new system say the measures amount to discrimination against foreigners and a violation of their right to privacy.
Tokyo's staunch support of the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and dispatch of forces to each region have raised concerns that Japan could become the target of deadly terror attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Japan-Fingerprinting-Foreigners.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
We could blame terrorists for this xenophobic move, but I think its much more complicated than just the activities of Osama Bin Laden and his cohort. There are many other reasons people are afraid.
----
October 26, 2007
Japan to Fingerprint Foreign Visitors
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:57 a.m. ET
TOKYO (AP) -- Japan hopes to thwart potential terrorists from entering the country by fingerprinting and photographing all foreigners aged 16 or over on entry starting next month, an official said Friday.
Only some permanent residents, diplomatic visitors, and children under 16 will be exempt from the measures after the system goes into effect Nov. 20, Immigration Bureau official Takumi Sato said.
Under the new system, all adults will be photographed and fingerprinted on arrival in Japan. Incoming aircraft and ship operators also will be obliged to provide passenger and crew lists before they arrive.
Resident foreigners will be required to go through the procedure every time they re-enter Japan.
Immigration officials will run the images and data through a database of international terror and crime suspects as well as against domestic crime records. People matching the data on file will be denied entry and deported.
''We hope the system will help keep terrorists out of the country, and also put at ease the minds of both the Japanese people and the foreigners who come here,'' Sato said.
The bureau plans to store the data for ''a long time,'' Sato said, while refusing to disclose how long due to security concerns.
It is unclear how many people will be affected; Japan saw 8.11 million foreign entries in 2006, Sato said.
Opponents of the new system say the measures amount to discrimination against foreigners and a violation of their right to privacy.
Tokyo's staunch support of the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and dispatch of forces to each region have raised concerns that Japan could become the target of deadly terror attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Japan-Fingerprinting-Foreigners.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
LA Times on Lost DREAM ACT Vote 10 26 2007
Dreams put on hold for many illegal immigrant students
Many poised to graduate may have to rethink their future in view of the Senate's failure to pass a bill granting them a path to citizenship.
By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 26, 2007
The defeat of Senate legislation that would offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant students set off deep disappointment among many of them Thursday as they scrambled to figure out their futures.
"It keeps so many doors closed," said Cesar Gomez, 21, a Cal State San Bernardino student in industrial psychology. Gomez, who attained a 3.9 grade-point average at his Los Angeles high school, said he would probably have to take his skills back to his native Mexico after graduation.
That, he said, would deprive U.S. society of his bilingual skills, his strength in science and a work ethic that drove him to work his way through school at a construction firm.
Jorge Romero, 25, a Cal State L.A. student who asked that his full name not be used, said the bill's failure would probably compel him to start his own business after graduation rather than offer his talents to a U.S. firm.
Romero, an economics major who earned a 3.3 high school GPA and volunteered as a math and reading tutor at the public library, had been accepted to six University of California campuses but could not afford the tuition.
"There's no hope for me getting a job after I graduate, so the best thing is for me to create my own job," he said.
The two young men are among an estimated 20,000 illegal immigrant college students in California, more than in any other state. Most of them attend community colleges. Their ranks include between 340 and 630 of the UC system's 200,000 students, according to Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of UC Berkeley.
There are no clear estimates for the California State University system, but officials say they comprise "hundreds" of its 417,000 students.
The specter of illegal immigrants' receiving subsidized public education and coveted spots at premier state universities infuriates some, however.
"Seats at state universities are valuable finite resources, and for every [illegal immigrant] kid who gets in, that's one fewer legal immigrant or American who does not get in," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
While the children may have been brought to the United States through no fault of their own, Mehlman said, "it was their parents who knowingly broke the law and put them in that situation. We're very sorry, but they have to deal with it."
But UC Berkeley's Birgeneau said bilingual, bicultural, academically gifted immigrant students are precisely the kind of talent California needs to succeed in the global economy. Children of illegal immigrants who make it into California colleges are particularly impressive, he said, because they've had so many obstacles to overcome.
And many know only the United States as their home, having left their native countries at very young ages, he said.
"We live in an extremely competitive world internationally, and it's simply wasteful of California not to take advantage of their talent," Birgeneau said.
The legislation, known as the Dream Act, would have offered a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who had served in the military or completed two years of higher education and who had lived in the United States for at least five years, entered the country before age 16, graduated from high school, compiled no criminal record and demonstrated "good moral character."
The vote on the proposal Wednesday was 52-44, short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and begin debate.
Immigrant advocates said Thursday that they would continue to press for passage, though probably as part of a comprehensive measure that would also toughen border and workplace enforcement and increase family and work visas.
Activists also planned to continue public advocacy and education on the issue. In Los Angeles, the bill's supporters plan to hold a mock graduation ceremony Nov. 7, featuring students in caps and gowns holding placards saying, "Now what?" to signify their lack of work prospects, according to Anike Tourse, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.
She said critics primarily focus on the bill's education benefits without acknowledging that it could also help the military recruit needed soldiers.
"It's very frustrating," Tourse said of the Senate action, "but it's not breaking our spirits. It's only a matter of time before the measure passes."
For some students, however, time is running out.
Wilbur, who asked to be identified only by his first name, said his father was picked up by immigration agents a month ago after a political asylum request was rejected and was scheduled for deportation to his native Peru this week.
The family asked for anonymity because they feared immigration agents could soon come after them, as well.
But Wilbur, 20, a UCLA junior in political science, said Peru held no future for him because of the paucity of professional jobs and widespread corruption. He was brought to the United States at age 7, earned a 3.6 GPA at his Pasadena high school, played varsity soccer and won a community service scholarship for initiating a tutoring program for children.
Now struggling to manage his academic workload, his father's gardening business and family obligations to his mother and younger sibling, he said the Dream Act was his only hope for a future.
"We're not trying to ask for money; we just want an opportunity to work because we've been here all of our lives," he said. "It's really disappointing and sad, because we represent the best and brightest immigrants of this era."
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dream26oct26,0,1545431,print.story?coll=la-home-center
Many poised to graduate may have to rethink their future in view of the Senate's failure to pass a bill granting them a path to citizenship.
By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 26, 2007
The defeat of Senate legislation that would offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant students set off deep disappointment among many of them Thursday as they scrambled to figure out their futures.
"It keeps so many doors closed," said Cesar Gomez, 21, a Cal State San Bernardino student in industrial psychology. Gomez, who attained a 3.9 grade-point average at his Los Angeles high school, said he would probably have to take his skills back to his native Mexico after graduation.
That, he said, would deprive U.S. society of his bilingual skills, his strength in science and a work ethic that drove him to work his way through school at a construction firm.
Jorge Romero, 25, a Cal State L.A. student who asked that his full name not be used, said the bill's failure would probably compel him to start his own business after graduation rather than offer his talents to a U.S. firm.
Romero, an economics major who earned a 3.3 high school GPA and volunteered as a math and reading tutor at the public library, had been accepted to six University of California campuses but could not afford the tuition.
"There's no hope for me getting a job after I graduate, so the best thing is for me to create my own job," he said.
The two young men are among an estimated 20,000 illegal immigrant college students in California, more than in any other state. Most of them attend community colleges. Their ranks include between 340 and 630 of the UC system's 200,000 students, according to Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of UC Berkeley.
There are no clear estimates for the California State University system, but officials say they comprise "hundreds" of its 417,000 students.
The specter of illegal immigrants' receiving subsidized public education and coveted spots at premier state universities infuriates some, however.
"Seats at state universities are valuable finite resources, and for every [illegal immigrant] kid who gets in, that's one fewer legal immigrant or American who does not get in," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
While the children may have been brought to the United States through no fault of their own, Mehlman said, "it was their parents who knowingly broke the law and put them in that situation. We're very sorry, but they have to deal with it."
But UC Berkeley's Birgeneau said bilingual, bicultural, academically gifted immigrant students are precisely the kind of talent California needs to succeed in the global economy. Children of illegal immigrants who make it into California colleges are particularly impressive, he said, because they've had so many obstacles to overcome.
And many know only the United States as their home, having left their native countries at very young ages, he said.
"We live in an extremely competitive world internationally, and it's simply wasteful of California not to take advantage of their talent," Birgeneau said.
The legislation, known as the Dream Act, would have offered a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who had served in the military or completed two years of higher education and who had lived in the United States for at least five years, entered the country before age 16, graduated from high school, compiled no criminal record and demonstrated "good moral character."
The vote on the proposal Wednesday was 52-44, short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and begin debate.
Immigrant advocates said Thursday that they would continue to press for passage, though probably as part of a comprehensive measure that would also toughen border and workplace enforcement and increase family and work visas.
Activists also planned to continue public advocacy and education on the issue. In Los Angeles, the bill's supporters plan to hold a mock graduation ceremony Nov. 7, featuring students in caps and gowns holding placards saying, "Now what?" to signify their lack of work prospects, according to Anike Tourse, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.
She said critics primarily focus on the bill's education benefits without acknowledging that it could also help the military recruit needed soldiers.
"It's very frustrating," Tourse said of the Senate action, "but it's not breaking our spirits. It's only a matter of time before the measure passes."
For some students, however, time is running out.
Wilbur, who asked to be identified only by his first name, said his father was picked up by immigration agents a month ago after a political asylum request was rejected and was scheduled for deportation to his native Peru this week.
The family asked for anonymity because they feared immigration agents could soon come after them, as well.
But Wilbur, 20, a UCLA junior in political science, said Peru held no future for him because of the paucity of professional jobs and widespread corruption. He was brought to the United States at age 7, earned a 3.6 GPA at his Pasadena high school, played varsity soccer and won a community service scholarship for initiating a tutoring program for children.
Now struggling to manage his academic workload, his father's gardening business and family obligations to his mother and younger sibling, he said the Dream Act was his only hope for a future.
"We're not trying to ask for money; we just want an opportunity to work because we've been here all of our lives," he said. "It's really disappointing and sad, because we represent the best and brightest immigrants of this era."
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dream26oct26,0,1545431,print.story?coll=la-home-center
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Vote Against DREAM ACT: Symptom of Male Menopause?
"The vote against the Dream Act was so irrational, so counterproductive, that it seemed the product of some sort of hormonal imbalance."
So says Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. I agree. In fact, his description reminds me of Bill the Butcher from the movie "Gangs of New York"... the guy who thought immigrants were the scum of the earth and wore the flag on himself.
Could McConnell or Sessions be the Bill "the Butcher" Cutting of 2007?
_____
Republican Hot Flashes
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 26, 2007; A21
Has America become a mean, ungenerous, cramped and crabby nation, a deeply insecure colossus -- one that just might be taking all those Viagra and Cialis commercials a bit too personally? Is the country desperate to find scapegoats for a perceived decline in, um, vigor? Or is America still a confident land of hope and promise, a place still potent with possibility?
It's watching the Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail that makes me pose those big-picture questions. I'm just suggesting a context for assessing the actions and rhetoric of a party that seems to be in the throes of andropause.
That's the popularly accepted term for "male menopause," which medical dictionaries tend to describe as a "purported" syndrome rather than an actual clinical diagnosis. I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on whether dads go through a Y-chromosome version of what used to be euphemistically called the "change of life." But I think the "Daddy party" has been presenting clear symptoms.
The latest was the Senate vote Wednesday in which Republicans, supported by a handful of red-state Democrats, narrowly scuttled the Dream Act, a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for some young undocumented immigrants -- but only those who did everything this country once found worthy and admirable in pursuit of the American dream.
Under the proposal, men and women who fulfilled several conditions -- they had to be under 30, had to have been brought into the country illegally before they were 16, had to have been in the United States for at least five years and had to be graduates of U.S. high schools -- would have been given conditional legal status. If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service, they would have been eligible for permanent residency.
Let's see. Here was a way to encourage a bunch of kids to go to college rather than melt into the shadows as off-the-books day laborers -- or maybe even gang members. And here was a way to boost enlistment in our overtaxed armed forces. Aren't education and global competitiveness supposed to be vital issues? Aren't we fighting open-ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The vote against the Dream Act was so irrational, so counterproductive, that it seemed the product of some sort of hormonal imbalance.
"I do not believe we should reward illegal behavior," sniffed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who led the fight to kill the measure. But the potential beneficiaries of the Dream Act didn't do anything illegal; it was their parents who made the decision to come here without papers.
The real reason for denying at least 1 million young people the opportunity to make this nation stronger is that illegal immigration is the scourge du jour. Undocumented immigrants are convenient scapegoats for perceived American decline, convenient targets for the unfocused anger that Republicans seem to believe their constituents feel -- the sense that "they," whoever they might be, are taking something away from "us."
George W. Bush's veto of the bill reauthorizing the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program -- an action backed up by loyal House Republicans -- had the same defensive, bitter sense of we'll-show-them-a-thing-or-two. The Republican Party has to be aware of the polls showing how concerned Americans are about the health insurance crisis. It has to be betting that the act of saying no -- in what looked like a fit of andropausal pique -- would play better with voters, perhaps subliminally.
And just listen to the Republican candidates' rhetoric about our great nation's place in the world. With the exception of Ron Paul, every one of them agrees that America is under siege, molested not only by dangerous bands of Islamic terrorists -- which is true -- but also by sovereign nations such as Iran, China and Russia that have had the temerity to pursue what they see as their national interests. Which is a bizarre way of looking at foreign relations.
The solution, according to the Republican presidential hopefuls, isn't give-and-take negotiation. It's chest-thumping. It's a series of declarations about what we will find "acceptable" and what we won't. Maybe this is calculated; maybe they've decided that national security is the only issue that gives any of them a chance against any Democrat in 2008.
But I think they're badly misreading the country. I think this is still fundamentally a hopeful, generous nation, aware of both its challenges and its strengths. And not yet ready to start downing Levitra by the handful.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502234_pf.html
So says Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. I agree. In fact, his description reminds me of Bill the Butcher from the movie "Gangs of New York"... the guy who thought immigrants were the scum of the earth and wore the flag on himself.
Could McConnell or Sessions be the Bill "the Butcher" Cutting of 2007?
_____
Republican Hot Flashes
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, October 26, 2007; A21
Has America become a mean, ungenerous, cramped and crabby nation, a deeply insecure colossus -- one that just might be taking all those Viagra and Cialis commercials a bit too personally? Is the country desperate to find scapegoats for a perceived decline in, um, vigor? Or is America still a confident land of hope and promise, a place still potent with possibility?
It's watching the Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail that makes me pose those big-picture questions. I'm just suggesting a context for assessing the actions and rhetoric of a party that seems to be in the throes of andropause.
That's the popularly accepted term for "male menopause," which medical dictionaries tend to describe as a "purported" syndrome rather than an actual clinical diagnosis. I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on whether dads go through a Y-chromosome version of what used to be euphemistically called the "change of life." But I think the "Daddy party" has been presenting clear symptoms.
The latest was the Senate vote Wednesday in which Republicans, supported by a handful of red-state Democrats, narrowly scuttled the Dream Act, a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for some young undocumented immigrants -- but only those who did everything this country once found worthy and admirable in pursuit of the American dream.
Under the proposal, men and women who fulfilled several conditions -- they had to be under 30, had to have been brought into the country illegally before they were 16, had to have been in the United States for at least five years and had to be graduates of U.S. high schools -- would have been given conditional legal status. If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service, they would have been eligible for permanent residency.
Let's see. Here was a way to encourage a bunch of kids to go to college rather than melt into the shadows as off-the-books day laborers -- or maybe even gang members. And here was a way to boost enlistment in our overtaxed armed forces. Aren't education and global competitiveness supposed to be vital issues? Aren't we fighting open-ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The vote against the Dream Act was so irrational, so counterproductive, that it seemed the product of some sort of hormonal imbalance.
"I do not believe we should reward illegal behavior," sniffed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who led the fight to kill the measure. But the potential beneficiaries of the Dream Act didn't do anything illegal; it was their parents who made the decision to come here without papers.
The real reason for denying at least 1 million young people the opportunity to make this nation stronger is that illegal immigration is the scourge du jour. Undocumented immigrants are convenient scapegoats for perceived American decline, convenient targets for the unfocused anger that Republicans seem to believe their constituents feel -- the sense that "they," whoever they might be, are taking something away from "us."
George W. Bush's veto of the bill reauthorizing the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program -- an action backed up by loyal House Republicans -- had the same defensive, bitter sense of we'll-show-them-a-thing-or-two. The Republican Party has to be aware of the polls showing how concerned Americans are about the health insurance crisis. It has to be betting that the act of saying no -- in what looked like a fit of andropausal pique -- would play better with voters, perhaps subliminally.
And just listen to the Republican candidates' rhetoric about our great nation's place in the world. With the exception of Ron Paul, every one of them agrees that America is under siege, molested not only by dangerous bands of Islamic terrorists -- which is true -- but also by sovereign nations such as Iran, China and Russia that have had the temerity to pursue what they see as their national interests. Which is a bizarre way of looking at foreign relations.
The solution, according to the Republican presidential hopefuls, isn't give-and-take negotiation. It's chest-thumping. It's a series of declarations about what we will find "acceptable" and what we won't. Maybe this is calculated; maybe they've decided that national security is the only issue that gives any of them a chance against any Democrat in 2008.
But I think they're badly misreading the country. I think this is still fundamentally a hopeful, generous nation, aware of both its challenges and its strengths. And not yet ready to start downing Levitra by the handful.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502234_pf.html
Getting Correct Information on the DREAM ACT
For concernedmom who responded to my posting "Wrong Information From Lou Dobbs"
For a certain number of the population, anything written in a blog such as DREAM ACT TEXAS would be suspicious. However, I will provide you information on my research and credentials.
To answer your questions:
1. And where exactly did you get your information about these kids?
I have been interviewing them, traveling with them, eating meals with them, going on retreats with them for the past 18 months. This work is part of an officially sanctioned research project at the University of Houston.
2.Do you know them?
Yes, I know them very very well -
3. Did they publish their names and life story?
No. The university does not allow me to use their names or disclose their identities. Its part of something called "Human Subjects" requirements that all universities have.
4. Or are you just passing on some La Raza propaganda?
If you mean propaganda as "misteaching or misinformation" - no. I believe that one person from the organization introduced themselves to me when I was at a congressional committee hearing in May 2007 in Washington, D.C, but we did not have a conversation. I'm sure many of the ideas I write about are also of interest to NCLR. But I have never read any of their documents.
5. You know? The old let's make Lou Dobbs look like a racist idiot stance?
I find it absolutely necessary to clarify mis-information. If that creates a certain perception of Mr. Dobbs, then he needs to be more judicious about how and what information he disseminates.
6. Why don't you get the correct information and then get back to all of us with it?
You have it in this blog.
If you have further questions about my qualifications for providing "correct information." I have a PhD in Cultural Anthropology from Rice University. In 2002 the University of Texas published my book on the social and culture history of northern Mexico. In a couple of months, my second book will be released, its about a social history of southeast Texas, published by Texas A&M Press. This research is part of my job as a tenured college professor.
For a certain number of the population, anything written in a blog such as DREAM ACT TEXAS would be suspicious. However, I will provide you information on my research and credentials.
To answer your questions:
1. And where exactly did you get your information about these kids?
I have been interviewing them, traveling with them, eating meals with them, going on retreats with them for the past 18 months. This work is part of an officially sanctioned research project at the University of Houston.
2.Do you know them?
Yes, I know them very very well -
3. Did they publish their names and life story?
No. The university does not allow me to use their names or disclose their identities. Its part of something called "Human Subjects" requirements that all universities have.
4. Or are you just passing on some La Raza propaganda?
If you mean propaganda as "misteaching or misinformation" - no. I believe that one person from the organization introduced themselves to me when I was at a congressional committee hearing in May 2007 in Washington, D.C, but we did not have a conversation. I'm sure many of the ideas I write about are also of interest to NCLR. But I have never read any of their documents.
5. You know? The old let's make Lou Dobbs look like a racist idiot stance?
I find it absolutely necessary to clarify mis-information. If that creates a certain perception of Mr. Dobbs, then he needs to be more judicious about how and what information he disseminates.
6. Why don't you get the correct information and then get back to all of us with it?
You have it in this blog.
If you have further questions about my qualifications for providing "correct information." I have a PhD in Cultural Anthropology from Rice University. In 2002 the University of Texas published my book on the social and culture history of northern Mexico. In a couple of months, my second book will be released, its about a social history of southeast Texas, published by Texas A&M Press. This research is part of my job as a tenured college professor.
The Day After
The DREAM ACT didn't receive cloture on the senate floor yesterday. Most of you already know that. While the journalists might be somewhat disappointed, their job is to find the stories, so there isn't time or need for grieving. For the politicians, surely Durbin feels something, at least disappointment that his political clout wasn't strong enough to overturn the current anti-immigration sentiment. Sessions and McConnell are probably happy today.
The real question is: how are the DREAM ACT students? Some are in shock, some cried, some were angry; others couldn't sleep last night- they wonder what could happen next.
This might have felt like a last ditch effort. We may want to be optimistic, but the current political climate has made most American voters and their representatives blind to anything or anyone that was not Born in the USA. That is their only criteria.
Unfortunately, the DREAM ACT kids weren't born here, and we can't magically go back in time and change their location of birth. This isolated criteria is making our country look like something medieval, where only those born to the nobility count, and everyone elses life means nothing. We have gone retrograde to a time where logic and reason have been lost. Ideology now determines the future of the country.
What people don't understand if the bill were passed, the DREAM ACT kids would be the ones to lead the way. The paradox is that they would feel more American than those of us lucky enough to be born here. Who else works so hard, uses all resources available, respects societal rules, and would have such a bright future? Talk about the American work ethic - they are the prime example of what many of us don't have anymore.
We are producing kids that believe that World of Warcraft is more important than food. The high achievers are programmed like robots from an early age, with their own appointment books so they can list their daily classes or instructions. Even their play times have to be scheduled.
For the rest, its World of Warcraft or some other video game, floating through high school, coming to love their computer more than the people around them.
DREAM ACT kids are different. I can say that because not only have I had many as students, but also because I've been working on a book about the DREAM ACT for the last 18 months. Its been a revelatory experience.
The students I know are telling me to finish the book quickly; maybe it will help get the bill passed. Perhaps it would, but more importantly, for anything to happen the U.S. will need to have sometype of brain shift - The problem is that there is no model to follow from the past. This type of globalization is new, as are recent societal movements, practices, and rapidly changing technology - America is reacting to this by hiding its head in the sand - and when it does look out at the world it hallucinates monsters and destruction.
photo: WWI, http://www.mises.org/images4/CenturyOfWarCrop.jpg
Where Was McCain During the DREAM ACT Vote?
McCain Skips Vote on Immigration BillAfter Vote for Controversial Judge
by Michael Roston
Huffington Post
October 24, 2007 05:15 PM
A maverick no more?
Senator John McCain skipped out on a vote this afternoon on a bill that creates a path to legal residency for college students who entered the United States illegally with their parents. While McCain has decided to miss many votes in order to stay on the campaign trail, the move was notable this time because it came on the same day when he made a point of announcing that he was canceling campaign events to confirm the nomination of a controversial federal judge. The Senator has also co-sponsored the bill during earlier congresses.
The Arizona Senator spent years cultivating his reputation as a "maverick" Congress member who spoke only in the American dialect of English called "straight talk." He probably cost himself the 2000 Republican nomination for President by sticking to his guns on social issues and other matters. And this time around, McCain has come in for massive criticism from his party's conservative base for promoting a compromise immigration reform bill that conservatives slammed as granting "amnesty" to all illegal workers.
The DREAM Act allows high school graduates who have lived in America for at least five years and attended two years of college (or agree to two years of military service) to enter a path to becoming legal residents in the United States. A filibuster of the bill was sustained on Wednesday by a vote of 52-44.
In 2005, McCain joined 27 other Senators in co-sponsoring the legislation. Sitting out the vote this time might suggest that McCain no longer feels he can brave the anti-immigrant currents swirling in his party if he wants to keep his troubled presidential campaign afloat.
McCain's campaign offered no explanation for why he sat out the vote.
"Sen. McCain had to catch a flight to Iowa right after the Southwick vote," the spokesman said in an e-mail to the Huffington Post. "I'm sure he'll address the issue in more detail in Iowa."
McCain's campaign announced yesterday that he was skipping "his New Hampshire events scheduled for tomorrow, October 24th, to return to Washington to vote on the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit."
Southwick's nomination has prompted controversy due to allegations of racism and homophobia. The former Mississippi judge reinstated a state employee who was fired for calling a co-worker a "good ole nigger," and awarded sole custody of a child to a father because her mother was a lesbian.
McCain dismissed these concerns as a "smear campaign," and added, "Liberals, including the Democratic presidential candidates, are opposing Judge Southwick because they know he will strictly interpret the law rather than make it from the bench."
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic critics accused McCain of abandoning his principles to skip the vote on the DREAM Act.
"Missing the vote on the DREAM Act is consistent with McCain's chase for conservative votes if not with his principles," said Luis Miranda, Democratic National Committee spokesman. "Once again he's avoiding taking a stand on what was previously a signature issue."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/24/mccain-skips-vote-on-immi_n_69745.html
by Michael Roston
Huffington Post
October 24, 2007 05:15 PM
A maverick no more?
Senator John McCain skipped out on a vote this afternoon on a bill that creates a path to legal residency for college students who entered the United States illegally with their parents. While McCain has decided to miss many votes in order to stay on the campaign trail, the move was notable this time because it came on the same day when he made a point of announcing that he was canceling campaign events to confirm the nomination of a controversial federal judge. The Senator has also co-sponsored the bill during earlier congresses.
The Arizona Senator spent years cultivating his reputation as a "maverick" Congress member who spoke only in the American dialect of English called "straight talk." He probably cost himself the 2000 Republican nomination for President by sticking to his guns on social issues and other matters. And this time around, McCain has come in for massive criticism from his party's conservative base for promoting a compromise immigration reform bill that conservatives slammed as granting "amnesty" to all illegal workers.
The DREAM Act allows high school graduates who have lived in America for at least five years and attended two years of college (or agree to two years of military service) to enter a path to becoming legal residents in the United States. A filibuster of the bill was sustained on Wednesday by a vote of 52-44.
In 2005, McCain joined 27 other Senators in co-sponsoring the legislation. Sitting out the vote this time might suggest that McCain no longer feels he can brave the anti-immigrant currents swirling in his party if he wants to keep his troubled presidential campaign afloat.
McCain's campaign offered no explanation for why he sat out the vote.
"Sen. McCain had to catch a flight to Iowa right after the Southwick vote," the spokesman said in an e-mail to the Huffington Post. "I'm sure he'll address the issue in more detail in Iowa."
McCain's campaign announced yesterday that he was skipping "his New Hampshire events scheduled for tomorrow, October 24th, to return to Washington to vote on the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit."
Southwick's nomination has prompted controversy due to allegations of racism and homophobia. The former Mississippi judge reinstated a state employee who was fired for calling a co-worker a "good ole nigger," and awarded sole custody of a child to a father because her mother was a lesbian.
McCain dismissed these concerns as a "smear campaign," and added, "Liberals, including the Democratic presidential candidates, are opposing Judge Southwick because they know he will strictly interpret the law rather than make it from the bench."
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic critics accused McCain of abandoning his principles to skip the vote on the DREAM Act.
"Missing the vote on the DREAM Act is consistent with McCain's chase for conservative votes if not with his principles," said Luis Miranda, Democratic National Committee spokesman. "Once again he's avoiding taking a stand on what was previously a signature issue."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/24/mccain-skips-vote-on-immi_n_69745.html
MALDEF Statement on DREAM ACT Vote 10 24 2007
From Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
1717 K Street, Suite 311, Washington, DC 20036 Office: 202-293-2828
PRESS RELEASE CONTACT:
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION Estuardo Rodriguez: 202-365-0625
October 24, 2007 Peter Zamora: 202-293-2828
Bush Administration and 44 U.S. Senators Block Passage of the DREAM Act
Vote is a victory for anti-immigrant sentiment over education and national service
Washington, DC - Today, by a vote of 52-44, the United States Senate rejected the DREAM Act, which required 60 votes to move forward. The DREAM Act would offer conditional legal immigration status for many of our nation's best and brightest high school graduates who enroll in community colleges or four-year colleges or serve in the nation's military.
More troubling than the 44 Senators' votes against the DREAM Act was the Bush Administration's late opposition to the bill and inaccurate message to the U.S. Senate on the substance of the proposal. In contrast to its previous support for comprehensive immigration reform that included a path to citizenship, the Administration turned its back on the graduates of U.S. high schools who could better contribute to the economy and society if the DREAM Act became law.
"President Bush and 44 Senators have weakened America by this vote. By cowering in the face of divisive anti-immigrant sentiment, they make it harder for the nation to be equipped to be ready, both here and abroad, for the economic, societal and other challenges we face. The DREAM Act was a modest proposal to increase educational opportunities for young people to serve the nation," stated John Trasviña, MALDEF's President and General Counsel.
"Our country needs elected officials who are willing to take action to strengthen our nation," stated Peter Zamora, Washington, D.C. Regional Counsel. "44 Senators and the White House have instead chosen to use anti-immigrant fear-mongering as a political tool. This is reprehensible."
1717 K Street, Suite 311, Washington, DC 20036 Office: 202-293-2828
PRESS RELEASE CONTACT:
FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION Estuardo Rodriguez: 202-365-0625
October 24, 2007 Peter Zamora: 202-293-2828
Bush Administration and 44 U.S. Senators Block Passage of the DREAM Act
Vote is a victory for anti-immigrant sentiment over education and national service
Washington, DC - Today, by a vote of 52-44, the United States Senate rejected the DREAM Act, which required 60 votes to move forward. The DREAM Act would offer conditional legal immigration status for many of our nation's best and brightest high school graduates who enroll in community colleges or four-year colleges or serve in the nation's military.
More troubling than the 44 Senators' votes against the DREAM Act was the Bush Administration's late opposition to the bill and inaccurate message to the U.S. Senate on the substance of the proposal. In contrast to its previous support for comprehensive immigration reform that included a path to citizenship, the Administration turned its back on the graduates of U.S. high schools who could better contribute to the economy and society if the DREAM Act became law.
"President Bush and 44 Senators have weakened America by this vote. By cowering in the face of divisive anti-immigrant sentiment, they make it harder for the nation to be equipped to be ready, both here and abroad, for the economic, societal and other challenges we face. The DREAM Act was a modest proposal to increase educational opportunities for young people to serve the nation," stated John Trasviña, MALDEF's President and General Counsel.
"Our country needs elected officials who are willing to take action to strengthen our nation," stated Peter Zamora, Washington, D.C. Regional Counsel. "44 Senators and the White House have instead chosen to use anti-immigrant fear-mongering as a political tool. This is reprehensible."
White House Statement on DREAM ACT 10 24 2007
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 24, 2007 (Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
S. 2205 - Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of
2007
(Sen. Durbin (D) Illinois and two cosponsors)
The Administration continues to believe that the Nation's broken
immigration system requires comprehensive reform. This reform should
include strong border and interior enforcement, a temporary worker
program, a program to bring the millions of undocumented aliens out of
the shadows without amnesty and without animosity, and assistance that
helps newcomers assimilate into American society. Unless it provides
additional authorities in all of these areas, Congress will do little
more than perpetuate the unfortunate status quo.
The Administration is sympathetic to the position of young people who
were brought here illegally as children and have come to know the United
States as home. Any resolution of their status, however, must be careful
not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has
brought the Nation to this point. By creating a special path to
citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective
immigrants-including young people whose parents respected the Nation's
immigration laws-S. 2205 falls short. The Administration therefore
opposes the bill.
The primary change wrought by S. 2205 would be to establish a
preferential path to citizenship for a special class of illegal aliens.
Specifically, S. 2205 awards permanent status to any illegal alien who
is under 30, has been in the United States for five years after arriving
as a child, and has completed two years of college or in the uniformed
services. This path to citizenship is unavailable to any other alien, no
matter how much promise he or she may have, no matter how much he or she
may contribute to American society. Moreover, the path that S. 2205
creates would allow illegal aliens to obtain a green card before many
individuals who are currently lawfully waiting in line.
Sponsors of S. 2205 argue that the bill is necessary in order to give
children who are illegal aliens incentives to obtain an education. But
it is difficult to reconcile that professed aim with the bill's
retroactivity provisions: even those who attended college years earlier
will be eligible for a green card.
The legal status that the bill grants its beneficiaries means that they
can petition almost instantly to bring family members into the country.
It also places them on the fast track to citizenship because they can
immediately begin accruing the residence time in the United States that
is necessary for naturalization. Finally, this legal status entitles the
bill's beneficiaries to certain welfare benefits within five years.
The bill is also indiscriminate in whom it would make eligible for the
program. For example,
S. 2205 includes loopholes that would authorize permanent status for
certain aliens convicted of multiple misdemeanors and even felonies.
The open-ended nature of S. 2205 is objectionable and will inevitably
lead to large-scale document fraud. The path to citizenship remains open
for decades, thus creating a strong temptation for future illegal aliens
to purchase fraudulent documents on a burgeoning black market. Moreover,
the bill's confidentiality provisions are drawn straight from the 1986
amnesty law and will provide the same haven for fraud and criminality as
that law did.
Immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people-and of
this Administration-but it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive and
balanced way that avoids creating incentives for problems in the future.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 24, 2007 (Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
S. 2205 - Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of
2007
(Sen. Durbin (D) Illinois and two cosponsors)
The Administration continues to believe that the Nation's broken
immigration system requires comprehensive reform. This reform should
include strong border and interior enforcement, a temporary worker
program, a program to bring the millions of undocumented aliens out of
the shadows without amnesty and without animosity, and assistance that
helps newcomers assimilate into American society. Unless it provides
additional authorities in all of these areas, Congress will do little
more than perpetuate the unfortunate status quo.
