Explaining the DREAM ACT in the GOP Presidential Debate

Partial Transcript
New York Times
November 29, 2007

Q Governor Huckabee, as governor in Arkansas, you gave illegal aliens a discount for college in Arkansas by allowing them to pay lower in-state tuition rates. However, we have thousands of military members currently serving our country in Iraq with children at home. If these children chose to move to Arkansas to attend college, they would have to pay three times the tuition rate that illegal aliens pay. Would you support a federal law which would require any state to give these tuition rates to illegal aliens to give the same rate to the children of our military members?

MR. COOPER: Governor Huckabee, you have 90 seconds.

MR. HUCKABEE: Thank you very much.

Ashley, first of all, let me just express that you're a little misinformed. We never passed a bill that gave special privileges to the children of illegals to go to college.

Now, let me tell you what I did do. I supported a bill that would have allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their peers had who had also gone to high school with them and sat in the same classrooms. They couldn't just move in in their senior year and go to college. It wasn't about out-of-state tuition; it was an academic meritorious scholarship called the Academic Challenge Scholarship.

Now, let me tell you a couple of provisions of it.

And by the way, it didn't pass. It passed the House, but got in the Senate and got caught up in the same kind of controversy that this country's caught up in.

Here's what happened. This bill would have said that if you came here not because you made the choice but because your parents did, that we're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime. That's not what we typically do in this country. It said that if you'd sat in our schools from the time you're 5 or 6 years old and you had become an A-plus student, you completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student, and you also had to be drug and alcohol free, and the other provision, you had to be applying for citizenship.

It accomplished two thing that we knew we wanted to do, and that is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal status; and the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not tax takers, and that's what that provision did.

And finally, would we give that provision to the children of veterans personally? What we've done with not just the children of veterans but, most importantly, veterans, is disgraceful in this country. And that's why I've proposed a Veterans Bill of Rights that, if anything, would give our veterans the most --

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. HUCKABEE: -- exceptional privileges of all, because they are the ones who have earned all of our freedom, every single one of them. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, you called -- you called Governor Huckabee a liberal on immigration.

(Applause for Mr. Huckabee continues.)

MR. ROMNEY: Well, you know, I like Mike, and I heard what he just said. But he basically said that he fought for giving scholarships to illegal aliens. And he had a great reason for doing so. It reminds me of what it's like talking to liberals in Massachusetts. All right? They have great reasons for taking taxpayer money and using it for things they think are the right thing to do.

Mike, that's not your money. That's the taxpayers' money. (Cheers, applause.) And the right thing here is to say to people that are here legally as citizens or legal aliens, we're going to help you.

But if you're here illegally, you ought to be able to return home or get in line with everybody else, but illegals are -- are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks that are better than our own citizens', those that come from other states or those that come here -- (inaudible).

MR. COOPER: You have 30 seconds to respond.

MR. HUCKABEE: Well, but they didn't get something better; they had to earn it.

And you know something, I worked my way through college. I started work when I was 14 and I had to pay my own way through, and I know how hard it was to get that degree. I'm standing here tonight on this stage because I got an education. If I hadn't had the education, I wouldn't be standing on this stage. I might be picking lettuce. I might be a person who needed government support rather than who was giving so much money in taxes I want to get rid of the tax code that we've got and make it really different.

MR. ROMNEY: I --

MR. HUCKABEE: Mitt, let me finish. No, let me finish, Mitt.

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. HUCKABEE: In all due respect, we're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: We've got another question -- we've got one more question for --

MR. ROMNEY: I get -- I get a chance to just respond to that.

We're not punishing children for what their parents did. And I respect the fact that you worked your way through college and it got you to where you are. That's wonderful. A lot of people in this country do tremendous things to get their education.

But the question is, are we going to give taxpayer-funded benefits to kids that are here illegally and put them ahead of kids that are here legally? There's only so much money to go around --

MR. HUCKABEE: No -- (inaudible) -- (number of scholarships ?), Mitt.

MR. ROMNEY: -- and we decide -- there's only so much money to go around -- let me finish too.

MR. HUCKABEE: Well, let's just be factual.

MR. COOPER: You've got 30 seconds. Your time's up.

MR. ROMNEY: There's only so much money. Are we going to say that kids that are here illegally are going to get a special deal? Are they going to get a deal better than other kids? Do they get benefits by virtue of coming here illegally? And the answer is no.

MR. HUCKABEE: No, they've got to earn it. That was the difference. They had to earn it by their record.

MR. ROMNEY: They had to be here illegally.

MR. COOPER: We've got another question from a YouTube watcher. Let's watch.

Q Good evening, candidates. This is Seepser (ph) from Arlington, Texas, and this question's for Ron Paul.

Now, I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council on Foreign Relations and some plan to make a North American Union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico. These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory.

So my question to you is, do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?

for complete transcript of the debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28debate-transcript.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print

My Mother Told Me Never to Sneak Around

The word "sneak" caused me trauma when I was a teenager. My mother would use the word often when she talked about other teenage girls whom she considered promiscuous. Embedded in this word were many things. The word described people who were:

bad, stupid, dirty (or uncouth), and predisposed to lying about everything

I looked it up in the University of Chicago ARTFL project dictionary and found this:

To creep or steal (away or about) privately; to come or go meanly, as a person afraid or ashamed to be seen; as, to sneak away from company...

To act in a stealthy and cowardly manner; to behave with meanness and servility; to crouch.http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=sneak


The word is on my mind today because it was used in a Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz: "I understand the outrage at those who broke the law to sneak into this country."

With all due respect. Mr. Kurtz needs to re-think what he writes. Perhaps he wants to avoid being pro-immigrant -especially with a name like Kurtz - people might have thought he went native (and wouldn't that be awful).

Oh, one last thing - his statement: "

12 million illegal immigrants in this country (some of whom were granted amnesty in 1986 by the sainted Ronald Reagan, when the problem was much smaller) aren't going anywhere."

If they were granted amnesty, that means they were no longer undocumented as of 1986. I would suggest that Mr. Kurtz think about which words he uses and how he puts them together. He could tell everyone that is was a typographical error, not caught by the newspaper's copyeditors. But if you have any faith in Freud, you know about the process called a "Freudian slip" - when you say something that appears unintentional, but in reality it is what you are actually thinking- as many people do these days, once "an illegal always an illegal" - even if they get a green card or become U.S. citizens.

To correct some mis-information - most undocumented immigrants are not sneaky. If they really were, would you let them enter your house and take care of your children? Would you want them to build our highways and skyscrapers?

Yes, of course there are many undocumented immigrants who cross the border at night by wading the river or hanging on to the bottom of a railroad car. For the most part, as I have mentioned before, it is often because they don't have enough to feed their families. Lastly, the word sneak connotes, stealing or dishonesty - As reports are constantly being published, stealing is not an issue, their rates of criminal behavior are significantly lower than U.S. citizens. If they are dishonest about their status should they be confronted by a Border Patrol officer, how bad is a lie, if you are lying so you can feed your kids? I am not trying to be over-dramatic. This is reality.

If you are wondering how I know this. Years before graduate school I was a social worker - at children's protective services, an elementary school with a significant undocumented population, a neighborhood social service center in an immigrant neighborhood as a psychotherapist with a number of undocumented families. The description of their homes having dirt floors still shocks me...Probably most impactful is that my father was undocumented until he entered the U.S. Army in 1944.

My first book was on the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon. I traveled there for three years - and lived there full time in 1999. My third book is on DREAMERS and immigration - and I've been working on this one for about 20 months. So no, I'm not making this stuff up.

-----

Sanctuary From the Facts?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 30, 2007; 7:57 AM

The Rudy-Romney dustup was great television as the two men went toe to toe over immigration. But I want to dwell for a moment on the substance.

Giuliani did talk about welcoming illegal immigrants when he was mayor. Whether New York was a sanctuary city or not, he recognized the need for illegal workers to be able to report crimes, and to educate the 70,000 kids of illegal workers. Now, for obvious reasons, he tries to sound less sympathetic to illegal immigration.

Mitt didn't do much to crack down on sanctuary cities in Massachusetts, either, and while he touts winning federal approval for his state police to go after illegals, that took effect two weeks before he left office.

Huckabee was asked how he could allow college scholarship for the kids of illegal immigrants. He explained that the kids had to have been in the school system all their lives, have A-plus averages and be applying for citizenship. When Romney criticized that stance as a waste of taxpayers' money, Huck said: "In all due respect, we are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did."

Whatever your views on immigration, here's my point: Governors and mayors have to deal with real-world problems. The 12 million illegal immigrants in this country (some of whom were granted amnesty in 1986 by the sainted Ronald Reagan, when the problem was much smaller) aren't going anywhere. They are so embedded in our society that some of them wound up taking care of Mitt Romney's lawn.

I understand the outrage at those who broke the law to sneak into this country. But it's easier to criticize the problem from a stage than to run states and cities that are teeming with illegals.

It's like the debate over taxes. Virtually every governor who's in office long enough raises them at some point, as Huckabee did, while cutting them at other times, depending on the heating and cooling of the economy. (Yes, even Reagan raised taxes.) Then an opponent comes along and denounces them as tax-hikers. But virtually all governors are constitutionally required to balance their budgets. They don't have the option of printing money like the folks in Washington.

The NYT, by the way, has a big piece on Rudy's mayoral claims. Money graf:

"All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record."

Ever wonder what it's like spending a day trailing Hillary around New Hampshire? My report on the candidate and the press is here.

Turning now to the controversy over CNN's YouTube debate, here is what I've pieced together:

CNN expressed regret yesterday for allowing a Hillary Clinton adviser to ask a question at Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, even as controversy swirled about two other questioners who have declared their support for Democratic candidates.

Retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, who asked why gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military, is a member of Clinton's steering committee on gay and lesbian issues, something her campaign disclosed in a news release in June.

"Had we known that, we probably wouldn't have used the question," said David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief, who produced the debate. He added that "you could spend hours Googling everybody. What we cared about was that he was real." CNN deleted Kerr's question from a rebroadcast of the debate.

The New York senator's campaign said in a statement that "Gen. Kerr is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign."

Kerr, a Californian who said he became openly gay after 43 years in the military, was one of 5,000 people who submitted videotaped questions through YouTube. CNN also placed Kerr in the St. Petersburg, Fla., audience, where he followed up by calling the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy "destructive."

Moderator Anderson Cooper acknowledged the error involving Kerr after Bill Bennett, the conservative author and radio host who is a network contributor, raised it during a post-debate discussion. Bennett said yesterday that his radio producer e-mailed him information from a National Review blog.

"It shouldn't have ever happened," Bennett said. "You've got to vet that sort of thing."

On CNN's "American Morning," Kerr said he has done nothing for the Clinton campaign and that the video was "a private initiative on my own." He also said he has supported Republicans.

Bohrman said network staffers, struck by Kerr's "very powerful" question, verified his military service and determined from federal records that he had made no campaign contributions. He said CNN never spoke to Kerr and had Google, which owns YouTube, bring the retired general and about a dozen other questioners to the debate because their videos were likely to be used, although no decision had been made.

CNN teamed with YouTube in July for a Democratic debate that marked the first such use of citizen-submitted videos. The Republican debate was delayed because of candidate concerns about the format.

Bohrman said the network rejected "quite a few" questioners who were found to have public ties or donations to other candidates. He said the network's goal was to avoid "obvious Democratic 'gotcha' questions."

Another YouTube questioner, a Texas woman who identified herself as "Journey," asked what the punishment should be for women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them, if the procedure were made illegal. After the debate, she posted another YouTube video criticizing the candidates' responses -- while wearing a "John Edwards 08" T-shirt.

A third questioner, David Cercone, asked the candidates whether they would accept the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization.

In a profile on Sen. Barack Obama's Web site, Cercone wrote about "why I support Barack Obama: He is a leader who inspires me with his sincerity, his earnestness, and his vision for change."

Conservative bloggers, some of whom deride CNN as the "Clinton News Network," ripped the network yesterday. At InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds wrote: "Once again, CNN demonstrates an inexplicable failure to background-check pro-Hillary questioners." Scott Johnson of PowerLine wrote that "CNN has shown itself unable or unwilling to act as an honest broker."

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway, said: "If lone bloggers can vet these people in less than half an hour, surely CNN's crack journalistic team should have been able to do so between the time they selected the pool of questions and the airing of the debate?"

Bohrman said he had no problem using questioners who have voiced support for other candidates as long as they are not donors or formally affiliated with any campaign. "We bent over backwards to be fair," he said. "We're not perfect. But we tried extremely hard."

Here's some more reaction. Captain Ed is less exercised than some of his conservative colleagues:

"Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes. But does that negate the questions themselves? I don't think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees. If Hillary Clinton held a town hall in my community, I should have an opportunity to question her about her positions on issues without pledging a loyalty oath to do so.

"The questions asked don't seem particularly outrageous."

Fred Barnes says the whole thing stunk:

"This debate not only was mortifying to the candidates. It also should have been embarrassing to the viewers, especially Republican voters who might have been watching.

"I don't know if the folks who put the debate together were purposely trying to make the Republican candidates look bad, but they certainly succeeded. True, the candidates occasionally contributed. For the first few minutes, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney continued their debate over their records on immigration and did so with the kind of intensity that this trivial matter didn't warrant. These are two fine candidates who have only themselves to blame for looking petty.

"But it was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. By my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the S-chip children's health care issue, the 'surge' in Iraq, the spending showdown between President Bush and Congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the Democratic Congress.

"Instead there were questions--ones moderator Anderson Cooper kept insisting had required a lot of time and effort by the questioners--on the Confederate flag, Mars, Giuliani's rooting for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, whether Ron Paul might run as an independent for president, and the Bible."

At the New Republic, Noam Scheiber gives Romney and Rudy mixed grades:

"I thought Romney hit the right note on immigration, at least from the perspective of GOP voters. His response to Giuliani's accusation that he operated a 'sanctuary mansion'--a reference to having illegal aliens do some work around his house--was persuasive. It does seem a bit much to suggest, as Rudy did, that you should be responsible for whether or not a contractor you hire might be employing illegal aliens--or, as Romney put it, that you should demand papers from anyone who looks a little different or speaks with an accent.

"Romney also seemed to get the better of the exchange with Mike Huckabee over making (non-citizen) children of illegal immigrants eligible for state-funded college scholarships. Huckabee offered what I thought was a wonderful, humane defense of the program--about not punishing kids for their parents' crimes, about how you'd rather have people get educations than not, etc.--but I suspect that's a step too far for most GOP primary voters. Romney's point about how Huckabee might have had great intentions, but that doesn't make it right, will probably resonate . . .

"Romney's weakest moment by far was his attempt to square his previous comments on gays in the military--that he looks forward to a day when they can serve openly--with his rightward turn on social issues. He seemed caught off guard by the question, and his response--that this is not the time to consider it--sounded like the worst of both worlds . . .

"Giuliani, as I mentioned, seemed a little over the top during the 'sanctuary mansion' attack. He also did a lousy job fielding a question about gun control--leading with the point that local governments should be able to impose some common-sense restrictions, which the gun crowd hears as code for taking their firearms away..."

for complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113000607.html

Sarkozy and His Disciplinary Measures

Yes, the NYT says the rage is the same but the tactics are different. Sarkozy should consider changing his tactics also. Authoritarian, arrogant leadership is not what is needed in this situation. If the rage is still there, then the French government still doesn`t understand

A couple of things I want to mention. Although the media said the young people were immigrants, THIS IS INCORRECT. They are French citizens, born in France of people who immigrate from France´s colonies.

The more Sarkozy stamps his foot, the more misunderstood the young people of the banlieue will feel.

November 28, 2007
In French Suburbs, Same Rage, but New Tactics
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
PARIS, Nov. 27 — Two years after France’s immigrant suburbs exploded in rage, the rituals and acts of resentment have reappeared with an eerie sameness: roving gangs clashing with riot police forces, the government appealing for calm, residents complaining that they are ignored.

And while the scale of the unrest of the past few days does not yet compare with the three-week convulsion in hundreds of suburbs and towns in 2005, a chilling new factor makes it, in some sense, more menacing. The onetime rock throwers and car burners have taken up hunting shotguns and turned them on the police.

More than 100 officers have been wounded, several of them seriously, according to the police. Thirty were hit with buckshot and pellets from shotguns, and one of the wounded was hit with a type of bullet used to kill large game, Patrice Ribeiro, a police spokesman, said in a telephone interview. One of the officers lost an eye; another’s shoulder was shattered by gunfire.

It is legal to own a shotgun in France — as long as the owner has a license — and police circles were swirling with rumors that the bands of youths were procuring more weapons.

“This is a real guerrilla war,” Mr. Ribeiro told RTL radio, warning that the police, who have struggled to avoid excessive force, will not be fired upon indefinitely without responding.

The police have made more than 30 arrests but have been restrained in controlling the violence, using tear gas to disperse the bands of young people and firing paint balls to identify people for possible arrests later.

The prefecture of the police in the Val d’Oise area, where most of the violence has occurred, said Tuesday night that there were no reported injuries among civilians that could be linked to the police.

The events of the past three days, set off by the deaths of two teenagers whose minibike collided with a police vehicle on Sunday, make clear that the underlying causes of frustration and anger — particularly among unemployed, undereducated youths, mostly the offspring of Arab and African immigrants — remain the same.

“We have heard promise after promise, but nothing has been done in the suburbs since the last riots, nothing,” said François Pupponi, the Socialist mayor of Sarcelles, which has been struck by the violence, in an interview. “The suburbs are like tinderboxes. You have people in terrible social circumstances, plus all the rage, plus all the hate, plus all the rumors, and all you need is one spark to set them on fire.”

On Tuesday, there were the first signs of the violence spreading beyond the Paris region when a dozen cars were set afire in the southern city of Toulouse.

In the wake of the unrest in 2005, the government of then-President Jacques Chirac (with Nicolas Sarkozy, now the president, as the tough, law-and-order interior minister) announced measures to improve life in the suburbs, including extra money for housing, schools and neighborhood associations, as well as counseling and job training for unemployed youths. None has gone very far.

At that time, Mr. Sarkozy alienated large numbers of inhabitants in the troubled ethnic pockets of France, but afterward reverted to a low-key approach, which he has maintained ever since. During his presidential campaign, he stayed away from the troubled suburbs, aware that his presence could inflame public opinion against him.

In his six months as president, he has largely focused on injecting new life into France’s flaccid economy through creating jobs and lowering taxes and consumer prices.

His most notable initiative in dealing with youth crime has been punitive: the passage of a law last July that required a minimum sentence for repeat offenders and in many cases allowed minors between 16 and 18 years old to be tried and sentenced as adults.

Since September, Fadela Amara, his outspoken junior minister charged with drawing up a policy for the suburbs, has been holding town hall meetings throughout France in preparation for what is to be a “Marshall Plan” for the suburbs. Her proposals are scheduled to be made public in January.

“We’ve been talking about a Marshall Plan for the suburbs since the early 1990s,” said Adil Jazouli, a sociologist who focuses on the suburbs. “We don’t need poetry. We don’t need reflection. We need money.”

After he returns from China on Wednesday morning, Mr. Sarkozy plans to visit a seriously wounded senior policeman at a hospital near the northern Paris suburb of Villiers-le-Bel.

It was in Villiers-le-Bel on Sunday afternoon that the deaths of two teenagers identified as Moushin, 15, and Larimi, 16, occurred, the event that set off the latest unrest. The teenagers were riding without helmets on a minibike that collided with a police car; rumors that the police had caused the accident elicited calls for revenge.

The crash was reminiscent of the electrocution deaths in another Paris suburb in October 2005 of two teenagers, who, according to some accounts, were running away from police. That event set off the worst civil unrest in France in four decades, plunging the country into what Mr. Chirac called “a profound malaise.”

But Mr. Sarkozy, still reeling from huge transit strikes and student protests throughout France this month, is unlikely to use the current unrest as a vehicle to turn introspective or vent his rage too loudly at those he once called “scum.”

In 2005, he vowed to clean out young troublemakers from one Paris suburb with a Kärcher, the brand name of a high-powered hose used to wash off graffiti; when he pledged in another suburb that year to rid poor suburban neighborhoods of their “scum,” he was pelted with bottles and rocks.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister François Fillon told Parliament that the clashes were “unacceptable, intolerable, incomprehensible,” and he pledged punishment for the offenders in the affected suburbs.

“Those who shoot at policemen, those who beat a police officer almost to death, are criminals and must be treated as such,” he said, adding, “We will do everything so that tonight there is a maximum security presence.”

Under heavy security on Tuesday night, Mr. Fillon visited Villiers-le-Bel, where the two youths had died, in what he called a show of support for the police and firefighters. About 1,000 police officers were deployed there.

Critics of the Sarkozy government complain that many areas in the suburbs are without a police presence, and that the only time there is a show of security is after violence erupts.

“Sarkozy promised to send more police to the suburbs, but in so many places there are fewer police than there were two years ago,” said Mohamed Hamidi, the French founder of Bondy Blog, a popular political blog created in the Paris suburb of Bondy
after the outbreak of violence in 2005. “He didn’t keep his word. Who suffers from all the violence and the burning cars? The people who live in these neighborhoods.”

In Villiers-le-Bel on Tuesday night, the atmosphere was tense, with white police trucks and antiriot police officers on the streets. Earlier in the day, about 300 people, including children, marched silently in memory of the two dead teenagers.

At a bakery on a small plaza in town, Habib Friaa, the baker, mourned their deaths, especially that of Larimi, who had started an apprenticeship with him two months ago.

“Baking was his passion,” Mr. Friaa said. “He was a courageous young man, someone who had hope.”

Ariane Bernard contributed reporting from Paris, and Basil Katz from Villiers-le-Bel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/world/europe/28france.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

It's the Uninsured That Are Costing the U.S. Money, Not the Immigrants

Lou Dobbs seems to enjoy saying that undocumented immigrants over use health services. Seems like almost every politician I know has stated this publically.

Last year I called the Harris County Hospital District and asked their representative about this charge of "over use." He said that they did use the services, and the monetary amount was high. What he noticed was that when the hospital district sent immigrants bills, they were more likely to pay what they owed.

In summer 2006 at one of the laughable Congressional Hearings that were being held around the country. Harris County Judge Bob Eckols stated that the most significant expense for the hospital district was U.S. citizens who are not insured. Health Care expenditures were significantly less for undocumented immigrants. It was interesting because when Eckols said that, I believe it was Gene Greene or Sheila Jackson Lee - asked the question and he began to hedge. A few seconds later he said undocumented immigrants weren't the culprits.

Now a study at UCLA has been completed that confirms Eckols' statement. Will anyone listen?

------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigrants27nov27,1,5092464.story?ctrack=3&cset=true
From the Los Angeles Times

Study finds immigrants' use of healthcare system lower than expected
UCLA researchers find that Latinos in the U.S. illegally are 50% less likely to visit emergency rooms.
By Mary Engel
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 27, 2007

Illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are 50% less likely than U.S.-born Latinos to use hospital emergency rooms in California, according to a study published Monday in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

The cost of providing healthcare and other government services to illegal immigrants looms large in the national debate over immigration.

In Los Angeles County, much of the focus of that debate has been on hospital emergency rooms. Ten have closed in the last five years, citing losses from treating the uninsured, and those that remain open are notorious for backlogs.

By federal law, hospitals must treat every emergency, regardless of a person's insurance -- or immigration -- status. Illegal immigrants, who often work at jobs that don't offer health insurance, are commonly seen as driving both the closures and the crowding.

But the study found that while illegal immigrants are indeed less likely to be insured, they are also less likely to visit a doctor, clinic or emergency room.

"The current policy discourse that undocumented immigrants are a burden on the public because they overuse public resources is not borne out with data, for either primary care or emergency department care," said Alexander N. Ortega, an associate professor at UCLA's School of Public Health and the study's lead author. "In fact, they seem to be underutilizing the system, given their health needs."

Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that lobbies for tougher immigration controls, said that usage rates are just one measure of illegal immigrants' effect on healthcare. The other factor, he said, is the cost to taxpayers, which Ortega's study did not examine.

Cost estimates vary widely. A Rand Corp. study published last year in the journal Health Affairs put the cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants nationwide at $1.1 billion a year, excluding care for those younger than 18 and older than 64.

FAIR called the Rand number a "low-ball" estimate. Its own study of healthcare costs of illegal immigrants and their dependents, including U.S.-born children, estimated California's portion alone to be about $1.5 billion a year.

Mehlman said $1.5 billion "is still a significant amount of money, unless you're Bill Gates."

Ortega's study is not the first to find that illegal immigrants use fewer healthcare services than people born in the U.S. But his study used the largest sample, analyzing data from 42,044 participants of the 2003 California Health Interview Survey, a randomized telephone survey conducted by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Department of Public Health.

And while other studies have attributed lower usage to immigrants simply being younger and healthier than the overall population, the study published Monday took into account age, health status, insurance status and poverty level. All such factors being equal, it found, immigrants still made fewer visits to physicians and were 30% less likely than U.S.-born Latinos to have a regular source of healthcare.

Dr. Felix Nuñez, a Los Angeles-based family physician and former medical director of the South Central Family Health Center, said the findings confirm what he sees in clinics.

Illegal immigrants are infrequent patients for primary care visits, he said, because being asked for ID cards, Social Security numbers and employment histories makes them nervous. They fear being reported to authorities, even though the information is used only to determine Medi-Cal eligibility or to set a sliding-scale fee.

What did surprise Nuñez was the relatively low use of emergency rooms by illegal immigrants.

"My gut would have told me that they'd be higher users of emergency services because they're not coming in for routine, preventive care," he said. "This kind of study is really important because it forces you to look at the data and rethink your assumptions."

mary.engel@latimes.com

Intolerance Can Take a Life of It's Own

The news is that Tom Selders was not re-elected to his third term as mayor of Greeley, Colorado, supposedly because he showed empathy for the undocumented immigrants. After a large raid at the Swift Meatpacking Plant, he publicly stated that "Many families and children were devastated by parents being arrested and detained," Selders said. "Children -- citizens of the United States -- were left without parents."

Many of his constituents were enraged with him. The anger increased when he agreed to speak at an anti-immigrant rally in Washington D.C. so he could speak to pro-immigrant organizations.

He lost his voter base and Latino voters did not stand behind him because he is a Republican and he is Anglo. It's kind of shame that this kind of thing can happen. The narrow vision that brings intolerance is blinding us.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-greeley27nov27,0,7819636.story?coll=la-home-center
From the Los Angeles Times
Mayor's reelection backlash
Greeley, Colo., boots him after he spoke at an immigration forum.
By Nicholas Riccardi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 27, 2007

GREELEY, COLO. — Tom Selders is still baffled at how quickly the city he served for years turned on him.