The Administration is sympathetic to the position of young people who
were brought here illegally as children and have come to know the United
States as home. Any resolution of their status, however, must be careful
not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has
brought the Nation to this point. By creating a special path to
citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective
immigrants-including young people whose parents respected the Nation's
immigration laws-S. 2205 falls short. The Administration therefore
opposes the bill.
The primary change wrought by S. 2205 would be to establish a
preferential path to citizenship for a special class of illegal aliens.
Specifically, S. 2205 awards permanent status to any illegal alien who
is under 30, has been in the United States for five years after arriving
as a child, and has completed two years of college or in the uniformed
services. This path to citizenship is unavailable to any other alien, no
matter how much promise he or she may have, no matter how much he or she
may contribute to American society. Moreover, the path that S. 2205
creates would allow illegal aliens to obtain a green card before many
individuals who are currently lawfully waiting in line.
Sponsors of S. 2205 argue that the bill is necessary in order to give
children who are illegal aliens incentives to obtain an education. But
it is difficult to reconcile that professed aim with the bill's
retroactivity provisions: even those who attended college years earlier
will be eligible for a green card.
The legal status that the bill grants its beneficiaries means that they
can petition almost instantly to bring family members into the country.
It also places them on the fast track to citizenship because they can
immediately begin accruing the residence time in the United States that
is necessary for naturalization. Finally, this legal status entitles the
bill's beneficiaries to certain welfare benefits within five years.
The bill is also indiscriminate in whom it would make eligible for the
program. For example,
S. 2205 includes loopholes that would authorize permanent status for
certain aliens convicted of multiple misdemeanors and even felonies.
The open-ended nature of S. 2205 is objectionable and will inevitably
lead to large-scale document fraud. The path to citizenship remains open
for decades, thus creating a strong temptation for future illegal aliens
to purchase fraudulent documents on a burgeoning black market. Moreover,
the bill's confidentiality provisions are drawn straight from the 1986
amnesty law and will provide the same haven for fraud and criminality as
that law did.
Immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people-and of
this Administration-but it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive and
balanced way that avoids creating incentives for problems in the future.
Houston Chronicle on DREAM ACT 10 24 2007
Oct. 24, 2007, 9:04PM
Senate kills bill to help illegal immigrants' kids
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chroncle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — The Senate today rebuffed a measure that would grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants if they attend college or join the military.
Supporters of the DREAM Act fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to keep the legislation alive, with Texas GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn splitting over the bill. Cornyn voted against the measure on a key test vote while Hutchison worked behind the scenes with the legislation's chief sponsor to find ways to make it more palatable to Republicans.
"I don't want to hold out false hope," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said when asked if he'd try to bring his legislation up again this year. "We did our best today."
After the implosion in the Senate last June of a sweeping immigration bill backed by the Bush administration, advocates decided to offer smaller measures in hopes of limiting the opposition that derailed legalization for most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.
The DREAM Act was first out of the chute, presented by supporters as a targeted bill designed to help children who played no part in their parents' decision to come here illegally.
"What good does it do anybody to prevent these young people from having a future?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It harms children who have done no wrong, and in the long run greatly harms our country."
But opponents insisted the legislation was nothing more than an amnesty program which they claimed could open the door to citizenship for the students' parents and other relatives. The White House also opposed the measure.
"I do not believe we should reward illegal behavior," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "It is our duty to promote respect for America's immigration laws."
The legislation, officially known as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, would allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came here under age 16, and have lived here at least five years, to attain legal status, and eventually citizenship, if they complete two years of college or serve in the military for at least two years.
Cornyn complained that the legislation contained "gaping loopholes," including not requiring that illegal immigrants graduate from college, granting them access to federal student loans and limiting investigation of possible application fraud.
"If my colleagues who support this measure are committed to solving America's immigration crisis and the plight of illegal immigrants, then the focus of this Congress should be on passing a comprehensive reform bill that addresses all of our pressing immigration matters, including securing our broken borders and the needs of American businesses for more workers," Cornyn said.
The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration research organization, has estimated that the DREAM Act could provide immediate conditional legal status to 360,000 high school graduates under the age of 24 and help 715,000 currently in school.
michelle.mittelstadt@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/5241897.html
Senate kills bill to help illegal immigrants' kids
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chroncle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — The Senate today rebuffed a measure that would grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants if they attend college or join the military.
Supporters of the DREAM Act fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to keep the legislation alive, with Texas GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn splitting over the bill. Cornyn voted against the measure on a key test vote while Hutchison worked behind the scenes with the legislation's chief sponsor to find ways to make it more palatable to Republicans.
"I don't want to hold out false hope," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said when asked if he'd try to bring his legislation up again this year. "We did our best today."
After the implosion in the Senate last June of a sweeping immigration bill backed by the Bush administration, advocates decided to offer smaller measures in hopes of limiting the opposition that derailed legalization for most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.
The DREAM Act was first out of the chute, presented by supporters as a targeted bill designed to help children who played no part in their parents' decision to come here illegally.
"What good does it do anybody to prevent these young people from having a future?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It harms children who have done no wrong, and in the long run greatly harms our country."
But opponents insisted the legislation was nothing more than an amnesty program which they claimed could open the door to citizenship for the students' parents and other relatives. The White House also opposed the measure.
"I do not believe we should reward illegal behavior," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "It is our duty to promote respect for America's immigration laws."
The legislation, officially known as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, would allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came here under age 16, and have lived here at least five years, to attain legal status, and eventually citizenship, if they complete two years of college or serve in the military for at least two years.
Cornyn complained that the legislation contained "gaping loopholes," including not requiring that illegal immigrants graduate from college, granting them access to federal student loans and limiting investigation of possible application fraud.
"If my colleagues who support this measure are committed to solving America's immigration crisis and the plight of illegal immigrants, then the focus of this Congress should be on passing a comprehensive reform bill that addresses all of our pressing immigration matters, including securing our broken borders and the needs of American businesses for more workers," Cornyn said.
The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration research organization, has estimated that the DREAM Act could provide immediate conditional legal status to 360,000 high school graduates under the age of 24 and help 715,000 currently in school.
michelle.mittelstadt@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/5241897.html
Politico on DREAM ACT 10 25 2007
‘Dream Act' backers still dreaming
By: Martin Kady II
Politico.com
October 25, 2007 07:38 AM EST
The immigration issue has become so toxic in American politics that Congress is now unable to pass even modest measures that once had widespread support, and immigration supporters who were once on the verge of a bipartisan breakthrough are now in danger of a backlash in next year’s elections.
The potency of the issue was on full display in the Senate on Wednesday, as eight Democrats, mostly from Republican-leaning states, helped scuttle a narrowly tailored measure aimed at granting legal residency for longtime students whose parents came to the United States illegally.
And the death of the so-called DREAM Act, which once had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate, was a stark reminder of the depth of discontent among voters to Democratic strategists who personally back liberalization of immigration rules.
“This issue has been so painful for so many people — they’re running scared,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the sponsor of the DREAM Act. When immigration is debated in Congress, Durbin said, “the switchboards light up and the hate starts spewing.”
The vote in the Senate shows just how terrifying it is for most Republicans and even some Democrats to appear open to accommodating illegal immigrants. The election in the 5th District of Massachusetts last week was another bellwether. Democrat Niki Tsongas’ victory over Republican Jim Ogonowski was much closer than expected due to frustration among working-class voters over the immigration issue.
The House has no plans to take up the DREAM Act anytime soon.
At one point, the DREAM Act had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate but had little chance in the toxic atmosphere that has engulfed the immigration issue. And the key procedural motion requiring 60 votes failed 52-44, perhaps the final death knell for any significant immigration legislation until 2009.
The DREAM Act was narrowly targeted and would benefit only high school graduates whose parents brought them to the country illegally years ago, but even this scaled-down legislation was derided as “amnesty” by opponents.
Indeed, despite the votes of a dozen Republicans, eight moderate Democrats voted against the legislation, guaranteeing its defeat. The Republican votes in favor mostly came from politically vulnerable senators from Democratic states. Republicans Mel Martinez of Florida and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who come from states with large immigrant populations, also voted for the bill.
But regardless of the Republican support, Democrats were undone by a handful from their own party who consistently get an earful about illegal immigration when they go back home.
“What I hear is, ‘Look, you’ve got to secure the border,’” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who voted against the bill. “That has to be the No. 1 priority.”
Conrad was joined by other moderate Democrats such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Max Baucus of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who faces a tough election next year in a state trending for the GOP, also voted against the bill.
If every Democrat had voted for the bill, it would have achieved the 60-vote threshold needed to proceed.
“We’ve been through a very emotional time on immigration, and we need to sit down and think this through,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who voted against the bill. “This summer [immigration debate] just fired up the emotions, and that has not gone away.”
Durbin, who has adopted this issue as a top priority, predicted that his support of the DREAM Act would be used against him in his campaign next year, and he was pessimistic the Senate would take it up again anytime soon. One other immigration measure, which would loosen rules for migrant agricultural labor, could be attached to the farm bill next week, but it’s not clear if that proposal has enough support to be approved.
The DREAM Act is designed to reward students who have been in the United States for years, have graduated from high school and plan to go to college or join the military. The idea is that kids whose parents are illegal aliens should not be punished with deportation, because they had no choice in coming to the country at a young age. The eligible students would receive no federal funding or benefits but simply would be granted permanent resident status.
“This is not a free education,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “It’s an opportunity to go to college.”
But the limited scope of the bill seemed irrelevant in the debate. Brimming with confidence from the summer defeat of comprehensive immigration reform, opponents rejoined the arguments that lit up talk radio over the summer and killed the last immigration bill.
“America has clearly rejected amnesty, but Democrats have obviously refused to listen,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “This is a clarifying moment in the immigration debate: Republicans have heard Americans’ desire for border security and interior enforcement first.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D4A8E0F5-3048-5C12-00CD96062358BF7F
By: Martin Kady II
Politico.com
October 25, 2007 07:38 AM EST
The immigration issue has become so toxic in American politics that Congress is now unable to pass even modest measures that once had widespread support, and immigration supporters who were once on the verge of a bipartisan breakthrough are now in danger of a backlash in next year’s elections.
The potency of the issue was on full display in the Senate on Wednesday, as eight Democrats, mostly from Republican-leaning states, helped scuttle a narrowly tailored measure aimed at granting legal residency for longtime students whose parents came to the United States illegally.
And the death of the so-called DREAM Act, which once had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate, was a stark reminder of the depth of discontent among voters to Democratic strategists who personally back liberalization of immigration rules.
“This issue has been so painful for so many people — they’re running scared,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the sponsor of the DREAM Act. When immigration is debated in Congress, Durbin said, “the switchboards light up and the hate starts spewing.”
The vote in the Senate shows just how terrifying it is for most Republicans and even some Democrats to appear open to accommodating illegal immigrants. The election in the 5th District of Massachusetts last week was another bellwether. Democrat Niki Tsongas’ victory over Republican Jim Ogonowski was much closer than expected due to frustration among working-class voters over the immigration issue.
The House has no plans to take up the DREAM Act anytime soon.
At one point, the DREAM Act had 47 co-sponsors in the Senate but had little chance in the toxic atmosphere that has engulfed the immigration issue. And the key procedural motion requiring 60 votes failed 52-44, perhaps the final death knell for any significant immigration legislation until 2009.
The DREAM Act was narrowly targeted and would benefit only high school graduates whose parents brought them to the country illegally years ago, but even this scaled-down legislation was derided as “amnesty” by opponents.
Indeed, despite the votes of a dozen Republicans, eight moderate Democrats voted against the legislation, guaranteeing its defeat. The Republican votes in favor mostly came from politically vulnerable senators from Democratic states. Republicans Mel Martinez of Florida and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who come from states with large immigrant populations, also voted for the bill.
But regardless of the Republican support, Democrats were undone by a handful from their own party who consistently get an earful about illegal immigration when they go back home.
“What I hear is, ‘Look, you’ve got to secure the border,’” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who voted against the bill. “That has to be the No. 1 priority.”
Conrad was joined by other moderate Democrats such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jon Tester of Montana, Max Baucus of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who faces a tough election next year in a state trending for the GOP, also voted against the bill.
If every Democrat had voted for the bill, it would have achieved the 60-vote threshold needed to proceed.
“We’ve been through a very emotional time on immigration, and we need to sit down and think this through,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who voted against the bill. “This summer [immigration debate] just fired up the emotions, and that has not gone away.”
Durbin, who has adopted this issue as a top priority, predicted that his support of the DREAM Act would be used against him in his campaign next year, and he was pessimistic the Senate would take it up again anytime soon. One other immigration measure, which would loosen rules for migrant agricultural labor, could be attached to the farm bill next week, but it’s not clear if that proposal has enough support to be approved.
The DREAM Act is designed to reward students who have been in the United States for years, have graduated from high school and plan to go to college or join the military. The idea is that kids whose parents are illegal aliens should not be punished with deportation, because they had no choice in coming to the country at a young age. The eligible students would receive no federal funding or benefits but simply would be granted permanent resident status.
“This is not a free education,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “It’s an opportunity to go to college.”
But the limited scope of the bill seemed irrelevant in the debate. Brimming with confidence from the summer defeat of comprehensive immigration reform, opponents rejoined the arguments that lit up talk radio over the summer and killed the last immigration bill.
“America has clearly rejected amnesty, but Democrats have obviously refused to listen,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “This is a clarifying moment in the immigration debate: Republicans have heard Americans’ desire for border security and interior enforcement first.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D4A8E0F5-3048-5C12-00CD96062358BF7F
Howard Dean and DMC: DREAM ACT and White House
Wednesday, October 24
Dean: Bush Republicans Blocking the American Dream
by Radio Left Review on Wed 24 Oct 2007 09:42 PM CDT
Democratic National Committee:
Washington, DC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement today after the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the DREAM Act and Bush Republicans blocked consideration of the bill in the Senate: [White House Statement of Administration Policy, 10/24/07]
"Senator Reid and the Democrats in Congress deserve a lot of credit for working toward solutions for border security and immigration reform. Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves for continuing to stand in the way of both. Children who came to our country with their families in hope of a better life, often in their infancy and through no fault of their own, and who call America home deserve a shot at the American Dream. These kids want to serve in the military and go to college, hoping to succeed and give back to our country. What could be more American? Republicans' actions today, denying immigrant children an education after they denied 10 million American children health care, do not represent the values our country was founded on."
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/Democrats
Dean: Bush Republicans Blocking the American Dream
by Radio Left Review on Wed 24 Oct 2007 09:42 PM CDT
Democratic National Committee:
Washington, DC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement today after the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the DREAM Act and Bush Republicans blocked consideration of the bill in the Senate: [White House Statement of Administration Policy, 10/24/07]
"Senator Reid and the Democrats in Congress deserve a lot of credit for working toward solutions for border security and immigration reform. Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves for continuing to stand in the way of both. Children who came to our country with their families in hope of a better life, often in their infancy and through no fault of their own, and who call America home deserve a shot at the American Dream. These kids want to serve in the military and go to college, hoping to succeed and give back to our country. What could be more American? Republicans' actions today, denying immigrant children an education after they denied 10 million American children health care, do not represent the values our country was founded on."
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/Democrats
LA Times on DREAM ACT 10 25 2007
Senate rejects kids citizenship measure
Opponents call the Dream Act 'amnesty' for immigrant children.
By Nicole Gaouette and Johanna Neuman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill offering the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they serve in the military or complete two years of higher education. The defeat of the measure, which had attracted bipartisan support, underscored the difficulty of enacting even a narrowly tailored proposal in the polarizing atmosphere surrounding immigration reform.
The vote on the proposal was 52 to 44, short of the 60-vote margin needed to prevent a filibuster and begin debate. It was one small piece of a comprehensive immigration bill that collapsed in the Senate earlier this year, and it sparked a brief but heated debate.
Opponents called the bill a form of amnesty and argued that it would create incentives for illegal immigrants to cross the border with their children. But Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who supported the measure, said that "to turn on these children and treat them as criminals is an indication of the level of emotion and, in some cases, bigotry and hatred that is involved in this debate."
His remarks were directed at Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who on Tuesday suggested that immigrants who had attended a meeting in Durbin's office were illegal and should have been arrested.
Tancredo, a presidential candidate who has staked his campaign on tough immigration enforcement, dismissed Durbin's understanding of the issue: "I don't expect Dick Durbin to be able to tell the difference between legal residents and illegal aliens."
The debate on Capitol Hill suggested that the public outrage kicked up last summer when the Senate considered comprehensive immigration reform was still driving the political agenda.
Proponents of the Dream Act -- the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act -- had hoped it would be one of several less-ambitious changes to the nation's immigration law to pass this year.
But Wednesday's defeat signaled that any further attempts to help illegal immigrants might have to be balanced with action to increase border security or enforcement.
"All of America's awake on this one," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), suggesting amnesty was the end game of the measure that failed Wednesday. "They know exactly what we're doing."
The environment has become so poisonous that Durbin, in a news conference after the vote, thanked not only the Republicans who joined his effort but also the Democrats who he said "stood by me on this."
He noted that some Democrats voted for the bill "with pain in their eyes," knowing that their action would provoke anger from voters.
The Dream Act would give conditional legal status to illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States at least five years and entered the country before age 16. They must graduate from high school, have no criminal record and have a "good moral character."
If these immigrants serve in the military or complete two years of higher education, the conditional status would be lifted. After five years, they could apply for citizenship.
Estimates vary as to the number of young illegal immigrants the bill would affect. The Congressional Budget Office has put it at fewer than 100,000, while the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute has estimated it at closer to 500,000.
Some proponents tried to cast the vote in a positive light. They noted that the four absent senators, including Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), had all vowed to support the measure, meaning it was closer to the needed 60 votes.
And, they said, the 2008 elections might send a message to vocal opponents that opposing immigration reform is not the winning issue they think it is.
"We're going through a period of time when there is a sense of panic among politicians," said Josh Bernstein, federal policy director for the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center. "When the election comes, politicians will be surprised. Immigration was supposed to be the savior of Republicans in the last election, but that didn't happen. I don't think it will happen again."
Some signs of bipartisanship were evident Wednesday. Twelve Republicans defied their party by voting to begin debate. And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) announced that she and Durbin were working on an approach that might attract more GOP support -- requiring, in addition to military service or attendance in college, a longer wait for citizenship.
But the White House played hardball on the issue, releasing a statement outlining its objections. "The administration is sympathetic to the position of young people who were brought here illegally as children and have come to know the United States as home," said a statement from the White House Office of Management and Budget. "Any resolution of their status, however, must be careful not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has brought the nation to this point."
Democrats argued that there was a moral imperative to pass the bill, saying that skilled graduates would benefit American business and that the young people who enlisted would provide a much-needed boost to a military struggling to meet recruitment goals.
"Children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Many of the children this bill addresses came here when they were very young. Many don't even remember their home countries or speak the language of their home countries. They are just as loyal and devoted to our country as any American."
Republicans objected to the timing of the debate as well as the bill's substance. Some complained that the Senate still had overdue spending bills to pass.
"We've yet to send a single appropriations bill," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pointing out that none of the 12 annual bills had made it to the president's desk.
He said that the Internet tax moratorium expired in "exactly one week," and that 50 million taxpayers could become ensnared in a confusing and costly tangle if Congress did not address the alternative minimum tax. "We have an enormous amount of work, and we're running out of time," he said.
Others, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said the immigration bill was flawed, complaining that its beneficiaries would not be required to earn a college degree.
Some who had been supportive of the measure when Durbin brought it up on previous occasions were unenthusiastic. "Even though there's merit in the goal of the Dream Act, I feel this should be part of a comprehensive approach," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
Durbin countered that those affected by the bill would have very limited ability to sponsor family members to come to the U.S. and would not qualify for in-state tuition or federal aid.
And he implored the Senate not to ignore the talents and patriotism of children whose only crime was to pack their suitcases when their parents told them to.
"Don't turn around and tell me tomorrow you need H-1B immigration visas to bring in talented people to America because we don't have enough," Durbin said. "Don't take your anger on illegal immigration out on children who have nothing to say about this. They were brought to this country. . . . They've beaten the odds. We need them."
nicole.gaouette@latimes.com
johanna.neuman@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig25oct25,1,7837133,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Opponents call the Dream Act 'amnesty' for immigrant children.
By Nicole Gaouette and Johanna Neuman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill offering the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they serve in the military or complete two years of higher education. The defeat of the measure, which had attracted bipartisan support, underscored the difficulty of enacting even a narrowly tailored proposal in the polarizing atmosphere surrounding immigration reform.
The vote on the proposal was 52 to 44, short of the 60-vote margin needed to prevent a filibuster and begin debate. It was one small piece of a comprehensive immigration bill that collapsed in the Senate earlier this year, and it sparked a brief but heated debate.
Opponents called the bill a form of amnesty and argued that it would create incentives for illegal immigrants to cross the border with their children. But Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who supported the measure, said that "to turn on these children and treat them as criminals is an indication of the level of emotion and, in some cases, bigotry and hatred that is involved in this debate."
His remarks were directed at Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who on Tuesday suggested that immigrants who had attended a meeting in Durbin's office were illegal and should have been arrested.
Tancredo, a presidential candidate who has staked his campaign on tough immigration enforcement, dismissed Durbin's understanding of the issue: "I don't expect Dick Durbin to be able to tell the difference between legal residents and illegal aliens."
The debate on Capitol Hill suggested that the public outrage kicked up last summer when the Senate considered comprehensive immigration reform was still driving the political agenda.
Proponents of the Dream Act -- the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act -- had hoped it would be one of several less-ambitious changes to the nation's immigration law to pass this year.
But Wednesday's defeat signaled that any further attempts to help illegal immigrants might have to be balanced with action to increase border security or enforcement.
"All of America's awake on this one," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), suggesting amnesty was the end game of the measure that failed Wednesday. "They know exactly what we're doing."
The environment has become so poisonous that Durbin, in a news conference after the vote, thanked not only the Republicans who joined his effort but also the Democrats who he said "stood by me on this."
He noted that some Democrats voted for the bill "with pain in their eyes," knowing that their action would provoke anger from voters.
The Dream Act would give conditional legal status to illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States at least five years and entered the country before age 16. They must graduate from high school, have no criminal record and have a "good moral character."
If these immigrants serve in the military or complete two years of higher education, the conditional status would be lifted. After five years, they could apply for citizenship.
Estimates vary as to the number of young illegal immigrants the bill would affect. The Congressional Budget Office has put it at fewer than 100,000, while the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute has estimated it at closer to 500,000.
Some proponents tried to cast the vote in a positive light. They noted that the four absent senators, including Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), had all vowed to support the measure, meaning it was closer to the needed 60 votes.
And, they said, the 2008 elections might send a message to vocal opponents that opposing immigration reform is not the winning issue they think it is.
"We're going through a period of time when there is a sense of panic among politicians," said Josh Bernstein, federal policy director for the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center. "When the election comes, politicians will be surprised. Immigration was supposed to be the savior of Republicans in the last election, but that didn't happen. I don't think it will happen again."
Some signs of bipartisanship were evident Wednesday. Twelve Republicans defied their party by voting to begin debate. And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) announced that she and Durbin were working on an approach that might attract more GOP support -- requiring, in addition to military service or attendance in college, a longer wait for citizenship.
But the White House played hardball on the issue, releasing a statement outlining its objections. "The administration is sympathetic to the position of young people who were brought here illegally as children and have come to know the United States as home," said a statement from the White House Office of Management and Budget. "Any resolution of their status, however, must be careful not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has brought the nation to this point."
Democrats argued that there was a moral imperative to pass the bill, saying that skilled graduates would benefit American business and that the young people who enlisted would provide a much-needed boost to a military struggling to meet recruitment goals.
"Children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Many of the children this bill addresses came here when they were very young. Many don't even remember their home countries or speak the language of their home countries. They are just as loyal and devoted to our country as any American."
Republicans objected to the timing of the debate as well as the bill's substance. Some complained that the Senate still had overdue spending bills to pass.
"We've yet to send a single appropriations bill," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pointing out that none of the 12 annual bills had made it to the president's desk.
He said that the Internet tax moratorium expired in "exactly one week," and that 50 million taxpayers could become ensnared in a confusing and costly tangle if Congress did not address the alternative minimum tax. "We have an enormous amount of work, and we're running out of time," he said.
Others, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said the immigration bill was flawed, complaining that its beneficiaries would not be required to earn a college degree.
Some who had been supportive of the measure when Durbin brought it up on previous occasions were unenthusiastic. "Even though there's merit in the goal of the Dream Act, I feel this should be part of a comprehensive approach," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
Durbin countered that those affected by the bill would have very limited ability to sponsor family members to come to the U.S. and would not qualify for in-state tuition or federal aid.
And he implored the Senate not to ignore the talents and patriotism of children whose only crime was to pack their suitcases when their parents told them to.
"Don't turn around and tell me tomorrow you need H-1B immigration visas to bring in talented people to America because we don't have enough," Durbin said. "Don't take your anger on illegal immigration out on children who have nothing to say about this. They were brought to this country. . . . They've beaten the odds. We need them."
nicole.gaouette@latimes.com
johanna.neuman@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig25oct25,1,7837133,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Persecución policiaca deja un indocumentado muerto en Texas
Persecución policiaca deja un indocumentado muerto en Texas
Agencias / La Jornada On Line
25 octubre 2007
El vocero del Departamento de Policía de Mission, Martín Garza, señaló que en la camioneta viajaban unos 18 migrantes. Varios resultaron heridos.
Dallas. Al menos un indocumentado murió al volcarsela camioneta en que viajaban durante una persecución policiaca en el oeste de la comunidad de Mission, en el sur de Texas.
Martín Garza, vocero del Departamento de Policía de Mission, informó que en la camioneta viajaban unos 18 indocumentados, varios de los cuales resultaron con heridas graves por lo que están siendo atendidos en hospitales en Mission y McAllen, Texas.
Garza explicó vía telefónica que agentes de varias corporaciones seguían la camioneta por sospechas de que transportaba droga, luego de haber sido vista en la margen norte del río Bravo a unos metros de la frontera.
Durante la persecución el vehículo chocó con una de las patrullas y se volcó, dijo el vocero policial.
El incidente se registró alrededor de las 16:30 horas locales (21:30 GMT) en una carretera de la población de Palmview, muy cerca de donde la víspera otro accidente provocó la muerte de siete ancianos.
Garza informó que el conductor de la camioneta fue detenido en espera de que se le finquen cargos.
En tanto, el consulado de México en McAllen colabora en las investigaciones para identificar a la víctima y ayudar a los demás lesionados.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2007/10/24/persecucion-policiaca-deja-un-indocumentado-muerto-en-texas
Agencias / La Jornada On Line
25 octubre 2007
El vocero del Departamento de Policía de Mission, Martín Garza, señaló que en la camioneta viajaban unos 18 migrantes. Varios resultaron heridos.
Dallas. Al menos un indocumentado murió al volcarsela camioneta en que viajaban durante una persecución policiaca en el oeste de la comunidad de Mission, en el sur de Texas.
Martín Garza, vocero del Departamento de Policía de Mission, informó que en la camioneta viajaban unos 18 indocumentados, varios de los cuales resultaron con heridas graves por lo que están siendo atendidos en hospitales en Mission y McAllen, Texas.
Garza explicó vía telefónica que agentes de varias corporaciones seguían la camioneta por sospechas de que transportaba droga, luego de haber sido vista en la margen norte del río Bravo a unos metros de la frontera.
Durante la persecución el vehículo chocó con una de las patrullas y se volcó, dijo el vocero policial.
El incidente se registró alrededor de las 16:30 horas locales (21:30 GMT) en una carretera de la población de Palmview, muy cerca de donde la víspera otro accidente provocó la muerte de siete ancianos.
Garza informó que el conductor de la camioneta fue detenido en espera de que se le finquen cargos.
En tanto, el consulado de México en McAllen colabora en las investigaciones para identificar a la víctima y ayudar a los demás lesionados.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2007/10/24/persecucion-policiaca-deja-un-indocumentado-muerto-en-texas
Chicago Tribune on DREAM ACT Loss 10 25 2007
chicagotribune.com
Divide on immigration issue dooms Dream Act in Senate
By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — Demonstrating yet again the potency of the immigration issue, the Senate fell short Wednesday of the 60 votes necessary to debate the Dream Act, a bill that would give young undocumented immigrants the possibility of citizenship if they were brought illegally to the U.S. as children.
The brainchild of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the measure would have required these young people to have graduated from a U.S. high school and either enroll in college or enlist in the military to qualify eventually for citizenship.
But the political repercussions sparked by the immigration debate have clearly not abated, resulting in a politically scrambled 52-44 vote in favor—eight short of the 60 necessary to proceed. Eight Democrats joined 36 Republicans to block the measure from moving forward, while 12 Republicans joined 38 Democrats and two Independents to vote in favor.
Many Democrats feared the wrath of anti-immigration forces, while a dozen Republicans worried about immigrant children in their home states, as well as the loss of potential workers there.
"I'm not going to quit on this," Durbin vowed. "This is an idea whose time will come, because it's an idea based on justice and fairness."
Opponents, however, said Durbin's plan would provide more incentives for illegal immigrants to flood the country.
"I can assure you, all of America is awake on this one, and they know exactly what we're doing," warned Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
The Senate failed over the summer to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was backed by President Bush. Opponents complained the federal government needed to focus on securing the borders and enforcing the law before figuring out how to address the millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally.
"And yet even after that clear, compelling message from the American people, a message so overwhelming it shut down the Senate phone system the morning of the last vote which killed that bill, apparently a whole bunch of folks here still don't get it," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
This is the second time in recent weeks that Durbin has been unable to get his legislation to a final vote. He withdrew it last month as an amendment to a defense bill, after intense criticism from all sides. Even traditionally pro-immigration groups opposed Durbin's measure, saying the military service option in the bill could entice desperate young men and women into uniform and possibly death during a time of war.
With Congress focused on finishing its annual spending bills before leaving for the year, Durbin acknowledged he is unlikely to be able to bring the measure up for consideration again this year or next.
"I pleaded with [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] for a chance to bring up this bill now because I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to bring up any immigration bills between now and the next election," he said. "They are too volatile and divisive."
Given that volatility, some analysts saw the Dream Act as the last chance for any immigration reform to pass before the 2008 election.
The Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan immigration think tank, has estimated the Dream Act would allow about 279,000 currently undocumented residents to attend college or join the military. About 715,000 illegal immigrants between the ages of 5 and 17 who are now in the country would become eligible, according to the research group.
Although Bush supported the comprehensive immigration measure that included the Dream Act, he now opposes Durbin's plan, according to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sessions said the White House believes the bill would provide an incentive for continued illegal immigration and provide a path to citizenship unavailable to other prospective immigrants who are following the law.
Still, the reasoning behind the senators' votes seemed to vary greatly.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he likes the Dream Act and believes it should be enacted, yet he voted against allowing the Senate to proceed.
"I do not think we ought to cherry-pick here," Specter said. "I have grave reservations about seeing a part of comprehensive immigration reform go forward, because it weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill."
Others argued that the situation is urgent for high school and college students facing deportation from the only country they have ever known, and that Congress should help them out of compassion.
"There are young people who have been brought to this country as minors, not of their own doing, who have gone to American high schools, graduated and want to go to American colleges, and they are in a limbo situation," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who supported the bill.
jzuckman@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/chi-dream_25oct25,0,6282600,print.story?coll=chi-ed_opinion_publiced-utl
Divide on immigration issue dooms Dream Act in Senate
By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — Demonstrating yet again the potency of the immigration issue, the Senate fell short Wednesday of the 60 votes necessary to debate the Dream Act, a bill that would give young undocumented immigrants the possibility of citizenship if they were brought illegally to the U.S. as children.
The brainchild of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the measure would have required these young people to have graduated from a U.S. high school and either enroll in college or enlist in the military to qualify eventually for citizenship.
But the political repercussions sparked by the immigration debate have clearly not abated, resulting in a politically scrambled 52-44 vote in favor—eight short of the 60 necessary to proceed. Eight Democrats joined 36 Republicans to block the measure from moving forward, while 12 Republicans joined 38 Democrats and two Independents to vote in favor.
Many Democrats feared the wrath of anti-immigration forces, while a dozen Republicans worried about immigrant children in their home states, as well as the loss of potential workers there.
"I'm not going to quit on this," Durbin vowed. "This is an idea whose time will come, because it's an idea based on justice and fairness."
Opponents, however, said Durbin's plan would provide more incentives for illegal immigrants to flood the country.
"I can assure you, all of America is awake on this one, and they know exactly what we're doing," warned Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
The Senate failed over the summer to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was backed by President Bush. Opponents complained the federal government needed to focus on securing the borders and enforcing the law before figuring out how to address the millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally.
"And yet even after that clear, compelling message from the American people, a message so overwhelming it shut down the Senate phone system the morning of the last vote which killed that bill, apparently a whole bunch of folks here still don't get it," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
This is the second time in recent weeks that Durbin has been unable to get his legislation to a final vote. He withdrew it last month as an amendment to a defense bill, after intense criticism from all sides. Even traditionally pro-immigration groups opposed Durbin's measure, saying the military service option in the bill could entice desperate young men and women into uniform and possibly death during a time of war.
With Congress focused on finishing its annual spending bills before leaving for the year, Durbin acknowledged he is unlikely to be able to bring the measure up for consideration again this year or next.
"I pleaded with [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] for a chance to bring up this bill now because I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to bring up any immigration bills between now and the next election," he said. "They are too volatile and divisive."
Given that volatility, some analysts saw the Dream Act as the last chance for any immigration reform to pass before the 2008 election.
The Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan immigration think tank, has estimated the Dream Act would allow about 279,000 currently undocumented residents to attend college or join the military. About 715,000 illegal immigrants between the ages of 5 and 17 who are now in the country would become eligible, according to the research group.
Although Bush supported the comprehensive immigration measure that included the Dream Act, he now opposes Durbin's plan, according to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sessions said the White House believes the bill would provide an incentive for continued illegal immigration and provide a path to citizenship unavailable to other prospective immigrants who are following the law.
Still, the reasoning behind the senators' votes seemed to vary greatly.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he likes the Dream Act and believes it should be enacted, yet he voted against allowing the Senate to proceed.
"I do not think we ought to cherry-pick here," Specter said. "I have grave reservations about seeing a part of comprehensive immigration reform go forward, because it weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill."
Others argued that the situation is urgent for high school and college students facing deportation from the only country they have ever known, and that Congress should help them out of compassion.
"There are young people who have been brought to this country as minors, not of their own doing, who have gone to American high schools, graduated and want to go to American colleges, and they are in a limbo situation," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who supported the bill.
jzuckman@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/chi-dream_25oct25,0,6282600,print.story?coll=chi-ed_opinion_publiced-utl
NY Times on DREAM ACT 10 25 2007
Bill for Immigrant Students Fails Test Vote in Senate
New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — A bill to grant legal status to illegal immigrants who are high school graduates was defeated Wednesday in a test vote in the Senate, significantly dimming the prospects for any major immigration legislation this year.
By a vote of 52 to 44, the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to proceed to a debate on the Senate floor. The bill, sponsored by Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, would have given provisional legal status to illegal immigrant students who completed high school if they either attended college or served in the military for two years.
Lawmakers said Mr. Durbin’s bill was a litmus test for the immigration issue because it was the most politically palatable piece of the broad immigration legislation backed by President Bush that failed last summer in the Senate.
Mr. Durbin’s measure, called the Dream Act by its supporters, was tailored to benefit young, successful students whose immigration status was the result of decisions by their parents to come to the United States illegally, in many cases when the children were small.
Republican sponsors of the bill included Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana.
The vote showed that Republican opposition remained resolute to any effort to give legal status to illegal immigrants. It also eroded the support of some Democrats for other immigration measures under discussion. Those include a bill known as AgJobs that would give legal status to illegal immigrant farmworkers and overhaul a guest worker program for agriculture. Employers are also asking Congress to expand and streamline visa programs to bring in highly skilled legal immigrant workers.
“They’ll all be hard, every one of them,” Mr. Durbin said of the other immigration initiatives after the vote on his bill. He expressed frustration that business groups backing the other measures had not rallied behind the student bill.
Conservative Republicans voted against the bill on the same ground that they opposed the legislation in June, maintaining that it rewarded immigrant lawbreakers. But negative votes also came from Republicans and some Democrats who were reluctant to reopen the bitterly divisive debate over immigration for what they called a narrow piece of legislation.
The White House rejected Mr. Durbin’s bill in a statement just before the vote, saying it should not be adopted without strong enforcement measures against illegal immigration. The administration said the bill would open a path to citizenship for such students that other immigrants, including many here legally, would not enjoy.
Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who strongly supported the broader immigration legislation, voted no, saying the stand-alone Durbin measure “weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill.”
By scheduling the vote for Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, fulfilled a promise he made last month after Republicans blocked Mr. Durbin from attaching his bill to Defense Department spending legislation. But Mr. Reid appeared pessimistic about the student measure’s chances, since he called the vote on short notice.
Mr. Durbin said he had pruned the bill to reduce its beneficiaries. To be eligible for legal status, illegal immigrant students would have had to arrive in the United States before they were 16 years old, have lived in this country for at least five years and be under 30 on the date of passage. Still, conservatives called the measure a “backdoor amnesty,” saying it could benefit more than one million illegal immigrants.
Eleven Republicans voted for the bill. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong supporter, did not vote because he was recovering at home from surgery on a blocked artery.
Among the least disappointed in the vote were several immigrant students who would have benefited under the bill, who met in Mr. Durbin’s office after the vote.
“We’re still really hopeful, and maybe even more excited even though this might have been a temporary block in the road,” said Tam Tran, a 24-year-old immigrant born in Germany to Vietnamese parents, who recently graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We’re excited that it’s gotten this far,” said Ms. Tran, who is here on a temporary legal status. She said knowing of the possibility of the measure had motivated her to finish college.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/25immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — A bill to grant legal status to illegal immigrants who are high school graduates was defeated Wednesday in a test vote in the Senate, significantly dimming the prospects for any major immigration legislation this year.
By a vote of 52 to 44, the bill failed to garner the 60 votes needed to proceed to a debate on the Senate floor. The bill, sponsored by Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, would have given provisional legal status to illegal immigrant students who completed high school if they either attended college or served in the military for two years.
Lawmakers said Mr. Durbin’s bill was a litmus test for the immigration issue because it was the most politically palatable piece of the broad immigration legislation backed by President Bush that failed last summer in the Senate.
Mr. Durbin’s measure, called the Dream Act by its supporters, was tailored to benefit young, successful students whose immigration status was the result of decisions by their parents to come to the United States illegally, in many cases when the children were small.
Republican sponsors of the bill included Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana.
The vote showed that Republican opposition remained resolute to any effort to give legal status to illegal immigrants. It also eroded the support of some Democrats for other immigration measures under discussion. Those include a bill known as AgJobs that would give legal status to illegal immigrant farmworkers and overhaul a guest worker program for agriculture. Employers are also asking Congress to expand and streamline visa programs to bring in highly skilled legal immigrant workers.
“They’ll all be hard, every one of them,” Mr. Durbin said of the other immigration initiatives after the vote on his bill. He expressed frustration that business groups backing the other measures had not rallied behind the student bill.
Conservative Republicans voted against the bill on the same ground that they opposed the legislation in June, maintaining that it rewarded immigrant lawbreakers. But negative votes also came from Republicans and some Democrats who were reluctant to reopen the bitterly divisive debate over immigration for what they called a narrow piece of legislation.
The White House rejected Mr. Durbin’s bill in a statement just before the vote, saying it should not be adopted without strong enforcement measures against illegal immigration. The administration said the bill would open a path to citizenship for such students that other immigrants, including many here legally, would not enjoy.
Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who strongly supported the broader immigration legislation, voted no, saying the stand-alone Durbin measure “weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill.”
By scheduling the vote for Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, fulfilled a promise he made last month after Republicans blocked Mr. Durbin from attaching his bill to Defense Department spending legislation. But Mr. Reid appeared pessimistic about the student measure’s chances, since he called the vote on short notice.
Mr. Durbin said he had pruned the bill to reduce its beneficiaries. To be eligible for legal status, illegal immigrant students would have had to arrive in the United States before they were 16 years old, have lived in this country for at least five years and be under 30 on the date of passage. Still, conservatives called the measure a “backdoor amnesty,” saying it could benefit more than one million illegal immigrants.
Eleven Republicans voted for the bill. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong supporter, did not vote because he was recovering at home from surgery on a blocked artery.
Among the least disappointed in the vote were several immigrant students who would have benefited under the bill, who met in Mr. Durbin’s office after the vote.
“We’re still really hopeful, and maybe even more excited even though this might have been a temporary block in the road,” said Tam Tran, a 24-year-old immigrant born in Germany to Vietnamese parents, who recently graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We’re excited that it’s gotten this far,” said Ms. Tran, who is here on a temporary legal status. She said knowing of the possibility of the measure had motivated her to finish college.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/25immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The Bush Administration Crushes a Dream
Dreams Crushed
The Bush administration vs. young immigrants
Washington Post
Thursday, October 25, 2007; Page A24
IT WAS always a long shot for supporters of an immigration measure known as the Dream Act to round up the 60 votes needed to advance the bill in the Senate. But it didn't help matters yesterday when the Bush administration, having supported a comprehensive immigration reform bill containing essentially the same provision, came out against the bill on the morning of the vote. This helped quash the hopes of tens of thousands of promising young people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in this country illegally. The failure of the Dream Act -- it got just 52 votes -- leaves them no realistic hope of achieving legal status.
The Dream Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would have addressed a small but especially deserving fraction of the estimated 12 million people in this country illegally. Those who entered the country before age 16, lived here for at least five years and graduated from high school with unblemished records could obtain conditional legal status for six years. During that period, they would have to spend at least two years in college or the military. Only then would they qualify to become legal permanent residents.
In its policy statement yesterday, the administration asserted that it was "sympathetic" to the plight of these young people but insisted that the measure "falls short" because it would create "a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants -- including young people whose parents respected the nation's immigration laws." Of course, the administration-backed comprehensive immigration reform measure, which failed earlier this year, also provided for special, expedited treatment of young people in this category. The administration had no problem with the provision then, and its complaints now seem as cowardly as they are unpersuasive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402333.html
The Bush administration vs. young immigrants
Washington Post
Thursday, October 25, 2007; Page A24
IT WAS always a long shot for supporters of an immigration measure known as the Dream Act to round up the 60 votes needed to advance the bill in the Senate. But it didn't help matters yesterday when the Bush administration, having supported a comprehensive immigration reform bill containing essentially the same provision, came out against the bill on the morning of the vote. This helped quash the hopes of tens of thousands of promising young people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in this country illegally. The failure of the Dream Act -- it got just 52 votes -- leaves them no realistic hope of achieving legal status.
The Dream Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would have addressed a small but especially deserving fraction of the estimated 12 million people in this country illegally. Those who entered the country before age 16, lived here for at least five years and graduated from high school with unblemished records could obtain conditional legal status for six years. During that period, they would have to spend at least two years in college or the military. Only then would they qualify to become legal permanent residents.
In its policy statement yesterday, the administration asserted that it was "sympathetic" to the plight of these young people but insisted that the measure "falls short" because it would create "a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants -- including young people whose parents respected the nation's immigration laws." Of course, the administration-backed comprehensive immigration reform measure, which failed earlier this year, also provided for special, expedited treatment of young people in this category. The administration had no problem with the provision then, and its complaints now seem as cowardly as they are unpersuasive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402333.html
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Lou Dobbs and NY Gov. Spitzer
Andrea Batista Schlesinger
Don't Give Lou Dobbs a License to Kill Spitzer's Drivers License Bill
Huffington Post
Posted October 23, 2007 | 04:11 PM (EST)
Lou Dobbs is at it again. His target this time? Governor Eliot Spitzer and his plan to provide drivers licenses to New Yorkers regardless of their citizenship.
In developing your own opinion on the Governor's proposal consider this: If, like Lou Dobbs, you believe political pandering that exploits fear should be used to stall a much-needed conversation about immigration policy, you should join his knee-jerk opposition to Governor Spitzer's plan. But if you want a common-sense approach that follows the lead of eight other states and would make New York's people and streets safer, go with the Governor.
Washington's failure to achieve consensus on an immigration bill should not obscure the fact that commonsense immigration laws have strong majority support. Americans believe it is neither feasible nor desirable to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently here. Instead, there is consensus in favor of providing a path to citizenship for immigrants of all kinds who learn English, work hard, and participate in the American system. Unfortunately, the anti-immigrant sentiment fostered by Dobbs and his ilk kept Washington from pursuing it.
Some local political leaders have followed Lou Dobbs' lead in trying to harness anti-immigrant sentiments to increase their popularity. As was reported recently in The New York Times, towns like Riverside, New Jersey, who have chosen this anti-immigrant path, now stare at their empty main streets and wonder who exactly their policies were designed to benefit and how they went so terribly wrong.
Governor Spitzer, on the other hand, knows that the country needs real solutions that will bring immigrants into our system. To that end, he proposed reviving a pre-2004 policy that offered licenses to competent drivers regardless of their immigration status. In so doing, he is following the lead of numerous other states that issue driver's licenses based on ability to drive - not immigration status. Governor Spitzer's proposal will keep our streets and communities safer by reducing the number of unlicensed, untrained drivers on our roads and dramatically lowering the number of people who lack verifiable ID. This policy will, not insignificantly, enable the immigrants of New York State to live normal lives by being able to drive to work, pick up their groceries, take their children to school, and do all of the other things we take for granted.
Unfortunately, Lou Dobbs, ever in search of higher ratings, went on the attack, exploiting New Yorkers' understandable fears about terrorism by presenting immigrants as a security risk. The truth is that New Yorkers and all Americans have a stake in the implementation of practical immigration policies because the American middle class relies on the economic contributions of immigrants -- be they legal or illegal. Immigrants are consumers and taxpayers. They are entrepreneurs. They provide the services that native-born Americans rely on from morning until night. They resuscitate struggling neighborhoods. They keep our Social Security system solvent. They are not terrorists.
It is not xenophobic for Americans to worry about the impact of illegal immigration on their livelihoods and communities, but the best way to address that is to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows. When immigrants are treated as if they are beneath the law, everyone suffers. This is especially true in the workforce, where the presence of workers without any rights brings down the wages and workplace conditions of American workers and makes it difficult for law-abiding business to compete.
We also need to protect Americans on the roads. We want drivers who have demonstrated their ability to drive to the State. We want drivers with insurance. Even so, it is understandable that some questions and concerns would arise from Spitzer's proposal. What impact does this plan have on our security as a nation? Will this policy render drivers licenses null and void? How will this policy impact the ability of native-born Americans to do things like board a plane and enter office buildings? These are precisely the questions responsible political leaders should be asking and debating.
But not all have. Instead, some elected officials like James N. Tedisco, the minority leader of the New York State Assembly, are making provocative pronouncements like this one: "Osama bin Laden is somewhere in a cave with his den of thieves and terrorists, and he's probably sabering the cork on some Champagne right now, saying 'Hey, that governor's really assisting us.'" Assemblyman Tedisco strains credibility when he insinuates that somehow the 12 million illegal immigrants living in America are terrorists working for Al Qaeda. But he did get his name in the papers, and the New York State Senate has just passed legislation that would overturn the Governor's policy.
When I hear misguided sentiments like that Assemblyman Tedisco's, I know that it is Lou Dobbs who is actually swilling the Champagne. This kind of talk may boost ratings for him and his junior varsity imitators, but if we let it be a substitute for real debate, the joke will be on all Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-batista-schlesinger/dont-give-lou-dobbs-a-li_b_69585.html?view=print
Don't Give Lou Dobbs a License to Kill Spitzer's Drivers License Bill
Huffington Post
Posted October 23, 2007 | 04:11 PM (EST)
Lou Dobbs is at it again. His target this time? Governor Eliot Spitzer and his plan to provide drivers licenses to New Yorkers regardless of their citizenship.
In developing your own opinion on the Governor's proposal consider this: If, like Lou Dobbs, you believe political pandering that exploits fear should be used to stall a much-needed conversation about immigration policy, you should join his knee-jerk opposition to Governor Spitzer's plan. But if you want a common-sense approach that follows the lead of eight other states and would make New York's people and streets safer, go with the Governor.
Washington's failure to achieve consensus on an immigration bill should not obscure the fact that commonsense immigration laws have strong majority support. Americans believe it is neither feasible nor desirable to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently here. Instead, there is consensus in favor of providing a path to citizenship for immigrants of all kinds who learn English, work hard, and participate in the American system. Unfortunately, the anti-immigrant sentiment fostered by Dobbs and his ilk kept Washington from pursuing it.
Some local political leaders have followed Lou Dobbs' lead in trying to harness anti-immigrant sentiments to increase their popularity. As was reported recently in The New York Times, towns like Riverside, New Jersey, who have chosen this anti-immigrant path, now stare at their empty main streets and wonder who exactly their policies were designed to benefit and how they went so terribly wrong.
Governor Spitzer, on the other hand, knows that the country needs real solutions that will bring immigrants into our system. To that end, he proposed reviving a pre-2004 policy that offered licenses to competent drivers regardless of their immigration status. In so doing, he is following the lead of numerous other states that issue driver's licenses based on ability to drive - not immigration status. Governor Spitzer's proposal will keep our streets and communities safer by reducing the number of unlicensed, untrained drivers on our roads and dramatically lowering the number of people who lack verifiable ID. This policy will, not insignificantly, enable the immigrants of New York State to live normal lives by being able to drive to work, pick up their groceries, take their children to school, and do all of the other things we take for granted.
Unfortunately, Lou Dobbs, ever in search of higher ratings, went on the attack, exploiting New Yorkers' understandable fears about terrorism by presenting immigrants as a security risk. The truth is that New Yorkers and all Americans have a stake in the implementation of practical immigration policies because the American middle class relies on the economic contributions of immigrants -- be they legal or illegal. Immigrants are consumers and taxpayers. They are entrepreneurs. They provide the services that native-born Americans rely on from morning until night. They resuscitate struggling neighborhoods. They keep our Social Security system solvent. They are not terrorists.
It is not xenophobic for Americans to worry about the impact of illegal immigration on their livelihoods and communities, but the best way to address that is to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows. When immigrants are treated as if they are beneath the law, everyone suffers. This is especially true in the workforce, where the presence of workers without any rights brings down the wages and workplace conditions of American workers and makes it difficult for law-abiding business to compete.
We also need to protect Americans on the roads. We want drivers who have demonstrated their ability to drive to the State. We want drivers with insurance. Even so, it is understandable that some questions and concerns would arise from Spitzer's proposal. What impact does this plan have on our security as a nation? Will this policy render drivers licenses null and void? How will this policy impact the ability of native-born Americans to do things like board a plane and enter office buildings? These are precisely the questions responsible political leaders should be asking and debating.
But not all have. Instead, some elected officials like James N. Tedisco, the minority leader of the New York State Assembly, are making provocative pronouncements like this one: "Osama bin Laden is somewhere in a cave with his den of thieves and terrorists, and he's probably sabering the cork on some Champagne right now, saying 'Hey, that governor's really assisting us.'" Assemblyman Tedisco strains credibility when he insinuates that somehow the 12 million illegal immigrants living in America are terrorists working for Al Qaeda. But he did get his name in the papers, and the New York State Senate has just passed legislation that would overturn the Governor's policy.
When I hear misguided sentiments like that Assemblyman Tedisco's, I know that it is Lou Dobbs who is actually swilling the Champagne. This kind of talk may boost ratings for him and his junior varsity imitators, but if we let it be a substitute for real debate, the joke will be on all Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-batista-schlesinger/dont-give-lou-dobbs-a-li_b_69585.html?view=print
Press Release of Senator Menendez 10 24 2007
Press Release of Senator Menendez
BLOCKAGE OF DREAM ACT IS BLOW TO WORKFORCE AND MILITARY, UNFAIR TO CHILDREN WHO GREW UP HERE, SAYS SEN. MENENDEZ
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
WASHINGTON – Today, the DREAM Act was blocked in the U.S. Senate – a motion to proceed to a full debate on the bill received 52 votes, but 60 were needed.
U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) released the following statement:
“The students this legislation would help love the United States, which might be the only home they’ve ever known – so they’ve followed the rules, worked hard in school and now they want to serve this country in the military or get a higher education,“ said Sen. Menendez. “They did not make the decision to enter this country in an undocumented fashion, their parents made that decision. We should not punish children for the sins of their parents. Those children that would qualify for the DREAM Act should be permitted to continue their pursuit of the American Dream.
“The opponents of this reasonable, bipartisan measure cried ‘amnesty’, as they always do. But this was not amnesty. No child would receive a free ticket to legalization. They would have had to meet a number of qualifications and jump through a series of significant hoops on their six-year path to legalization. And, along the way, they would receive the kind of education that would bolster the American workforce or they would serve the United States military, which badly needs highly-qualified, dedicated volunteers. If the United States Senate cannot even agree to move forward with legislation that is good for our children, good for our economy, and good for our military, I see no way that we will be able to move forward with immigration initiatives that benefit only the business community.
http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=286012&
photo: http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/menendez_2nd_round_nr.jpg
From Josh Bernstein at NILC on the DREAM ACT Vote
NILC 6:41 pm eastern time
We are not giving up. Too much is at stake.
This afternoon, a bipartisan 52-44 majority of the Senate voted in favor of permitting debate on the DREAM Act, S. 2205, legislation that would provide a path to legal status for young people who were brought to the U.S. years ago as children. Unfortunately, 60 votes were needed, so the DREAM Act could not proceed.
We are saddened and enraged that 60 votes could not be mustered for this bill, which would transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of deserving young people. But like those young people, the DREAM Act is not going away.
The vote was closer than it looks. All four Senators who?each for valid reasons?were unable to make the vote were DREAM Act supporters. Several others had indicated that they would vote in favor of the DREAM Act if it looked as if their votes would have made a difference. For the DREAM Act to have come so close is a remarkable accomplishment, given the level of panic now felt by many politicians about anything that affects immigrants
On the other hand, the DREAM Act suffered a major blow, perhaps the decisive one, when the White House came out in opposition just minutes before the vote. The reasons given for opposition were specious and small minded? a long way from the President who once expressed compassion and understanding for the plight of immigrants who have left their homelands, often with their children in tow, and made the sometimes dangerous journey to the U.S. in search of a better life here. He now appears to have abandoned any sympathy for those children.
Although it is now more of a long-shot, there is still a chance that the DREAM Act could be resurrected and enacted this year. It continues to enjoy bipartisan support, including a majority of the Senate and the some of the most powerful members of Congress. For the sake of tens of thousands of young people whose activism and powerful life stories have carried the DREAM Act so far, and for the sake of the nation, we will not give up.
Josh Bernstein
We are not giving up. Too much is at stake.
This afternoon, a bipartisan 52-44 majority of the Senate voted in favor of permitting debate on the DREAM Act, S. 2205, legislation that would provide a path to legal status for young people who were brought to the U.S. years ago as children. Unfortunately, 60 votes were needed, so the DREAM Act could not proceed.
We are saddened and enraged that 60 votes could not be mustered for this bill, which would transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of deserving young people. But like those young people, the DREAM Act is not going away.
The vote was closer than it looks. All four Senators who?each for valid reasons?were unable to make the vote were DREAM Act supporters. Several others had indicated that they would vote in favor of the DREAM Act if it looked as if their votes would have made a difference. For the DREAM Act to have come so close is a remarkable accomplishment, given the level of panic now felt by many politicians about anything that affects immigrants
On the other hand, the DREAM Act suffered a major blow, perhaps the decisive one, when the White House came out in opposition just minutes before the vote. The reasons given for opposition were specious and small minded? a long way from the President who once expressed compassion and understanding for the plight of immigrants who have left their homelands, often with their children in tow, and made the sometimes dangerous journey to the U.S. in search of a better life here. He now appears to have abandoned any sympathy for those children.
Although it is now more of a long-shot, there is still a chance that the DREAM Act could be resurrected and enacted this year. It continues to enjoy bipartisan support, including a majority of the Senate and the some of the most powerful members of Congress. For the sake of tens of thousands of young people whose activism and powerful life stories have carried the DREAM Act so far, and for the sake of the nation, we will not give up.
Josh Bernstein
Menendez is Discussing DREAM ACT Again 4:07 pm eastern
The DREAM ACT has come back. More information later.
Comments After the Vote on Cloture
This is Senator Reid's statement after cloture was voted down, taken word for word from the C-Span video:
"Mr. President, I move to re-consider that matter. Mr. President, I would now tell all members here I've had a conversation with the distinguished Republican leader and we're going to make a decision in the next hour or as to what we are going to go to next. We were planning of course to going this cloture and the motion to proceed was not invoked there are a number of things we are talking about and we'll make that decision this afternoon."
later:
A DREAM ACT student from Houston called Cornyn's office a few minutes ago and was told that Cornyn wanted to negotiate for "a graduation milestone and no federal financial aide (including loans)."
"Mr. President, I move to re-consider that matter. Mr. President, I would now tell all members here I've had a conversation with the distinguished Republican leader and we're going to make a decision in the next hour or as to what we are going to go to next. We were planning of course to going this cloture and the motion to proceed was not invoked there are a number of things we are talking about and we'll make that decision this afternoon."
later:
A DREAM ACT student from Houston called Cornyn's office a few minutes ago and was told that Cornyn wanted to negotiate for "a graduation milestone and no federal financial aide (including loans)."
Durbin's Statement on the Floor at 2:10 pm Eastern Time
From Durbin's office:
MR. DURBIN:
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE STATE OFWASHINGTON, SENATOR MURRAY, FOR HER REMARKS THAT WERE JUST CONCLUDED ABOUT THE "DREAM" ACT AND FOR HER VOTE IN SUPPORT OF IT. IT IS INTERESTING TO ME THAT THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN LITTLE TIME TO MEET THE STUDENTS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE COME AWAY WITH A MUCH DIFFERENT FEELING.
ONCE THIS GOES BEYOND THE CLICHES AND INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC THAT WE HEAR ON WHAT PASSES FOR ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION AND RADIO AND YOU ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND HEAR THESE LIFE STORIES, YOU JUST CAN'T HELP BUT HAVE YOUR HEART TOUCHED BY THEM. IT HAPPENED TO ME A LONG TIME AGO,
SIX YEARS AGO, AND IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN TO ME. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES. WE HAD 52 VOTES WHEN WE NEEDED 60. AND IN THE SENATE, 60 VOTES IS A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE 11 REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED WITH ME. I TELL YOU, IT TOOK SOME COURAGE FOR THEM TO DO IT. IT'S NOT AN EASY VOTE FOR ANYBODY. IT'S SURE NOT AN EASY VOTE FOR THEM WHEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR COLLEAGUES ARE GOING THE
OTHER WAY. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE 41 DEMOCRATS WHO STOOD BY ME ON THIS. SOME OF THEM DID IT WITH PAIN IN THEIR EYES, THINKING ABOUT NOW I HAVE TO GO HOME AND EXPLAIN THIS ONE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I THANK THEM FOR DOING THAT. I GUESS AFTER YOU'VE BEEN AROUND CAPITOL HILL FOR A FEW YEARS, YOU TRY TO PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE ABOUT YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE MANY, IF ANY, WHO COME TO THE SENATE WITH THE AMBITION OF RETIRING. MOST OF US COME HERE WITH THE AMBITION OF DOING SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR OUR NATION AND SERVING OUR NATION. AND THERE REACHES A POINT SOMETIMES IN A CAREER WHERE RISKS HAVE TO BE TAKEN FOR IMPORTANT THINGS TO HAPPEN. WHAT I DID TODAY WAS NO GREAT RISK.
I'LL PROBABLY HEAR ABOUT IT BACK HOME, AND I ALREADY HAVE A LITTLE BIT. BUT I WILL JUST SAY THAT IN THE COURSE OF OUR HISTORY THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED HERE IN THIS CHAMBER HAVE INVOLVED THE POLITICAL RISK AND CONTROVERSY, WHETHER IT'S A QUESTION OFFING VOTING ON A WAR OR -- OF VOTING ON A WAR OR VOTING ON ISSUES INVOLVING CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS. AND IT'S RARE THAT YOU'LL FIND THAT GREAT ISSUE THAT MAKES A CAREER THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH. SO I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO JOINED IN THIS EFFORT TODAY, THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. BUT THANKS ALSO FOR THE THOUSANDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA WHO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THIS DEBATE AND FOLLOW THIS ISSUE SO CLOSELY.
THE TOUGHEST PART WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WELL AND BEING TOLD I LOST WITH ONLY 52 VOTES. THE TOUGHEST PART WAS WALKING UP THOSE STAIRS AND FACING THREE OF THE KIDS IN MY OFFICE. AND I DIDN'T QUITE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. THESE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THROUGH A LOT THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, ONE YOUNG MAN WHOSE STEPFATHER, STEP GRANDFATHER FAILED TO FILE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS. HE'S 20 YEARS OLD. A FEW YEARS AGO HE WAS ARRESTED AND DETAINED IN JAIL OVER CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR'S. HOW'S THAT FOR A HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION PRESENT, TO BE TOLD THAT YOU'RE ILLEGAL AND SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION. ANOTHER YOUNG WOMAN WHO WAS, HER PARENTS WERE OUTED AS BEING ILLEGAL AND DEPORTED. AND I PLED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO LET HER STAY HOPE THEY WILL CONTINUE TO. BUT SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHERE SHE'S GOING FROM HERE. SHE'S LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE SHE WAS A VERY YOUNG GIRL, AND THIS IS HER COUNTRY. THIS IS WHERE SHE WANTS TO BE. AND ANOTHER ONE WHO IS LITERALLY A YOUNG WOMAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY. A REFUGEE FROM VIETNAM WHO WENT THROUGH GERMANY, CAME TO THE UNITED STATES. VIETNAM IS NOT A SAFE PLACE FOR HER TO RETURN TO. AND GERMANY DOESN'T WANT HER. SHE IS WITHOUT A COUNTRY. SHE HAS A BACHELOR'S DEGREE AND NO PLACE TO TURN.
WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW QUITE WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN I WENT UP TO SEE THEM AFTER THIS DISAPPOINTING VOTE, AND THEY GREETED ME WITH SMILES AND ENCOURAGEMENT. IT'S GREAT TO WORK AROUND YOUNG PEOPLE. THEY JUST HAVE SUCH DETERMINATION AND ENERGY, AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LET ANYTHING GET THEM DOWN. IT MADE ME FEEL BETTER, AND I'M GLAD I DID IT EVEN THOUGH WE WEREN'T SUCCESSFUL. AND IT RENEWED MY COMMITMENT TO THIS ISSUE. I'M NOT GOING TO QUIT ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE NEXT CHANCE WILL BE.
I KNOW WE HAVE A BUSY SCHEDULE, AND SENATOR REID WAS KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE ME MY CHANCE TODAY FOR A VOTE. BUT THIS IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME WILL COME BECAUSE IT IS AN IDEA BASED ON JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS. TO THINK THAT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WOULD SEE THEIR LIVES RUINED BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS WERE UNDOCUMENTED, BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS BROUGHT THEM TO THIS COUNTRY. TO THINK THAT WE WOULD TURN THEM AWAY FROM AMERICA SAYING WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE TEACHERS AND NURSES AND DOCTORS.
NO, WE KNOW BETTER THAN THAT. WE NEED THEM. WE NEED ALL OF THEM. AND THEIR STRENGTH MAKES US A STRONGER NATION. SO THE DAY WILL COME, AND I HOPE SOON, WHEN WE HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE. AND TO THOSE WHO FOLLOW THIS DEBATE SO CLOSELY AND TO THOSE WHO REALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEIR FATE WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE SENATORS WHO VOTED THIS MORNING, DON'T GIVE UP. YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN UP YET AND YOU UP.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP PURSUING THIS. THIS IS A SAD AND TROUBLING MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN HISTORY BUT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DIVISIVE. THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PEOPLE SAYING NOT MORE IMMIGRANTS IN THIS NATION OF IMMIGRANTS. IMMIGRANTS HAVE TO PLAY BY THE RULES, AND FOLLOW THE LAW. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT LET'S NOT TURN OUR BACK ON THE HERITAGE OF THE NATION. OUR STRENGTH IS THE DIVERSITY. THE FACT WE COME FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD TO CALL THIS PLACE HOPE. THE FACT OUR PARENTS AND GRANTS HAD THE COURAGE TO PICK UP AND MOVE RATHER THAN BE CONTENT WITH A LIFE OF MEDIOCRE OPPORTUNITY. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT MADE AMERICA. THOSE ARE THE ONES WHO DEFINE WHO WE ARE. IT'S WHY WE ARE SPECIAL IN THIS WORLD, IF WE ARE AND I THINK WE ARE. AND WE CAN'T LET THESE YOUNG PEOPLE GO.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LET THEM GO. FOR THOSE SEVERAL OF THE SENATORS TODAY WHO REALLY STUCK THEIR NECKS OUT A MILE, A POLITICAL MILE, TO CAST THIS VOTE, I THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART AND THESE "DREAM" ACT KIDS THANK YOU, TOO. THE AMERICAN DREAM WILL BE THERE SOME DAY AND WE WILL MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS. I YIELD THE FLOOR AND I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
MR. DURBIN:
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE STATE OFWASHINGTON, SENATOR MURRAY, FOR HER REMARKS THAT WERE JUST CONCLUDED ABOUT THE "DREAM" ACT AND FOR HER VOTE IN SUPPORT OF IT. IT IS INTERESTING TO ME THAT THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN LITTLE TIME TO MEET THE STUDENTS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE COME AWAY WITH A MUCH DIFFERENT FEELING.
ONCE THIS GOES BEYOND THE CLICHES AND INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC THAT WE HEAR ON WHAT PASSES FOR ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION AND RADIO AND YOU ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND HEAR THESE LIFE STORIES, YOU JUST CAN'T HELP BUT HAVE YOUR HEART TOUCHED BY THEM. IT HAPPENED TO ME A LONG TIME AGO,
SIX YEARS AGO, AND IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN TO ME. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES. WE HAD 52 VOTES WHEN WE NEEDED 60. AND IN THE SENATE, 60 VOTES IS A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE 11 REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED WITH ME. I TELL YOU, IT TOOK SOME COURAGE FOR THEM TO DO IT. IT'S NOT AN EASY VOTE FOR ANYBODY. IT'S SURE NOT AN EASY VOTE FOR THEM WHEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR COLLEAGUES ARE GOING THE
OTHER WAY. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE 41 DEMOCRATS WHO STOOD BY ME ON THIS. SOME OF THEM DID IT WITH PAIN IN THEIR EYES, THINKING ABOUT NOW I HAVE TO GO HOME AND EXPLAIN THIS ONE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I THANK THEM FOR DOING THAT. I GUESS AFTER YOU'VE BEEN AROUND CAPITOL HILL FOR A FEW YEARS, YOU TRY TO PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE ABOUT YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE MANY, IF ANY, WHO COME TO THE SENATE WITH THE AMBITION OF RETIRING. MOST OF US COME HERE WITH THE AMBITION OF DOING SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR OUR NATION AND SERVING OUR NATION. AND THERE REACHES A POINT SOMETIMES IN A CAREER WHERE RISKS HAVE TO BE TAKEN FOR IMPORTANT THINGS TO HAPPEN. WHAT I DID TODAY WAS NO GREAT RISK.