The two-term mayor of this conservative farm town had been a political fixture for nearly two decades. A businessman who prided himself on bringing efficiency to city government, Selders infuriated his constituents after jumping into the national debate over illegal immigration. In May he spoke at an open forum in Washington, D.C., about the effects of last year's immigration raid on a meatpacking plant here, which led to the detention of 262 undocumented workers.

"Many families and children were devastated by parents being arrested and detained," Selders said. "Children -- citizens of the United States -- were left without parents."

The reaction in Greeley, whose Latino population has nearly tripled since 1980, was swift and furious. Selders, who was seeking a third term as mayor, was overwhelmed with angry calls. He became a regular target on local talk radio. A mailer linking him to illegal immigrant gang members flooded mailboxes.

Earlier this month Selders was ousted from the nonpartisan post, losing to a retired police officer by a 3-2 margin.

"I really feel betrayed by my community," said Selders, 61. "There's a big contingent of people in this community who are just full of anger and hate about illegal immigration, and that anger and hate has been transferred to me."

What happened to Selders, a lifelong Republican, is a cautionary tale of the politics of illegal immigration. To some, it shows how a good man trying to do the right thing was taken down by the forces of intolerance. To others, it shows what can happen to elitist politicians who dismiss voters' frustrations over unchecked illegal immigration. "A lot of people in Weld County remained silent" as people like Selders criticized the December 2006 raid, said County Dist. Atty. Kenneth R. Buck, who supported Selders' opponent. "They don't want to be called racist, they don't want their business to be boycotted. . . . There were a lot of people who were waiting to be heard in their anonymous way."

Greeley, founded in 1869 by a newspaper reporter who followed fabled New York editor Horace Greeley's admonition of "go west, young man," is a city split in two.

The more prosperous western side has subdivisions with names like "Promontory" or "Glen Meadows." The largely Latino eastern side consists mainly of weathered Victorians, mobile homes and trailers. Looming over these working-class neighborhoods is the massive Swift & Co. meatpacking plant.

As an agricultural hub, Greeley has long had Latino residents. But the Latino population soared in recent decades as the meatpacking industry shifted to an immigrant-heavy workforce. Latinos now make up about one-third of the city's 90,000 residents.

Now signs in City Hall are bilingual. One in five Greeley elementary school students needs help speaking or reading English. Critics blame illegal immigrants for part of the $36 million a year in uncollected bills at the local hospital, and a 73% rise in violent crime since 2000.

"Businesses are shutting down, our professional people are leaving to find a better place," said Joy Breuer, an opponent of illegal immigration who runs a shelter for the homeless. "This town used to be one of the most beautiful places to live in Colorado."

By his own admission, Selders rarely ventured into the eastern half of town while growing up on the west side. He left Greeley to study chemistry at college in Boulder. He moved back after serving a stint in Vietnam as a naval officer, and quickly founded a company that built bridges and culverts.

It wasn't until 1990 that Selders tasted local politics. He joined the Parks and Recreation Commission. The city was planning to close a public pool on the eastern end of town. "I said, 'Wait, isn't this the part of town where we want recreation facilities,' " he recalled.

The city reversed its decision, and Selders was hooked on public service. He served two terms on the City Council, then, after selling his stake in the construction business and starting a small computer firm, he was elected mayor in 2003.

Selders made a point of going to the east side and meeting with community groups. "For the first time we had someone we could call on, and he'd respond," said immigrant rights activist Ricardo Romero.

In November 2005, after winning his second two-year term, Selders and the rest of the City Council refused to follow Dist. Atty. Buck in demanding the federal government open an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Greeley. Selders feared it would lead to racial profiling, a stance that angered many here.

On the morning of Dec. 12, 2006, Selders was in his home office when the city manager called -- federal immigration agents were raiding the Swift meatpacking plant. The workers were accused of stealing or buying identities and Social Security numbers to secure jobs.

Spouses and children converged on the plant for news of whether their relatives had been arrested or deported. Local charities raised tens of thousands of dollars for families whose breadwinners were jailed.

Selders regretted the raid's impact on the workers' families as well as on the city's largest business. Swift had complied with a federal program to verify its workers Social Security numbers, yet it still lost millions of dollars because of the disruption. But Selders stayed quiet.

"These things can take on a life of their own," he said. "I felt it was better to not say a lot."

In May, a local church-based group asked Selders to speak to pro-immigrant organizations in Washington, D.C., that lobby for immigration reform. He decided that he had an obligation to go. "I felt it was the right thing to do," he said.

He put out a news release about the trip; he felt compelled to tell his constituents. The morning he left, the Greeley Tribune ran a story about the trip on its front page. The calls -- all negative -- began pouring in before Selders touched down at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. They picked up after he backed a Senate immigration reform proposal the next day that critics labeled amnesty. Selders immediately realized he was in danger of losing his mayor's job

His challenger was Ed Clark, a former police officer who works as a school security guard. Clark hammered Selders on the city's crime rate, which he tied to illegal immigration.

In August, Buck, who supported Clark, held a forum on the need for an ICE office, drawing several hundred people who heard him speak of the link between crime and illegal immigrants. He and Clark estimated that 10% to 15% of the crimes in the town were committed by undocumented immigrants.

Fliers critical of Selders were mailed to voters. One had a photo depicting gang members flashing signs. The caption read: "Tom Selders is good for business." Clark and Buck said they had nothing to do with the fliers.

After beating Selders, Clark said, "I have seen over the years a growing presence of Mexican nationals and illegal immigrants that are starting to join the gangs here. I'm not going to let this take root." Selders was partly the victim of an anti-incumbent wave in Greeley. Another council member was defeated and a third survived by a few dozen votes. But even Selders' backers said crime and illegal immigration led to his downfall.

"People are angry enough with all the gangs in town, and they feel Mr. Selders didn't do much to stop that," said Jan Boedigheimer, an underwriter who voted for the former mayor. She knew he would lose, and termed his trip to Washington "career suicide."

Selders' wife, Sandi, said she wasn't surprised he was blindsided by the hostility. "It's hard for Tom to understand a difference of opinion," she said. "He really does believe that good will triumph, and it doesn't always."

Before handing over the mayor's office to Clark the week after the election, Selders drove around the eastern neighborhoods he felt were defamed in the campaign. He went past the hulking Swift plant. Signs in Spanish advertised for 1,300 new workers. He gestured at the small, tidy homes.

"Nothing wrong with these places," Selders said. "They're just not very big."

Opponents of illegal immigration are elated to see Selders go. "Now it's going to change," Breuer said. "People who don't want to follow the laws will get out of here."

Immigrants rights activists in Greeley are still in a state of shock and wonder whether they missed a chance to help a rare ally. Selders' campaign got some support in the heavily Latino neighborhoods, said activist Sylvia Martinez. "People didn't believe [in Selders] because he is white, because he is a Republican, because he is a businessman," she said. "I don't think a lot of people believed he was running for his life."

nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com

Rodriguez Says Its About Social Class - I'm Not So Sure

I will have plenty to say about this subject later. For the meantime there is only one thing I would like to point out - People react to skin color and/or hair color. You may be able to go blonde but you can't bleach your skin unless you are Michael Jackson.

If you are gay you can act straight, if you are a woman you can dress up like a man, or vice versa. But if you are very dark skinned you can't dress yourself to look white.

There is something to the class issue, but that is only a very small part of the equation - when it comes to how people get along and how people judge each other.

_____

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-rodriguez25nov25,1,6228625.column?ctrack=1&cset=true
From the Los Angeles Times
It's more about class and less about color
Most fighting between blacks and Latinos occurs between the most marginalized of both groups.
Gregory Rodriguez

November 25, 2007

It couldn't have been more than a few months after the 1992 riots. I was seated in the office in the back of the Son Shine Missionary Baptist Church on Nadeau Street in South L.A. talking with the Rev. Leroy Shephard about how Mexicans and blacks in his neighborhood did and did not get along.

"We all know about the tensions," he said in his preacher's cadence. "But there are also plenty of budding friendships. You see, when blacks moved into South L.A., white folks didn't even stay around long enough for us to become friends. Most of them won't even drive through these neighborhoods."

But plenty of black and immigrant families do live together. The relationship is not always easy. Some Mexicans and Central Americans who moved into previously all-black neighborhoods in L.A. brought their own biases about blacks with them from their homeland; others acquired them here. And, like so many poor immigrants before them, there were Latinos who seized on their neighbors' low social status as a way to convince themselves that they did not occupy society's very lowest rung. They blamed blacks for the local crime.

But whatever their biases, they still moved into the neighborhood, and given a choice, most well-intentioned people chose to get along with their neighbors. Life is just easier that way. Homeowners -- those most vested in their neighborhoods -- were more eager to get along than renters. Young men who felt they had nothing to lose didn't waste too much time trying to get along with anyone.

Beneath the obvious layers of race and class was an aspiration gap that was the great source of tension. The 1980s saw a huge out-migration of upwardly mobile African Americans from South L.A. Those blacks who remained in the old neighborhood tended to be either elderly or the younger generations who didn't have the skills or the good fortune to move up. They were frustrated.

Into these neighborhoods came thousands of Latin American immigrants who harbored higher hopes and lower expectations and who were willing to work more for less pay.

Black trepidation about immigrant competition is nothing new. And it has always been intertwined with a resentment that, however rough newcomers had it, they were still treated better than native-born blacks. In the 1850s, Frederick Douglass wrote: "Every hour sees us elbowed out of some employment to make room perhaps for some newly arrived emigrants, whose hunger and color are thought to give them a title to especial favor." In 1882, Booker T. Washington warned that the stream of "European laborers that is continually flowing into the West leaves [blacks] no foothold there."

Politically correct news accounts of black-Latino tensions point to a supposed "competition over scarce resources." But every local employer knows that Mexicans benefit from the widely held preconception that they are hard workers. They're not losing out to blacks in the job market.

Indeed, the real tension -- and violence -- generally occurs between socioeconomically frustrated African Americans and U.S.-born Latinos, the children of immigrants who have slipped through the cracks and not completed the difficult transition from their parents' homeland into the American mainstream. I found this to be true when I visited Harbor Gateway after Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old African American girl, was killed in January, allegedly by a member of the predominantly Latino 204th Street gang. Among Latinos, the deepest racial resentment was not among immigrants but among U.S.-born Mexican American gang members who were fighting with black gangs over turf.

I don't know why we insist on seeing this issue as one that involves all blacks and all Latinos. It doesn't. The lion's share of the fighting still occurs among the most marginalized of each group, those who do not feel themselves integrated into society. In other words, the phenomenon of black-Latino conflict has as much to do with social and economic alienation as it does with race. In fact, Jonathan Fajardo, the 18-year-old gang member accused of killing Green, is himself half black, with four half siblings who are as dark as she was.

The truth is that people who fall through the cracks find all sorts of reasons to get angry, and people to get angry with.

Gregory Rodriguez, a columnist for the opinion pages, is director of the California Fellows Program at the New America Foundation and the author of the recently published "Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans and Vagabonds: Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America."

Immigrant - Latino - Black

Last week we had a discussion in the graduate seminar I teach - it was about comparing the current immigration situation in the U.S. and slavery. One person was adamant that nothing could compare to slavery and the middle passage. - we discussed the perspective that no matter how many people would be deported, or incarcerated without charges, or separated from their children, there is just no way to say there were anything alike.

I agree, slavery takes it... there is nothing that has happened in the United States that has been so horrible, except the near-extermination of Native Americans. In addition, the subtle and not-so subtle presence of discrimination against blacks is still around, as much as the rest of us say "it is so much better now."

However, the immigration crisis is happening today. No, it's not as bad a slavery, but it's bad. And they aren't exactly alike but there are many similarities -

Undocumented immigrants do not have the same due process rights that citizens have. They can be detained, deported or incarcerated for months, unable to contact their families or attorney - with no consequences.

Its sort of like the dilemma of passing. Undocumented immigrants need to pass for green card residents or citiizens - they can do fine until someone decides to catch them.

True, there are not in shackles, and are not beaten regularly. But they are in jails, have been raped and beaten by government officials - while everyone is watching - Besides a few screams like those after the Bedford raid, people mostly stay quiet.

The issue is not about comparison as to who has suffered more. That is clear and should have already been settled. The issue is about empathy and compassion for undocumented people for the tragedy they are currently facing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-hutchinson25nov25,0,3088497.story?coll=la-home-commentary
From the Los Angeles Times
The black-Latino blame game
Finger-pointing between the two minorities is not going to help either group.
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

November 25, 2007

One Friday earlier this month, a small but vocal group of black activists turned up at City Hall to blast Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and members of the City Council for failing to work hard enough to prevent violence by Latino gang members against blacks in South Los Angeles.

"You have one race of people exterminating another race of people," said one African American woman.

On the same day, elsewhere in the city, Latino parents stormed out of a meeting of a Los Angeles Unified School District advisory council. The council had been fighting for months about whether to hold its meetings in Spanish or English -- a dispute that got so abusive that district officials felt the need to bring in dispute-resolution experts and mental health counselors. On this particular Friday, the Latino parents walked out after a group of black parents voted to censure the panel's Latino chairman.