I'LL PROBABLY HEAR ABOUT IT BACK HOME, AND I ALREADY HAVE A LITTLE BIT. BUT I WILL JUST SAY THAT IN THE COURSE OF OUR HISTORY THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED HERE IN THIS CHAMBER HAVE INVOLVED THE POLITICAL RISK AND CONTROVERSY, WHETHER IT'S A QUESTION OFFING VOTING ON A WAR OR -- OF VOTING ON A WAR OR VOTING ON ISSUES INVOLVING CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS. AND IT'S RARE THAT YOU'LL FIND THAT GREAT ISSUE THAT MAKES A CAREER THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH. SO I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO JOINED IN THIS EFFORT TODAY, THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. BUT THANKS ALSO FOR THE THOUSANDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA WHO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THIS DEBATE AND FOLLOW THIS ISSUE SO CLOSELY.
THE TOUGHEST PART WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WELL AND BEING TOLD I LOST WITH ONLY 52 VOTES. THE TOUGHEST PART WAS WALKING UP THOSE STAIRS AND FACING THREE OF THE KIDS IN MY OFFICE. AND I DIDN'T QUITE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. THESE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THROUGH A LOT THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, ONE YOUNG MAN WHOSE STEPFATHER, STEP GRANDFATHER FAILED TO FILE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS. HE'S 20 YEARS OLD. A FEW YEARS AGO HE WAS ARRESTED AND DETAINED IN JAIL OVER CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR'S. HOW'S THAT FOR A HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION PRESENT, TO BE TOLD THAT YOU'RE ILLEGAL AND SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION. ANOTHER YOUNG WOMAN WHO WAS, HER PARENTS WERE OUTED AS BEING ILLEGAL AND DEPORTED. AND I PLED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO LET HER STAY HOPE THEY WILL CONTINUE TO. BUT SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHERE SHE'S GOING FROM HERE. SHE'S LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE SHE WAS A VERY YOUNG GIRL, AND THIS IS HER COUNTRY. THIS IS WHERE SHE WANTS TO BE. AND ANOTHER ONE WHO IS LITERALLY A YOUNG WOMAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY. A REFUGEE FROM VIETNAM WHO WENT THROUGH GERMANY, CAME TO THE UNITED STATES. VIETNAM IS NOT A SAFE PLACE FOR HER TO RETURN TO. AND GERMANY DOESN'T WANT HER. SHE IS WITHOUT A COUNTRY. SHE HAS A BACHELOR'S DEGREE AND NO PLACE TO TURN.
WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW QUITE WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN I WENT UP TO SEE THEM AFTER THIS DISAPPOINTING VOTE, AND THEY GREETED ME WITH SMILES AND ENCOURAGEMENT. IT'S GREAT TO WORK AROUND YOUNG PEOPLE. THEY JUST HAVE SUCH DETERMINATION AND ENERGY, AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LET ANYTHING GET THEM DOWN. IT MADE ME FEEL BETTER, AND I'M GLAD I DID IT EVEN THOUGH WE WEREN'T SUCCESSFUL. AND IT RENEWED MY COMMITMENT TO THIS ISSUE. I'M NOT GOING TO QUIT ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE NEXT CHANCE WILL BE.
I KNOW WE HAVE A BUSY SCHEDULE, AND SENATOR REID WAS KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE ME MY CHANCE TODAY FOR A VOTE. BUT THIS IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME WILL COME BECAUSE IT IS AN IDEA BASED ON JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS. TO THINK THAT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WOULD SEE THEIR LIVES RUINED BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS WERE UNDOCUMENTED, BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS BROUGHT THEM TO THIS COUNTRY. TO THINK THAT WE WOULD TURN THEM AWAY FROM AMERICA SAYING WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE TEACHERS AND NURSES AND DOCTORS.
NO, WE KNOW BETTER THAN THAT. WE NEED THEM. WE NEED ALL OF THEM. AND THEIR STRENGTH MAKES US A STRONGER NATION. SO THE DAY WILL COME, AND I HOPE SOON, WHEN WE HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE. AND TO THOSE WHO FOLLOW THIS DEBATE SO CLOSELY AND TO THOSE WHO REALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEIR FATE WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE SENATORS WHO VOTED THIS MORNING, DON'T GIVE UP. YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN UP YET AND YOU UP.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP PURSUING THIS. THIS IS A SAD AND TROUBLING MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN HISTORY BUT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DIVISIVE. THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PEOPLE SAYING NOT MORE IMMIGRANTS IN THIS NATION OF IMMIGRANTS. IMMIGRANTS HAVE TO PLAY BY THE RULES, AND FOLLOW THE LAW. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT LET'S NOT TURN OUR BACK ON THE HERITAGE OF THE NATION. OUR STRENGTH IS THE DIVERSITY. THE FACT WE COME FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD TO CALL THIS PLACE HOPE. THE FACT OUR PARENTS AND GRANTS HAD THE COURAGE TO PICK UP AND MOVE RATHER THAN BE CONTENT WITH A LIFE OF MEDIOCRE OPPORTUNITY. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT MADE AMERICA. THOSE ARE THE ONES WHO DEFINE WHO WE ARE. IT'S WHY WE ARE SPECIAL IN THIS WORLD, IF WE ARE AND I THINK WE ARE. AND WE CAN'T LET THESE YOUNG PEOPLE GO.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LET THEM GO. FOR THOSE SEVERAL OF THE SENATORS TODAY WHO REALLY STUCK THEIR NECKS OUT A MILE, A POLITICAL MILE, TO CAST THIS VOTE, I THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART AND THESE "DREAM" ACT KIDS THANK YOU, TOO. THE AMERICAN DREAM WILL BE THERE SOME DAY AND WE WILL MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS. I YIELD THE FLOOR AND I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
DREAM ACT Cloture Vote Breakdown
From U.S. Senate webpage:
YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---44
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting - 4
Boxer (D-CA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---44
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting - 4
Boxer (D-CA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Cloture Denied, but Reid Wants to Re-Address This Afternoon
The vote for cloture did not make it. However, Reid announced that they would re-address the DREAM ACT this afternoon. The vote was 52-46-- 8 short for cloture.
Hutchison's Statement in Response to Durbin
MRS. HUTCHISON: MR. PRESIDENT, THERE ARE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY AS MINORS, NOT OF THEIR OWN DOING
WHO HAVE GONE TO AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOLS, GRADUATED AND WANT TO
GO TO AMERICAN COLLEGES, AND THEY ARE IN A LIMBO SITUATION. I
THINK WE SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT
IN A WAY THAT HELPS ASSIMILATE THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH A
COLLEGE EDUCATION INTO OUR COUNTRY. THEY HAVE LIVED HERE MOST
OF THEIR LIVES. IF WE SENT THEM HOME, THEY'RE -- THEY WOULDN'T
KNOW WHAT HOME IS. SO I THINK THERE IS A COMPASSIONATE REASON
FOR US TO TRY TO WORK THIS OUT. BUT I WILL SAY, MR. PRESIDENT,
IF WE CANNOT WORK ON A BIPARTISAN AMENDMENT, WE WILL HAVE
ANOTHER CLOTURE VOTE, AS HAS BEEN PROMISED. I WILL VOTE AGAINST
THE DURBIN BILL. BUT IF WE CAN WORK ON A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION,
WE SHOULD TRY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
DURBIN.
BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY AS MINORS, NOT OF THEIR OWN DOING
WHO HAVE GONE TO AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOLS, GRADUATED AND WANT TO
GO TO AMERICAN COLLEGES, AND THEY ARE IN A LIMBO SITUATION. I
THINK WE SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT
IN A WAY THAT HELPS ASSIMILATE THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH A
COLLEGE EDUCATION INTO OUR COUNTRY. THEY HAVE LIVED HERE MOST
OF THEIR LIVES. IF WE SENT THEM HOME, THEY'RE -- THEY WOULDN'T
KNOW WHAT HOME IS. SO I THINK THERE IS A COMPASSIONATE REASON
FOR US TO TRY TO WORK THIS OUT. BUT I WILL SAY, MR. PRESIDENT,
IF WE CANNOT WORK ON A BIPARTISAN AMENDMENT, WE WILL HAVE
ANOTHER CLOTURE VOTE, AS HAS BEEN PROMISED. I WILL VOTE AGAINST
THE DURBIN BILL. BUT IF WE CAN WORK ON A BIPARTISAN SOLUTION,
WE SHOULD TRY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
DURBIN.
Transcript From Durbin's Speech on DREAM ACT
THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. DURBIN: MR. PRESIDENT, MANY SPEECHES ARE MADE ON THE FLOOR.
MANY AMENDMENTS ARE OFFERED. MANY BILLS AND MANY RESOLUTIONS,
VERY FEW OF THEM CAUSE A RIPPLE. A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE MAY FOLLOW
THEM CLOSELY. A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE MAY CARE. THE "DREAM" ACT IS
A DIFFERENT THING. THE "DREAM" ACT IS A BILL WHICH I THOUGHT
ABOUT AND INTRODUCED YEARS AGO AND HAS FINALLY REACHED THIS
MOMENT OF TRUTH WHERE IT COMES TO THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED
STATES SENATE. THE REASON WHY THIS BILL WILL BE NOTICED IS THAT
LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA KNOW THAT
THEIR FATE AND FUTURE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THIS VOTE.
YESTERDAY I HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE WITH THREE OF THESE YOUNG
PEOPLE. THE CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO SENT SOUGHT
A PRESS RELEASE ARGUING THAT THESE THREE YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE
ARRESTED IN THE UNITED STATES CAPITAL. OF COURSE HE DIDN'T TAKE
THE TIME TO DETERMINE THAT THEY ARE ALL HERE NOW WITH THE UN
UNDERSTANDING, DISCLOSURE, AND APPROVAL OF OUR LEGAL PROCESS.
BUT HIS PRESS RELEASE IS AN INDICATION OF HOW BADLY THIS DEBATE
IS GOING IN AMERICA. TO TURN ON THESE CHILDREN AND TREAT THEM
AS CRIMINALS IS AN INDICATION OF THE LEVEL OF EMOTION AND IN
SOME CASES BIGOTRY AND HATRED THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS DEBATE.
I WANT TO TELL YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AMERICA IS BETTER THAN THAT.
AMERICA IS A BETTER NATION THAN WHAT WE HEAR FROM THE LIKES OF
THAT CONGRESSMAN. WHAT CRIME DID THESE CHILDREN COMMIT?
THEY COMMITTED THE CRIME OF OBEYING THEIR PARENTS, FOLLOWING
THEIR PARENTS TO THIS COUNTRY. DO YOU THINK THERE WAS A VOTE IN
THE HOUSEHOLD ABOUT THEIR FU FUTURE?
I DON'T THINK SO. MOM AND DAD SAID, WE'RE LEAVING. THE KIDS
PACKED THEIR SUITCASES AND FOLLOW. THAT'S THEIR CRIME. THAT'S
THE ONLY CRIME THAT YOU CAN POINT TO. AND WHAT DID THEY DO
AFTER THEY GOT HERE?
TO QUALIFY UNDER THE "DREAM" AC ACT, THEY HAD TO MAKE CERTAIN
THAT THEY DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME WHILE THEY WERE LIVING IN
AMERICA. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND BEAT THE ODDS BY GRADUATING
FROM HIGH SCHOOL. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN QUALIFY FOR
THIS. AND THEN WHAT DO WE SAY?
NOT ENOUGH. IF YOU WANT TO BE LEGAL IN AMERICA, YOU HAVE TO DO
ONE OF
TWO THINGS: VOLUNTEER TO SERVE IN OUR MILITARY, TO RISK YOUR
LIFE FOR AMERICA, THEN WE'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO BE CITIZENS.
THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR SOME. SOME ARGUE, NO, WE DON'T WANT
THEM IN OUR MILITARY. WE DON'T NEED THEM. WELL, THE PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN OUR MILITARY KNOW BETTER. THEY KNOW THAT THESE ARE
THE KIND OF BRIGHT, PROMISING YOUNG PEOPLE WHO CAN SERVE OUR
COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION, AND THEY TELL US THAT. AND WHAT ELSE
COULD THEY DO?
PURSUE THEIR EDUCATION TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE SERIOUS ABOUT
MAKING SOMETHING OF THEIR LIVES. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY
CAN HAVE A CHANCE. THAT'S WHAT THE "DREAM" AACT IS ALL B I
COULD GO THROUGH FOR AN HOUR OR MORE THE STORIES OF THESE YOUNG
PEOPLE THAT I'VE ME MET. THEY ARE HOPEFUL AND HEARTBREAKING AT
THE SAME TIME. HOPEFUL STORIES BECAUSE THESE ARE YOUNG PEOPLE
WHO HAVE THE SAME DREAMS THAT MY CHILDREN HAVE, THE SAME DREAMS
THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS -- TO HAVE A GOOD LIFE, A GOOD FAMILY,
DO SOMETHING IMPORTANT IN YOUR LI LIFE. THAT'S ALL THEY WANT.
THE YOUNG WOMAN FROM INDIA THAT I MET IN CHICAGO WHO WANTS TO
BE A DENTIST, THE YOUNG MAN FROM MEXICO WHO IS NOW PURSUING HIS
GRADUATE DEGREE IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE TO WANTS TO GO INTO
RESEARCH, THE YOUNG GIRL FROM TEXAS WHO IS A GRADUATE OF NU
NURSING SCHOOL BUT CAN'T FIND A JOB BECAUSE SHE IS A PERSON
WITHOUT A COUNTRY, THE TEACHERS -- TOMORROW'S TEACHERS AND
ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS. ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A CHANCE.
THAT IS THE HOPEFUL SIDE OF IT. THE HEARTBREAKING SIDE OF IT IS
THESE ARE KIDS WITHOUT A CO COUNTRY. THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO TURN.
TAM TRAN, WHO IS IN THE GALLERY TODAY AND JOINED ME YESTERDAY,
WHAT AN ARDUOUS JOURNEY SHE'S BEEN THROUGH. STARTING IN
VIETNAM, GOING TO GERMANY, SCMG TO THE UNITED STATES. HER
FAMILY CAN'T RETURN TO VIETNAM AND FACE PERSECUTION, AND
GERMANY WON'T HAVE HER. SHE DOESN'T EVEN SPEAK GERMAN AND OUR
GOVERNMENT TELLS HER, LEAVE. SHE JUST GRADUATED FROM UCLA. SHE
WANTED TO BE A PROFESSOR. LEAVE, WE DON'T WANT YOU. IS THAT THE MESSAGE?
IF IT IS, IT IS THE WRONG MESSAGE BECAUSE TIME AND AGAIN WE ARE
TOLD THAT WE NEED TALENT IN AMERICA TO BE A SUCCESSFUL,
PROSPEROUS NATION. WE NEED TO BRING IN TALENT FROM
OVERSEAS AND H-1B VISAS. HOW CAN WE AT ONE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT
SAY THAT WE NEED MORTALITY AND THEN TURN THESE -- MORE TALENT
AND THEN TURN THESE YOUNG PEOPLE AWAY?
GIVE THEM A CHANCE. GIVE THEM HOPE. GIVE THEM CHANCE TO PROVE
THEMSELVES TO THIS COUNTRY. THIS BILL PUTS THEM THROUGH A LONG
PROCESS. IT WON'T BE EASY. SOME OF THEM WON'T MAKE T MOST OF
THEM WON'T MAKE T BUT THOSE WHO DO WILL MAKE THIS A BETTER
NATION. AND, MR. PRESIDENT, ISN'T THAT WHAT WE SHOULD BE ABOUT?
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
MR. DURBIN: MR. PRESIDENT, MANY SPEECHES ARE MADE ON THE FLOOR.
MANY AMENDMENTS ARE OFFERED. MANY BILLS AND MANY RESOLUTIONS,
VERY FEW OF THEM CAUSE A RIPPLE. A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE MAY FOLLOW
THEM CLOSELY. A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE MAY CARE. THE "DREAM" ACT IS
A DIFFERENT THING. THE "DREAM" ACT IS A BILL WHICH I THOUGHT
ABOUT AND INTRODUCED YEARS AGO AND HAS FINALLY REACHED THIS
MOMENT OF TRUTH WHERE IT COMES TO THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED
STATES SENATE. THE REASON WHY THIS BILL WILL BE NOTICED IS THAT
LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA KNOW THAT
THEIR FATE AND FUTURE WILL BE DETERMINED BY THIS VOTE.
YESTERDAY I HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE WITH THREE OF THESE YOUNG
PEOPLE. THE CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO SENT SOUGHT
A PRESS RELEASE ARGUING THAT THESE THREE YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE
ARRESTED IN THE UNITED STATES CAPITAL. OF COURSE HE DIDN'T TAKE
THE TIME TO DETERMINE THAT THEY ARE ALL HERE NOW WITH THE UN
UNDERSTANDING, DISCLOSURE, AND APPROVAL OF OUR LEGAL PROCESS.
BUT HIS PRESS RELEASE IS AN INDICATION OF HOW BADLY THIS DEBATE
IS GOING IN AMERICA. TO TURN ON THESE CHILDREN AND TREAT THEM
AS CRIMINALS IS AN INDICATION OF THE LEVEL OF EMOTION AND IN
SOME CASES BIGOTRY AND HATRED THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS DEBATE.
I WANT TO TELL YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AMERICA IS BETTER THAN THAT.
AMERICA IS A BETTER NATION THAN WHAT WE HEAR FROM THE LIKES OF
THAT CONGRESSMAN. WHAT CRIME DID THESE CHILDREN COMMIT?
THEY COMMITTED THE CRIME OF OBEYING THEIR PARENTS, FOLLOWING
THEIR PARENTS TO THIS COUNTRY. DO YOU THINK THERE WAS A VOTE IN
THE HOUSEHOLD ABOUT THEIR FU FUTURE?
I DON'T THINK SO. MOM AND DAD SAID, WE'RE LEAVING. THE KIDS
PACKED THEIR SUITCASES AND FOLLOW. THAT'S THEIR CRIME. THAT'S
THE ONLY CRIME THAT YOU CAN POINT TO. AND WHAT DID THEY DO
AFTER THEY GOT HERE?
TO QUALIFY UNDER THE "DREAM" AC ACT, THEY HAD TO MAKE CERTAIN
THAT THEY DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME WHILE THEY WERE LIVING IN
AMERICA. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND BEAT THE ODDS BY GRADUATING
FROM HIGH SCHOOL. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN QUALIFY FOR
THIS. AND THEN WHAT DO WE SAY?
NOT ENOUGH. IF YOU WANT TO BE LEGAL IN AMERICA, YOU HAVE TO DO
ONE OF
TWO THINGS: VOLUNTEER TO SERVE IN OUR MILITARY, TO RISK YOUR
LIFE FOR AMERICA, THEN WE'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO BE CITIZENS.
THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR SOME. SOME ARGUE, NO, WE DON'T WANT
THEM IN OUR MILITARY. WE DON'T NEED THEM. WELL, THE PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN OUR MILITARY KNOW BETTER. THEY KNOW THAT THESE ARE
THE KIND OF BRIGHT, PROMISING YOUNG PEOPLE WHO CAN SERVE OUR
COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION, AND THEY TELL US THAT. AND WHAT ELSE
COULD THEY DO?
PURSUE THEIR EDUCATION TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE SERIOUS ABOUT
MAKING SOMETHING OF THEIR LIVES. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY
CAN HAVE A CHANCE. THAT'S WHAT THE "DREAM" AACT IS ALL B I
COULD GO THROUGH FOR AN HOUR OR MORE THE STORIES OF THESE YOUNG
PEOPLE THAT I'VE ME MET. THEY ARE HOPEFUL AND HEARTBREAKING AT
THE SAME TIME. HOPEFUL STORIES BECAUSE THESE ARE YOUNG PEOPLE
WHO HAVE THE SAME DREAMS THAT MY CHILDREN HAVE, THE SAME DREAMS
THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS -- TO HAVE A GOOD LIFE, A GOOD FAMILY,
DO SOMETHING IMPORTANT IN YOUR LI LIFE. THAT'S ALL THEY WANT.
THE YOUNG WOMAN FROM INDIA THAT I MET IN CHICAGO WHO WANTS TO
BE A DENTIST, THE YOUNG MAN FROM MEXICO WHO IS NOW PURSUING HIS
GRADUATE DEGREE IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE TO WANTS TO GO INTO
RESEARCH, THE YOUNG GIRL FROM TEXAS WHO IS A GRADUATE OF NU
NURSING SCHOOL BUT CAN'T FIND A JOB BECAUSE SHE IS A PERSON
WITHOUT A COUNTRY, THE TEACHERS -- TOMORROW'S TEACHERS AND
ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS. ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A CHANCE.
THAT IS THE HOPEFUL SIDE OF IT. THE HEARTBREAKING SIDE OF IT IS
THESE ARE KIDS WITHOUT A CO COUNTRY. THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO TURN.
TAM TRAN, WHO IS IN THE GALLERY TODAY AND JOINED ME YESTERDAY,
WHAT AN ARDUOUS JOURNEY SHE'S BEEN THROUGH. STARTING IN
VIETNAM, GOING TO GERMANY, SCMG TO THE UNITED STATES. HER
FAMILY CAN'T RETURN TO VIETNAM AND FACE PERSECUTION, AND
GERMANY WON'T HAVE HER. SHE DOESN'T EVEN SPEAK GERMAN AND OUR
GOVERNMENT TELLS HER, LEAVE. SHE JUST GRADUATED FROM UCLA. SHE
WANTED TO BE A PROFESSOR. LEAVE, WE DON'T WANT YOU. IS THAT THE MESSAGE?
IF IT IS, IT IS THE WRONG MESSAGE BECAUSE TIME AND AGAIN WE ARE
TOLD THAT WE NEED TALENT IN AMERICA TO BE A SUCCESSFUL,
PROSPEROUS NATION. WE NEED TO BRING IN TALENT FROM
OVERSEAS AND H-1B VISAS. HOW CAN WE AT ONE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT
SAY THAT WE NEED MORTALITY AND THEN TURN THESE -- MORE TALENT
AND THEN TURN THESE YOUNG PEOPLE AWAY?
GIVE THEM A CHANCE. GIVE THEM HOPE. GIVE THEM CHANCE TO PROVE
THEMSELVES TO THIS COUNTRY. THIS BILL PUTS THEM THROUGH A LONG
PROCESS. IT WON'T BE EASY. SOME OF THEM WON'T MAKE T MOST OF
THEM WON'T MAKE T BUT THOSE WHO DO WILL MAKE THIS A BETTER
NATION. AND, MR. PRESIDENT, ISN'T THAT WHAT WE SHOULD BE ABOUT?
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
From Durbin's Office: Press Release 11:59 am eastern time
For Immediate Release
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2007
CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rodell Mollineau, (202) 224-2939
REID: DREAM ACT WILL GIVE YOUNG AMERICANS OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE EDUCATION, CHANCE TO SUCCEED
Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate to express his strong support for the DREAM Act.
Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:
“Earlier this year, we had the chance to enact comprehensive immigration reform. That effort brought people together – from both sides of the aisle and all over the political spectrum – who agreed that our current immigration system works for no one. That effort brought Democrats and Republicans together in pursuit of the common good.
“So many of us were profoundly disappointed when a group of Republicans blocked that comprehensive immigration reform legislation earlier this year. I continue to believe that tough, fair, practical and comprehensive reform is the only way to get control of our broken immigration system and to restore the rule of law. I remain committed to enacting comprehensive legislation in the future. But until we can once again move forward on comprehensive reform, we should at the very least enact the DREAM Act.
“We tried to offer this crucial legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, but we were blocked in doing so by a small number of Republicans. At that time, I committed to moving to the DREAM Act for a vote before November 16th, and today we do just that.
“We now turn to the DREAM Act as stand-alone legislation, and I once again rise to offer my strong support for it. Anyone who believes, as I do, that education unlocks doors to limitless opportunity, should join me in voting for this legislation. The DREAM Act recognizes that children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents.
“Many of the children this bill addresses came here when they were very young. Many don’t even remember their home countries or speak the language of their home countries. They are just as loyal and devoted to our country as any American.
“Only children who came to the U.S. when they were 15 years old or younger, have been in the US for at least five years and are now not yet 30 years old can apply. Those who are eligible must earn a high school diploma, demonstrate good moral character, and pass criminal and security clearances. They must also either go to college or serve in the military for two years.
“I have met star students in Nevada who would qualify for the DREAM Act. With it, their futures are limitless. Without it, their hope is diminished. What a waste it is to make it more difficult for children to go to college or get jobs, when they could be making meaningful contributions to their communities and to our country. What good does it do anybody to prevent these young people from having a future?
“The answer is that it does no good. It harms children who have done no wrong, and in the long run, it gravely harms our country’s economy. I so appreciate the work of Senator Durbin to bring this legislation to the floor. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that this important bipartisan bill does not go away. Now we must invoke cloture and pass it.
“If we do so, we will put the American Dream within reach for more children in Nevada and across America, who want nothing more than a fair chance at success. That would be an accomplishment we can all be proud of.”
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2007
CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rodell Mollineau, (202) 224-2939
REID: DREAM ACT WILL GIVE YOUNG AMERICANS OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE EDUCATION, CHANCE TO SUCCEED
Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate to express his strong support for the DREAM Act.
Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:
“Earlier this year, we had the chance to enact comprehensive immigration reform. That effort brought people together – from both sides of the aisle and all over the political spectrum – who agreed that our current immigration system works for no one. That effort brought Democrats and Republicans together in pursuit of the common good.
“So many of us were profoundly disappointed when a group of Republicans blocked that comprehensive immigration reform legislation earlier this year. I continue to believe that tough, fair, practical and comprehensive reform is the only way to get control of our broken immigration system and to restore the rule of law. I remain committed to enacting comprehensive legislation in the future. But until we can once again move forward on comprehensive reform, we should at the very least enact the DREAM Act.
“We tried to offer this crucial legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, but we were blocked in doing so by a small number of Republicans. At that time, I committed to moving to the DREAM Act for a vote before November 16th, and today we do just that.
“We now turn to the DREAM Act as stand-alone legislation, and I once again rise to offer my strong support for it. Anyone who believes, as I do, that education unlocks doors to limitless opportunity, should join me in voting for this legislation. The DREAM Act recognizes that children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents.
“Many of the children this bill addresses came here when they were very young. Many don’t even remember their home countries or speak the language of their home countries. They are just as loyal and devoted to our country as any American.
“Only children who came to the U.S. when they were 15 years old or younger, have been in the US for at least five years and are now not yet 30 years old can apply. Those who are eligible must earn a high school diploma, demonstrate good moral character, and pass criminal and security clearances. They must also either go to college or serve in the military for two years.
“I have met star students in Nevada who would qualify for the DREAM Act. With it, their futures are limitless. Without it, their hope is diminished. What a waste it is to make it more difficult for children to go to college or get jobs, when they could be making meaningful contributions to their communities and to our country. What good does it do anybody to prevent these young people from having a future?
“The answer is that it does no good. It harms children who have done no wrong, and in the long run, it gravely harms our country’s economy. I so appreciate the work of Senator Durbin to bring this legislation to the floor. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that this important bipartisan bill does not go away. Now we must invoke cloture and pass it.
“If we do so, we will put the American Dream within reach for more children in Nevada and across America, who want nothing more than a fair chance at success. That would be an accomplishment we can all be proud of.”
For Those Who Think Immigrants are a Liability
This article came out a few days ago in the London Independent. It states:
"new arrivals were harder-working, brought sought-after skills and paid more in tax than they used in public services."
read on for details. Something to consider as the DREAM ACT is coming up for a vote.
and remember, if the DREAM ACT kids are undocumented, its not because their parents did not want to stand in line... its that the U.S. immigration system does not have a workable immigration system.
_____
Home Office: migrants work harder, earn more and pay more tax than Britons
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent
London Independent
Published: 17 October 2007
Migrant workers contributed £6 billion to the country's economic growth last year and earned higher wages than their British counterparts, Home Office figures revealed yesterday.
The study concluded that new arrivals were harder-working, brought sought-after skills and paid more in tax than they used in public services.
The population rose by 189,000 last year, with 574,000 migrants arriving and 385,000 people leaving. The steady increase over the last decade has led to warnings that the country cannot cope with the growth. But the Government figures suggested migration was throwing a life-line to an economy suffering skills shortages and struggling to support a growing bill for pensions.
It was calculated that new migration accounted for about one-sixth of Britain's economic growth, equivalent to £6 billion last year. The Home Office said the newcomers had "high levels of skills – higher on average than the UK natives" and that employers found migrant workers "reliable and hard-working".
It reported that migrants earned on average £424 per week last year, compared with £395 for UK-born workers, and as a result paid more per head in tax and VAT than Britons. It also suggested that the work ethic of the new arrivals was also having a positive impact on British workers, helping to increase their pay levels.
The Home Office said research showed migrants contributed 10 per cent of Government revenue, but used only 9.1 per cent of expenditure in such areas as schools or hospitals.
It said: "In the long run it is likely the net fiscal contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant."
The proportion of foreigners in the workforce has nearly doubled in recent years, but employment has increased by 2.7 million, rebuffing claims that dole queues had lengthened because of migration.
"Concerns that native workers would be displaced by migrant workers... seem ill-founded as migrant workers appear to have complementary skills to the native labour force," it said. Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, sounded a cautious note about the figures. "The UK economy and the Exchequer over the long run clearly profit from migration," he said. "But we need to strike a new balance in migration policy where we set benefits alongside what we know about the wider impact of migration."
Danny Sriskandarajah, migration research fellow for the Institute for Public Policy Research, said the figures were positive. "Immigrants bring immense benefits to the UK economy. Let's hope our political leaders pay more attention to this positive evidence than to anecdotes about negative impacts when designing migration policies," he said.
But David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said that relying on immigration to boost the economy was "a short term answer" and said the Government should concentrate on finding work for the 1 million economically inactive under 25s in Britain.
And Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatchUK, which campaigns against mass immigration, dismissed the importance of the figures.
"This is an incredibly feeble justification for mass immigration," he said. "In fact, on their own figures the benefit to the native population is trivial. The addition to production is almost exactly the same as the addition to population."
The Home Office published the research ahead of today's meeting of the Government-sponsored Migration Impact Forum, which advises ministers on the effect immigration is having on all aspects of national life. Its conclusions will be studied by ministers when they decide whether to lift the tough restrictions on workers from Romania and Bulgaria, which joined the EU in January.
The forum will be told today that all parts of the country have experienced an increase in numbers of new arrivals from the eight eastern and central European countries that joined the European Union in 2004. All regions reported an economic boost from the newcomers, but concluded some problems of integration and pressure on public services had also begun to develop.
It said community tensions had emerged in areas such as the South-west and Scotland which had not previously experienced large-scale immigration, while several other regions warned of the pressure on the supply of cheap housing.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3067229.ece
"new arrivals were harder-working, brought sought-after skills and paid more in tax than they used in public services."
read on for details. Something to consider as the DREAM ACT is coming up for a vote.
and remember, if the DREAM ACT kids are undocumented, its not because their parents did not want to stand in line... its that the U.S. immigration system does not have a workable immigration system.
_____
Home Office: migrants work harder, earn more and pay more tax than Britons
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent
London Independent
Published: 17 October 2007
Migrant workers contributed £6 billion to the country's economic growth last year and earned higher wages than their British counterparts, Home Office figures revealed yesterday.
The study concluded that new arrivals were harder-working, brought sought-after skills and paid more in tax than they used in public services.
The population rose by 189,000 last year, with 574,000 migrants arriving and 385,000 people leaving. The steady increase over the last decade has led to warnings that the country cannot cope with the growth. But the Government figures suggested migration was throwing a life-line to an economy suffering skills shortages and struggling to support a growing bill for pensions.
It was calculated that new migration accounted for about one-sixth of Britain's economic growth, equivalent to £6 billion last year. The Home Office said the newcomers had "high levels of skills – higher on average than the UK natives" and that employers found migrant workers "reliable and hard-working".
It reported that migrants earned on average £424 per week last year, compared with £395 for UK-born workers, and as a result paid more per head in tax and VAT than Britons. It also suggested that the work ethic of the new arrivals was also having a positive impact on British workers, helping to increase their pay levels.
The Home Office said research showed migrants contributed 10 per cent of Government revenue, but used only 9.1 per cent of expenditure in such areas as schools or hospitals.
It said: "In the long run it is likely the net fiscal contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant."
The proportion of foreigners in the workforce has nearly doubled in recent years, but employment has increased by 2.7 million, rebuffing claims that dole queues had lengthened because of migration.
"Concerns that native workers would be displaced by migrant workers... seem ill-founded as migrant workers appear to have complementary skills to the native labour force," it said. Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, sounded a cautious note about the figures. "The UK economy and the Exchequer over the long run clearly profit from migration," he said. "But we need to strike a new balance in migration policy where we set benefits alongside what we know about the wider impact of migration."
Danny Sriskandarajah, migration research fellow for the Institute for Public Policy Research, said the figures were positive. "Immigrants bring immense benefits to the UK economy. Let's hope our political leaders pay more attention to this positive evidence than to anecdotes about negative impacts when designing migration policies," he said.