These two events are certainly not isolated incidents, but they are the most recent examples of the long-running tensions between blacks and Latinos in Los Angeles. Just a few weeks earlier, federal prosecutors had filed a highly publicized case against more than 60 members of Florencia 13, a Latino street gang that prosecutors say engaged in a violent campaign to drive African American gang rivals out the South L.A. neighborhood of Florence-Firestone, resulting in more than 20 killings over three years. In the late 1980s, according to a report in The Times, the neighborhood was about 80% African American, but today it is 90% Latino.

Animosity between Latinos and blacks is the worst-kept secret in race relations in America. For years, Latino leaders have pointed the finger of blame at blacks when Latinos are robbed, beaten and even murdered. Blacks, in turn, have blamed Latinos for taking jobs, for colonizing neighborhoods, for gang violence. These days, the tension between the races is noticeable not only in prison life and in gang warfare (where it's been a staple of life for decades) but in politics, in schools, in housing, in the immigration debate. Conflicts today are just as likely -- in some cases, more likely -- to be between blacks and Latinos as between blacks and whites. In fact, even though hate-crime laws were originally created to combat crimes by whites against minority groups, the majority of L.A. County's hate crimes against blacks in 2006 were suspected to have been committed by Latinos, and vice versa, according to the county Commission on Human Relations.

Across the country -- in Plainfield, N.J.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Annapolis, Md., and Indianapolis, Ind., among other places -- the clash between black and brown has drawn attention, and lots of it, because it involves two groups that some think should be natural allies. At least that's what the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar Chavez thought four decades ago. They had a mutual admiration society and passionately believed that blacks and Latinos were equally oppressed minorities and should march in lock step. "Our separate struggles are really one -- a struggle for freedom, for dignity and for humanity," King wrote to Chavez in 1965. But that rhapsodic notion of black and brown harmony is now the faintest of faint memories. Three years ago, when the Census Bureau proclaimed Latinos the largest minority in the U.S., many blacks loudly grumbled that they would be shoved even further to the margin among minorities. The grumbles have risen to a near-shrill pitch among many blacks during the immigration debates of recent years. Although most civil rights leaders and black Democrats publicly embraced the immigrant rights struggle, many blacks privately expressed dread about being bypassed in the battle against poverty and discrimination, and some were actively hostile to the goals of immigrant groups. At a 2005 meeting in L.A., for instance, black radio host Terry Anderson summed up a not-uncommon position in the African American community when he blamed illegal immigrants for stealing jobs from blacks and crowding schools. "We've been invaded," he said. "There's no other word for it."

One of the first warnings that many blacks felt threatened by soaring Latino numbers was the battle over Proposition 187 in California in 1994. California voters approved the measure, which denied public services to illegal immigrants, by a huge margin. Shockingly, blacks also backed the measure; one L.A. Times poll several months after the proposition passed showed blacks supporting its "immediate implementation," 58% to 36%. Apparently, blacks were mortally afraid that Latinos would bump them from low-skill jobs and further marginalize them by increasing joblessness and fueling the crime and drug crises in black neighborhoods. And it's probably true that at the low end of the scale some young, poor, unskilled blacks have been shut out of jobs at hotels and restaurants and in manufacturing. There's also fierce competition for the dwindling number of affirmative action spots in colleges.

The prime reason for chronic black unemployment, however, is lingering racial discrimination and the lack of job skills, training and education.

Over the years, racial fear has spilled into politics; blacks worry that the national chase for Latino votes will erode the political gains and power they have won through decades of struggle. That was evident in the ambivalence and even flat-out hostility of many blacks toward Villaraigosa in his first bid for mayor. Heard repeatedly on the streets was that a Villaraigosa win would mean the ouster of blacks from City Hall.

Fear also has spilled into the schools. The battle between black and Latino members over whether the L.A. Unified parents advisory panel meetings should be conducted in English or Spanish actually masked larger issues. Many blacks feel they are getting the short end of the stick educationally in a school district in which Latinos make up more than 70% of the students.

Of course, there's nothing unique about L.A.'s situation. Latinos and blacks make up the majority of students in many big-city school districts -- and these public schools are among the poorest and most segregated. In their desperation to get a quality education for their kids, Latinos and blacks in many districts across the country accuse each other of gobbling up scarce resources, dragging down test scores and fueling the rise in crime and gang problems at the schools.

The only real solution is to press school officials for more funding, better teachers and high-quality learning materials, but when the money is not there, the problem quickly is reduced to ethnic squabbling over scarce dollars. And students take up the battle, as in the case of the months-long skirmishes between black and Latino kids at Jefferson High School in 2005 -- where the student body had gone from 31% Latino to 92% Latino in 25 years.

Partly, these are problems of empathy. Many Latinos fail to understand the complexity and severity of the black experience. They frequently bash blacks for their poverty and goad them to pull themselves up as other immigrants have done. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox took heat from black leaders in 2005 when he claimed that Mexican immigrants would do work in the United States that "not even blacks" want to do. Some Latinos repeat the same vicious anti-black epithets as racist whites -- like the Latino kid at Jefferson High who helped start a race riot when he yelled "Go back to Africa!" at his fellow students.

Ethnic insensitivity, however, cuts both ways. Many blacks have little understanding of the impoverishment and social turmoil that has driven so many Latinos to seek jobs and refuge in the United States. Once here, they face the massive problems of adjusting to a strange culture, new customs and a different language, and that includes discrimination too.

Despite the problems, the picture is not one of total gloom and doom. Blacks and Latinos have worked together in some communities to combat police abuse, crime and violence, as well as for school improvements and increased neighborhood services. Still, the painful truth is that blacks and Latinos have found that the struggle for power and recognition is long and difficult. On some issues, they can be allies, on others, they will go it alone. Changing demographics and the rise of Latinos to the top minority spot in America won't make the problems of either group disappear. Nor will blaming each other for those problems solve them.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is "The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation Between African Americans and Hispanics," published by Middle Passage Press.

DHS to Re-Vamp No-Match Social Security Initiative

DHS is trying to find another way to approach the No-Match Social Security initiative. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had already postponed any action on the letters until March 10.

Perhaps someone in the Bush administration had a moment of lucidity and realized that something like this would create a labor crisis.

-----

Justice Seeks Delay in Court Challenge to Immigration Plan
Bush Administration Says It Will Modify Crackdown on Employers Who Hire Illegal Workers
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 25, 2007; A11

The Bush administration said Friday that it will modify its planned crackdown on U.S. companies that employ illegal immigrants, asking a federal judge to delay hearing a lawsuit brought by major American labor, business and farm organizations until the new strategy is completed.

In papers filed in San Francisco late Friday afternoon, Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey S. Bucholtz told U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer that the Homeland Security Department is making unspecified changes to its plan to pressure employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers.

The Justice Department in court papers asked the judge to delay the case until March 24, or until a new program is ready.

On Oct. 10, Breyer barred the government from mailing Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers, citing serious legal questions about requiring companies to resolve questions about their employees' identities, fire them within 90 days, or else face potential fines and criminal prosecution.

President Bush made the initiative a priority in August after the Senate killed his proposed overhaul of immigration laws. In issuing a preliminary injunction, however, the judge cited plaintiffs' arguments that the Social Security Administration database includes so many errors that using it to enforce immigration laws would cause "staggering" disruptions at workplaces and discriminate against tens of thousands of legal workers.

The judge also said that the government failed to weigh the cost of the new regulation on small businesses as required.

"Certainly DHS believes that the court got it wrong," department spokeswoman Laura Keehner said. However, in modifying the program, "DHS is planning to provide an answer to the small number of minor issues that the judge raised in his opinion," she said.

Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which joined the suit brought by the AFL-CIO and the American Civil Liberties Union, along with agriculture, restaurant and construction industry associations, said businesses are bracing for the new effort. "I hope they give the employer community adequate time to comment and do not just jam it through during the holidays, particularly given that this regulation covers all industries, across all sectors of the economy."

Only Actions and Objects are Illegal, Not People

Decency on Immigration
Apart from John McCain, it's hard to find that quality in the Republican presidential contest.
Washington Post
Saturday, November 24, 2007; A16

THE SPEAKER was discussing the human face of illegal immigration. "People are continuing dying in the Sonoran desert, and it's just a very sad thing to see," he said. "One 3-year-old baby died, a 16-year-old girl with a rosary in her hand. There's a side of this that grieves me terribly. These are God's children. They're not from another planet, and the whole thing . . . frankly, this whole issue saddens me a great deal."

These statements were moving, but they would not have been especially remarkable except for the fact that the person speaking is a presidential candidate -- a Republican presidential candidate, in fact -- at a time when the campaign has taken a particularly toxic tone when it comes to the issue of immigration. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters the other day, Arizona Sen. John McCain described the toll that he believes his championing of comprehensive immigration reform took on his campaign. "It was the issue of immigration that hurt my campaign," he said. "I have not encountered a domestic issue that has provoked the emotional response that this issue does with a lot of Americans."

Indeed, even as Mr. McCain was speaking, his GOP rivals were busy turning an ugly immigration debate even uglier. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who said in 2005 he thought that the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration approach was "sensible," and former New York mayor

Rudolph W. Giuliani, who as mayor protected illegal immigrants from being reported to immigration authorities when they sought police protection or hospital care, competed to see who could sound toughest.

"As governor, I opposed driver's licenses for illegals, vetoed tuition breaks for illegals and combated sanctuary city policies by authorizing the state police to enforce federal immigration law," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "As president, I will secure the border and reject sanctuary policies by cities, states or the federal government."

The Giuliani campaign shot back, in a statement by communications director Katie Levinson: "On Governor Romney's watch, the number of illegal immigrants in Massachusetts skyrocketed, aid to Massachusetts sanctuary cities went through the roof and Governor Romney even went so far as to hire illegals to work on his lawn." Mr. Romney and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson have also taken shots at former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for allowing the children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas to qualify for in-state tuition and academic scholarships if they graduated from high school there. As Mr. Huckabee told Fox News, "the basic concept, and I know this is still an anathema to some people, I don't believe you punish the children for the crime and sins of the parents."

Illegal immigration provokes strong emotions, understandably so. But it would behoove all the candidates to engage in a little less chest-thumping and speak with more of the decency and compassion that Mr. McCain exhibited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301493.html

An Honest Discussion on Immigration with a Consideration of Ethics

It has been over a month since this article was published in the Financial Times. I think it is worth reading. It is one of the few articles on immigration that takes a pragmatic approach.

The author of this piece should talk to some of our Senators. His last comment made me pause. I have not heard talk like this in the U.S. Congress.


"So let us try to have an honest discussion, based on the best possible analysis and consideration of the ethics. If immigration is to continue at a substantial (if reduced) rate, all these issues must be confronted. If not, the debate is certain to become ever more unpleasantly xenophobic. This is not an area for stealth, but for policies that are far more open, transparent and better justified than hitherto."

_____

Why immigration is hard to tackle
By Martin Wolf
Published: November 2 2007 02:00 | Last updated: November 2 2007 02:00
London Financial Times


Does a country have the right to determine the composition of its population? If so, how should it do so? These questions are hard to answer. That is presumably why the government has run what amounts to a "stealth" immigration policy. But that approach is now unworkable. The time has come for a debate. That debate should focus on whether restricting immigration is legitimate, desirable and feasible. Only then can one decide what policy to pursue.

The government is in difficulties on this topic, for three reasons. First, the inflow has been substantial. Between 1997 and 2006, gross immigration was 4.8m and net immigration 1.6m, or 7.8 per cent and 2.6 per cent of the 2006 population, respectively. The latest projections suggest that the population might rise by 4.4m between 2006 and 2016, with immigration generating close to half of this increase.

The second reason is that the government seems to have little idea how many immigrants are in the country. It has just had to admit that the number of foreign-born workers who had arrived since 1997 was 1.5m. Foreigners also seem to have filled more than half of the additional jobs created since 1997. Aware of the potential political risks, the government has announced the continuation of controls on workers from Romania and Bulgaria, and introduced a point system to manage immigration of workers from outside the European Union. A panic-stricken Gordon Brown, prime minister, has even proclaimed "British jobs for British workers".

The third and most fundamental reason is that the government never made a case for such levels of immigration. So how should one go about having such a debate?

A good starting point is whether a country is morally entitled to restrict migration. Philippe Legrain, a notable economist and author, takes a strong position on this, most recently in a robust contribution on migration to a report from CentreForum, a liberal, London-based think-tank*. His argument is that freedom of movement is a human right. The implication is that a country should be defined as a set of institutions that controls a given territory. Its people have no right to determine the composition of its population. I understand the argument, but do not agree with it. A country is not just a set of institutions, but also a home. People do have a right to decide who enters their (collective) home.

Yet even if one agrees that a country has a right to restrict immigration, it does not follow that it ought to do so. Mr Legrain argues that it is not just in the global interest to have free migration, but also in that of recipient countries. A standard "gains from trade" analysis would suggest that this should be true. But if one is to argue for free movement of labour on economic grounds one needs a sense of the likely consequences. Analyses of free migration in the presence of huge real wage differentials suggest that we would end up with vast informal sectors and shanty towns. That is what happens within poor countries. Why should it not happen across the globe? I cannot see how one would persuade a host population that this outcome would be in their interests.

So the debate has to be over what are still controlled levels of migration. What is most striking here is the poor standard of the government's analysis. The Home Office's recent contribution to a House of Lords economic affairs committee inquiry discusses the impact on the size of the economy. For those of us who are not seduced by the "lump of labour" fallacy, there is no doubt that a bigger labour force would make the economy larger. So what? If one is trying to persuade people that immigration is in their interests, one has to analyse its impact on the gross domestic product and its distribution, after subtracting the incomes earned by migrants. So far as I can see, the Home Office does not even attempt to assess this.