But David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said that relying on immigration to boost the economy was "a short term answer" and said the Government should concentrate on finding work for the 1 million economically inactive under 25s in Britain.
And Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatchUK, which campaigns against mass immigration, dismissed the importance of the figures.
"This is an incredibly feeble justification for mass immigration," he said. "In fact, on their own figures the benefit to the native population is trivial. The addition to production is almost exactly the same as the addition to population."
The Home Office published the research ahead of today's meeting of the Government-sponsored Migration Impact Forum, which advises ministers on the effect immigration is having on all aspects of national life. Its conclusions will be studied by ministers when they decide whether to lift the tough restrictions on workers from Romania and Bulgaria, which joined the EU in January.
The forum will be told today that all parts of the country have experienced an increase in numbers of new arrivals from the eight eastern and central European countries that joined the European Union in 2004. All regions reported an economic boost from the newcomers, but concluded some problems of integration and pressure on public services had also begun to develop.
It said community tensions had emerged in areas such as the South-west and Scotland which had not previously experienced large-scale immigration, while several other regions warned of the pressure on the supply of cheap housing.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3067229.ece
Wrong Information From Lou Dobbs
Out of pure necessity I watched Lou Dobbs for a few minutes last evening. My husband was sitting with me and had to leave the room.
I was watching tv to see what the word was (pro and con) on the DREAM ACT. The news of Tancredo calling ICE came in an email. Then Dobbs mentioned it on his program - saying the three students at Durbin's news conference should be picked up by ICE and the great insult it was to the nation that it's laws could not be enforced within the capital itself.
The students present ARE LEGALLY IN THIS COUNTRY - they are DREAM ACT students and at one point were here without documented status, but have been given temporary conditional permission to remain until their cases are resolved.
Durbin was not breaking the law by having the students at his meeting.
Lou Dobbs knew this, but still gave out the wrong information. I hope our senators realize this.
I was watching tv to see what the word was (pro and con) on the DREAM ACT. The news of Tancredo calling ICE came in an email. Then Dobbs mentioned it on his program - saying the three students at Durbin's news conference should be picked up by ICE and the great insult it was to the nation that it's laws could not be enforced within the capital itself.
The students present ARE LEGALLY IN THIS COUNTRY - they are DREAM ACT students and at one point were here without documented status, but have been given temporary conditional permission to remain until their cases are resolved.
Durbin was not breaking the law by having the students at his meeting.
Lou Dobbs knew this, but still gave out the wrong information. I hope our senators realize this.
UPDATE from Durbin's Office: 10 24 07
UPDATE at 9:08 am Central Time
from Durbin's office:
Current debate on Southwick is on the senate floor
If cloture is not invoked on the Southwick nomination, the DREAM cloture vote would occur at approximately 11:45am Eastern
If cloture is invoked on the Southwick nomination, the DREAM cloture vote would occur at approximately 12:05pm Eastern
from Durbin's office:
Current debate on Southwick is on the senate floor
If cloture is not invoked on the Southwick nomination, the DREAM cloture vote would occur at approximately 11:45am Eastern
If cloture is invoked on the Southwick nomination, the DREAM cloture vote would occur at approximately 12:05pm Eastern
Students Plan Collective Senate Call Today -at University of Houston Campus
TODAY AT 1:00 PM CENTRAL TIME - UH MAIN CAMPUS IN FRONT OF LIBRARY
Collective Senate call-in until the DREAM Act passes!!!
For immediate release:
As a result of the recent reintroduction of the bill last week as a new piece of legislation in the US Senate (S. 2205), and in direct participation in the latest national lobbying and call-in campaigns, students and supporters in Houston are calling for an immediate passage of the D.R.E.A.M. Act: proposed legislation that would grant undocumented students a path to citizenship based on certain eligibility benchmarks. In this light, and pushing for a favorable cloture vote expected this week, we come together in caps and gowns to urge our senators and our community in our still-alive struggle. D.R.E.A.M. Act NOW!
What: DREAM Act Collective Senate Call-in
When: October 24, 2007 (Wednesday)
Time: 1:00 P.M. Central Time
Where : University of Houston Main - M.D. Anderson Library (Bldg. L-509)
Cullen Blvd. at Entrance 14, Houston, TX
FIEL, CRECEN, LULAC, and JIFM (Jovenes Inmigrantes por un Futuro Mejor - Young Immigrants for a Better Future) invite you to support the passage of the D.R.E.A.M. Act!
F.I.E.L (Familias Inmigrantes y Estudiantes en la Lucha – Immigrant Families and Students in the Struggle) is an immigrants' rights activist organization with the purpose of upholding this community's family unity, culture, values, and supporting education.
For more information contact:
Cesar Espinosa: (713) 459-8923
John Ochoa: (832) 423-9522
www.myspace.com/fiel_2007
photo: http://www.salotteries.com.au/library/Telephone-results.jpg
Rick Noriega and the U.S. Senate
Photo: Rick Noriega
Rick Noriega's chances at the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate are looking very solid now that his opponent Mikal Watts has withdrawn from the race. What Noriega needs help with is fundraising, which unfortunately is the ticket to electoral victory these days.
We need to remember that Noriega was one of the main people who helped institute (and keep) in-state tuition for undocumented college students. If the DREAM ACT passes this Congressional session. scores of students Texas will be ready for permanent residency - having been able to attend college and graduate since 2001 because of Noriega's bill.
Its really important to remember the people that help the students. Plus, if he wins, maybe he'll take a few DREAM ACT college graduates with him to Washington.
-----
Politics
Oct. 23, 2007, 11:32PM
Noriega's race soars as Watts drops out
Democrat may get a clear shot against Cornyn
By R.G. RATCLIFFE and PEGGY FIKAC
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN — The departure of San Antonio lawyer Mikal Watts from the U.S. Senate race Tuesday gives Houston state Rep. Rick Noriega a possible clear run for the Democratic nomination and a general election challenge to Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
Noriega has a personal story of service in the Legislature and in the National Guard in Afghanistan that his campaign hopes could make him a compelling candidate against Cornyn.
But the question now is whether enough national Democratic campaign cash would make it into Noriega's coffers next year to give him a realistic shot at defeating Cornyn in what some describe as the reddest of the red states.
Noriega said he is not worried as much about how to run the campaign as to make sure it stays focused on "the junior senator," as he refers to Cornyn.
"I've got buddies dying. There are folks in Iraq who are on their third tour. I wish we could keep our eye on the ball," Noriega said Tuesday.
"My personal experiences and having walked the walk in a lot of these venues brings it home for regular Texans. Money is not the end-all," Noriega said. "We will have what we need to tell our story and tell regular Texans that the junior senator has done a poor job."
Noriega said Watts called Tuesday morning and said he had decided to withdraw from the race because of the strain it was putting on his family.
"Today, Mikal made a very difficult and personal decision to put his family first. That's a reflection of a strong character and a truly grounded leader," Noriega said. "Mikal and I made plans to sit down together in the next couple of weeks.
"In the meantime, I'll continue the campaign that we started together and fight for the vision for a better Texas that we continue to share."
Watts, a millionaire trial lawyer, had been attractive to national Democrats because he could largely self-finance a credible race against Cornyn without taking money away from Democratic candidates in other states.
On Tuesday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's spokesman was hesitant to rush a voice of financial support to Noriega.
"Why would we want to tip our hand to John Cornyn?" said Matthew Miller.
Noriega said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York recently told him he thought any Democratic nominee would have a good chance of defeating Cornyn. DSCC polling this year showed a third of Texans polled could not identify Cornyn and his re-election numbers were below 50 percent.
Incumbent's reaction
Cornyn has declined to discuss Democrats in his re-election bid until a nominee is chosen, but campaign manager Rob Jesmer issued a statement Tuesday saying Cornyn "respects" Watts' decision to drop out.
Jesmer said Cornyn will continue "to work tirelessly on behalf of Texans advocating for lower taxes, less government spending, greater access to health care and stronger national security."
While Noriega currently is unopposed, the filing deadline is not until Jan. 2. Some Democrats have mentioned former Comptroller John Sharp and former Ambassador to Sweden Lyndon Olson, of Waco, as possible candidates. Noriega said he plans to continue campaigning as if he has an opponent.
Texas Democratic consultant Harold Cook said it is difficult for the national party leaders to make a financial commitment in Texas because the state is so large and has so many media markets. He said Texas has two votes in the Senate just like smaller states where seats can be won for a lot less money.
"I don't think there's a state in the nation where there's a smaller bang for your buck than Texas," Cook said.
To attract national money, he said, Noriega will have to prove between now and September 2008 that he has a decent chance of defeating Cornyn.
"The only thing you have to do to get on the DSCC's radar screen is to make yourself viable," Cook said.
In the 2002 campaign that put Cornyn in the Senate, Democrat Ron Kirk spent $8.8 million against Cornyn's $9.1 million. On top of that, the DSCC bought $4.5 million in ads for Kirk, while the Republican National Committee financed $4.1 million for Cornyn.
Watts had already committed $7.5 million of his own money to his campaign. Noriega raised $530,722 in the first three months of his campaign. Cornyn has $6.6 million in the bank.
Watts announced that he is dropping out of the race because of the pressure that campaigning has put on his family.
"After spending the last several months putting everything into this campaign, I have seen the toll this effort has taken on my young children. For these reasons, my wife and I have made the decision that I will not be seeking the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate in 2008," he said in a statement.
Says he's still committed
Watts said he still believes in the fight that prompted him to explore the race and will personally do everything possible to support the Democratic nominee.
While family issues may have taken a toll, Watts faced other problems in the primary.
Watts' stance as an anti-abortion candidate caused him trouble at numerous Democratic events. Last Friday, a man stood and booed him at a Democratic Party fish fry. Watts missed a Saturday Democratic dinner in Houston, where Noriega received a standing ovation while introducing Mayor Bill White.
Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth and San Antonio Express-News reporter John Tedesco contributed to this report.
r.g.ratcliffe@chron.com
pfikac@express-news.net
article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5240202.html
photo: http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/3c02/noriega.jpg
NY Times Endorses DREAM ACT 10-24-2007
October 24, 2007
Editorial
A Chance to Dream
The Senate has a chance today to pluck a small gem from the ashes of the immigration debate. A critical procedural vote is scheduled on the Dream Act, a bill to open opportunities for college and military service to the children of undocumented immigrants.
Roughly 65,000 children graduate each year from high school into a constrained future because they cannot work legally or qualify for most college aid. These are the overlooked bystanders to the ferocious bickering over immigration. They did not ask to be brought here, have worked hard in school and could, given the chance, hone their talents and become members of the homegrown, high-skilled American work force.
The bill is one of the least controversial immigration proposals that have been offered in the last five years. But that doesn’t mean much. Like everything else not directly involving border barricades and punishment, it has been branded as “amnesty,” and has languished.
But this bill is different, starting with its broad, bipartisan support, from its original sponsor, the Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, to its current champion, Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. Repeated defeats have forced Mr. Durbin to pare away at the bill’s ambitions. It focuses now on a narrow sliver of a worthy group: children who entered the country before age 16, lived here continuously for at least five years and can show good moral character and a high school diploma. They would receive conditional legal status for six years, during which they could work, go to college and serve in the military. If they completed at least two years of college or military service, they would be eligible for legalization.
These young people — their numbers are estimated at anywhere from a million to fewer than 100,000 — are in many ways fully American, but their immigration status puts a lock on their potential right after high school. They face the prospect of living in the shadows as their parents do, fearing deportation to countries they do not know, yearning to educate themselves in a country that ignores their aspirations.
The Dream Act rejects that unacceptable waste of young talent. The opportunity is there, provided the votes are there in the Senate.
Editorial
A Chance to Dream
The Senate has a chance today to pluck a small gem from the ashes of the immigration debate. A critical procedural vote is scheduled on the Dream Act, a bill to open opportunities for college and military service to the children of undocumented immigrants.
Roughly 65,000 children graduate each year from high school into a constrained future because they cannot work legally or qualify for most college aid. These are the overlooked bystanders to the ferocious bickering over immigration. They did not ask to be brought here, have worked hard in school and could, given the chance, hone their talents and become members of the homegrown, high-skilled American work force.
The bill is one of the least controversial immigration proposals that have been offered in the last five years. But that doesn’t mean much. Like everything else not directly involving border barricades and punishment, it has been branded as “amnesty,” and has languished.
But this bill is different, starting with its broad, bipartisan support, from its original sponsor, the Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, to its current champion, Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. Repeated defeats have forced Mr. Durbin to pare away at the bill’s ambitions. It focuses now on a narrow sliver of a worthy group: children who entered the country before age 16, lived here continuously for at least five years and can show good moral character and a high school diploma. They would receive conditional legal status for six years, during which they could work, go to college and serve in the military. If they completed at least two years of college or military service, they would be eligible for legalization.
These young people — their numbers are estimated at anywhere from a million to fewer than 100,000 — are in many ways fully American, but their immigration status puts a lock on their potential right after high school. They face the prospect of living in the shadows as their parents do, fearing deportation to countries they do not know, yearning to educate themselves in a country that ignores their aspirations.
The Dream Act rejects that unacceptable waste of young talent. The opportunity is there, provided the votes are there in the Senate.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Lesson in Politics - How to Get a Bill Passed in the Senate
Getting the DREAM ACT Passed
Its very basic. Senator's offices count how many people call in pro- or - con on a bill. Since there are so many people out there that are extremists when it comes to immigration, they are flooding the phone lines. Some senate offices get as many as 400 ANTI-DREAM Act calls per day.... compared to about 20 PRO-DREAM Act calls they might receive.
MOST important, if you want this bill to pass (warts included) - call the offices of your 2 senators. You don't need to be a voter to call. All they will ask is your zip code. Tell them quickly that you are for the DREAM ACT - they will ask you the zip code and you hang up. That is all you have to do.
If you don't want to talk to them, send a fax or and email. Phone calls seem to be what they want, but the others will do.
It doesn't make logical sense to use this as a determinant to what bill passes, and I'm sure there have to be a lot of other influences - but this is what we are hearing these days from DREAM ACT students who have spoken directly with Senators and their staffs.
Set your "record" button to your cable box for Wed. Its should be a show down with lots of fireworks. Be prepared for some nasty arguments - and remember if people say ugly things about DREAM ACT students, keep in mind that they probably aren't nice people anyway - besides there is always karma.
List of senators that have not decided which way they will vote on the DREAM ACT, if your senator is on the list it is even MORE important that you call.
Murkowski (R-AK) 202-244-6665
Stevens (R-AK) 202224-3004
Pryor (D-AR) 202-224-2353
Martinez (R-FL) 202-224-3041
Inouye (D-HI) 202-224-3934
Brownback (R-KS) 202-224-6521
Landieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824
Collins (R-ME) 202-224-2523
Snowe (R-ME) 202-224-5344
Conrad (D-ND) 202-224-2043
Dorgan (D-ND) 202-224-2551
Dominici (R-NM) 202-224-6621
Voinovich (R-OH) 202-224-3353
Smith (R-OR) 202-224-3753
Graham (R-SC) 202-224-5972
Johnson (D-SD) 202-224-5842
Cornyn (R-TX) 202-224-2934
Warner(R-VA) 202-224-2023
Rockefeller (D-VA) 202-224-6472
list provided by MigraMatters blog
Photo: U.S. Senate Building. AP http://kohm.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/uscapitolindaylight.jpg
What the DREAM ACT Won't Do -
For those who are not sure they will support the DREAM ACT, Durbin's office released the following:
The DREAM Act would NOT lead to “chain migration”. DREAM Act beneficiaries would have very limited ability to sponsor family members. They could never sponsor extended family members and they could not begin sponsoring siblings or parents for at least six years. The visa backlog for siblings is decades long and parents who are illegally present in the U.S. would have to leave the country for ten years before they could gain legal status.
The DREAM Act amendment would NOT repeal a provision of federal law that prevents states from granting in-state tuition rates to undocumented students. This provision was in an earlier version of the amendment but has been removed from the current version.
DREAM Act students would NOT be eligible for federal grants which do not require repayment. Those who choose to attend college and otherwise qualify for the DREAM Act would only be eligible for federal student loans and federal work-study.
The DREAM Act would NOT give legal status to 1.3 million people. While CBO estimates that less than 100,000 students will benefit in the next ten years, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that about 350,000 will benefit. A recent MPI study explains that while 715,000 students would be eligible, current high school graduation rates for undocumented students are at 50%, therefore drastically decreasing the number of students affected. Given these statistics, it is likely that between 100,000 and 500,000 students will benefit – a far cry from the claim that millions will be affected.
The DREAM Act would NOT lead to “chain migration”. DREAM Act beneficiaries would have very limited ability to sponsor family members. They could never sponsor extended family members and they could not begin sponsoring siblings or parents for at least six years. The visa backlog for siblings is decades long and parents who are illegally present in the U.S. would have to leave the country for ten years before they could gain legal status.
The DREAM Act amendment would NOT repeal a provision of federal law that prevents states from granting in-state tuition rates to undocumented students. This provision was in an earlier version of the amendment but has been removed from the current version.
DREAM Act students would NOT be eligible for federal grants which do not require repayment. Those who choose to attend college and otherwise qualify for the DREAM Act would only be eligible for federal student loans and federal work-study.
The DREAM Act would NOT give legal status to 1.3 million people. While CBO estimates that less than 100,000 students will benefit in the next ten years, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that about 350,000 will benefit. A recent MPI study explains that while 715,000 students would be eligible, current high school graduation rates for undocumented students are at 50%, therefore drastically decreasing the number of students affected. Given these statistics, it is likely that between 100,000 and 500,000 students will benefit – a far cry from the claim that millions will be affected.
On the DREAM ACT, by Durbin, Leahy, and Menendez
A few days ago I wrote a post titled "Going to Iraq is Not Amnesty" (October 14, 2007) Durbin addressed the issue of amnesty in the following statement.
This from a press conference held earlier today regarding the DREAM ACT, which will probably come up in the senate tomorrow:
Senator Durbin:
“When I hear some describe this bill as amnesty, I wonder, if someone is willing to risk his or her life to serve in our military in a combat zone, is that a giveaway? If they go to college and become future nurses, future teachers, future doctors, scientists, and engineers, doesn’t that make our country an even richer place?” said Durbin. “We can allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential and ambitions to contribute more fully to our society and national security, or we can relegate them to a future in the shadows, which would be a loss for all Americans. This is the choice the DREAM Act presents to us.”
Senator Leahy:
“When the young people of America have the opportunity to reach their potential, we all win,” said Leahy. “The DREAM Act is designed to create new opportunities for young people, whose achievements in turn strengthen our communities and the nation. This legislation has had bipartisan support since 2001, and we should not hinder this forward-looking effort with politics. I hope Congress this year will choose to invest in our future by supporting the DREAM Act to make higher education and the American Dream a reality for so many of our young people.”
Senator R. Menendez:
“There are men and women who came to this country when they were very young, who worked hard in high school, who are ready to study or wear the uniform of the United States of America—but who see those doors slam shut in their faces because their parents were undocumented. At the end of the day, the DREAM Act is a straight-ahead test of what America is all about. The fundamental question is: Do we punish children for the sins of their parents?”
This from a press conference held earlier today regarding the DREAM ACT, which will probably come up in the senate tomorrow:
Senator Durbin:
“When I hear some describe this bill as amnesty, I wonder, if someone is willing to risk his or her life to serve in our military in a combat zone, is that a giveaway? If they go to college and become future nurses, future teachers, future doctors, scientists, and engineers, doesn’t that make our country an even richer place?” said Durbin. “We can allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential and ambitions to contribute more fully to our society and national security, or we can relegate them to a future in the shadows, which would be a loss for all Americans. This is the choice the DREAM Act presents to us.”
Senator Leahy:
“When the young people of America have the opportunity to reach their potential, we all win,” said Leahy. “The DREAM Act is designed to create new opportunities for young people, whose achievements in turn strengthen our communities and the nation. This legislation has had bipartisan support since 2001, and we should not hinder this forward-looking effort with politics. I hope Congress this year will choose to invest in our future by supporting the DREAM Act to make higher education and the American Dream a reality for so many of our young people.”
Senator R. Menendez:
“There are men and women who came to this country when they were very young, who worked hard in high school, who are ready to study or wear the uniform of the United States of America—but who see those doors slam shut in their faces because their parents were undocumented. At the end of the day, the DREAM Act is a straight-ahead test of what America is all about. The fundamental question is: Do we punish children for the sins of their parents?”
DREAM ACT Press Conference at University of Houston - TODAY
LOCATION: Univerity of Houston, in front of MD Anderson Library
DATE: October 23, 2007, Tuesday
TIME: 2:15 pm
Sponsored by: FIEL, Familias Inmigrantes y Estudiantes en la Lucha/Immigrant Families and Students in the Struggle
for more information:
call 713 459 8923 or 832 423 9523
More on Pedro Zapeta and the lost $49,000
The U.S. Government took the money "because it can."
This posting is from January 2007, but still worth taking note.
U.S. District Judge James Cohn has forced a Guatemalan dishwasher to surrender nearly all his life savings to the government because he didn’t sign a declaration form before trying to board an airplane.
Pedro Zapeta of Stuart had $59,000 in his bag when Customs agents searched it and confiscated the money at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Sept. 18, 2005. Mr. Zapeta, a 39-year-old Mayan whose native language is Quiche, has said that he was unaware of the requirement to disclose amounts greater than $10,000. On Monday, Judge Cohn ruled that the $10,000 was all that Mr. Zapeta could keep. He must forfeit the rest — $49,000. Mr. Zapeta has no real option for appealing, and is likely to be deported soon.
“It is unconscionable for the government to take that money,” said Robert Gershman, Mr. Zapeta’s attorney. “They do it because they can. That’s the only reason. It’s just not right. He could have left with all $59,000 if he had signed the form.”
In his six-page ruling, Judge Cohn said that the government had dropped earlier claims that the cash was drug money, and that prosecutors were accusing Mr. Zapeta of a civil currency violation, not a criminal offense. Mr. Gershman argued that Mr. Zapeta should pay a fine of no more than $5,000 for being negligent; he never had flown on a plane. “There is no rule of thumb in these cases,” the lawyer said. “They shouldn’t just rubber-stamp them with a decision like this.”
Mr. Zapeta entered the country illegally 11 years ago and worked as a dishwasher for numerous Stuart restaurants, often holding two jobs at a time for little more than minimum wage. He intended to start a business with relatives upon returning to Guatemala. Mr. Gershman believes that the dishwasher’s immigration and social status worked against him: “If Mr. Zapeta were a professional man, or more intellectual, or more mainstream, there’s no question that he would not have been treated this way.”
This is the guest worker President Bush has in mind when he proposes immigration reform. Pedro Zapeta didn’t come to stay. He came to make investment money he can’t make back home. Having done so, he was ready to deport himself. Judge Cohn had a chance to make sense out of this bureaucratic bungling. Instead, he displayed little logic and even less compassion.
----
from Palm Beach Post http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/editorial/entries/2007/01/
"Dishwasher Gets Cleaned"
This posting is from January 2007, but still worth taking note.
U.S. District Judge James Cohn has forced a Guatemalan dishwasher to surrender nearly all his life savings to the government because he didn’t sign a declaration form before trying to board an airplane.
Pedro Zapeta of Stuart had $59,000 in his bag when Customs agents searched it and confiscated the money at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Sept. 18, 2005. Mr. Zapeta, a 39-year-old Mayan whose native language is Quiche, has said that he was unaware of the requirement to disclose amounts greater than $10,000. On Monday, Judge Cohn ruled that the $10,000 was all that Mr. Zapeta could keep. He must forfeit the rest — $49,000. Mr. Zapeta has no real option for appealing, and is likely to be deported soon.
“It is unconscionable for the government to take that money,” said Robert Gershman, Mr. Zapeta’s attorney. “They do it because they can. That’s the only reason. It’s just not right. He could have left with all $59,000 if he had signed the form.”
In his six-page ruling, Judge Cohn said that the government had dropped earlier claims that the cash was drug money, and that prosecutors were accusing Mr. Zapeta of a civil currency violation, not a criminal offense. Mr. Gershman argued that Mr. Zapeta should pay a fine of no more than $5,000 for being negligent; he never had flown on a plane. “There is no rule of thumb in these cases,” the lawyer said. “They shouldn’t just rubber-stamp them with a decision like this.”
Mr. Zapeta entered the country illegally 11 years ago and worked as a dishwasher for numerous Stuart restaurants, often holding two jobs at a time for little more than minimum wage. He intended to start a business with relatives upon returning to Guatemala. Mr. Gershman believes that the dishwasher’s immigration and social status worked against him: “If Mr. Zapeta were a professional man, or more intellectual, or more mainstream, there’s no question that he would not have been treated this way.”
This is the guest worker President Bush has in mind when he proposes immigration reform. Pedro Zapeta didn’t come to stay. He came to make investment money he can’t make back home. Having done so, he was ready to deport himself. Judge Cohn had a chance to make sense out of this bureaucratic bungling. Instead, he displayed little logic and even less compassion.
----
from Palm Beach Post http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/editorial/entries/2007/01/
"Dishwasher Gets Cleaned"
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Small Print in the DREAM ACT
At the end of NILC's announcement that the DREAM ACT may come up on 10 24 2007, there is a statement about in-state tuition:
---
"The most important differences from the earlier version are that S. 2205 would not apply to individuals who, on the date of enactment, are over 30 years old, and it would not delete a provision of federal law that places conditions on states that provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants. "
---
What this means in plain language is that the DREAM ACT cut off is 30 years of age.
AND
that this bill will NOT force individual states to provide in-state tuition for undocumented students... if a student is not in one of the 10 states that has in-state tuition, then the options are to pay international tuition rates (more than 4 times) OR enlist in the military.
As I have written numerous times, I think the bill will pass because the military desperately needs thousands of recruits. But the bottom line is that unless the IRAQ War stops tomorrow, many DREAM ACT kids will die so that a few can get their degrees and work as professionals. This is not a good ending to the story, but right now it is the only ending.
---
"The most important differences from the earlier version are that S. 2205 would not apply to individuals who, on the date of enactment, are over 30 years old, and it would not delete a provision of federal law that places conditions on states that provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants. "
---
What this means in plain language is that the DREAM ACT cut off is 30 years of age.
AND
that this bill will NOT force individual states to provide in-state tuition for undocumented students... if a student is not in one of the 10 states that has in-state tuition, then the options are to pay international tuition rates (more than 4 times) OR enlist in the military.
As I have written numerous times, I think the bill will pass because the military desperately needs thousands of recruits. But the bottom line is that unless the IRAQ War stops tomorrow, many DREAM ACT kids will die so that a few can get their degrees and work as professionals. This is not a good ending to the story, but right now it is the only ending.
DREAM ACT Could Come Up in Senate on Wed 10 24 2007
from NILC 10 22 2007
THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
SENATE VOTE ON DREAM ACT
AS EARLY AS WEDNESDAY!
***IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED***
YOU AND YOUR NETWORKS NEED TO FLOOD SENATE OFFICES WITH PHONE CALLS, FAXES AND EMAILS TOMORROW!!!!!
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007
TELL SENATORS TO VOTE FOR S. 2205 THE DREAM ACT!!!
CALL THEM AGAIN THE NEXT DAY!!!!!
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007
TELL SENATORS TO VOTE FOR S. 2205 THE DREAM ACT!!!
The DREAM Act will likely come up for a vote on the Senate floor this Wednesday.
IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR ALL DREAM ACT SUPPORTERS TO CALL YOUR SENATORS, send an e-mail message and fax them, do it all over again on Wednesday morning first thing.
SHUTDOWN THE SENATE SWITCHBOARD WITH YOUR CALLS!
CALL 202-224-3121
DON'T LET THE ANTI-DREAM CALLERS BEAT US THIS TIME!
Last week, Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) quietly re-introduced the DREAM Act as a new stand-alone bill, S. 2205. Most likely this Wednesday there will be a "cloture" vote on whether the DREAM Act can be debated and ultimately voted on. This will mark the first time that the DREAM Act has ever come to a clean vote on the Senate floor.
The provisions of S. 2205 are similar, though not identical, to S. 774, the version of the DREAM Act that was filed by the Senators Durbin, Hagel, and Lugar earlier this year. Like the earlier version, S. 2205 would provide a 6-year path to permanent residence and eventual citizenship for individuals brought to the U.S. more than 5 years ago as undocumented children if they graduate from high school and continue on to college or military service.
The cloture motion will require 60 votes to pass. If it fails, the DREAM Act will be pulled from the floor. If it passes, there will be more votes on the DREAM Act as well as on possible amendments. The outcome of these votes will determine the fate of the DREAM Act for this Congress.
THE FIRST STEP IS PASSAGE OF THE "CLOTURE" MOTION, MOST LIKELY ON WEDNESDAY. We recognize that this is not the first time this year that we have punched the alarm bell, but THIS IS NOT A DRILL! Word is already getting out about the vote on anti-immigrant websites, talk shows, and cable TV who are spreading their usual falsehoods, and there is little doubt that their angry and fearful base will respond.
OUR RESPONSE MUST BE UNPRECEDENTED!
If you care at all about the future of DREAM Act students who have grown up here, then you must make your calls today and tomorrow, then forward this message, and then get on the phone to make sure that everyone you know does likewise. There will not be another chance.
CALL BOTH OF YOUR SENATORS AND TELL THEM:
"PLEASE VOTE FOR THE DREAM ACT
SO THAT IMMIGRANT STUDENTS BROUGHT HERE AS CHILDREN
CAN REALIZE THEIR POTENTIAL"
CALL THE SENATE SWITCHBOARD 202-224-3121
To send an e-mail message to your Senators please go to:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/NILC/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=12129
What else you can do:
Forward this message to every listserv and everyone you know
Post it on blogs, MySpace, Facebook, or other on-line networking tools
Call in to C-SPAN or other radio or television shows where there is some hope of a sympathetic audience (not anti-immigrant propaganda sites)
THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
SENATE VOTE ON DREAM ACT
AS EARLY AS WEDNESDAY!
***IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED***
YOU AND YOUR NETWORKS NEED TO FLOOD SENATE OFFICES WITH PHONE CALLS, FAXES AND EMAILS TOMORROW!!!!!
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007
TELL SENATORS TO VOTE FOR S. 2205 THE DREAM ACT!!!
CALL THEM AGAIN THE NEXT DAY!!!!!
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007
TELL SENATORS TO VOTE FOR S. 2205 THE DREAM ACT!!!
The DREAM Act will likely come up for a vote on the Senate floor this Wednesday.
IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR ALL DREAM ACT SUPPORTERS TO CALL YOUR SENATORS, send an e-mail message and fax them, do it all over again on Wednesday morning first thing.
SHUTDOWN THE SENATE SWITCHBOARD WITH YOUR CALLS!
CALL 202-224-3121
DON'T LET THE ANTI-DREAM CALLERS BEAT US THIS TIME!
Last week, Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) quietly re-introduced the DREAM Act as a new stand-alone bill, S. 2205. Most likely this Wednesday there will be a "cloture" vote on whether the DREAM Act can be debated and ultimately voted on. This will mark the first time that the DREAM Act has ever come to a clean vote on the Senate floor.
The provisions of S. 2205 are similar, though not identical, to S. 774, the version of the DREAM Act that was filed by the Senators Durbin, Hagel, and Lugar earlier this year. Like the earlier version, S. 2205 would provide a 6-year path to permanent residence and eventual citizenship for individuals brought to the U.S. more than 5 years ago as undocumented children if they graduate from high school and continue on to college or military service.
The cloture motion will require 60 votes to pass. If it fails, the DREAM Act will be pulled from the floor. If it passes, there will be more votes on the DREAM Act as well as on possible amendments. The outcome of these votes will determine the fate of the DREAM Act for this Congress.
THE FIRST STEP IS PASSAGE OF THE "CLOTURE" MOTION, MOST LIKELY ON WEDNESDAY. We recognize that this is not the first time this year that we have punched the alarm bell, but THIS IS NOT A DRILL! Word is already getting out about the vote on anti-immigrant websites, talk shows, and cable TV who are spreading their usual falsehoods, and there is little doubt that their angry and fearful base will respond.
OUR RESPONSE MUST BE UNPRECEDENTED!
If you care at all about the future of DREAM Act students who have grown up here, then you must make your calls today and tomorrow, then forward this message, and then get on the phone to make sure that everyone you know does likewise. There will not be another chance.
CALL BOTH OF YOUR SENATORS AND TELL THEM:
"PLEASE VOTE FOR THE DREAM ACT
SO THAT IMMIGRANT STUDENTS BROUGHT HERE AS CHILDREN
CAN REALIZE THEIR POTENTIAL"
CALL THE SENATE SWITCHBOARD 202-224-3121
To send an e-mail message to your Senators please go to:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/NILC/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=12129
What else you can do:
Forward this message to every listserv and everyone you know
Post it on blogs, MySpace, Facebook, or other on-line networking tools
Call in to C-SPAN or other radio or television shows where there is some hope of a sympathetic audience (not anti-immigrant propaganda sites)
DREAM ACT Coming Up
Congressional Quarterly TODAY – THE WEEK AHEAD
Oct. 18, 2007 – 8:49 p.m.
...it is unclear what legislation will round out next week’s floor schedule. The chamber could take up an immigration bill related to children (S 774), said Regan Lachapelle, a Reid spokeswoman.
Sponsored by Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., the bill would allow children of illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and lived here at least five years to gain conditional legal status. Under the bill, they could attain eventual citizenship if they attend college or enlist in the military for at least two years.
for complete article: http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002608374.html
Oct. 18, 2007 – 8:49 p.m.
...it is unclear what legislation will round out next week’s floor schedule. The chamber could take up an immigration bill related to children (S 774), said Regan Lachapelle, a Reid spokeswoman.