Mr Legrain has little doubt. His position is that immigrants are almost always complementary to domestic workers and so raise their productivity and incomes. A particular benefit, he argues, is diversity. These points have force. But he also assumes, less credibly, that there are few negative consequences of diversity or a denser population.

Yet what is most striking in this debate is how little we know. The case for an analysis similar to Sir Nicholas Stern's on climate change policy is overwhelming. Of course, a review would be pointless if it were impossible to control immigration. While the extent to which this is possible is limited, it is not utterly infeasible. But we should certainly move to market-compatible systems, such as auctions of work permits, rather than arbitrary point systems.

So let us try to have an honest discussion, based on the best possible analysis and consideration of the ethics. If immigration is to continue at a substantial (if reduced) rate, all these issues must be confronted. If not, the debate is certain to become ever more unpleasantly xenophobic. This is not an area for stealth, but for policies that are far more open, transparent and better justified than hitherto. Let the debate begin.

*Globalisation: a Liberal Response, www.centreforum.org

martin.wolf@ft.com

Crushed by Hysteria

What is going to happen to Spitzer now that the move for driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants was bulldozed?

Hillary found herself tripped up with the license question, but somehow wiggled out of her predicament.

All the other Democratic candidates are either staying silent because they are concerned about how to appear before their constituents - or like Richardson and Kucinich they just jumped into the fire.

Most of the major U.S. newspapers are cautioning Americans about the consequences of this hysteria. Perhaps Lou Dobbs is screaming so loudly that he is drowning everyone else out.

The New York Times

November 23, 2007 Friday
Late Edition - Final

The Immigration Wilderness

SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; EDITORIAL; Pg. 36

LENGTH: 1007 words

The nation certainly sounds as if it's in an angry place on immigration.

A major Senate reform bill collapsed in rancor in June, and every effort to revive innocuous bits of it, like a bill to legalize exemplary high school graduates, has been crushed. Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York hatched a plan to let illegal immigrants earn driver's licenses -- and steamrollered into the Valley of Death. Asked if she supported Mr. Spitzer, Senator Hillary Clinton tied herself in knots looking for the safest answer.

The Republican presidential candidates, meanwhile, are doggedly out-toughing one another -- even Rudolph Giuliani, who once defended but now disowns the immigrants who pulled his hard-up city out of a ditch. A freshman Democratic representative, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, has submitted an enforcement bill bristling with border fencing and punishments. Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, for whom restricting immigration is the first, last and only issue, says he will not run again when his term expires next year. I have done all I can, he says, like some weary gunslinger covered in blood and dust.

The natural allies of immigrants have been cowed into mumbling or silent avoidance. The Democrats' chief strategist, Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, went so far as to declare immigration the latest ''third rail of American politics.'' This profile in squeamishness was on full display at the Democratic presidential debate last week in Las Vegas, when Wolf Blitzer pressed the candidates for yes-or-no answers on driver's licenses and Mrs. Clinton, to her great discredit, said no.

This year's federal failure will not be undone until 2009 at the earliest, while states and local governments will continue doing their own thing, creating a mishmash of immigration policies, most of them harsh and shortsighted. But the wilderness of anger into which Mr. Tancredo helped lead America is not where the country has to be on this vitally important issue, nor where it truly is.

Mrs. Clinton was closer to being right the first time, when she haltingly defended Mr. Spitzer's reasoning. Fixing immigration is not a yes-or-no question. It's yes and no. Or if you prefer, no and yes -- no to more illegal immigration, to uncontrolled borders and to a flourishing underground economy where employer greed feeds off worker desperation. Yes to extending the blanket of law over the anonymous, undocumented population -- through fines and other penalties for breaking the nation's laws and an orderly path to legal status and citizenship to those who qualify.

These are the ingredients of a realistic approach to a complicated problem. It's called comprehensive reform, and it rests on the idea that having an undocumented underclass does the country more harm than good. This is not ''open-borders amnesty,'' a false label stuck on by those who want enforcement and nothing else. It's tough on the border and on those who sneaked across it. It's tough but fair to employers who need immigrant workers. It recognizes that American citizens should not have to compete for jobs with a desperate population frightened into accepting rock-bottom wages and working conditions. It makes a serious effort to fix legal immigration by creating an orderly future flow of legal workers.

Americans accept this approach. The National Immigration Forum has compiled nearly two dozen polls from 2007 alone that show Americans consistently favoring a combination of tough enforcement and earned legalization over just enforcement. Elections confirm this. Straight-talking moderates like Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico thrive in the immigration crucible along the southern border. Those who obsess about immigration as single-issue hard-liners, like the Arizonans J. D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, have disappeared, booted by voters. Voters in Virginia this month rejected similar candidates and handed control of the State Senate to Democrats.

It may not be ''amnesty'' that gets Americans worked up as much as inaction. They seem to sense the weakness and futility in the enforcement-only strategy, the idea of tightening the screws on an informal apartheid system until it is so frightening and hopeless that millions of poor people pack up and leave.

That is the attrition argument, the only answer the anti-amnesty crowd has to comprehensive reform. It is, of course, a passive amnesty that rewards only the most furtive and wily illegal immigrants and the bottom-feeding employers who hire them. It will drive some people out of the country, but will push millions of others -- families with members of mixed immigration status, lots of citizen children and practically a nation's worth of decent, hard workers -- further into hiding.

We are already seeing what a full-bore enforcement-only strategy will bring. Bias crimes against Hispanic people are up, hate groups are on the march. Legal immigration remains a mess. Applications for citizenship are up, and the federal citizenship agency, which steeply raised its fees to increase efficiency, is drowning in paperwork and delays. American citizens are being caught up in house-to-house raids by immigration agents.

America is waiting for a leader to risk saying that the best answer is not the simplest one. As John Edwards said at the last debate, ''When is our party going to show a little backbone and strength and courage and speak up for those people who have been left behind?''

He was talking about the poor and people without health insurance, but he could -- and should -- have included a host of others: Business owners who want to hire legal workers. Americans who don't want their opportunities undermined by the off-the-books economy. Children whose dreams of education and advancement are thwarted by their parents' hopeless immigration status. And the immigrants, here and abroad, who want to find their place in a society that once welcomed their honest labor, but can't find a way to do it anymore.

From LexusNexus Academic
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2561784909&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T2561784912&cisb=22_T2561784911&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=2

The GOP is Yelling FIRE!

Andres Martinez is telling us that Tancredo and Kucinich are the only ones who are sincere in the immigration debate. Everyone else is just being theatrical. Is this something new? Aren't all politicians (especially those running for President) good actors?

Martinez says the scene will get played out in a nasty way. That has already started.

So the GOP has found a new cause. Their fanaticism is surely one way to get people riled up enough so they will go to the polls and "elect someone who will send all those illegals back to where they came from." Hysteria provokes movement.

As far as Democratic sincerity, their dance is a complicated one -- how to look fair when you aren't being fair. For Hillary to say that she "only lived" at the White House during her husbands tenure is a cop out. I'm surprised that no one has called her on it. Remember, it was during Clinton's second term that one of the harshest immigration bills made it through the Congress. The kind of person that Hillary is, do you think she stood there watching? And yes, Clinton was dealing with a Republican Congress at the time, but he was able to get his way in many other areas. Maybe immigration was either not important enough to him, or he saw it as politically expedient to kneel to the GOP - at least in this matter.

It's a shame that people's lives will be seriously affected by something that could just be a political sham.


-----

Stumped
A Washington Post Blog by Alex Martinez

Is Immigration This Year's Gay Marriage?

Q. My wife and I are two of maybe 100 Democrats in a county south of Atlanta. Our question is this: Will the Republicans be successful by making illegal immigration the gay marriage issue of this election?

A. I never believed Iraq would be the dominant issue in this presidential campaign, but I never would have guessed that it would be illegal immigration. And yet you may be right: Republicans seem to have seized upon illegal immigration this year's wedge issue.

It may be more accurate, however, to call autarky the dominant issue of 2008. You read it here first: After being stumped to come up with the one word to capture what's going on out there, and after checking with Merriam-Webster to make sure that the word does indeed mean economic independence, I hereby declare 2008 as the Autarky Election. How about it, Lou? The Autarky Party just might support Dobbs for president.

And the Democratic equivalent of Republican immigrant-bashing is free-trade-bashing. Even Hillary Clinton is distancing herself from her husband's robust record of promoting trade liberalization and economic interdependence. As much as she touts her experience as First Lady, when the subject turns to the North American Free Trade Agreement, Clinton's attitude seems to be, "Hey, I just lived there. It was his presidency."

Recent polling shows the economy surging on the list of issues voters care most about. But instead of Bill Clinton's 1992 slogan -- "It's the economy, stupid" -- the appropriate bumper sticker may be, "It's our economy, stupid." There is a post-9/11, post-Iraqi-quagmire mistrust of all things foreign.

But this anti-[insert foreign nation here] backlash has less to do with economic fundamentals than it does with deeper psychological anxieties. It's about the nostalgic pull of American isolationism, the yearning for an old-fashioned manufacturing economy, a longing for the time when you didn't hear any Spanish in places like Wisconsin. Trade and immigration have enriched this country like no other. But polls show that most Americans think anything foreign -- Chinese toys, Dubai investors, Mexican workers -- has been bad for the economy. And no politician this year, with the possible exception of Michael Bloomberg if he wades into the race as a third-party candidate, is likely to tell them otherwise.

Iowa, to choose a state at random, has prospered mightily from global trade. Don't expect the Democratic candidates to acknowledge this, however. They must all speak of trade as if it were an economic tsunami. Republicans, meanwhile, all have to line up to outdo each other in denouncing the workers who keep their lawns manicured, their children cared for and their restaurants open.

Setting aside the Tancredos and Kuciniches of the race, who are at least being sincere, there is a farcical nature to the pro-autarky posturing in both parties. Leading candidates in both parties know better. Hillary Clinton opposing the Korea Free Trade Agreement? Give me a break. John Edwards was a centrist pro-trade senator before he reinvented himself as a crazed populist presidential candidate. Among Republicans, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee may all be vulnerable in primaries because of their stances on illegal immigration -- perhaps because they have all governed in the real world, where these workers are needed.

Republicans may frame the issue in terms of illegal immigration, while Democrats prefer to discuss "fair trade." But they're both talking about the same thing: autarky. On the campaign trail or in a 90-minute debate, trade and immigration can seem like separate issues. But they are part of the same theme for many voters and in the discourse of talk radio.

But back to your question: Yes, Republicans may stand to gain the most from this yearning for autarky. The theory was that the GOP would agree to change the system because big business understands the imperative of legalizing the flow of needed labor. But the GOP's more important imperative is political, and illegal immigration is a powerful anti-Democrat weapon.

It is going to get ugly, I am afraid -- and very stupid.

By Andres Martinez | November 23, 2007; 12:00 AM ET

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/stumped/2007/11/is_immigration_this_years_gay_1.html

Americanos - Los Brutos/Americans as Brutes

The present generation that is running the country grew up watching Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Gunsmoke, and Bonanza. While many call them Baby Boomers, I would call them closeted Marlboro Men (and women).

Our current President is the quintessential Marlboro Man. If you recall that great photo-op on the naval air carrier, with President Bush dressed like he just came out of a movie set - leather jacket and all.

Now the Marlboro Man has taken over immigration policy. What a better place to show your testosterone than an ICE raid?

The raids make clear to everyone in the world that we would rather behave like brutes- (separate families, ignore due process, and incarcerate people without charges), than sit down and negotiate some reasonable legislation regarding immigration.


-----

GLOBE EDITORIAL
Raids are beside the point
November 22, 2007
Boston Globe


FEDERAL IMMIGRATION officials have crafted guidelines on how to conduct more humane workplace raids to round up undocumented workers. It sounds oxymoronic: Enforcement actions aren't supposed to be tea parties. But what the country really needs is comprehensive immigration reform that gives immigrants more ways to work here legally.

Lacking such reforms, immigration officials should not rely too heavily on dramatic "show raids," but instead beef up incentives and penalties for employers. After all, it's the ready availability of jobs in the United States that attracts undocumented workers.

Massachusetts witnessed the human toll of raids in March when immigration officials raided the Michael Bianco leather company in New Bedford. Children of detained parents faced emotional and financial hardships, according to a report from the Urban Institute, a nonprofit Washington think tank that studied the New Bedford raid and similar actions in Colorado and Nebraska.

Worried about how arrests and possible deportations affect pregnant women, nursing mothers, and single parents - not to mention their children - Senator Edward Kennedy and congressman William Delahunt helped devise the new raid guidelines, which show compassion and common sense - but also limitations.

The guidelines call on federal officials to staff raids with personnel from the Division of Immigration Health Services, a federal entity that provides healthcare for detained undocumented immigrants. These staffers would identify detainees with family, health, and humanitarian concerns. Immigration officials are also being asked to work with state social services and community groups.

Still, these are only suggestions. And even when they are followed, fear will inevitably prevent some detainees from talking to government officials, even if the officials are human service workers.

Whether raids are genteel or jarring, their effectiveness is dubious. They grab headlines and generate fear, but they fail to slow the great waves of illegal immigration.

That's why other tools should be used. Employers need a 21st-century verification system, so that they can quickly establish who can legally work. Once that system is in place, penalties should be stiffened for employers who hire and abuse undocumented workers. Add presidential candidate Bill Richardson's advice to talk to Mexico about job creation, so its citizens aren't as desperate to cross the border, and that would be a move toward comprehensive reform.

Protecting children during raids is important, especially since an estimated two-thirds of undocumented workers' children are American citizens. But the country also needs a modern immigration system that relies far less on raids and more on genuine reform.

article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/11/22/raids_are_beside_the_point?mode=PF

photo: http://www.hot-cigs.com/images/MarlboroMan.jpg

When Being Called Crazy is a Compliment

Perhaps it is a compliment that O'Reilly called Oppenheimer a "crazy columnist." I'm not saying I agree with O'Reilly. However, if Oppenheimer's column is being noticed by the xenophobes, that means it must be pretty good and they must be concerned about it's impact.

Another thing... I think O'Reilly and Dobbs are not the most logical or reasonable people (maybe missing some nuts and bolts in their brains). Their character judgement is not very reliable. I think I'd be afraid to be called normal by these guys.

Now, as for Oppenheimer's opinion on the future of the DREAMERS. If the DREAM ACT does not pass, it's possible that these kids will become part of the underclass. I would say they probably won't, but their children will.

As in the history of Mexican Americans in the southwest, people weren't allowed to go to high school or couldn't because of the harvest schedule (la cosecha). They still worked hard and lived as good citizens. Unfortunately many of the next generations have found that being a gang member feels more inclusive than being a college student.

As I mentioned in a previous post (November 8, 2007 "Oppenheimer on the DREAM ACT") there won't be a riot. DREAMERS would become parents who would mourn their lost opportunities... with their children carrying the burden in other ways.

THE OPPENHEIMER REPORT
Who's crazy, me or O'Reilly?
Posted on Thu, Nov. 15, 2007
By ANDRES OPPENHEIMER
aoppenheimer@MiamiHerald.com


On Nov. 8, I had the distinction of being called ''a crazy columnist'' and a ''nut'' on prime time television by conservative Fox News anchorman Bill O'Reilly for a column I had written about the urgent need for a comprehensive solution to America's immigration crisis.

I'm not going to disqualify O'Reilly -- or the CNN anti-immigration crusader Lou Dobbs -- as a Hispanic-phobic hate monger. Rather than trying to smear him, as O'Reilly did to me, I will focus on how deceiving his arguments are. You judge.

DANGEROUS TREND

First, the facts. In my Nov. 4 column, ''Angry migrant underclass might erupt in U.S.,'' I argued that the rapid escalation of the U.S. anti-immigration hysteria is a dangerous trend. It will create an underclass of nearly 13 million people who won't leave this country, who can't realistically be deported and who -- if deprived of a path to earned legalization -- will become increasingly frustrated and angry, I said.

I even used the word ''intifada'' -- granted, I wanted to grab your attention, to describe the worst case scenario of what could happen if undocumented immigrants are given absolutely no legal path to earned upward mobility. In that context, I cited the examples of the Palestinian youths' riots in Israel in the 1990s and the 2005 riots by Muslim youths in the suburbs of Paris.

My main point was that the estimated 1.8 million U.S.-raised undocumented youths -- who were brought to this country as toddlers, often speak no other language than English and don't even remember their countries of origin -- will soon be thrown into the U.S. labor market with zero chances of getting a legal job.

What is going to happen with these youths? Most are barred from applying for in-state college tuition and will grow up on the streets. Many of them will join the gangs that are already terrorizing many U.S. cities. Undocumented kids, especially the brightest ones, need to be given an opportunity to gain U.S. citizenship, as was contemplated in the Dream Act that was recently defeated in the U.S. Senate.

As soon as my column was published, I was flooded with e-mails from all over the country. By Wednesday, MiamiHerald.com website had a whopping 93 pages of comments on the column. Many of them were openly hostile against Hispanic immigrants and claimed -- wrongly -- that my column was inciting violence.

`CRAZY COLUMNIST'

On Nov. 8, O'Reilly said in an on-air conversation with Fox News analyst Laura Ingraham that ``there is a crazy columnist in Miami, Miami Herald, who says that the Hispanics are going to rise up.''

Ingraham said I was ''intimating something akin, Bill, to a race war . . . It's insane.'' He responded, ''He's a nut. He's a nut, this guy.'' She added that I am part of ''a crazy far-left anarchist wing'' of the immigration debate.

My opinion: For the record, I never called for violence, nor would I. Suggesting that I was endorsing violence, as was done in the O'Reilly show, is irresponsible journalism.

But even more irresponsible is what O'Reilly and other cable television anti-immigration crusaders are doing every day: inciting Americans to rebel against ''illegal immigrants'' -- most of whom are Hispanic -- without offering any realistic solutions to America's immigration problem.

As long as the income gap between the United States and Latin America continues to be as wide as it is, as long as U.S. employers keep welcoming undocumented immigrants to do low-paid work and as long as U.S. consumers continue to prefer paying less for services performed by undocumented workers, the immigration flow will continue, no matter how many stretches of fence we place along the 2,000-mile border.

If we want to reduce illegal immigration, we will have to allow greater legal immigration and at the same time increase economic ties with Latin America to help our neighbors grow and reduce their people's pressures to emigrate.

Above all, we need to give the 1.8 million U.S.-raised undocumented children an earned path to legalization. Otherwise, we will be creating an underclass of social pariahs, many of whom will end up joining street gangs.

Are these fears crazy? Am I nuts? You decide.

http://www.miamiherald.com/519/story/308401.html

Richardson's Comments - Debate November 15, 2007

From the New York Times

GOV. RICHARDSON: By the way, I'm Bill Richardson. I'm the governor of New Mexico. (Laughter, cheers, applause.) Nice to meet you all.

You know, it seems that John wants to start a class war. It seems that Barack wants to start a generational war. It seems that Senator Clinton with all due respect on her plan on Iraq doesn't end the war -- (audio break from source). (Laughter, cheers.) And I say that -- I say that because these are the fundamental issues.

Do our plans end the war? Do our plans make America energy independent? Do our plans give health care to every American? Are we creating jobs and economic growth? Are we resolving the real problems affecting this country? You know, let's stop this mud slinging. Let's stop this going after each other on character, on trust. Let us debate the issues that affect the American people -- (cheers, applause) -- and let us be positive. Let's be positive.



Driver’s License for Undocumented Immigrants

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, my answer is yes, and I did it. You know why? Because the Congress -- I notice Barack mentioned the president, but the Congress also failed miserably to pass comprehensive immigration. And we need to have it in this country.

I did it four years ago. My legislature sent me a bill. I signed it. My law enforcement people said it's a matter of public safety. What we need is public safety, a reduction in traffic fatalities. We wanted more people to be insured. When we started with this program, 33 percent of all New Mexicans had -- were uninsured. Today it's 11 percent. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It's a matter of public safety.

Solving the Immigration problem

GOV. RICHARDSON: -- secure the borders, a stronger relationship with Mexico. Those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished, and a path to legalization. That is the solution.

MS. MALVEAUX: George Ambriz. He's -- you're a graduate student here, and you're also a mentor for children. I understand that you have a concern about immigration.

Q Yes, I do. (Speaks in Spanish.) It seems that many political commentators such as Lou Dobbs are guiding the debate and strongly shaping U.S. policy on immigration by insinuating a linkage to terrorism. As many people know, no terrorist has come from our southern border. Do you consider fighting terrorism and slowing the flow of illegal immigration coming from our southern border as intrinsically related issues?

MS. MALVEAUX: Governor Richardson, since you're the only on this stage who does not support even building a fence, why don't you take this one?

REP. KUCINICH: That's not true.

GOV. RICHARDSON: By the way, Dennis, you keep -- stop including me in all these votes. I've been a governor. I'm in New Mexico. (Laughter.) I'm not in Washington. (Applause.)

Here's my answer. You know, two years ago -- and I'm the only one that's dealt with the immigration issue directly.

You know, and by the way, with the Congress, let me just say, the Congress's approval rating is 11 percent. Now, you know who's higher? Dick Cheney and HMOs. (Laughter.)

My point is that, you know, let's talk about the need to bring this together. Dysfunctional relationships exist between the president and the Congress that needs to be corrected.

Here's my answer. Two years ago, I'm the first governor that declared a border emergency because the federal government wasn't doing its job in stopping the flow of drugs and people. But you know what? We should stop demonizing immigrants. We should stop doing that. (Applause.)

And I'm against the fence -- and I am against the fence because it will not work. The Congress only funded half of the fence, and it's not America.

What I would do is I would do four quick things. One, we have to secure the border. Double the number of Border Patrol agents. Keep the National Guard there a little longer; detection equipment, as you mentioned.

Secondly, those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished. (Applause.)

Third, we should have a relationship -- it's called foreign policy -- with Mexico. They're our friend. But we should speak frankly to our friends, and it should be something like this. "Mexico, give jobs to your people." (Cheers, applause.) "You know, at the very least, stop handing out maps on the easiest place to cross." (Laughter.) And then, lastly, a legalization plan -- a legalization plan --

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

GOV. RICHARDSON: -- not amnesty, not citizenship, but a path to legalization that involves conditions -- learning English --

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

GOV. RICHARDSON: -- paying back taxes.

MR. BLITZER: Governor, thank you.

GOV. RICHARDSON: This is a very important issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15debate-transcript.html?_r=1&fta=y&pagewanted=print

More on Bill Richardson

News on Richardson from the Albuquerque Journal

Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Richardson Watch
Albuquerque Journal
By Jeff Jones
.
He's running. We're watching.
Keeping tabs on Gov. Bill Richardson as he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination ...

UP IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: A new poll in the early-primary state of New Hampshire has Richardson at 12 percent, a single digit behind third-place candidate John Edwards and six points up from polling done in September.

The CNN/WMUR-TV poll released Tuesday put frontrunner Hillary Clinton at 36 percent, followed by Barack Obama (22 percent) and, if you consider the margin of error, the neck-in-neck Edwards and Richardson.

The TV poll in September had Clinton at 43 percent, Obama at 20 percent, Edwards at 12 percent and Richardson at 6 percent.

Richardson campaign spokesman Tom Reynolds told the Journal the new polling— along with some recent gains in Iowa— shows "clear momentum," adding, "This is exactly when we want to be doing well. We want to peak on Jan. 3 for the (Iowa) caucuses."

GRADING THE DEBATE: For the most part, Richardson's performance during last week's candidate debate in Las Vegas, Nev., drew neither heaps of high praise nor loads of heavy criticism.

Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin gave Richardson a C-plus for his Nov. 15 outing at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"Too rehearsed at times, but overall just fine," Halperin wrote on Time.com. "Still trying to distinguish himself as the only governor in the race, but he has trouble pulling it off in the short-answer format."

Halperin added Richardson made some "solid points about policy and his record."

A CYNIC'S VIEW: Salon.com's Washington correspondent Michael Scherer took a decidedly cynical view of the Las Vegas debate.

Here's Scherer's take from about the debate's 22-minute mark, when Richardson finally got a chance to speak:

" 'I'm Bill Richardson. I'm the governor of New Mexico,' says Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico. This is funny because he hasn't been able to speak until now. People laugh. Then Richardson slings mud. Edwards 'wants to start a class war,' he says. Obama 'wants to start a generational war.' And Clinton won't end the war in Iraq. For good measure, Richardson adds, 'You know, let's stop this mudslinging.' ''

...

Journal politics writer Jeff Jones

For complete articlehttp://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/263641nm11-21-07.htm

photo: http://newsfromrussia.com/img/idb/bill-8.jpg

Navarette Says Bill Richardson Rocks

It is unheard of that a candidate actually admonishes his audience unless they are doing something really drastic like scream obscenities. Richardson stood above the crowd at the Democratic debate in Los Vegas this week when he told everyone that the whole immigration situation was dysfunctional and that Congress was a mess.

Interesting that this information hasn't been in the papers (I haven't checked the Albuquerque paper)... I guess for the media, nice things don't count.

Richardson appeals for civil debate on immigration
Ruben Navarrette Jr., The San Diego Union-Tribune
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
What can I say? Bill Richardson rocks.

While John Edwards and Barack Obama were taking shots at Hillary Clinton during the recent CNN Democratic debate in Las Vegas, the New Mexico governor was focusing on his own candidacy and delivering one of the best performances of the night.

Even those who believe that Richardson is really auditioning for a vice presidential nomination would have to concede that the audition is going well.

Just think about the novel way in which Richardson, in answering a question from the audience about the tone of the immigration debate, did something that is practically unheard of in the dizzying pander-monium of the 2008 campaign: He scolded the audience and told them that not only do we have a dysfunctional border that is being breached by illegal immigrants, a dysfunctional system that makes it too hard for people to enter legally, and a dysfunctional Congress that won't tackle the issue in an honest and productive way, but even the way we discuss these issues is dysfunctional.

For one thing, too many Americans keep falling into old habits and repeating a historically familiar depiction of immigrants - legal or illegal - as inferior to natives, defective in their culture, slow to assimilate, prone to criminal activity and devoid of any positive values. Or, as Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo contends in an outrageous television commercial, terrorists in the making.

Tancredo's point was not lost on the person who asked the question during the Democratic debate. George Ambriz, a graduate student at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that one thing shaping the immigration debate is the claim by some that controlling illegal immigration is linked to the war on terrorism. He then asked the Democratic candidates if they agreed that these two things should be linked.