Sponsored by Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., the bill would allow children of illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and lived here at least five years to gain conditional legal status. Under the bill, they could attain eventual citizenship if they attend college or enlist in the military for at least two years.
for complete article: http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002608374.html
NY Times Editorial on Immigration 10-22-2007
This NYT editorial covers almost everything on immigration. Lou Dobbs is only given a couple of lines however, maybe he should get the whole essay - since so much of U.S. xenophobia emanates from his nightly tirades...
_____
Editorial
Ain’t That America
New York Times
Published: October 22, 2007
Think of America’s greatest historical shames. Most have involved the singling out of groups of people for abuse. Name a distinguishing feature — skin color, religion, nationality, language — and it’s likely that people here have suffered unjustly for it, either through the freelance hatred of citizens or as a matter of official government policy.
We are heading down this road again. The country needs to have a working immigration policy, one that corresponds to economic realities and is based on good sense and fairness. But it doesn’t. It has federal inertia and a rising immigrant tide, and a national mood of frustration and anxiety that is slipping, as it has so many times before, into hatred and fear. Hostility for illegal immigrants falls disproportionately on an entire population of people, documented or not, who speak Spanish and are working-class or poor. By blinding the country to solutions, it has harmed us all.
The evidence can be seen in any state or town that has passed constitutionally dubious laws to deny undocumented immigrants the basics of living, like housing or the right to gather or to seek work. It’s in hot lines for citizens to turn in neighbors. It’s on talk radio and blogs. It’s on the campaign trail, where candidates are pressed to disown moderate positions. And it can be heard nearly every night on CNN, in the nativist drumming of Lou Dobbs, for whom immigration is an obsessive cause.
In New York, Gov. Eliot Spitzer has proposed allowing illegal immigrants to earn driver’s licenses. It is a good, practical idea, designed to replace anonymous drivers with registered competent ones. In show after show, Mr. Dobbs has trained his biggest guns on Mr. Spitzer, branding him with puerile epithets like “spoiled, rich-kid brat” and depicting his policy as some sort of sanctuary program for the 9/11 hijackers. Someday there may be a calm debate, in Albany and nationally, about immigrant drivers. But with Mr. Dobbs at the megaphone, for now there is only histrionics and outrage.
Let’s concede an indisputable point: people should not be in the country illegally. But forget about the border for a moment — let’s talk about the 12 million who are already here. What should be done about them?
A. Deport them all.
B. Find out who they are. Distinguish between criminals and people who just want to work. Get them on the books. Make them pay what they owe — not just the income, Social Security, sales and property taxes they already pay, but all their taxes, and a fine. Get a smooth legal flow of immigrants going, and then concentrate on catching and deporting bad people.
C. Catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire group as a de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any plan seen as abetting their evildoing.
Forget A. Congress tried a version of B, but it was flattened by outrage.
And so here we are at C. It’s a policy that can’t work; it’s too small-bore, too petty, too narrow. And all the while it’s not working, it can only lead to the festering of hate. Americans are a practical and generous people, with a tolerant streak a mile wide. But there is a combustible strain of nativism in this country, and it takes only a handful of match tossers to ignite it.
The new demagogues are united in their zeal to uproot the illegal population. They do not discriminate between criminals and the much larger group of ambitious strivers. They champion misguided policies, like a mythically airtight border fence and a reckless campaign of home invasions. And they summon the worst of America’s past by treating a hidden group of vulnerable people as an enemy to be hated and vanquished, not as part of a problem to be managed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/opinion/22mon1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
_____
Editorial
Ain’t That America
New York Times
Published: October 22, 2007
Think of America’s greatest historical shames. Most have involved the singling out of groups of people for abuse. Name a distinguishing feature — skin color, religion, nationality, language — and it’s likely that people here have suffered unjustly for it, either through the freelance hatred of citizens or as a matter of official government policy.
We are heading down this road again. The country needs to have a working immigration policy, one that corresponds to economic realities and is based on good sense and fairness. But it doesn’t. It has federal inertia and a rising immigrant tide, and a national mood of frustration and anxiety that is slipping, as it has so many times before, into hatred and fear. Hostility for illegal immigrants falls disproportionately on an entire population of people, documented or not, who speak Spanish and are working-class or poor. By blinding the country to solutions, it has harmed us all.
The evidence can be seen in any state or town that has passed constitutionally dubious laws to deny undocumented immigrants the basics of living, like housing or the right to gather or to seek work. It’s in hot lines for citizens to turn in neighbors. It’s on talk radio and blogs. It’s on the campaign trail, where candidates are pressed to disown moderate positions. And it can be heard nearly every night on CNN, in the nativist drumming of Lou Dobbs, for whom immigration is an obsessive cause.
In New York, Gov. Eliot Spitzer has proposed allowing illegal immigrants to earn driver’s licenses. It is a good, practical idea, designed to replace anonymous drivers with registered competent ones. In show after show, Mr. Dobbs has trained his biggest guns on Mr. Spitzer, branding him with puerile epithets like “spoiled, rich-kid brat” and depicting his policy as some sort of sanctuary program for the 9/11 hijackers. Someday there may be a calm debate, in Albany and nationally, about immigrant drivers. But with Mr. Dobbs at the megaphone, for now there is only histrionics and outrage.
Let’s concede an indisputable point: people should not be in the country illegally. But forget about the border for a moment — let’s talk about the 12 million who are already here. What should be done about them?
A. Deport them all.
B. Find out who they are. Distinguish between criminals and people who just want to work. Get them on the books. Make them pay what they owe — not just the income, Social Security, sales and property taxes they already pay, but all their taxes, and a fine. Get a smooth legal flow of immigrants going, and then concentrate on catching and deporting bad people.
C. Catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire group as a de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any plan seen as abetting their evildoing.
Forget A. Congress tried a version of B, but it was flattened by outrage.
And so here we are at C. It’s a policy that can’t work; it’s too small-bore, too petty, too narrow. And all the while it’s not working, it can only lead to the festering of hate. Americans are a practical and generous people, with a tolerant streak a mile wide. But there is a combustible strain of nativism in this country, and it takes only a handful of match tossers to ignite it.
The new demagogues are united in their zeal to uproot the illegal population. They do not discriminate between criminals and the much larger group of ambitious strivers. They champion misguided policies, like a mythically airtight border fence and a reckless campaign of home invasions. And they summon the worst of America’s past by treating a hidden group of vulnerable people as an enemy to be hated and vanquished, not as part of a problem to be managed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/opinion/22mon1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
More Money in the Immigration Industrial Complex
Would it be less painful if the ICE agent spoke Spanish?
The company Rosetta Stone is making lots of money in its contracts with the U.S. Military... over 4 million dollars. Now they are adding another $775,000 to help ICE officers learn to speak to detainees.
Well, considering the insults, cursing and other offensive language thrown around by ICE agents during raids, they certainly do need some help learning to speak.
Unfortunately, this defect in their speech is bringing even more money to the immigration industrial complex. This is all making "catch the immigrant" a real money maker.
It sounds like capitalism at its worst.
-----
Customs Enlists Rosetta to Train Officers' Tongues
by Cecilia Kang
Monday, October 22, 2007; Page D02
Washington Post
Unlike Rosetta Stone's magazine ads, there probably won't be any hardworking farm boys and Italian supermodels connecting at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But the Arlington company's new three-year contract with the federal agency may help knock down some linguistic barriers faced by the nation's border guards and immigration agents.
The language-learning software provider landed a $775,000 deal with ICE, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, to supply 15,000 agency employees around the county with software discs and online programs offering instruction in 30 languages. Spanish and Arabic are the agency's most pressing language needs for it to carry out missions of immigration and customs investigations, detention and removal operations, intelligence and federal protective services.
...Rosetta Stone, also known for its ubiquitous airport kiosks, has a track record of supplying software to government agencies. Its biggest federal contract is a $4.2 million agreement with the U.S. Army. Under the Army contract, which began in 2005, the firm tailored its language program to military personnel preparing for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rosetta Stone now has more than 100,000 registered Army users on its online and software CD programs, which focuson words that would be used at checkpoints and warfare terminology like "humvees" and "tanks."
The company said ICE purchased the software instead of hiring language instructors at its various offices because the computer programs give employees flexibility to study at work or home. It's also a lot cheaper than a real teacher.
"Most of us, if we've had to take language in school, we go into a classroom and the most difficult component is speaking, particularly in front of your classmates," said Linda Trude, vice president of institutional sales. "This helps them build confidence and success, and it works."
Shy immigration enforcement agents?
article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101146.html
cartoon: http://www.afsc.org/immigrants-rights/images/cartoon_raids.gif
In Switzerland the Black Sheep Lost
Photo: Switzerland - criticism of the People's party in 2003.
A previous article in the London Independent called Switzerland "the Heart of Darkness." The country who has gained fame for being neutral has fallen off the map of ethics. Hopefully the rest of Europe won't be so blind to follow.
-----
Racist' campaign pays off in Swiss poll
By Tony Paterson in Berlin
London Independent
Published: 22 October 2007
The right-wing Swiss People's Party won its best-ever showing in general elections yesterday after a virulent anti-foreigner campaign that was widely denounced as racist, but failed to obtain the landslide victory it had been hoping for.
The SVP, led by the controversial billionaire and Swiss Justice Minister Christoph Blocher secured almost 29 per cent of the vote and an extra six seats in parliament, the first exit polls suggested last night.
Mr Blocher's campaign was dominated by the single issue of immigration. His party's election posters featured three white sheep standing on a red and white Swiss national flag kicking a black sheep out of the country. Alongside ran the slogan "more security!"
The notorious posters, which were part of the party's campaign to deport foreign criminal offenders and their families, were denounced as "openly racist" by the United Nations.
However the campaign appeared to have appealed to voters. Yesterday's elections saw the SVP consolidate its position as the largest party in the Swiss parliament, but its share of the vote increased by just two percentage points.
article: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3084302.ece
photo: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/capt.sge.qlk65.191003195834.photo01.default-384x256.jpg
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Obama and the California DREAM ACT
Besides Bill Richardson, Obama is the only presidential candidate that has shown clear support of undocumented college students.
Interesting that he used the term "play by the rules" when describing DREAM ACT students - so many anti-immigrationists use that expression for immigrations that came to the U.S. with documents.
-----
The Democratic presidential candidate discusses inner-city education, immigration and diversity at Garfield High School.
By Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 21, 2007
Barack Obama dived into California's most contentious policy debates Saturday at an East Los Angeles appearance where he defended immigration reform and affirmative action and criticized Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of a measure to extend college scholarships to students in the country illegally.
"That was wrong," the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate told several hundred gathered at Garfield High School. "Instead of driving thousands of children who were on the right path into the shadows, we need to give those who play by the rules the opportunity to succeed."
Later, during a question-and-answer session, he returned to the topic, declaring that if a student had been brought to this country illegally but had been going to school "like every other American child, it is cruel and stupid for us to suddenly say to them: 'We're not going to give you college scholarships. We're not going to let you finance your college education.' "
Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 1, the California Dream Act, on Oct. 13, saying that the Cal Grant financial aid program and community college fee waivers should be for legal residents, not illegal immigrant students...
for complete article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama21oct21,0,6304427.story?coll=la-home-center
photo: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/obama%20pic.jpg
"This law convinced me it was time. [They] hate us so much here."
As painful as it is, the people leaving Prince William County may be teaching the county a lesson. It will be interesting to see what happens in a few months. Already the signs are there, sales at the markets are down... people are leaving their houses.
One thing I do have to mention is that N.C. Aizenman needs to think through his/her use of words - Saying that someone "sneaked" into the country may please some Minute Men, but is an extremely different reality. Why not say "escaped" into the country? Or "immigrated" to this country?
The use of the word "sneaked" shows a negative pre-existing value judgement on the part of the writer. I thought journalists were supposed to present the news objectively -
-----
Uneasy Latinos React Using Their Feet: By Leaving Pr. William
Crackdown Is Festering Fear
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 22, 2007; A01
Supporters of the anti-illegal immigration measure adopted in Prince William County last week have argued that its most important purpose is to send a powerful signal to the county's mostly Latino illegal immigrants that they are no longer welcome.
It appears the message has already been received: Terrified that new policies will lead to mass deportations, illegal immigrants and the many legal immigrant relatives and friends who live with them have been moving out of Prince William ever since July, when county supervisors first approved the plan's outline.
The size of the migration is difficult to measure, particularly during a year when slumping housing prices and skyrocketing foreclosures have led many residents to move for purely economic reasons.
Still, signs of the growing climate of fear are everywhere.
At the Freetown Market, a convenience store in a heavily Latino section of Woodbridge that offers U-Haul trucks for hire, one-way rentals have jumped from between 10 and 20 a month just before July to about 40 a month today.
In the same strip mall, at a money-transfer store where the customer line to pay utility bills once snaked out the door, business has slowed so dramatically the past three months that one clerk has been let go and the remaining one spends most of her time on the computer, e-mailing gloomy updates to relatives back home in Guatemala.
A few doors down, staff workers at the IMA English language academy will soon be taking the American flag decorations off the walls and moving to a smaller space, because the number of students has plummeted from 350 to about 60 since July.
"There is a mass panic," said the academy's owner, Roberto Catacora. "Those who haven't already moved away don't dare step outside their houses."
Although one of the new measures directs county police to check the immigration status of only criminal suspects, many immigrants think that all Latinos will be subject to random sweeps, Catacora added.
The effect on his once-bustling academy was palpable on a recent weeknight, when all but one of the six classrooms were deserted.
Among the absent students was Jose Luis Pubeac, 42, a day laborer who sneaked into the country 18 months ago. He was busy preparing for his flight back to El Salvador on Saturday.
"I was already thinking of going home, because I was having such a hard time finding work," said Pubeac, speaking on his cellphone as he raced around picking up presents for his five children back home. "But this law convinced me it was time. [They] hate us so much here."
Most departing immigrants, however, appear to be moving closer afield, choosing states such as North Carolina or neighboring counties such as Prince George's or Arlington that they perceive as less hostile.
In August, Walter Ramirez settled on Alexandria.
A 29-year-old construction worker, Ramirez was not personally at risk from Prince William's crackdown because he has a temporary permit granted to many Salvadorans when an earthquake devastated their country in 2001.
But his roommates were a different story. And after the July resolution was adopted, they were overcome with stifling paranoia.
"I used to walk over to the supermarket every day to pick up food or a phone card or just to hang out," recalled one roommate, a 22-year-old from Honduras who sneaked into the United States three years ago. "But suddenly it seemed like there were so many police officers there, so I limited myself to once a week. It was so stressful, because you feel totally locked up, like you're a prisoner in your own home," he added, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Ramirez nodded his head sympathetically. The two were sitting on a large tan couch that took up almost the entire living room of their new home, a walled-off section of a ramshackle colonial house on a leafy cul-de-sac.
The cramped quarters are a step down from the well-kept apartment they rented in Woodbridge, where each man paid $275 a month for his own room and had access to the nicely landscaped complex's swimming pool. In Alexandria, they pay $400 each for shared rooms, make do with a hot plate in place of a stove and are no longer walking distance from friends and shops.
"It's a more isolated life here, and that's a sacrifice. But I had no choice," Ramirez said. "My buddies are like my family. I can't live in a place where they are going to be persecuted."
Several real estate agents who serve Latino immigrants predicted that more people will reach the same conclusion as Ramirez now that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors has given final approval to the anti-illegal immigration measure.
"This is not something that only affects the undocumented," agent Rosie Vilchez said. "Because in the same family, it's so common to have some people who are citizens, some people who are residents and some who are undocumented. And those with papers are going to do whatever is necessary to protect those without."
Within hours of the board's vote, Salvadoran-born Aracely Diaz instructed her real estate agent to put her townhouse on the market.
Diaz, a supermarket checkout clerk, was one of nearly 400 people who waited for hours to comment on the bill during the marathon pre-vote session that stretched into Wednesday's wee hours.
"Even after they passed that July resolution, I had hope that [the supervisors] would change their minds," said Diaz, 37, who has legal status but worries about relatives who do not.
Now, she noted bitterly, "I'll be selling at loss. But I don't care. I no longer have any affection for this place that treats us this way. I just want to get out."
Jose Ventura, a Salvadoran mason renting an apartment in Manassas, cites similar reasons for his decision to move not just his residence but also his business to Maryland.
Ventura, 38, who came to the United States seven years ago and then received the temporary protected status because of the earthquake in his homeland, smiled ruefully as he recalled the sense of possibility that suffused Prince William back then. "Oh, it was so great. There was so much work," he said.
He took two jobs to save enough to start a masonry company, then built it into a 35-man operation.
But a slowdown in the construction industry has forced Ventura to cut his workforce to 15 people. Meanwhile, his plan to buy a new house and pay off some of the mortgage by renting some of the rooms backfired after county residents called for a crackdown on overcrowding. A few days ago, the bank foreclosed on the property, wiping out all $80,000 of his savings and leaving him $20,000 in debt.
The supervisors' unanimous approval of the anti-illegal immigration resolution struck Ventura as the last straw.
"I feel like when this county was growing, when they needed us, they welcomed us Latinos with open arms," he said. "But now that the county is all grown up and times are hard, it's totally turned its back on us. They are so ungrateful."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101725_pf.html
One thing I do have to mention is that N.C. Aizenman needs to think through his/her use of words - Saying that someone "sneaked" into the country may please some Minute Men, but is an extremely different reality. Why not say "escaped" into the country? Or "immigrated" to this country?
The use of the word "sneaked" shows a negative pre-existing value judgement on the part of the writer. I thought journalists were supposed to present the news objectively -
-----
Uneasy Latinos React Using Their Feet: By Leaving Pr. William
Crackdown Is Festering Fear
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 22, 2007; A01
Supporters of the anti-illegal immigration measure adopted in Prince William County last week have argued that its most important purpose is to send a powerful signal to the county's mostly Latino illegal immigrants that they are no longer welcome.
It appears the message has already been received: Terrified that new policies will lead to mass deportations, illegal immigrants and the many legal immigrant relatives and friends who live with them have been moving out of Prince William ever since July, when county supervisors first approved the plan's outline.
The size of the migration is difficult to measure, particularly during a year when slumping housing prices and skyrocketing foreclosures have led many residents to move for purely economic reasons.
Still, signs of the growing climate of fear are everywhere.
At the Freetown Market, a convenience store in a heavily Latino section of Woodbridge that offers U-Haul trucks for hire, one-way rentals have jumped from between 10 and 20 a month just before July to about 40 a month today.
In the same strip mall, at a money-transfer store where the customer line to pay utility bills once snaked out the door, business has slowed so dramatically the past three months that one clerk has been let go and the remaining one spends most of her time on the computer, e-mailing gloomy updates to relatives back home in Guatemala.
A few doors down, staff workers at the IMA English language academy will soon be taking the American flag decorations off the walls and moving to a smaller space, because the number of students has plummeted from 350 to about 60 since July.
"There is a mass panic," said the academy's owner, Roberto Catacora. "Those who haven't already moved away don't dare step outside their houses."
Although one of the new measures directs county police to check the immigration status of only criminal suspects, many immigrants think that all Latinos will be subject to random sweeps, Catacora added.
The effect on his once-bustling academy was palpable on a recent weeknight, when all but one of the six classrooms were deserted.
Among the absent students was Jose Luis Pubeac, 42, a day laborer who sneaked into the country 18 months ago. He was busy preparing for his flight back to El Salvador on Saturday.
"I was already thinking of going home, because I was having such a hard time finding work," said Pubeac, speaking on his cellphone as he raced around picking up presents for his five children back home. "But this law convinced me it was time. [They] hate us so much here."
Most departing immigrants, however, appear to be moving closer afield, choosing states such as North Carolina or neighboring counties such as Prince George's or Arlington that they perceive as less hostile.
In August, Walter Ramirez settled on Alexandria.
A 29-year-old construction worker, Ramirez was not personally at risk from Prince William's crackdown because he has a temporary permit granted to many Salvadorans when an earthquake devastated their country in 2001.
But his roommates were a different story. And after the July resolution was adopted, they were overcome with stifling paranoia.
"I used to walk over to the supermarket every day to pick up food or a phone card or just to hang out," recalled one roommate, a 22-year-old from Honduras who sneaked into the United States three years ago. "But suddenly it seemed like there were so many police officers there, so I limited myself to once a week. It was so stressful, because you feel totally locked up, like you're a prisoner in your own home," he added, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Ramirez nodded his head sympathetically. The two were sitting on a large tan couch that took up almost the entire living room of their new home, a walled-off section of a ramshackle colonial house on a leafy cul-de-sac.
The cramped quarters are a step down from the well-kept apartment they rented in Woodbridge, where each man paid $275 a month for his own room and had access to the nicely landscaped complex's swimming pool. In Alexandria, they pay $400 each for shared rooms, make do with a hot plate in place of a stove and are no longer walking distance from friends and shops.
"It's a more isolated life here, and that's a sacrifice. But I had no choice," Ramirez said. "My buddies are like my family. I can't live in a place where they are going to be persecuted."
Several real estate agents who serve Latino immigrants predicted that more people will reach the same conclusion as Ramirez now that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors has given final approval to the anti-illegal immigration measure.
"This is not something that only affects the undocumented," agent Rosie Vilchez said. "Because in the same family, it's so common to have some people who are citizens, some people who are residents and some who are undocumented. And those with papers are going to do whatever is necessary to protect those without."
Within hours of the board's vote, Salvadoran-born Aracely Diaz instructed her real estate agent to put her townhouse on the market.
Diaz, a supermarket checkout clerk, was one of nearly 400 people who waited for hours to comment on the bill during the marathon pre-vote session that stretched into Wednesday's wee hours.
"Even after they passed that July resolution, I had hope that [the supervisors] would change their minds," said Diaz, 37, who has legal status but worries about relatives who do not.
Now, she noted bitterly, "I'll be selling at loss. But I don't care. I no longer have any affection for this place that treats us this way. I just want to get out."
Jose Ventura, a Salvadoran mason renting an apartment in Manassas, cites similar reasons for his decision to move not just his residence but also his business to Maryland.
Ventura, 38, who came to the United States seven years ago and then received the temporary protected status because of the earthquake in his homeland, smiled ruefully as he recalled the sense of possibility that suffused Prince William back then. "Oh, it was so great. There was so much work," he said.
He took two jobs to save enough to start a masonry company, then built it into a 35-man operation.
But a slowdown in the construction industry has forced Ventura to cut his workforce to 15 people. Meanwhile, his plan to buy a new house and pay off some of the mortgage by renting some of the rooms backfired after county residents called for a crackdown on overcrowding. A few days ago, the bank foreclosed on the property, wiping out all $80,000 of his savings and leaving him $20,000 in debt.
The supervisors' unanimous approval of the anti-illegal immigration resolution struck Ventura as the last straw.
"I feel like when this county was growing, when they needed us, they welcomed us Latinos with open arms," he said. "But now that the county is all grown up and times are hard, it's totally turned its back on us. They are so ungrateful."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101725_pf.html
Who Will Lose an Election Due to the Immigration Debate?
This article almost looks like a threat. Gubenatorial candidate Osborne in Nebraska lost the primary because he supported in-state tuition for undocumented students? It this really what is at the "forefrunt of Nebraskans' minds?"
Personally I don't think the loss was caused by Osborne's immigration stance. It had to be a much more complex situation.
The minority who are against immigration are cursing and insulting on the blogs and newspaper commentaries scream very loudly. Seems like our lawmakers think they have to listen.
Seems to me that a much higher percentage are just silent on the subject...which is even more unfortunate.
-----
llegal immigration could be firecracker for Senate candidates
By ANNA JO BRATTON
Beatrice Daily Sun
Sunday, October 21, 2007 3:41 PM CDT
AP
GRAND ISLAND, Neb. - After watching Nebraska icon Tom Osborne get scorched in the GOP gubernatorial primary last year, candidates are choosing their words carefully when it comes to illegal immigration.
"There's no question, this is an issue at the forefront of Nebraskans' minds," said Republican Jon Bruning, the state attorney general, who has declared his U.S. Senate intentions.
The wrong position "can drag a politician down real quick," said John Rolfsmeyer, 56, a Democratic voter from Ravenna.
Osborne learned that the hard way when Gov. Dave Heineman stunned the state by beating Osborne and winning the primary.
Many voters said they chose Heineman over Osborne, a sitting U.S. representative and wildly popular former Nebraska football coach, because Osborne supported a bill in the Legislature to give in-state tuition to children who don't have legal status.
from Huffington Post - http://www.beatricedailysun.com/articles/2007/10/20/ap-state-ne/d8sdq1h00.txt
Personally I don't think the loss was caused by Osborne's immigration stance. It had to be a much more complex situation.
The minority who are against immigration are cursing and insulting on the blogs and newspaper commentaries scream very loudly. Seems like our lawmakers think they have to listen.
Seems to me that a much higher percentage are just silent on the subject...which is even more unfortunate.
-----
llegal immigration could be firecracker for Senate candidates
By ANNA JO BRATTON
Beatrice Daily Sun
Sunday, October 21, 2007 3:41 PM CDT
AP
GRAND ISLAND, Neb. - After watching Nebraska icon Tom Osborne get scorched in the GOP gubernatorial primary last year, candidates are choosing their words carefully when it comes to illegal immigration.
"There's no question, this is an issue at the forefront of Nebraskans' minds," said Republican Jon Bruning, the state attorney general, who has declared his U.S. Senate intentions.
The wrong position "can drag a politician down real quick," said John Rolfsmeyer, 56, a Democratic voter from Ravenna.
Osborne learned that the hard way when Gov. Dave Heineman stunned the state by beating Osborne and winning the primary.
Many voters said they chose Heineman over Osborne, a sitting U.S. representative and wildly popular former Nebraska football coach, because Osborne supported a bill in the Legislature to give in-state tuition to children who don't have legal status.
from Huffington Post - http://www.beatricedailysun.com/articles/2007/10/20/ap-state-ne/d8sdq1h00.txt
Driving in New York Part I
Photo: Eliot Spitzer, APA few days ago I was at the airport waiting to board to flight when I heard a man sitting in front of me telling someone on his cell phone that he was going to New York to testify regarding the proposed Driver's License law for immigrants.
My curiousity was so intense, I did something I don't usually do, I went up to him, told him I was writing a book on the DREAM ACT and asked him what his role was in the driver's license issue.
He is a "fellow" at the National Center for Immigration Studies, one the primary anti-immigration organizations in Washington. I thought to myself, well it will be good to have a conversation with someone from the other side. The dialogue started out fine. But as the minutes went on his voice began more intense - his anger was almost rabid. I very nicely tried to ask him why U.S. citizens became so enraged over the issue. I still can't see what Americans are really losing with immigration. His response was even more angry. He said that undocumented immigrants were taking everything from us, that they were bringing crime etc etc. He said he was a good friend of Lou Dobbs.
The conversation became a monologue and I decided that if I ever ran into someone like that again, I would lay out the rules first..."I will only talk to you if I have equal time."
-----
October 21, 2007
Editorial
New York’s Fight Over Driver’s Licenses
In an effort to make New York’s highways safer, Gov. Eliot Spitzer has stepped in the middle of a bitter national argument about immigration....
...Mr. Spitzer is trying to make certain there is a safe driver behind the wheel of every car. That is no small matter. More than 40,000 people die in car crashes in the United States every year, more than 3,000 of them in New York State.
To help lower that toll, Mr. Spitzer recently announced that New York would join eight other states that do not require licensed drivers to prove that they are in the country legally. Instead, prospective drivers will need to prove exactly who they are, that they can drive safely, that they have car insurance, and that they live in New York State.
.... Richard Clarke, an adviser under the last four presidents, mostly on national security issues, has said that making driver’s licenses available to immigrants regardless of their legal status would promote security because “it is far preferable for the state to know who is living in it and driving on its roads."
The frustrations of the plan’s critics are understandable, but their quarrel is with Washington, which continues to avoid addressing the immigration problem head-on. Mr. Spitzer’s proposal for making driver’s licenses more broadly available is a calm injection of reason into a subject that has seen too little of it.
for complete article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/opinion/21sun3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
photo: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/off_the_news/
Does Richardson Support the DREAM ACT?
It would be a good thing to know that Richardson supports the DREAM ACT. But there is no mention of it in his ads or newspaper articles about him. Perhaps somebody should send an email to his campaign office and ask...
I'm glad someone is not just talking about Hillary.
-----
Richardson willing to take unpopular positions
By Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer | October 20, 2007
NORTH HAMPTON, N.H. --When it comes to illegal immigration, Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson often says he knows his position costs him votes, but he remains determined to "accept it and do the right thing."
The New Mexico governor applied that same attitude to a range of issues Saturday, giving often unpopular but candid answers to voters gathered at a supporter's home.
When a woman urged him to forget corn-based ethanol and focus only on other potential renewable fuel sources, Richardson refused. When a man asked him to support raising taxes on gasoline, Richardson again said no.
"I think the middle class has been hit enough, and I think there are better ways to do it," he said, saying he prefers tax incentives for companies that develop renewable energy sources and other measures.
"I just worry that every time we put a tax on gasoline, the middle class gets hit. Plus, it's not terribly popular. I'm being honest with you," he said.
When the topic switched to Social Security, Richardson said he is not ready to support raising Social Security taxes on high-income earners. Currently, the government collects money to pay Social Security benefits from taxes on each workers' earnings up to $97,500, but some have suggested raising or eliminating that cap.
"I would be willing to consider it. I'm not supporting it now because I believe that is -- for family businesses, for small farmers, for middle income families -- that is a tax increase," he said.
On illegal immigration, Richardson praised the reform bill that failed in Congress this year that would have provided a pathway to legal citizenship to illegal immigrants who learn English and pay fines and back taxes.
"I'm being candid. This is not a perfect solution, but it is far better than doing nothing or deporting everyone," he said. "The best thing to do when you have a tough issue is face it... you lose votes, but you should accept it and do the right thing."
Richardson was accompanied by his wife, Barbara, who was asked by a voter why her husband should be president.
"Could I think about that?" Barbara Richardson joked, then explained that her husband's approach to problems sets him apart from other candidates. She noted his experience in negotiating for the release of American hostages.
"He's always gone back to the table with a different proposal, a different approach to the problem, to achieve his goals," she said. "I think the way he looks at his opponent, in terms of respect -- even though he might not sit down and have dinner with the guy -- it's different.
"You combine that with his background in legislation, diplomacy, management as both governor and a large agency (the federal Energy Department) -- I think that separates him out from most of the other candidates. All of them," she said.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/10/20/richardson_willing_to_take_unpopular_positions?mode=PF
I'm glad someone is not just talking about Hillary.
-----
Richardson willing to take unpopular positions
By Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer | October 20, 2007
NORTH HAMPTON, N.H. --When it comes to illegal immigration, Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson often says he knows his position costs him votes, but he remains determined to "accept it and do the right thing."
The New Mexico governor applied that same attitude to a range of issues Saturday, giving often unpopular but candid answers to voters gathered at a supporter's home.
When a woman urged him to forget corn-based ethanol and focus only on other potential renewable fuel sources, Richardson refused. When a man asked him to support raising taxes on gasoline, Richardson again said no.
"I think the middle class has been hit enough, and I think there are better ways to do it," he said, saying he prefers tax incentives for companies that develop renewable energy sources and other measures.
"I just worry that every time we put a tax on gasoline, the middle class gets hit. Plus, it's not terribly popular. I'm being honest with you," he said.
When the topic switched to Social Security, Richardson said he is not ready to support raising Social Security taxes on high-income earners. Currently, the government collects money to pay Social Security benefits from taxes on each workers' earnings up to $97,500, but some have suggested raising or eliminating that cap.
"I would be willing to consider it. I'm not supporting it now because I believe that is -- for family businesses, for small farmers, for middle income families -- that is a tax increase," he said.
On illegal immigration, Richardson praised the reform bill that failed in Congress this year that would have provided a pathway to legal citizenship to illegal immigrants who learn English and pay fines and back taxes.
"I'm being candid. This is not a perfect solution, but it is far better than doing nothing or deporting everyone," he said. "The best thing to do when you have a tough issue is face it... you lose votes, but you should accept it and do the right thing."
Richardson was accompanied by his wife, Barbara, who was asked by a voter why her husband should be president.
"Could I think about that?" Barbara Richardson joked, then explained that her husband's approach to problems sets him apart from other candidates. She noted his experience in negotiating for the release of American hostages.
"He's always gone back to the table with a different proposal, a different approach to the problem, to achieve his goals," she said. "I think the way he looks at his opponent, in terms of respect -- even though he might not sit down and have dinner with the guy -- it's different.
"You combine that with his background in legislation, diplomacy, management as both governor and a large agency (the federal Energy Department) -- I think that separates him out from most of the other candidates. All of them," she said.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/10/20/richardson_willing_to_take_unpopular_positions?mode=PF
Siendo bilingue es muy ventajoso/Being Bilingual is Very Advantageous
The United States is behind the times. In this age of globalization, most of the rest of the world acknowleges that its helpful, even necessary to know more than one language.
In Europe, many Italians know at least 2-3 languages, same with France, Germany, Belgium.
We look to Europe so we can emulate them... we are intrigued by the French... so why does everybody get upset when a car dealership advertises in Spanish?
Sure, its just an excuse to send out a little hatred. What else could it be?
I know my fellow Americans are intelligent thoughtful people, seeing advertisements in another language won't upset them. They are happy to see that Stewart has gone to the trouble of learning a few Spanish words.
By the way, the complainers who are angry with Stewart's use of Spanish must not know that MOST Latinos in the U.S. were born here.... they can't go back to a place they don't belong.
Hey, even Beyonce Knowles is learning Spanish.