Richardson seized on the question to make a pitch for more civility in our discourse.

"We should stop demonizing immigrants," he said. "We should stop doing that."

Amen. You don't hear that sort of thing often enough from politicians, even from liberal Democrats who like to portray themselves as more progressive on immigration policy than those retrograde Republicans. It should be clear by now that immigration is one issue that cuts across party lines and makes some Democrats sound downright Republican.

Nor would you expect to hear it from Hispanic politicians, many of whom might fear being tagged as overly sympathetic to illegal immigrants. That's the risk that Richardson faces whenever he talks about immigration.

The last time I heard something similar to what Richardson said, it came from someone who is an immigrant - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, like Richardson, has the advantage of living far from Washington and having the real-world perspective of a border governor.

Schwarzenegger has been saying for more than a year that Americans should channel their anger over illegal immigration toward the federal government and not toward immigrants.

I know what you're thinking - that these governors are wrong and that the angst that many Americans feel isn't over "immigrants," just "illegal immigrants."

Sure, sure. It's a lovely sound bite but one not based in fact. Anyone who believes that nonsense hasn't been paying very close attention to the immigration debate. It may have started off being about words such as "legal" and "illegal," but that lasted about 18 seconds. From there, the debate meandered into the cultural swamp. It became about the outrage that we have to "press 1 for English" and how it's bad manners to wave the Mexican flag and how cities should be able to outlaw taco trucks or dictate the number of people who can squeeze into a single-family house. It became about whether we should admit educated and skilled immigrants rather than those whose only qualifications are a strong work ethic and hope for the future. And it became about whether it is time to impose a moratorium on legal immigration to aid the assimilation process for those already here.

Once we went down that road, of course, things were going to get ugly. And, of course, the debate was going to be acrimonious. And, of course, the subtext of the discussion was going to go from anti-illegal immigration to anti-Mexican, just as it has. No surprise there.

That's why it is crucial that people speak out against this sort of thing, especially if they happen to be running for president. We ought to be grateful that at least one has - Bill Richardson.

Ruben Navarrette's e-mail address is ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/21/EDBRTG1HI.DTL

photo: http://www.campaignsource.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/2008RichardsonBtn.jpg

A Convenient Delay: Citizenship Applications Back-up

DHS did not prepare for the avalanche of citizenship applications that would be coming in before the fees increased at the end of July. It is a convenient non-action, during a questionably ethical Republican administration. According to the Washington Post, hundreds of thousands of potential voters will be without their citizenship papers in November 2008. It is certainly one way to tone down the Latino backlash that everyone is expecting at the polls.

Immigrant Paperwork Backs Up At DHS
Delays May Deny Vote to Hundreds Of Thousands
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 22, 2007; A01

The Department of Homeland Security failed to prepare for a massive influx of applications for U.S. citizenship and other immigration benefits this summer, prompting complaints from Hispanic leaders and voter-mobilization groups that several hundred thousand people likely will not be granted citizenship in time to cast ballots in the 2008 presidential election.

Bush administration officials said yesterday that they had anticipated applicants would rush to file their paperwork to beat a widely publicized fee increase that took effect July 30, but did not expect the scale of the response. The backlog comes just months after U.S. officials failed to prepare for tougher border security requirements that triggered months-long delays for millions of Americans seeking passports.

Before the fee hike, citizenship cases typically took about seven months to complete. Now, immigration officials can take five months or more just to acknowledge receipt of applications from parts of the country and will take 16 to 18 months on average to process applications filed after June 1, according to officials from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of DHS. Such a timeline would push many prospective citizens well past voter-registration deadlines for the 2008 primaries and the general elections.

"We expected [the fee increase] might stimulate demand from some folks to file who wouldn't have otherwise, and some from folks to file earlier than they would have," said Michael Aytes, associate director of USCIS, "but we never anticipated" the extent of the growth. "It went off the charts," he said.

Other factors include legal immigrants' anxiety at an increasingly harsh tenor of the political debate over illegal immigration, and heightened interest in the 2008 presidential election, officials said.

The immigration agency's workload has nearly doubled, Aytes said, with 1.4 million naturalization applications arriving from October 2006 to September 2007, compared with 731,000 applications the year before. Between July and September of this year alone, USCIS received 560,000 applications, he said.

The number of green-card-related applications surged to 876,000 in fiscal 2007, from 497,000 in fiscal 2006, he said. At one point this summer, USCIS had 1 million applications and checks waiting to be opened and acknowledged, Aytes said, a backlog that now stands at 235,000. Overall, USCIS received 7.7 million applications for all types of immigration benefits, up from 6.3 million.

"I really want to target the elections," USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez told the Associated Press in an interview published Tuesday. "I really want to get as many people out there to vote as possible."

Aides, however, contradicted him. "We are going to process these cases as responsibly and as quickly as we can, but we're not focused on any of the election cycle," Aytes said. USCIS spokesman Bill Wright emphasized that political calculations played no role in agency decisions. "Any implication of that is ludicrous," he said.

In June, poor planning and coordination between DHS and the State Department forced the Bush administration to temporarily suspend a new security requirement that Americans present passports when flying to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda. Processing times for passport applications ballooned from three weeks to three or four months, jeopardizing summer travel plans for millions of Americans. Wait times returned to normal after the State Department allocated more resources and staffing.

The new crunch -- which some USCIS officials have dubbed a "frontlog" -- threatens to create a political headache that also stems in part from a State-DHS miscommunication. In addition to raising immigration fees this summer, the Bush administration triggered another cascade of applications for legal permanent residency, or green cards, from skilled immigrant workers when it pushed back a planned July 2 deadline, largely because the two departments failed to coordinate on how many slots were available.

"It is the same pattern," said Crystal Williams, deputy director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "It strikes me as remarkable. It's not as if this could not have been predicted."

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who chairs a House immigration subcommittee, said prospective citizens' ability to vote could be delayed, even though USCIS justified what she called its "outrageous" fee increases by saying they would pay to improve efficiency and speed processing. Citizenship applicants by rule must have lived in the United States at least three to five years and established stable lives. Roughly 85 percent of applicants are approved.

Citizenship application fees -- including electronic fingerprinting fees -- rose from $410 to $675 on July 30.

"These are people who want to be Americans . . . and to not allow them to participate in one of the fundamental [rights] of a democracy, which is voting, is a real problem," Lofgren said.

The immigration agency breakdown comes at a sensitive time. President Bush's immigration overhaul legislation failed in the Senate this summer, intensifying a heated national debate in which most Republican presidential candidates are using get-tough rhetoric on border security to mobilize voters agitated over immigration. Democratic contenders are supporting more comprehensive measures, seeking to attract support from Hispanic voters who may be put off by the harder GOP line.

"We have a huge concern on the impact of efforts for people to be able to vote in time for the primaries," said William A. Ramos, Washington spokesman for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, which along with Spanish-language media and labor unions has supported voter-registration efforts in potential swing states with large immigrant populations, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida.

Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union, said immigrants who want to assimilate into U.S. culture and politics are being let down. "I think the overwhelming response of immigrants is 'We do want to be part of this country, but we also want our voices heard,' " he said. "Unfortunately, due to the incompetence of the federal agency, they may not be able to register their opinions."

Sandra Flores, 26, of Houston said she applied for citizenship July 30 but has not heard back from USCIS. "I'm worried. I feel frustrated," said Flores, a part-time student at San Jacinto College who immigrated with her family from Monterrey, Mexico, in 1995, and who said citizenship would give her a vote, a greater sense of security and a better chance to attend a university.

Mildred Molina de Andujar, 42, of Dorchester, Mass., a janitor at Boston's John Hancock building, said she applied July 26. USCIS told her only last week that it had received her application.

"The most important thing for me is the right to vote," said Andujar, who immigrated from the Dominican Republic in 1993 and has a 17-year-old daughter with a green card and a 10-year-old son who is a U.S. citizen by birth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102419_pf.html

2007 Thanksgiving for Who?

At my home today, we began to get ready for Thanksgiving. Our main concern was getting things together to go see my parents tomorrow. They are in their eighties and don't make a turkey anymore. We talked about buying pies, what vegetables we would have and if we would go visit my cousins in the nearby town of Needville. One of my kids is going with me, and other is flying to Argentina as I speak - where they don't celebrate Thanksgiving. I don't think he'll miss the turkey dinner anyway.

When I sit down with my parents tomorrow, they will ask one of us to say a prayer, which is usually about how thankful we are that the family is ok, and are together one more time. Even though I probably won't say anything, I'll be thinking about how lucky we are that we have American passports, that we are educated, that we are able to make the payments on our home - and that we are not in danger of being taken away by ICE.

We've become vegetarians, so the idea of killing a turkey for our satisfaction upsets my stomach. We buy something called a Tofurky, which is a strange conglomeration of soy and who knows what else. But at least we don't feel guilty.

There are other things to feel guilty about. As I sit in my comfortable room writing on this blog I am listening to NPR. Daniel Schorr begins speaking. He says something about 9-11 and how tourism has gone down 17% since then - mostly due to the difficulty of entering this country. Even the sinking dollar hasn't helped that much. He talks about the battles in Congress. He's right. The Senate is a mess. Ever since the demise of the immigration bill, I have gotten into the habit of checking in with Harry Reid on C-Span - just to see what's going on. Invariably, its always Senator Reid saying that he is so disappointed that his "friends" on the other side of the aisle have blocked one vote or another. The Congress hasn't done much this session. I believe they are trapped in their own fear (of losing an election? of becoming even more unpopular? of Cheney casting an evil spell on them?)

Towards the end of his report, Schorr talks of his sadness about how Americans are so afraid of foreigners. He mentions the woman who was breastfeeding her child, who was deported, with the child (an American citizen) going into foster care. He says that Americans are no longer able to accept differences - his exact word is tolerance, but I think that word is a bit patronizing.




When the transcript to Schorr's report becomes available it will be posted on dreamacttexas. In the meantime I'll post how he ended:

America, God shed his light on thee, and crown they good with brotherhood...




Link to Daniel Schorrs NPR report:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16523582



image: http://www.curtispublishing.com/images/NonRockwell/9231201.jpg

Conflict Between Ethics and the Law

A nursing mother and baby are left on a boat for hours because people are concerned about immigration laws. A nursing mother is detained and deported while her baby is placed in foster care - This is all happening because these mothers are not legal immigrants.

Does our paranoia about immigration and legalities override our sense of ethics? Australians obviously are concerned about this. What will happen in the U.S. - for example in Oklahoma, now that it will be a felony for people to give aide or transportation to undocumented immigrants -- If U.S. citizen in Oklahoma sees a mother and baby hurt by the side of a road, will the citizen keep driving by because of their fear of the new anti-immigration law?

The Age (Melbourne, Australia)
November 22, 2007 Thursday
'Security fears' delay boat rescue;
BOAT PEOPLE ROW Taking on water, a broken engine, and a breast-feeding baby on board but ...
By Katharine Murphy, Canberra, Brendan Nicholson, Perth and Mark Forbes, Jakarta


SIXTEEN Indonesians were left stranded for hours on a leaking wooden boat in the Timor Sea waiting to be rescued because of security concerns.

Crew members from the Jabiru Venture said they tried at least three times to convince their ship's owners to bring the group, which included three men, three women, nine children and a breast-feeding baby, on board their stationary oil tanker, but the request was denied.

The crew, who are members of the Maritime Union of Australia, said they believed the owners refused to intervene because of concern about immigration laws.

"We weren't able to bring them on board. As far as we know that's because of the immigration act," one crew member said yesterday.

But the owners of the Jabiru Venture, Perth-based company Coogee Resources, said their decision to leave the Indonesians in the boat on Tuesday had nothing to do with immigration laws. "Absolutely not," a spokeswoman said.

She said the 140,000-tonne Jabiru Venture was designated a high-security facility under federal legislation, meaning people are not allowed to board unless they have appropriate security clearances.

The spokeswoman said the ship's management had assessed the situation, tied the wooden vessel to the tanker with a grab rope and sent food, water and a pump to deal with leaking water.

"The boat was not sinking, the relevant authorities were contacted, the people were informed a navy vessel was on the way," she said.

But the crew members, who spoke to The Age on condition of anonymity, painted a scene of chaos and frustration which culminated in Indonesians and navy personnel falling into the sea during a dramatic and dangerous rescue effort.

"It was more than a debacle. You could hear the kids crying and we are stuck 40 feet above them and we can't do a thing to help them. We were told (by managers) it was out of their hands," one crew member said.

The crew member said the boat was first sighted at 9.30am. "The boat was there for a good number of hours. We said we wanted something done here but management refused. They said the navy was on the way.

"We were told we weren't allowed to put the life jackets down there. The boat was alongside us all day, it was obvious they were in distress. We wanted to bring the people on board because it was obvious that the boat was unseaworthy."

Once the navy rescue craft arrived it had difficulty handling the wooden boat in rising swell.

"It clipped the mooring line, which swamped the boat. Two or three kids ended up in the drink," one crew member said.

"Ladies were screaming. We threw all our safety stuff off the side. It was unbelievable, these people having to wait all those hours. The thing that incensed us was it wasn't necessary.

"We don't want to attack the navy, but we weren't able to bring them on board. As far as we know, that's because of the immigration act."

Crew members are believed to have taken footage and a number of photographs recording the drama.