_____
IN MY OPINION
English language not endangered
Posted on Sun, Oct. 21, 2007
By LEONARD PITTS
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
La gente dice que Earl Stewart lo hizo sólo por el poderoso dólar.
(People say Earl Stewart did it only for the almighty dollar.)
El dice que tienen razón.
(He says they're right.)
What's that? The subtitles are distracting? Fine, I'll stop.
But the point here is, all Stewart wanted to do was sell Toyotas. It's something he's been doing for 33 years as the proprietor of Earl Stewart Toyota in Palm Beach County. Then he hit upon an idea he thought might expand his market: Spanish-language commercials with English subtitles. The spots run on English-language television and, though he speaks no Spanish, Stewart stars in them himself.
The subtitles, he says, were an afterthought. 'I said, `You know, I'm going to be talking to a lot of people that don't speak Spanish so, as a courtesy or to explain what I'm doing, maybe I should use English subtitles.' It was really an effort on my part, albeit a failure, to be nice to the monolingual folks.''
The ''monolingual folks'' were not feeling the love -- putting it mildly. Stewart says the commercial brought him a ''flood'' of angry, often profane e-mails and phone calls, nine out of every 10 sharply critical of his commercial. As described by Stewart, the complaints tended to be longer on emotion than on logic.
For instance, they said that by advertising in Spanish, he encouraged Spanish-speakers to avoid learning English. But he was advertising on English stations, so anyone watching presumably already spoke the language.
And people kept referencing Mexico, usually in sentences that began with, ''Why don't you go back to . . . '' But anybody who knows South Florida knows that, while it is home to many Spanish speakers, the bulk of them are not Mexican.
''I think there's a lot of fear out there,'' says Stewart. ``All of the (presidential) candidates to some extent are using the immigration thing as a lever to get elected. They're appealing to the fear Americans have, some of this 9/11 stuff. And the rhetoric has a lot of the people who are not as informed or maybe don't listen carefully, convinced that most of the Spanish people in this country are illegal immigrants or they're terrorists.''
It's a cogent analysis, but I think there's more going on here. One suspects that at bottom what set Stewart's critics off is a fear so visceral they might not even have words to express it. Put simply: Since when do we need subtitles in our own country?
To which the best answer is probably another question. Who is ''we''? What is ``our''?
The fact is that ''we'' is not what it used to be, and ''our'' reflects a nation more diverse than ever before. The Census Bureau says the Hispanic population of Palm Beach County stands at 16.7 percent, nearly two percentage points higher than the national figure. Isn't it smart business to reach out to them? Why begrudge Stewart's efforts to do so?
Granted, it's not hard to empathize with the sense of dislocation some people feel as they watch the nation changing around them. But to understand what they feel is not necessarily to share it.
In the first place, hysterical predictions to the contrary notwithstanding, it's exceedingly unlikely that English is in danger of losing its position of primacy. In the second place, people will sooner or later have to understand that while change is frightening, change is also life, especially in a nation as susceptible as this one to the forces of the free market. Which is, for my money, the moral of Stewart's story.
He says that as that story has become better known, the public response has done a 180-degree turnabout. The commercial -- and the notoriety -- have brought customers from as far away as Miami. And he's just had his best September, ever. All of which leaves Stewart with mixed emotions. He's disappointed in many of his fellow Americans.
On the other hand, business is good.
http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/277442.html
In Europe, many Italians know at least 2-3 languages, same with France, Germany, Belgium.
We look to Europe so we can emulate them... we are intrigued by the French... so why does everybody get upset when a car dealership advertises in Spanish?
Sure, its just an excuse to send out a little hatred. What else could it be?
I know my fellow Americans are intelligent thoughtful people, seeing advertisements in another language won't upset them. They are happy to see that Stewart has gone to the trouble of learning a few Spanish words.
By the way, the complainers who are angry with Stewart's use of Spanish must not know that MOST Latinos in the U.S. were born here.... they can't go back to a place they don't belong.
Hey, even Beyonce Knowles is learning Spanish.
_____
IN MY OPINION
English language not endangered
Posted on Sun, Oct. 21, 2007
By LEONARD PITTS
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
La gente dice que Earl Stewart lo hizo sólo por el poderoso dólar.
(People say Earl Stewart did it only for the almighty dollar.)
El dice que tienen razón.
(He says they're right.)
What's that? The subtitles are distracting? Fine, I'll stop.
But the point here is, all Stewart wanted to do was sell Toyotas. It's something he's been doing for 33 years as the proprietor of Earl Stewart Toyota in Palm Beach County. Then he hit upon an idea he thought might expand his market: Spanish-language commercials with English subtitles. The spots run on English-language television and, though he speaks no Spanish, Stewart stars in them himself.
The subtitles, he says, were an afterthought. 'I said, `You know, I'm going to be talking to a lot of people that don't speak Spanish so, as a courtesy or to explain what I'm doing, maybe I should use English subtitles.' It was really an effort on my part, albeit a failure, to be nice to the monolingual folks.''
The ''monolingual folks'' were not feeling the love -- putting it mildly. Stewart says the commercial brought him a ''flood'' of angry, often profane e-mails and phone calls, nine out of every 10 sharply critical of his commercial. As described by Stewart, the complaints tended to be longer on emotion than on logic.
For instance, they said that by advertising in Spanish, he encouraged Spanish-speakers to avoid learning English. But he was advertising on English stations, so anyone watching presumably already spoke the language.
And people kept referencing Mexico, usually in sentences that began with, ''Why don't you go back to . . . '' But anybody who knows South Florida knows that, while it is home to many Spanish speakers, the bulk of them are not Mexican.
''I think there's a lot of fear out there,'' says Stewart. ``All of the (presidential) candidates to some extent are using the immigration thing as a lever to get elected. They're appealing to the fear Americans have, some of this 9/11 stuff. And the rhetoric has a lot of the people who are not as informed or maybe don't listen carefully, convinced that most of the Spanish people in this country are illegal immigrants or they're terrorists.''
It's a cogent analysis, but I think there's more going on here. One suspects that at bottom what set Stewart's critics off is a fear so visceral they might not even have words to express it. Put simply: Since when do we need subtitles in our own country?
To which the best answer is probably another question. Who is ''we''? What is ``our''?
The fact is that ''we'' is not what it used to be, and ''our'' reflects a nation more diverse than ever before. The Census Bureau says the Hispanic population of Palm Beach County stands at 16.7 percent, nearly two percentage points higher than the national figure. Isn't it smart business to reach out to them? Why begrudge Stewart's efforts to do so?
Granted, it's not hard to empathize with the sense of dislocation some people feel as they watch the nation changing around them. But to understand what they feel is not necessarily to share it.
In the first place, hysterical predictions to the contrary notwithstanding, it's exceedingly unlikely that English is in danger of losing its position of primacy. In the second place, people will sooner or later have to understand that while change is frightening, change is also life, especially in a nation as susceptible as this one to the forces of the free market. Which is, for my money, the moral of Stewart's story.
He says that as that story has become better known, the public response has done a 180-degree turnabout. The commercial -- and the notoriety -- have brought customers from as far away as Miami. And he's just had his best September, ever. All of which leaves Stewart with mixed emotions. He's disappointed in many of his fellow Americans.
On the other hand, business is good.
http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/277442.html
What is Wrong With Malinche?
Rodriguez says that the Malinche story is about betrayal. Of course, many people believe this to be so. However, he must not be aware of the huge body of work written about Malinche and how U.S. Latinos see her as a heroine.
One of the books on Malinche is titled:
Feminism, Nation And Myth: La Malinche
Perhaps he should put it on his reading list.
-----
Gregory Rodriguez:
Where did Mexicans come from?
They have a choice of 'origin myths' -- one a tale of betrayal, another a story of beauty.
Los Angeles Times
October 21, 2007
You've heard the old saw: You can't get to where you're going unless you know where you've been.
It's as true for peoples and countries as it is for individuals: We all need narratives to give meaning to our lives; we all look to archetypes and symbols to explain who we are. Ethnic and national "origin myths" may be pure fable (two divines, Izanai and Izanami, giving birth to the islands of Japan; twins, born of the gods and suckled by a wolf, founding Rome) or something closer to material reality. But fact or fiction barely matters: What's important is what stories we choose and what we understand them to mean.
Here in the United States, Abraham Lincoln helped elevate the first Thanksgiving to the status of a modern national-origin myth when he set aside a federal Thanksgiving holiday in 1863. In the midst of a terrible civil war, he was trying to encourage Americans to count their blessings. But the holiday came to have broader significance. It is, as one historian, James Oliver Robertson, put it, a "ritual affirmation of what Americans believe was the Pilgrim experience, the particularly American experience of confronting, settling, adapting to, and civilizing the New World."
Of course, the "we gather together" Thanksgiving narrative glosses over other stories. Clearly, Anglo settlers didn't always have cordial relationships with Indians; for the sake of history, we need to supplement origin myths with more sober facts. Still, as Joseph Campbell once said, "myths are public dreams"; they aren't merely idealized versions of the past but contemporary calls to action and guides to the future.
But not all origin stories are constructive or inspiring. Mexicans, in particular, mythologized a tale of the violent and tragic conquest to explain their birth as a people: the story of the Spaniard Hernan Cortes and his indigenous translator and mistress, Doña Marina, a.k.a. La Malinche.
Marina was Cortes' victor's prize and, in 1522, she gave birth to Martin Cortes, one of many mestizo children born to the conquerors' mistresses and paramours. Four and a half centuries later, in 1950, the great Mexican poet Octavio Paz famously wrote that the "strange permanence of Cortes and La Malinche in the Mexican's imagination and sensibilities reveals that they are something more than historical figures: They are symbols of a secret conflict that we still have yet to solve."
Despite, or perhaps because of, the psychic power of the Cortes-Malinche story, you won't find many monuments to them in Mexico City. After Mexico gained its independence from Spain in the early 19th century, Mexican nationalists, who sought to distance themselves from their European heritage, demonized the conquerors in general and Doña Marina in particular.
At the imposing two-story stone house at 57 Higuera St. in the Coyoacan district of Mexico City, for example, there is no plaque to indicate that Marina once lived there. Though for centuries she had been described as a beautiful, noble woman who commanded respect, 19th century depictions began to condemn her for her role in the Spanish conquest. Out of these portrayals arose the peculiarly Mexican concept of malinchismo, which means the betrayal of one's own.
Paz contended that the Mexicans' fixation on -- and ultimate rejection of -- bothprogenitors in their origin story left them in a state of "orphanhood, an obscure awareness that we have been torn from the All." The history of Mexico, he wrote, "is the history of a man seeking his parentage, his origins."
This alienation resonates profoundly throughout the culture. On the one hand, Mexico proudly acknowledges its Indian ancestry; on the other, it clearly prizes whiteness as a status symbol. It endlessly questions its identity: Is it modern or ancient, Spanish or Indian? And the Cortes/Malinche story, instead of defining Mexico's origins in a constructive way, merely prolongs and exacerbates the country's ambivalence about its history as a conquered nation.
Mexican mestizaje -- racial and cultural synthesis -- may have begun in a violent conquest, but it didn't end there. Interracial love and attraction also played a role. Ultimately, racial mixture was rampant, and it combined with a rigid colonial caste system to create a society in which race was a malleable category. Mexicans developed -- in the words of Mexican American poet Gloria Anzaldua -- "a tolerance for contradictions, a tolerance for ambiguity," particularly in the realm of race and culture.
As Mexicans came north to the United States, that long history of mestizaje was also brought to bear on another cultural force, Anglo America.One scholar, Roberto Bacalski-Martinez, has described Mexican American culture in the Southwest as "incredibly ancient on the one hand, and surprisingly new on the other. Indian, Spanish, Mexican and Anglo elements have gone into its formation, and they continue to affect it. In each case, the introduction of new elements began as a clash between two peoples which eventually resulted in a newer, richer culture."
So, with this history of cultural collisions and convergences in mind, I propose that Mexicans and, particularly, Mexican Americans choose a different symbolic story to explain their identity. It's not a new story, but too few know it. It's right out of "The Conquest of New Spain," Bernal Diaz del Castillo's 16th century eyewitness account.
This story begins with Hernan Cortes arriving on the island of Cozumel in 1519. There, a friendly band of Mayans informed Cortes that some years before, two Christians had been taken captive in the neighboring land of Yucatan. The chief of Cozumel rejected the Spanish captain's request that he send a search party to locate the captured Europeans. He feared they would be killed if he did. Undeterred, Cortes dispatched his own messengers to bargain for the captives' release. The scouts took trinkets for ransom and a letter from Cortes that one man concealed in his hair.
The messengers found the two men -- Jeronimo de Aguilar and Gonzalo Guerrero, the only survivors of a 1511 shipwreck -- living in very different conditions. Aguilar was a slave desperately trying to hold on to Spanish ways. In exchange for some beads, his captors released him. He then joined in the search for his shipmate.
They found Guerrero 15 miles away, no longer a captive. He had married the daughter of a Mayan nobleman and was so thoroughly assimilated into Mayan life that he felt he no longer would be accepted by his Spanish countrymen. His face was tattooed and his ears were pierced. "What would the Spaniards say if they saw me like this?" he asked of his would-be liberators.
Guerrero's Mayan wife angrily interrupted her husband's conversation with Aguilar. She demanded to know why this "slave" had "come here to call my husband away?" Before Aguilar left, Guerrero explained to him the primary reason he could not leave. "Brother Aguilar," he said. "I am married and have three children, and they look at me as [a leader] here, and a captain in time of war." He then pointed to his children and said, "Now look at my three children, how beautiful they are." Guerrero was describing Mexico's very first mestizos.
Peoples and nations need stories not only to remind us of where we came from but also to give us a sense of our potential. Cortes and Malinche's tale of conquest and betrayal isn't the only way to unfold the plot. Gonzalo Guerrero's takes the same story line and finds "beautiful" possibilities. It speaks volumes about the ability to fuse cultures and creatively adapt to the constant reality of change.
Gregory Rodriguez, a columnist for the opinion pages, is director of the California Fellows Program at the New America Foundation and author of the just-published "Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans and Vagabonds: Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-rodriguez21oct21,0,3057400.column?coll=la-home-commentary
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Confronting Colleagues on Iraq and SCHIP
Photo of Rep. Pete Stark by Mike KepkaDemocrat Rep. Pete Stark calls Republicans "Chicken Hawks"-
California congressman shocked his colleagues with his statements on IRAQ and SCHIP.
link to video of Stark's speech: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM
Rep. Pete Stark stated on the floor of the U.S. House:
"You're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement..."
But Pelosi and others have distanced themselves, saying Stark's comments were inappropriate. Yet Stark is speaking the truth, with the current desperation of military recruiters, it seems like the U.S. is desperate to have more young people to go IRAQ. With $18,000 sign up bonuses - an 18 year old would have to be pretty mature to avoid the seduction of so much money - if they knew that college wasn't an option.
Makes me think of the kids who will be going to IRAQ after the DREAM ACT passes. If SCHIP is not important to this administration, why would undocumented young people fare any differently?
It's another story about the Emperor with no clothes... it's right in front of us - clearly in view - but no one is allowed to acknowledge this travesty.
_____
Pelosi backs away from Rep. Stark's criticism of Bush
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, October 20, 2007
(10-20) 04:00 PDT Washington --
Rep. Pete Stark may be Congress' foremost expert on health care, but on Capitol Hill the Fremont Democrat is better known for his explosive remarks that drive his critics - and sometimes his allies - crazy.
The 18-term lawmaker stirred the pot again Thursday when he attacked President Bush and congressional Republicans for backing hundreds of billions of dollars for the Iraq war, but blocking a $35 billion expansion of a children's health insurance program.
"You're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," Stark told Republicans on the floor of the House.
The remarks during the debate over Bush's veto of the children's health bill drew howls of outrage from House Republicans and conservative commentators. His words were replayed endlessly on cable news and talk radio. By Friday, even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - who praised Stark for his leadership on the children's health bill a day earlier - was distancing herself from his comments.
"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand - providing health care for America's children," Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said.
What Pelosi also meant: Stark had handed Republicans an easy way to distract the public from what Democrats view as a winning stance on the popular children's health bill.
Stark, 75, declined a request Friday for an interview.
"He doesn't believe that he is the story," said his spokesman, Yoni Cohen. "He believes the story is that 10 million children are being denied health insurance."
Stark's remarks have drawn protests in the past. On the eve of the Iraq war, he said Bush would be committing a "terrorist act" by bombing Baghdad. He provoked a committee showdown in 2003 by calling a GOP member a "little fruitcake."
A closer look at Stark's comments Thursday - and how they were spun by Republicans - shows how his tart-tongued statement became headline news.
He began: "First of all, I'm just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? You are going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war?
"You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
He went back to the same point moments later: "But President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States and in Congress."
On the left, Stark's comments drew rave reviews. They were posted on the blog DailyKos, stirring applause from the site's anti-war, anti-Bush readers: "Wow, this guy kicks ass," wrote one blogger.
But Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who followed Stark on the floor, said: "It is despicable to have a member of this Congress accuse this president, any president, of willfully blowing the heads, quote, blowing the heads off our young men and women over in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The GOP spin machine went into hyperdrive. House Republican Leader John Boehner's press aides alerted reporters to Stark's comments. The National Republican Campaign Committee issued a press release, titled: "Democrat Disgrace: Pete Stark Drags SCHIP Political Circus to All-Time Low."
But Stark continued to taunt GOP members - clearly seeking to draw a reaction.
"What are you going to do for that 200 or 300 billion bucks, folks, that you're spending to kill these kids when they grow up? You can't answer that, can you?" he said.
Republicans tried unsuccessfully to have his words stricken from the official record.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said the remarks "were hateful and wrong, and should be labeled as such by the House Democrat leadership."
While Pelosi, in her statement Friday, said Stark had gone too far, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, provided him a measured defense.
"The Republicans are desperate to change the subject from the real issue at hand, which is an occupation that has cost us almost a half a trillion dollars, and there's no end in sight," she said. "That's the real issue here, and the Republicans, and the president, are desperate to avoid it."
article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/20/MNH9ST598.DTL&tsp=1
photo: http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/18/ba_stark1800048_mk.jpg
-----
The Caucus
October 19, 2007, 1:47 pm
Stark’s Remarks Set Off G.O.P. Lawmakers
New York Times
By David M. Herszenhorn
“Yesterday’s debate in the House to override the President’s veto of bipartisan legislation to cover 10 million children was heated on both sides,” she said. “While Members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand — providing health care for America’s children.”
Mr. Stark expressed neither shame nor remorse. Instead, he fired back a statement calling on Mr. Boehner and other Republicans to retract their opposition to the expansion of the state children’s health insurance program. “Leader Boehner and his Republican colleagues should apologize for their votes,” he said.
And he included another jab at President Bush. “I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best,” he said. “But I respect neither the commander-in-chief who keeps them in harms way nor the chicken-hawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care.”
Will Mel Martinez Support the DREAM ACT Now That He Has Resigned as GOP Chairman?
Senator Mel Martinez resigned as GOP Chairman - does this mean he will now support the DREAM ACT? Interesting that this happens after a few days the first ever "Latino Youth Leadership Summit" and intense lobbying for the DREAM ACT by young Latinos in Washington. Of course his ratings are down under 50%. He says that his real obligation is to his constituency, which is true. I wonder if he thought any about Juan Sebastian Gomez when he first decided to go against the DREAM ACT- maybe he had an attack of conscience.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
_____
Posted on Sat, Oct. 20, 2007
Martinez resigns as Republican Party chief
Miami Herald
By LESLEY CLARK
Just 10 months into the job and before a Republican presidential nominee has emerged, Sen. Mel Martinez, national party chairman, said he's calling it quits and will focus on his job as a Florida senator.
The abrupt announcement came after reports suggested Martinez would leave the post at the Republican National Committee as soon as next spring, when a GOP nominee was chosen.
But Martinez said in a conference call Friday that he had achieved his goals -- among them, putting the party on a good financial footing.
''It became increasingly apparent things were in sufficiently good shape, and it was probably a good moment to get back to my main job, my real obligation and passion,'' Martinez said.
Martinez, who kept a low profile as a GOP leader, was a reluctant party boss from the start. President Bush tapped the Cuban-born senator to be the public face of the party just a week after the GOP lost control of Congress in November amid declining support from Hispanics.
His appointment was greeted with dismay by conservatives in the party who opposed his embrace of the immigration package pushed by President Bush.
Democrats suggested he was fleeing a ''sinking Republican ship'' to repair his own poll numbers, which are under 50 percent.
''For too long, Martinez's loyalty to President Bush has trumped his responsibilities as Florida's junior senator,'' Florida Democratic Party spokesman Alejandro Miyar said.
Martinez acknowledged the balance had been difficult at times. Bush said in a statement that Martinez had ``served his party with the same distinction he serves his country.
''When Mel accepted the position as general chairman of the Republican National Committee, his goal was to ensure our party had the structure and resources in place for all Republican candidates in the 2008 elections to be successful,'' Bush said. ``He has more than fulfilled that mission.''
for link to article click title to this post
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
_____
Posted on Sat, Oct. 20, 2007
Martinez resigns as Republican Party chief
Miami Herald
By LESLEY CLARK
Just 10 months into the job and before a Republican presidential nominee has emerged, Sen. Mel Martinez, national party chairman, said he's calling it quits and will focus on his job as a Florida senator.
The abrupt announcement came after reports suggested Martinez would leave the post at the Republican National Committee as soon as next spring, when a GOP nominee was chosen.
But Martinez said in a conference call Friday that he had achieved his goals -- among them, putting the party on a good financial footing.
''It became increasingly apparent things were in sufficiently good shape, and it was probably a good moment to get back to my main job, my real obligation and passion,'' Martinez said.
Martinez, who kept a low profile as a GOP leader, was a reluctant party boss from the start. President Bush tapped the Cuban-born senator to be the public face of the party just a week after the GOP lost control of Congress in November amid declining support from Hispanics.
His appointment was greeted with dismay by conservatives in the party who opposed his embrace of the immigration package pushed by President Bush.
Democrats suggested he was fleeing a ''sinking Republican ship'' to repair his own poll numbers, which are under 50 percent.
''For too long, Martinez's loyalty to President Bush has trumped his responsibilities as Florida's junior senator,'' Florida Democratic Party spokesman Alejandro Miyar said.
Martinez acknowledged the balance had been difficult at times. Bush said in a statement that Martinez had ``served his party with the same distinction he serves his country.
''When Mel accepted the position as general chairman of the Republican National Committee, his goal was to ensure our party had the structure and resources in place for all Republican candidates in the 2008 elections to be successful,'' Bush said. ``He has more than fulfilled that mission.''
for link to article click title to this post
Friday, October 19, 2007
DREAM ACT Student - Tam Tran's family arrested by ICE
From Tam Tran's video "Lost and Found"Tam Tran testified before the House Immigration Subcommittee in May 2007. I was there - she was quite amazing. She put together a short video to show the committee. The students who testified thought they were "safe." But apparently Tam Tran was not. She was not arrested, but her parents and brother were taken into custody by ICE. They were released the following day under electronic monitoring... but ICE wants to deport them. There is no country that will accept them, so ICE is trying to figure out what to do with the family.
This is a very bad omen for the DREAM ACT. If it passes, DREAM ACT students need to "register" with ICE. How do they know their parents won't be targeted for deportation? How about any other one that testifies? Will their parents also be detained?
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren says she'll be having hearings later on this year on this issue.
Tam Tran by the way, graduated cum laude from UCLA and is now a graduate student there.
-----
Vietnamese refugee family in limbo
Relatives of woman who testified on immigration are to be deported but have nowhere to go. The case raises questions of intimidation.
By Teresa Watanabe, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 19, 2007
Government actions in a deportation case involving a Vietnamese refugee family in Santa Ana drew fire Thursday as political and community leaders accused immigration agents of intimidation.
Agents with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency last week arrested the parents and brother of Tam Tran, a 24-year-old UCLA graduate who testified before Congress about the plight of undocumented immigrant students in May. The family, detained overnight and then released under electronic monitoring, had received final deportation orders in 2001 after losing an appeal to win political asylum.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), who heads the House immigration subcommittee that called Tran as a witness, said she was concerned that the arrest would intimidate other activists into silence.
"What message does that give future witnesses -- that if you give testimony to Congress, your family is arrested?" Lofgren said in an interview Thursday. "I'm very concerned. This is intimidation."
Lofgren said she planned to call a public hearing this year to scrutinize the immigration agency's actions in this and other cases.
The Asian Pacific American Legal Center in Los Angeles also criticized the arrest.
"Many in our community are scared to come out and lend their voices to the immigration debate because of actions like these," said Daniel Huang, the center's policy advocate. "The suspicion is that the administration is trying to silence the powerful advocacy going on on behalf of undocumented immigrants."
Virginia Kice, the immigration agency's spokeswoman, said agents did not know about Tran's congressional testimony when they arrested her family members in an early morning raid Oct. 11. Kice said the arrest was part of the agency's stepped-up efforts to find and deport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants with final orders of deportation -- efforts that have snared 61,000 people in four years.
"This had nothing to do with any congressional testimony," Kice said. "The bottom line is that at present these family members all have final orders of deportation, and our responsibility is to endeavor to carry out those orders."
At the moment, however, no country is willing to take the Tran family back -- placing it in a legal netherworld.
Like so many other boat people, Tam Tran's parents left Vietnam in 1980, fleeing war and political persecution triggered by the family's anti-Communist activities, Tam Tran said. They were picked up by a German ship and taken to Germany, where they tried to apply for resettlement in the United States but could not locate a sponsoring relative, she said.
The family stayed for six years in Germany, where Tran and her brother, Thien, were born. In 1989, they came to the United States and applied for political asylum.
As their case worked its way through the system, the Tran family was able to obtain legal work permits and painstakingly built a life in the U.S. Tran's mother, Loc Pham, baby-sat by day and worked at a garment factory by night, eventually earning her manicurist license. Her father, Tuan Tran, worked as a security guard and now struggles as a writer.
Tran graduated cum laude in American literature from UCLA and is working at a Los Angeles nonprofit organization to earn money to pursue a doctoral degree. Her brother works as an auto mechanic.
The family bought a mobile home, pays taxes and has no criminal record, Tran said. They report every year to U.S. immigration officials to renew their work permits.
But the Trans' dreams were crushed in 2001 when the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected their asylum claim. The board found that Tuan Tran faced political persecution in Vietnam and could not be returned there -- among other things, his father was an anti-Communist journalist who was imprisoned and eventually died in captivity in Vietnam. But the board ruled that the family should be deported to Germany, where they had safe haven until they voluntarily decided to leave.
Germany, however, has refused to accept the family. Because the Trans left Germany without official permission and have been gone for more than six months, their residency permit has expired and will not be reissued, according to Lars Leymann, spokesman for the German Consulate in Los Angeles.
"They therefore have no legal claim to go back to Germany," Leymann said. "It's the law. We see no reason to change our position on that."
Kice, of the immigration agency, said U.S. officials would continue to seek travel documents from Germany to send the Tran family back. Another option, she said, was to see whether the political climate had changed enough in Vietnam to allow the family to return there without fear of persecution.
Sending them back, however, could be difficult because the U.S. government still does not have a repatriation agreement with Vietnam.
Another alternative would be to find a third party to accept the family, Kice said.
Lofgren said that if Germany declines to change its position and accept the family, the Trans' asylum case could be reopened to seek permanent residency in the U.S.
"These people have been found to be refugees," said the Tran family attorney, Dan Brown of the Los Angeles-based Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP law firm. "They're no danger to anyone."
Tam Tran, meanwhile, said she just wants to get past the uncertainty and angst and be able to make the United States her permanent home.
"At the end of the process, we have nowhere to go," she said. "We're in a black hole."
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
for link to article click title of this post
Report on the DREAM ACT 10-19-2007
Roberto Gonzalez has produced a very thorough and succinct report on the DREAM ACT. I urge everyone to read it.
_____
Wasted Talent and Broken Dreams:
The Lost Potential of Undocumented Students
Immigration Policy in Focus
by Roberto G. Gonzales*
The complete report, formatted with graphics, is available as a PDF file (for link click title to this post)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current political debate over undocumented immigrants in the United States has largely ignored the plight of undocumented children. Yet children account for 1.8 million, or 15 percent, of the undocumented immigrants now living in this country. These children have, for the most part, grown up in the United States and received much of their primary and secondary educations here. But without a means to legalize their status, they are seldom able to go on to college and cannot work legally in this country. Moreover, at any time, they can be deported to countries they barely know.
Among the findings of this report:
About 65,000 undocumented children who have lived in the United States for five years or longer graduate from high school each year. Although they can legally attend most colleges, they are not eligible for most forms of financial aid.
Because of the barriers to their continued education and their exclusion from the legal workforce, only between 5 and 10 percent of undocumented high-school graduates go to college.
Given the opportunity to receive additional education and move into better paying jobs, undocumented students would pay more in taxes and have more money to spend and invest in the U.S. economy.
The ten states which, since 2001, have passed laws allowing undocumented students who graduate from in-state high schools to qualify for in-state college tuition have not experienced a large influx of new immigrant students that "displaces" native-born students or added financial burdens on their educational systems. In fact, these measures tend to increase school revenues by bringing in tuition from students who otherwise would not be in college.
The bipartisan Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, first introduced in Congress in 2001, would provide a solution to the current dilemma by allowing undocumented students to apply for legal permanent resident status and to qualify for in-state tuition at public universities.
The DREAM Act would provide 360,000 undocumented high-school graduates with a legal means to work, and could provide incentives for another 715,000 youngsters between the ages of 5 and 17 to finish high school and pursue post-secondary education...
for web page: http://www.ailf.org/ipc/infocus/ipc_infocus_07dream.shtml
for link to complete PDF report click title of this post
previously posted on Immigration Prof Blog
_____
Wasted Talent and Broken Dreams:
The Lost Potential of Undocumented Students
Immigration Policy in Focus
by Roberto G. Gonzales*
The complete report, formatted with graphics, is available as a PDF file (for link click title to this post)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current political debate over undocumented immigrants in the United States has largely ignored the plight of undocumented children. Yet children account for 1.8 million, or 15 percent, of the undocumented immigrants now living in this country. These children have, for the most part, grown up in the United States and received much of their primary and secondary educations here. But without a means to legalize their status, they are seldom able to go on to college and cannot work legally in this country. Moreover, at any time, they can be deported to countries they barely know.
Among the findings of this report:
About 65,000 undocumented children who have lived in the United States for five years or longer graduate from high school each year. Although they can legally attend most colleges, they are not eligible for most forms of financial aid.
Because of the barriers to their continued education and their exclusion from the legal workforce, only between 5 and 10 percent of undocumented high-school graduates go to college.
Given the opportunity to receive additional education and move into better paying jobs, undocumented students would pay more in taxes and have more money to spend and invest in the U.S. economy.
The ten states which, since 2001, have passed laws allowing undocumented students who graduate from in-state high schools to qualify for in-state college tuition have not experienced a large influx of new immigrant students that "displaces" native-born students or added financial burdens on their educational systems. In fact, these measures tend to increase school revenues by bringing in tuition from students who otherwise would not be in college.
The bipartisan Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, first introduced in Congress in 2001, would provide a solution to the current dilemma by allowing undocumented students to apply for legal permanent resident status and to qualify for in-state tuition at public universities.
The DREAM Act would provide 360,000 undocumented high-school graduates with a legal means to work, and could provide incentives for another 715,000 youngsters between the ages of 5 and 17 to finish high school and pursue post-secondary education...
for web page: http://www.ailf.org/ipc/infocus/ipc_infocus_07dream.shtml
for link to complete PDF report click title of this post
previously posted on Immigration Prof Blog
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Immigration Policy: More Complicated Than We Think
Yes, Immigration is extremely complex. It's not about doing something illegal unless you are smuggling people across the border. But if you are one of those who is crossing, you are not a criminal, because entering the U.S. without a immigration visa is a civil offense (big difference).
People in the U.S. are having intense and rabid reactions to this issue. They want undocumented people to leave the country. They say they don't mind paying more for lettuce.
But the truth is, few people have all the information on how integral undocumented labor is to the American economy. The U.S. sends out cowboy ICE officers to terrify immigrant communities while at the same time having a society of workers and companies that needs immigrants - and actually thrives on their labor.
The most insidious aspect of all this is the underlying hatred for Latinos in general - it doesn't matter if they were here before the Mayflower... People keep denying this, but how come undocumented Irish immigrants don't get blasted by the Minute Men.
I look forward to Shelton's Part II on immigration.
-----
October 08, 2007
Immigration policy reform, part 1: A world of confusion
The Sommerville News
By William C. Shelton
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)
Few, if any, topics evoke as much heated commentary on the Somerville News Web site as that of illegal immigration. Regardless of which “side” of the issue one comes down on, most Americans, and most Somervillians, have a sense that the system is broken. Most intuitively understand what Confucius observed 2,500 years ago: rulers who pass laws that they cannot or will not enforce undermine their own authority and weaken the society’s moral fiber.
We like to say that we are a nation of immigrants. True enough. But I don’t think that we want to be a nation of fugitives, hiding in the shadows, feeding a black-market economy, and estranged from full participation in the community. I think most people understand that we can’t simply throw open our borders to all comers, just as they feel that continual integration of new peoples, their culture, ideas, and innovations, has kept our society vibrant.
Between these two broad points lies an enormous territory filled with emotional appeals, misinformation, and honest confusion. Those who have easy and passionate answers amaze me with their ability to either sort through, or more likely, ignore, enormous complexities. I haven’t attempted to write about immigration because I haven’t felt smart enough to say something worth listening to. But, just as I derive simple satisfaction from untangling a badly snarled ball of twine, I’ve been trying to work through my own confusion.
Part of what makes this challenging is that I see at least three levels of confusion. The political coalitions around this issue are disorienting, their arguments are provocative and often hypocritical, and the issue’s underlying substance is complex.
On one side, I see diversity-for-diversity’s sake liberals allied with let’s-keep-wages-low Republicans. On another side, I see damnation-to-anyone-who’s-getting-away-with-anything cultural conservatives allied with don’t-give-away-my-job poor blacks. And then there are unions who have been back and forth on the issue.
To be fair, for almost a century, unions were consistent. Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor founder and an immigrant himself, said in 1892, “We realized that immigration is, in its fundamental aspects, a labor problem.”
Right up through passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, most unions passionately advocated for reduced immigration and strict enforcement. But Congress dropped strict enforcement provisions from its final version of the 1986 law. Critics who say that it failed to stop or even slow the flow of illegal immigrants are simply stating historical fact.
In response, some unions decided that if there were to be no stopping of illegal immigrants, they should organize them. This has produced mixed results. An illustrative example was the much-publicized drive by Service Employees International Union to organize Los Angeles janitors. The organizing campaign was a success, but the resulting contracts specified wages substantially below those of the 1970s. In those days, LA’s janitors were highly unionized and mostly black. The large influx of illegal immigrants in that decade undermined their bargaining power.
Beyond the vertigo-inducing coalitions around the immigration question, inflammatory charges that they hurl distort and distract from the complex underlying reality. The charge that someone is a racist simply because they believe that laws should be enforced, should discredit anyone making it.
And evoking emotion by holding up vile crimes by immigrants, such as those in Newark and in Foss Park, obscures the hard evidence that illegal immigrants are disproportionately responsible for much less personal and property crimes than are American citizens. They come here to work, not to loot and shoot, and they can’t work if they wind up in the criminal justice system.
The horror of the cultural right toward undocumented Latinos is, to me, another amusing example of its confusion of symbol for reality. Latino immigrants are more family oriented, get fewer divorces, and regularly attend church more often than U.S. citizens. They are much less willing to abort pregnancies. And immigrant and citizen Latinos, together, enter the U.S. military proportionately more than any other ethnic group.
If one can penetrate the confusing politics and loopy hyperbole of the immigration question, the underlying reality is equally confusing in terms of understanding what would be best for the nation as a whole, as opposed to specific interest groups. I’ll share my efforts to unsnarl this for myself in my next column.
And in our own lives and that of our nation, we must ultimately make choices. No matter how confusing, we have to take our best guess, based on all that we know, and then pay attention to the results. I’ll tell you what my best guesses are.
Posted at 07:00 AM in Commentary by Bill Shelton
for link to article click title of this post
People in the U.S. are having intense and rabid reactions to this issue. They want undocumented people to leave the country. They say they don't mind paying more for lettuce.
But the truth is, few people have all the information on how integral undocumented labor is to the American economy. The U.S. sends out cowboy ICE officers to terrify immigrant communities while at the same time having a society of workers and companies that needs immigrants - and actually thrives on their labor.
The most insidious aspect of all this is the underlying hatred for Latinos in general - it doesn't matter if they were here before the Mayflower... People keep denying this, but how come undocumented Irish immigrants don't get blasted by the Minute Men.
I look forward to Shelton's Part II on immigration.
-----
October 08, 2007
Immigration policy reform, part 1: A world of confusion
The Sommerville News
By William C. Shelton
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)
Few, if any, topics evoke as much heated commentary on the Somerville News Web site as that of illegal immigration. Regardless of which “side” of the issue one comes down on, most Americans, and most Somervillians, have a sense that the system is broken. Most intuitively understand what Confucius observed 2,500 years ago: rulers who pass laws that they cannot or will not enforce undermine their own authority and weaken the society’s moral fiber.
We like to say that we are a nation of immigrants. True enough. But I don’t think that we want to be a nation of fugitives, hiding in the shadows, feeding a black-market economy, and estranged from full participation in the community. I think most people understand that we can’t simply throw open our borders to all comers, just as they feel that continual integration of new peoples, their culture, ideas, and innovations, has kept our society vibrant.
Between these two broad points lies an enormous territory filled with emotional appeals, misinformation, and honest confusion. Those who have easy and passionate answers amaze me with their ability to either sort through, or more likely, ignore, enormous complexities. I haven’t attempted to write about immigration because I haven’t felt smart enough to say something worth listening to. But, just as I derive simple satisfaction from untangling a badly snarled ball of twine, I’ve been trying to work through my own confusion.
Part of what makes this challenging is that I see at least three levels of confusion. The political coalitions around this issue are disorienting, their arguments are provocative and often hypocritical, and the issue’s underlying substance is complex.
On one side, I see diversity-for-diversity’s sake liberals allied with let’s-keep-wages-low Republicans. On another side, I see damnation-to-anyone-who’s-getting-away-with-anything cultural conservatives allied with don’t-give-away-my-job poor blacks. And then there are unions who have been back and forth on the issue.
To be fair, for almost a century, unions were consistent. Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor founder and an immigrant himself, said in 1892, “We realized that immigration is, in its fundamental aspects, a labor problem.”
Right up through passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, most unions passionately advocated for reduced immigration and strict enforcement. But Congress dropped strict enforcement provisions from its final version of the 1986 law. Critics who say that it failed to stop or even slow the flow of illegal immigrants are simply stating historical fact.
In response, some unions decided that if there were to be no stopping of illegal immigrants, they should organize them. This has produced mixed results. An illustrative example was the much-publicized drive by Service Employees International Union to organize Los Angeles janitors. The organizing campaign was a success, but the resulting contracts specified wages substantially below those of the 1970s. In those days, LA’s janitors were highly unionized and mostly black. The large influx of illegal immigrants in that decade undermined their bargaining power.
Beyond the vertigo-inducing coalitions around the immigration question, inflammatory charges that they hurl distort and distract from the complex underlying reality. The charge that someone is a racist simply because they believe that laws should be enforced, should discredit anyone making it.
And evoking emotion by holding up vile crimes by immigrants, such as those in Newark and in Foss Park, obscures the hard evidence that illegal immigrants are disproportionately responsible for much less personal and property crimes than are American citizens. They come here to work, not to loot and shoot, and they can’t work if they wind up in the criminal justice system.
The horror of the cultural right toward undocumented Latinos is, to me, another amusing example of its confusion of symbol for reality. Latino immigrants are more family oriented, get fewer divorces, and regularly attend church more often than U.S. citizens. They are much less willing to abort pregnancies. And immigrant and citizen Latinos, together, enter the U.S. military proportionately more than any other ethnic group.
If one can penetrate the confusing politics and loopy hyperbole of the immigration question, the underlying reality is equally confusing in terms of understanding what would be best for the nation as a whole, as opposed to specific interest groups. I’ll share my efforts to unsnarl this for myself in my next column.
And in our own lives and that of our nation, we must ultimately make choices. No matter how confusing, we have to take our best guess, based on all that we know, and then pay attention to the results. I’ll tell you what my best guesses are.
Posted at 07:00 AM in Commentary by Bill Shelton
for link to article click title of this post
How About DREAM ACT Engineering Students?
This article on how the federal government should promote "free flow of scientific knowledge" reminds me of the kids who went to Toronto for a robotics competition - won and then were detained when crossing back into the United States. Of course the U.S. is beginning to lag behind in the sciences.
How perverse is it to have the students right here in the U.S., educated in U.S. colleges and universities - while not being able to use their talents while helping the U.S. with its technology gap?
-----
Experts Urge Exchange of Scientific Talent
By REUTERS
Published: October 19, 2007
New York Times
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Reuters) — The federal government should create a commission to promote the free flow of scientific knowledge and researchers from other countries while balancing the threat from enemies, an expert panel said Thursday.
The panel, appointed by the National Research Council, which provides advice to American policymakers, said colleges and research institutions must continue to bring in foreign science and engineering students. “The global scientific enterprise thrives on the movement of students and scholars across borders and among institutions,” it said in a report.
“For more than 50 years,” the report says, “U.S. research universities, the envy of the world, have welcomed and fostered the talents of both foreign-born and U.S. students in the service of national and economic security.”
With fewer American students choosing careers in science and engineering, the American research and development effort cannot be sustained without a significant and steady infusion of foreign participants, the committee said.
But the panel said safeguards are needed to ensure that important research does not fall into the wrong hands. It recommended creating a standing government commission “to address ongoing shared concerns of the security and academic research communities,” including export and visa policies and participation of foreigners in research.
The commission should be led by the president’s national security adviser and the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and include representatives from academic research institutions and national security agencies, the panel recommended.
Forming this commission, the panel said, should allow the government to strike a balance between science and security.
Jacques Gansler of the University of Maryland, a former Pentagon official who is co-chairman of the committee, said research institutions have taken steps since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to address security concerns.
“However, both the security and scientific communities agree that losing our leading edge in science and technology is one of the greatest threats to national security,” Dr. Gansler said in a statement. “Unnecessary or ill-conceived restrictions could jeopardize the scientific and technical progress that our nation depends upon.
for link to article click the title of this post
How perverse is it to have the students right here in the U.S., educated in U.S. colleges and universities - while not being able to use their talents while helping the U.S. with its technology gap?
-----
Experts Urge Exchange of Scientific Talent
By REUTERS
Published: October 19, 2007
New York Times
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Reuters) — The federal government should create a commission to promote the free flow of scientific knowledge and researchers from other countries while balancing the threat from enemies, an expert panel said Thursday.
The panel, appointed by the National Research Council, which provides advice to American policymakers, said colleges and research institutions must continue to bring in foreign science and engineering students. “The global scientific enterprise thrives on the movement of students and scholars across borders and among institutions,” it said in a report.
“For more than 50 years,” the report says, “U.S. research universities, the envy of the world, have welcomed and fostered the talents of both foreign-born and U.S. students in the service of national and economic security.”
With fewer American students choosing careers in science and engineering, the American research and development effort cannot be sustained without a significant and steady infusion of foreign participants, the committee said.
But the panel said safeguards are needed to ensure that important research does not fall into the wrong hands. It recommended creating a standing government commission “to address ongoing shared concerns of the security and academic research communities,” including export and visa policies and participation of foreigners in research.
The commission should be led by the president’s national security adviser and the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and include representatives from academic research institutions and national security agencies, the panel recommended.
Forming this commission, the panel said, should allow the government to strike a balance between science and security.
Jacques Gansler of the University of Maryland, a former Pentagon official who is co-chairman of the committee, said research institutions have taken steps since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to address security concerns.
“However, both the security and scientific communities agree that losing our leading edge in science and technology is one of the greatest threats to national security,” Dr. Gansler said in a statement. “Unnecessary or ill-conceived restrictions could jeopardize the scientific and technical progress that our nation depends upon.
for link to article click the title of this post
Was the GOP Playing with the Votes in Mass.?
Niki Tsongas won a Congressional Seat in a special election in Massachusetts. Tsongas supports the DREAM ACT. Her opponent who still had a strong showing stated that her victory margin was so low because she supported the DREAM ACT.
The author of the essay below says this should be a warning to both parties.
Is he in agreement that Tsongas should not support the DREAM ACT? Sounds like that. His comment at the end of the article maker me wonder:
"But Tsongas's victory was harder than it should have been. Any Democrat complacent about 2008 should go over the returns from Paul Tsongas's old district."
Is he implying that that the Republicans almost stole the election? After all, they are known for doing that.
Either way, congradulations to Niki Tsongas and thanks for supporting the DREAM ACT and shame on Jim Ogonowski for being so narrow-minded about education.
_____
Test Run For 2008
In a Special Election, Lessons for Both Parties
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Friday, October 19, 2007; Page A21
The narrow victory of Democrat Niki Tsongas in a special congressional election in Massachusetts this week offers warnings to both Republicans and Democrats for 2008.
Her victory on Tuesday speaks to the continuing unpopularity of President Bush and the war in Iraq. But her less than robust margin over Republican Jim Ogonowski -- she won 51 percent to his 45 percent, with minor-party candidates taking the rest -- tells Democrats they cannot assume that Bush's low standing will turn the road to next year's elections into easy street. Individual candidates can still trump party affiliation, and sleeper issues can catch politicians by surprise.
In Massachusetts's 5th Congressional District -- a collection of mill towns and affluent and blue-collar suburbs north of Boston -- the surprise issue was illegal immigration. Ogonowski made it the centerpiece of an anti-Washington campaign. An Ogonowski news release, for example, accused Tsongas of being "committed to giving cheap college to illegals at taxpayer expense."
Tsongas, a community college dean, favored granting in-state tuition rates to the children of undocumented immigrants. In Ogonowski's translation of that, Tsongas believed that "Massachusetts taxpayers should foot the bill for the college tuition of the children of illegals."
Republicans think the immigration issue helped Ogonowski, so the country may be in for a lot more of this sort of thing next year. "Everywhere we went, people wanted to talk about immigration," said Matt Wylie, Ogonowski's general consultant. "It was just coming up over and over again..."
for complete essay click title of this post
The author of the essay below says this should be a warning to both parties.
Is he in agreement that Tsongas should not support the DREAM ACT? Sounds like that. His comment at the end of the article maker me wonder:
"But Tsongas's victory was harder than it should have been. Any Democrat complacent about 2008 should go over the returns from Paul Tsongas's old district."
Is he implying that that the Republicans almost stole the election? After all, they are known for doing that.
Either way, congradulations to Niki Tsongas and thanks for supporting the DREAM ACT and shame on Jim Ogonowski for being so narrow-minded about education.
_____
Test Run For 2008
In a Special Election, Lessons for Both Parties
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Friday, October 19, 2007; Page A21
The narrow victory of Democrat Niki Tsongas in a special congressional election in Massachusetts this week offers warnings to both Republicans and Democrats for 2008.
Her victory on Tuesday speaks to the continuing unpopularity of President Bush and the war in Iraq. But her less than robust margin over Republican Jim Ogonowski -- she won 51 percent to his 45 percent, with minor-party candidates taking the rest -- tells Democrats they cannot assume that Bush's low standing will turn the road to next year's elections into easy street. Individual candidates can still trump party affiliation, and sleeper issues can catch politicians by surprise.
In Massachusetts's 5th Congressional District -- a collection of mill towns and affluent and blue-collar suburbs north of Boston -- the surprise issue was illegal immigration. Ogonowski made it the centerpiece of an anti-Washington campaign. An Ogonowski news release, for example, accused Tsongas of being "committed to giving cheap college to illegals at taxpayer expense."
Tsongas, a community college dean, favored granting in-state tuition rates to the children of undocumented immigrants. In Ogonowski's translation of that, Tsongas believed that "Massachusetts taxpayers should foot the bill for the college tuition of the children of illegals."
Republicans think the immigration issue helped Ogonowski, so the country may be in for a lot more of this sort of thing next year. "Everywhere we went, people wanted to talk about immigration," said Matt Wylie, Ogonowski's general consultant. "It was just coming up over and over again..."
for complete essay click title of this post
He Says There is No One to Hire
Nobel Prize winner is ' recruiting minorities at the lab and, he tells me, has just accepted a black girl “but,” he comments, “there’s no one to recruit.”'
If you push this idea a little further, you arrive at the idea that in general, people of color "are just not there to recruit."
He also says that people of African descent are less intelligent than whites. His comments have caused a furor in the U.K. and one of his major talks has been cancelled.
You may be asking, why does she bring this up ? - he is talking about blacks? Because he is talking about dark skinned people from Third World countries. The U.S. is currently in contortions over immigration of "dark skinned people from Third World countries."
What would he think of those DREAM ACT students who have 4.0's? Just a genetic fluke?
_____
The Sunday Times
October 14, 2007
The elementary DNA of Dr Watson
by Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe
History will remember James Watson for the discovery of the double helix. But his pronouncements are often highly controversial. His former protegee examines the complex legacy of a Nobel laureat
"...Back in 1990, the journal Science commented: “To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script.” When, in 2000, he left an audience reeling by suggesting a link between skin colour and sex drive – hypothesising that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos – some journalists suggested he had “opened a transatlantic rift”. American scientists accused him of “trading on past successes to promote opinions that have little scientific basis”. British academics countered that subjects should not be off limits because they are politically incorrect. Susan Greenfield, director of the Royal Institution, said that “nothing should stop you ascertaining the scientific truth; science must be free of concerns about gender and race”.
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
When asked how long it might take for the key genes in affecting differences in human intelligence to be found, his “back-of-the-envelope answer” is 15 years. However, he wonders if even 10 years will pass. In his mission to make children more DNA-literate, the geneticist explains that he has opened a DNA learning centre on the borders of Harlem in New York. He is also recruiting minorities at the lab and, he tells me, has just accepted a black girl “but,” he comments, “there’s no one to recruit...”
for link to original article click title to this post
thanks to Dr. Frank Hall for passing on this information
If you push this idea a little further, you arrive at the idea that in general, people of color "are just not there to recruit."
He also says that people of African descent are less intelligent than whites. His comments have caused a furor in the U.K. and one of his major talks has been cancelled.
You may be asking, why does she bring this up ? - he is talking about blacks? Because he is talking about dark skinned people from Third World countries. The U.S. is currently in contortions over immigration of "dark skinned people from Third World countries."
What would he think of those DREAM ACT students who have 4.0's? Just a genetic fluke?
_____
The Sunday Times
October 14, 2007
The elementary DNA of Dr Watson
by Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe
History will remember James Watson for the discovery of the double helix. But his pronouncements are often highly controversial. His former protegee examines the complex legacy of a Nobel laureat
"...Back in 1990, the journal Science commented: “To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script.” When, in 2000, he left an audience reeling by suggesting a link between skin colour and sex drive – hypothesising that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos – some journalists suggested he had “opened a transatlantic rift”. American scientists accused him of “trading on past successes to promote opinions that have little scientific basis”. British academics countered that subjects should not be off limits because they are politically incorrect. Susan Greenfield, director of the Royal Institution, said that “nothing should stop you ascertaining the scientific truth; science must be free of concerns about gender and race”.
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
When asked how long it might take for the key genes in affecting differences in human intelligence to be found, his “back-of-the-envelope answer” is 15 years. However, he wonders if even 10 years will pass. In his mission to make children more DNA-literate, the geneticist explains that he has opened a DNA learning centre on the borders of Harlem in New York. He is also recruiting minorities at the lab and, he tells me, has just accepted a black girl “but,” he comments, “there’s no one to recruit...”
for link to original article click title to this post
thanks to Dr. Frank Hall for passing on this information
Reality Instead of Myth: The Latino Voting Bloc
In the LA Times' effort to look objective, they published an essay by Steven Malange that states there really isn't a Latino voting bloc - and that Latinos will find in time that enforcement actually helps their quality of life. Steven Malange is wrong. He underestimates the new generation of Latinos who are attending college and are organizing as I write this. Voter registration is their motto.
Perhaps the essay was published because just yesterday Democratic Senators hosted the first ever -
Senate Democratic Latino Youth Summit
Perhaps someone wants to negate that these 150 "cream of the crop" young people could be the leaders in a driving force to represent the Latino vote in upcoming elections. Their influence will spread beyond their ethnic group because as they live their lives as most Americans do, they have non-Latino friends and colleagues, or they may have non-Latino spouses (there is a 50% intermarriage rate with anglos), which would mean they have non-Latino in-laws.
Influence spreads, especially when there is enthusiasm. Those 150 will get the Latino vote going --of course our current anti-immigration moves will help it along.
-----
Immigration Prof Blog
Latino Youth Summit
Washington, D.C. – Senate Democrats today highlighted the importance of civic engagement among young Hispanics as part of the First Senate Democratic Latino Youth Summit. The event gave close to 150 young Latinos from across the country the opportunity to interact with senators and discuss issues of importance, such as: immigration, civil rights, and education. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Robert Menéndez (D-NJ), addressed the young Hispanic leaders and commended their involvement and impact on public policy and society.
-----
The myth of the Latino voting bloc
The GOP has less to fear from a backlash than many claim.
Los Angeles Times
By Steven Malanga
October 18, 2007
When President Bush's immigration reform bill collapsed this summer, largely because of objections from his own party, open-borders advocates warned that the GOP would pay a harsh political price for killing the bill. Latino support had been crucial in electing Bush, the argument went, and Latino voters represented a rising electoral tide that Republicans were ignoring at their peril.
But such commentary is based on an inaccurate picture of the Latino voting public that emerged after the 2004 election and persists today. Just days after the election, for instance, Dick Morris, a former pollster and advisor to President Clinton, declared that Latinos had elected Bush; they represented 12% of the electorate, Morris reasoned, and 45% of them had pulled the levers for the president, enough to be decisive.
The Latino vote for Bush was far from decisive, however, and it may be years before it plays a pivotal role in a national election. Latinos may represent about 14% of the U.S. population, but they constituted just 6% of the 2004 electorate -- 7.5 million voters out of 125 million. According to Census Bureau data, only 34% of the nation's adult Latino population registered to vote in 2004, and 28% voted. By contrast, 67% of the country's adult white, non-Latino population and 56% of its adult black population voted in 2004. Black voters outnumbered Latino voters nearly 2 to 1 in 2004.
Exit polls taken during 2004 also indicate Latino support for Bush may have been exaggerated. In different polls, Bush's share of the Latino vote ranged from a high of 44% to a low of 33%. Yet subsequent academic studies have estimated Bush's actual level of Latino support at the lower end, somewhere between 35% and 37%. Seen in this context, the "swing" of voters from Bob Dole, who garnered 21% of the Latino vote in 1996, to George W. Bush was hardly historic. In 1984, Ronald Reagan captured 37% of the Latino vote -- a performance at least equal to Bush's.
This suggests that the key to winning Latino votes may be running good candidates, not pandering. Latino voters themselves seem to agree. A 2004 Washington Post poll found that immigration was the least important issue among Latino voters, with only 3.5% placing it at the top of their concerns.
The decline in Latino support was not a unique phenomenon for Republicans; from 2004 to 2006, the GOP lost support among virtually all constituencies, including union members (down 10 percentage points) and even white evangelicals (down 8 percentage points). In many places, the falloff was larger among core Republican voters than among Latinos. In California, for instance, 2006 GOP Senate candidate Richard Mountjoy's share of the Latino vote was 10 percentage points below Bush's 2004 share -- while his share of white male voters was a whopping 12 percentage points below Bush's comparable showing two years earlier.
...Given what the voting numbers show us, it's unlikely that Latinos will become an important voting bloc in most places as soon as many predict. And by the time that they do, Latino citizens might find that an immigration policy based on enforcing borders and increasing the number of better-skilled immigrants, which many Republicans advocate, actually benefits them. Recent economic studies show that the country's current levels of immigration are hurting immigrants who are already here -- and hurting native-born Latinos more than most U.S. residents. A saner immigration flow is likely to boost the average wages of our current Latino population and free up resources, like housing, in Latino communities...
for link to complete article on the Latin Youth Summit: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/10/senate-democrat.html
for link to entire LA Times article, click title of this post
Perhaps the essay was published because just yesterday Democratic Senators hosted the first ever -
Senate Democratic Latino Youth Summit
Perhaps someone wants to negate that these 150 "cream of the crop" young people could be the leaders in a driving force to represent the Latino vote in upcoming elections. Their influence will spread beyond their ethnic group because as they live their lives as most Americans do, they have non-Latino friends and colleagues, or they may have non-Latino spouses (there is a 50% intermarriage rate with anglos), which would mean they have non-Latino in-laws.
Influence spreads, especially when there is enthusiasm. Those 150 will get the Latino vote going --of course our current anti-immigration moves will help it along.
-----
Immigration Prof Blog
Latino Youth Summit
Washington, D.C. – Senate Democrats today highlighted the importance of civic engagement among young Hispanics as part of the First Senate Democratic Latino Youth Summit. The event gave close to 150 young Latinos from across the country the opportunity to interact with senators and discuss issues of importance, such as: immigration, civil rights, and education. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Ken Salazar (D-CO), and Robert Menéndez (D-NJ), addressed the young Hispanic leaders and commended their involvement and impact on public policy and society.
-----
The myth of the Latino voting bloc
The GOP has less to fear from a backlash than many claim.
Los Angeles Times
By Steven Malanga
October 18, 2007
When President Bush's immigration reform bill collapsed this summer, largely because of objections from his own party, open-borders advocates warned that the GOP would pay a harsh political price for killing the bill. Latino support had been crucial in electing Bush, the argument went, and Latino voters represented a rising electoral tide that Republicans were ignoring at their peril.
But such commentary is based on an inaccurate picture of the Latino voting public that emerged after the 2004 election and persists today. Just days after the election, for instance, Dick Morris, a former pollster and advisor to President Clinton, declared that Latinos had elected Bush; they represented 12% of the electorate, Morris reasoned, and 45% of them had pulled the levers for the president, enough to be decisive.
The Latino vote for Bush was far from decisive, however, and it may be years before it plays a pivotal role in a national election. Latinos may represent about 14% of the U.S. population, but they constituted just 6% of the 2004 electorate -- 7.5 million voters out of 125 million. According to Census Bureau data, only 34% of the nation's adult Latino population registered to vote in 2004, and 28% voted. By contrast, 67% of the country's adult white, non-Latino population and 56% of its adult black population voted in 2004. Black voters outnumbered Latino voters nearly 2 to 1 in 2004.
Exit polls taken during 2004 also indicate Latino support for Bush may have been exaggerated. In different polls, Bush's share of the Latino vote ranged from a high of 44% to a low of 33%. Yet subsequent academic studies have estimated Bush's actual level of Latino support at the lower end, somewhere between 35% and 37%. Seen in this context, the "swing" of voters from Bob Dole, who garnered 21% of the Latino vote in 1996, to George W. Bush was hardly historic. In 1984, Ronald Reagan captured 37% of the Latino vote -- a performance at least equal to Bush's.
This suggests that the key to winning Latino votes may be running good candidates, not pandering. Latino voters themselves seem to agree. A 2004 Washington Post poll found that immigration was the least important issue among Latino voters, with only 3.5% placing it at the top of their concerns.
The decline in Latino support was not a unique phenomenon for Republicans; from 2004 to 2006, the GOP lost support among virtually all constituencies, including union members (down 10 percentage points) and even white evangelicals (down 8 percentage points). In many places, the falloff was larger among core Republican voters than among Latinos. In California, for instance, 2006 GOP Senate candidate Richard Mountjoy's share of the Latino vote was 10 percentage points below Bush's 2004 share -- while his share of white male voters was a whopping 12 percentage points below Bush's comparable showing two years earlier.
...Given what the voting numbers show us, it's unlikely that Latinos will become an important voting bloc in most places as soon as many predict. And by the time that they do, Latino citizens might find that an immigration policy based on enforcing borders and increasing the number of better-skilled immigrants, which many Republicans advocate, actually benefits them. Recent economic studies show that the country's current levels of immigration are hurting immigrants who are already here -- and hurting native-born Latinos more than most U.S. residents. A saner immigration flow is likely to boost the average wages of our current Latino population and free up resources, like housing, in Latino communities...
for link to complete article on the Latin Youth Summit: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/10/senate-democrat.html
for link to entire LA Times article, click title of this post
The Great Strainer - An Instrument of Filtration
The town Calexico is familiar to me these days. It's where Pedro Guzman (an American citizen) crossed back into the United States after having been deported illegally. Ruben Martinez mentions the town in his essay published in today's LA Times.
He uses the expression "The Great Wall of America" -- and says it won't work. I agree with him. I'm not sure how well the Great Wall of China worked either.
Actually, this Great Wall could also be seen as "The Great Strainer" - I looked up the word strainer and the dictionary says "That through which any liquid passes for purification; an instrument for filtration"
It will let those come through that are seen "pure" enough for the U.S. These could be "rich Mexicans" like the kind that go on extravagant shopping sprees at Houston's Galeria. It could be highly qualified engineers, or scientists. It could be a relative of Angelina Jolie or Anthony Hopkins. It could be Anthony Hopkin's butler.
No, the Great Wall of America won't work anyway - it just helps the pre-existing strainer be more efficient.
_____
Don't fence them in
Washington's planned border barriers are running into cowboy resistance.
By Rubén Martínez
Los Angeles Times
October 17, 2007
I STOOD ON THE cottonwood-lined banks of the San Pedro River in Arizona recently and watched it flow freely under a "water gap" fence -- two strands of barbed wire and two of wound cable. Those four strands, which mark the line between Mexico and the United States of America at the edge of the San Pedro Riparian
National Conservation Area, are a modest boundary to be sure, as most of the border has been since 1848.
Soon, this border will get a much more powerful and disturbing representation. If the Department of Homeland Security and the Army Corps of Engineers have their way, a "vehicle barrier" made of railroad ties will cut across the river (although it will have to be removed each year before the monsoon floods, which would easily whisk it away). There are plans for permanent vehicle barriers just beyond the riverbed -- steel posts sunk into 3 feet of concrete. And for "pedestrian fencing" made of double rows of concrete-filled 14- to 17-foot-high bollards. And for the "Sandia"-style variant, which uses panels of tight steel mesh. There will be a new "all-weather" road, lighting and electronic surveillance towers.
And a price tag of $7 billion. For starters.
Faraway Washington has forgotten just how much cowboys can't stand fences. And in this case, there are lots of cowboys: artists, students, activists, even politicians.
My guides of the San Pedro, for instance, were Greta Anderson, a Tucson-based environmental activist, and the accomplished painter Peter Young, a longtime Bisbee resident. The barbed wire is bad enough, said the artist, but this new fence would be "an atrocious scar upon the landscape." The environmentalist spoke of jaguars and ocelots, of debris buildups and erosion and the possibility of the river itself "migrating."
The San Pedro River, which runs atypically from south to north, will be virtually dammed as far as most people and many animals are concerned. Human migrants will be pushed from the river valley to torturous trails that cross the 9,000-foot-high peaks of the Huachuca Mountains; it is nearly certain the human death toll will begin to rise in the area.
This will happen because the Department of Homeland Security says so. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandates 700 miles of barriers, easily the most ambitious and controversial infrastructure project in border history. And although the department does indeed have the power to say so -- including the authority to waive National Environmental Policy Act rules in the name of national security -- resistance to the "wall" is proving to be a political obstruction Beltway politicos and Homeland Security functionaries hadn't counted on.
It's a new political convergence in the borderlands: environmentalists, social justice advocates and a cohort of new border activists who are apparently driven less by ideology than a simple Western love of open vistas -- and plain common sense.
This loose coalition bridges a long-standing political gap.
Historically, some who called themselves environmentalists were more likely to complain about litter on the migrant trail than migrant deaths, or say that population control was preferable to immigration reform. In the borderlands, the sheer dimensions of the human tragedy make such thinking morally reprehensible.
But the farther environmentalists get from the border, it seems, the less they understand how the "natural" and "human" realms intersect here. No mainstream national environmental organization, for example, lobbied in favor of immigration reform during last year's debate. If they had, the outcome of the votes on both reform and the Secure Fence Act might have been different.
The bulldozers were already within sight of the San Pedro River last week when a federal judge stayed further construction in response to a joint appeal from Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club, which argued that "immediate and irreparable harm" would come to the river and its ecosystem.
In Texas, meanwhile, several Lower Rio Grande communities also are threatening lawsuits against the Homeland Security Department. Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada said his city will "instruct DHS to stop the building of the wall." Some local officials have stalled construction by blocking the department's access to the border. (The federal government has a 60-foot right of way but must often cross private or local public property to get to it.)
At the University of Texas, Brownsville students marched against a proposed barrier that would literally cut off access to part of its campus.
On the Tohono O'odham Reservation in Arizona -- which overlays 74 miles of the border -- tribal Chairman Ned Norris Jr. declared that Homeland Security officials would build a wall through O'odham land only "over my dead body." Traditional O'odham lands are bisected by the border, with about 1,400 tribal members living on the Mexican side; the construction of permanent vehicle barriers on the reservation already has begun to disrupt traditional cross-border pilgrimages.
In a few weeks, self-described "anarchists" will camp out on both sides of the line between Calexico, Calif., and Mexicali, Baja California. The group's website tells of actions "against capitalism" and "for a world without borders."
All of these join veterans of immigrants rights campaigns such as Tucson-based No More Deaths, which each summer focuses attention on the terrible toll of migrants who die of exposure in the deserts -- the most tangible result of the 1990s wall-building frenzy.
As for the political imagination that urges the fence into being, a kind of post-9/11 paranoid optimism is at work.
The Great Wall of America underscores a delusional faith in technology as the only solution to a problem that has nothing to do with technology. Ultimately, such Ozymandian monuments say more about the minds that conceived them than any "enemies" they actually contain. Think of the grandiose barriers of history -- the walls of Troy and China and Berlin; the wall that kept the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Think of their fate, their ultimate symbolism. Each began with the idea that people -- and their ideas -- could be restrained by barriers, just like rivers can be dammed. A simple feat of engineering.
And yet we believe that our wall will be the exception.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has done his best to dress up the beast. During one news conference, he condescended to Texans fuming about their soon-to-be-erased view of the Rio Grande by assuring them the fence would be "aesthetically pleasing." During another, he appropriated a thin slice of environmental rhetoric: The wall will be "good for the environment" because migrants would no longer leave a trail of litter.
The cowboys who can't stand fences -- the environmentalists and artists, the anarchists and the migrants -- know that the wall will cause more death in the desert and leave a scar upon the land.
After visiting the San Pedro, I drove east along the border toward Naco, where the wall was then still going up. Front-end loaders ferried loads of steel. Cement trucks roared up and down the new all-weather road. Tall cranes lifted bollards, and workers gingerly guided them into a deep trench that stretched for miles into the iconic Western landscape of basin and range.
The fence was perfectly straight.
Nothing else was.
It will not work, because not even the greatest engineers can make a mad idea sane.
Rubén Martínez, author of "Crossing Over: A Mexican Family on the Mi