Greens senator Kerry Nettle said a crew member had told her that the company had wanted to help, but feared a repeat of the 2001 Tampa incident.

The Indonesians, believed to be from Rote Island, were rescued by the navy and are now on board HMAS Tobruk, which is heading for Christmas Island where the people are expected to be processed.

Australian Defence Force spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic conceded the rescue was difficult because the boat was very crowded and unstable.

The events occurred 650 kilometres west of Darwin. Two Royal Australian Navy vessels, the landing craft HMAS Tarakan and the patrol boat HMAS Ararat, answered calls for help.

"A boat of that size, condition and circumstances is also far more susceptible to sea conditions than a larger boat, posing significant difficulties in trying to safely offload the passengers," Brigadier Nikolic said.

HMAS Ararat launched a rigid inflatable boat, but as it began the rescue two of the Australian sailors and six of those on the sinking vessel were thrown into the water.

The wooden boat began to sink faster and the rest of those on board jumped into the sea. They were all picked up and no one was injured.

It remains unclear whether the people are seeking asylum. It is highly unusual for Indonesians to seek asylum in Australia, with the exception of controversial Papuan cases.

The rescue took place more than 1000 kilometres from Papua.

Indonesian officials responded cautiously to the situation, saying the nationality of the group had not been confirmed.

A spokesman for Indonesia's Foreign Ministry, Kristiarto Legowo, said Indonesia had been formally told the group had "admitted they are Indonesians".

A spokesman for Indonesia's Canberra embassy, Dino Kusnadi, said Indonesian officials would probably be sent from Perth or Darwin to interview the people on Christmas Island.

He said statements that the 16 were Indonesian were "claims Australia hasn't verified. We are very cautious about this; we would like to see a statement from Immigration".

Senior federal bureaucrats associated with the Howard Government's People Smuggling Taskforce met on Tuesday and yesterday and provided briefings to both the Government and the Opposition.

In contrast to the political crisis of the children overboard affair in October 2001, federal politicians were low-key in their response to the drama.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson praised the navy's efforts.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd said the Opposition supported "an orderly immigration system".

"We must always have vigilant laws when it comes to people smuggling," he said.

He defended his party's intention to shut down offshore processing in Nauru and said it was right that would-be asylum seekers be processed on Christmas Island.

From Lexus Nexus: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2551740110&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T2551740117&cisb=22_T2551740116&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=314239&docNo=23

Map: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/P1-AB605A_Timor06092004202841.gif

7,000 Hits for DREAM ACT TEXAS in Less Than Five Months

Sometime after 5 am central time this morning, dreamacttexas.blogspot.com made it to 7,000 hits. As mentioned before, the blog was started on July 17, 2007 in response to a trip of DREAMERS made from Houston to Washington DC. for a DREAM ACT event. The trip was very difficult - mostly from Tennessee on, people were rude to the group, we were called "riff-raff" at a convenience store in a small town in Virginia - the waitresses at a Waffle House in Richmond, Virginia didn't want to serve us... Budget Rental Car didn't want to replace a van we were driving that had problems with the alignment...among other things.

The blog does not advertise, it's intent is not to bring in money. It was established and continues because of the intense need to disseminate information about the DREAM ACT and immigration. Thank you for your continued support.






photo: http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/images/firecracker.jpg

Ignoring the Constitution in Laredo, Texas

Poster from the movie "Streets of Laredo" 1956

Could the recent events in Laredo be like what happened in Nassau County, New York? Will ICE agents begin to think they are bounty hunters?

The way "Operation Streamline" is set up, one would think the Border Patrol would be going after coyotes instead of people.

Nov. 19, 2007, 11:53PM
Border patrols go zero tolerance
End of 'catch and release' on border strains courts and jails, but proponents applaud effort
By JAMES PINKERTON
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


LAREDO — After pleading guilty to entering the country illegally, the Mexican immigrant from Veracruz told a federal judge here last week he came to the U.S. to earn money to pay for his mother's funeral.

''It doesn't matter if you're trying to pay off funeral expenses, or take care of a sick family member," explained U.S. Magistrate Diana Saldaña, referring to the plight of another immigrant. ''When you cross the Rio Grande, you're going to be spending time in prison if the Border Patrol finds you — that's the bottom line."

The frank courtroom exchange has become a daily occurrence since Oct. 30, when the Border Patrol launched Operation Streamline-Laredo, a zero-tolerance campaign that prosecutes, jails and deports nearly every adult illegal immigrant that border agents catch.

The controversial operation has jammed local jails to capacity, strained the staff of the federal public defender's office and sparked charges that immigrants' due process rights are being violated. But it has been applauded by those favoring strict enforcement of immigration laws.

Before the crackdown, agents with the Laredo patrol sector routinely allowed illegal immigrants from Mexico to return home voluntarily. And a lack of detention space resulted in a ''catch-and-release" policy that allowed non-Mexican illegal immigrants to post bond pending a hearing, but few showed up for their court dates.

But at the Laredo federal courthouse last week, a mere two weeks after the program began, scores of ordinary people shared the halls where crooked officials, drug kingpins and human traffickers are brought to justice.They included bricklayers, construction workers, dishwashers and waitresses, all snared by agents after crossing the Rio Grande illegally.

The immigrants, in the same rumpled clothing they wore when arrested, were escorted up to the judge's bench in groups of 18 or 20. After a Border Patrol officer read a charge that applied to the entire group, each immigrant called out ''Culpable" — the Spanish word for guilty.

Limited legal resources

The judge repeatedly warned the immigrants — some of whom had been detained up to 10 times but not charged — that an arrest for a second offense could result in a more serious felony charge and a longer jail sentence.
''This whole thing about them catching you and sending you back isn't going to happen anymore," the magistrate warned.

During one morning session, it took about three hours for 79 immigrants to make their first appearance before the magistrate, plead guilty and receive sentences ranging from time served to 45 days in jail. Most of them pleaded to illegal entry, a misdemeanor.

''If you ask me, they don't come over here to commit crimes," said Francisco Valcarcel, an assistant federal public defender who represented most of the immigrants in the session. ''I don't think this should be an enforcement priority. Families are being torn apart."

The immigrants are being detained crossing the border or are caught elsewhere in the Laredo area.

At the U.S. District Clerk's office in Laredo, deputy clerk Ben Mendoza said the magistrate's docket has doubled since Streamline began. ''I'm getting calls constantly from families about where their relatives are being held," Mendoza said.

Arthur Thomas, deputy U.S. marshal in Laredo, said beds in Laredo jails are full, forcing immigrants to be sent as far away as Waco and East Texas.

Kathleen Walker, an El Paso immigration attorney and president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the zero-tolerance operation and the limited legal representation available to immigrants denies them due process, especially those with potential claims of asylum or U.S. citizenship.

''We are throwing away the Constitution for expediency, and we're reducing our security by not prosecuting crimes that deserve more attention, felonies like narcotic and human trafficking," she said, referring to the crowded magistrate's docket.

But many applaud the new emphasis on enforcement at the nation's busiest inland port.

''We're pleased because basically they're enforcing the law," said Louise Whiteford, president of the Houston-based Texans For Immigration Reform. ''It's long overdue."

Border Patrol officials in Laredo say it is too early to gauge the operation's effectiveness and declined a request for conviction statistics.

Laredo is the third Border Patrol sector on the Southwest border to implement zero-tolerance, and so far it is under way only in the metropolitan areas of Laredo.

Ramon Rivera, an assistant Border Patrol Chief at agency headquarters in Washington D.C., said the program will be assessed in a couple of months after the number of apprehensions is compared to the same period last year.

In the Yuma sector in Arizona, Operation Streamline eventually resulted in a 68 percent reduction in apprehensions between fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and during the same period the Del Rio sector registered a 46 percent decline, Rivera said.

Hoping word spreads

During a tour of the river front last week, the challenges of enforcement were evident. Squads of Border Patrol agents, guided by surveillance cameras on observation towers, played a cat-and-mouse game with small groups of immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. After reaching the Texas side, the immigrants hid in impenetrable stands of cane lining the riverbank for miles, waiting to walk into adjoining neighborhoods and jump into a smuggler's car.
''If you were going to completely shut it down, you'd have to establish some kind of buffer, 100 or 200 yards from the river, and clear it all," said Border Patrol supervisor Jesus Chan. ''But that's not going to happen."

Instead, they hope immigrants like Sylvia Licona Garcia will warn their friends about the new mandatory jail time. She was one of 70 immigrants, some from as far away as Kosovo and Sri Lanka, who were in holding cells last week at the Border Patrol's north Laredo station.

Heard, but didn't believe it

Licona, a 21-year-old Veracruz native, said she heard about the operation before arranging for human traffickers to transport her to Houston. The price was $1,500, and another $1,000 for a flight from Houston to Washington state where she planned to rejoin her husband.
''I heard about it, but I didn't believe it," said Licona, as she awaited deportation at the detention area inside the station. ''But now, after being locked up in jail for two days, I believe it."

After swimming the Rio Grande, she and two friends were picked up by smugglers. They left Laredo and drove toward San Antonio. They were quickly stopped, but the smugglers jumped from the moving car, which crashed.

In the same holding area was Jaime Pinto Aguilar, a 38-year-old Nuevo Laredo man who waded the Rio Grande on Nov. 11. Pinto, who has a college degree in international commerce, said he had been unable to find a job for the past four months.

''I told my wife I had to go," he said. "Christmas is coming, and I'm not going to leave my children without anything, and there were bills."

Instead of finding a job washing dishes in a Laredo restaurant relatives told him about, Pinto spent four days in jail.

''I will not come back illegally, not for anything in the world," Pinto said. ''I was in jail with a bunch of felons."

Pinto's wife, his mother and sister Anna Maria Pinto watched him receive his sentence in court.

They were elated when he returned home Thursday, and predicted news of the crackdown will spread in Mexico. But they were not sure of its effect on the flow of illegal immigration.

''People will hear of these cases, but in this community every day people are crossing," said Anna Maria Pinto. ''Immigrants are trying to get across to live the American dream, to find a job, to build a better life. But the consequences are very grave."

james.pinkerton@chron.com

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/5315873.html

image: http://www.cironestudios.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/StreetLaredo56.jpg

Who Says In-State Tuition For DREAMERS Is Wasted: How About Paying Al Gonzalez $40K to Give a Speech?

Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez - a great role model for university students.


One of the complaints that comes up constantly when people argue about immigration is that in-state tuition for undocumented students is not fair to citizens or legal residents - That it is depriving U.S. citizens of money for their education. Besides the fact that education should be available to everyone (if we want to keep this country functioning) - the complaints about where the money is going need to be focused on other expenses that are indeed frivolous - like the University of Florida paying former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez $40,000 for a speaking engagement.

By the way, Florida does not have in-state tuition for DREAM ACT students.

-----

Former AG Gonzales Speaks at U. of Fla.
By RON WORD
The Associated Press
Washington Post
Tuesday, November 20, 2007; 12:40 AM

GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endured screams of "criminal" and "liar" during a speech at the University of Florida on Monday evening.

About 730 students and community members listened to Gonzales defend his career as White House counsel and head of the Justice Department. He also spoke about immigration and terrorism.

"No one is perfect. What is important is that we identify our mistakes and correct them," he said.

...Gonzales' appearance was the first by a high-profile speaker at the university since a student was Tasered on Sept. 17 at a speech by Sen. John Kerry. An investigation found that campus police acted appropriately, and charges were dropped against the student.

"[University [of Florida] officials said it was Gonzales' first appearance at a university since he left office in late August. He was paid $40,000 for his speech..."

for complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000052.html

cartoon: http://www.ajc.com/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/luckovich.gif

DREAMERS are Eligible for the Bay Area Gardener's Foundation Scholarship

Photo by Richard Gonzalez, NPR. Catalino Tapia, founder of the Bay Area Gardener's Foundation.


What would happen if there were many more Catalino Tapias? What could be possible with some organization and some of Tapia's vision of the future? How many scholarships could be established? Not just by Latinos but friends and neighbors of Latinos.

Not all non-Latinos are like the people of Prince William County in Virginia. Not everyone is afraid that the U.S. will be ruined by so many Mexicans everywhere. Not everyone has so much hate inside that the well-being of children is not important. If only those who are like Catalino Tapia wouldn't stay so silent.




_____

Morning Edition, November 19, 2007 ·
National Public Radio

Catalino Tapia crossed the border from Mexico into the United States 40 years ago with a sixth-grade education and only $6 in his pocket. He became a legal resident and raised a family by working in a donut shop, a machine shop and then plant nurseries, before starting his own gardening business.

But Tapia, 63, always had his eyes on the future, especially for his children's education. Even before his first child was born, he says he was saving money for them to go to school.

Tapia's youngest son attended UCLA and then went onto to the University of California - Berkeley Law School. He's now a lawyer in Los Angeles.

But Tapia wanted to do something to help the less-fortunate children in his community in Redwood City, south of San Francisco. His son suggested Tapia start a foundation that would give scholarships to students.

It took a year and a half to prepare the legal documents, but then the Bay Area Gardeners Foundation was born.

Tapia sent letters to his clients asking for donations. To his surprise, he raised $10,000 in two weeks. And the donations kept coming in, with $75,000 raised so far.

But the foundation also needed startup money, so Tapia approached the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Program Officer Manuel Santamaria says his foundation was impressed with Tapia's approach.

"We live in a region where everybody is so busy, everybody's got two jobs, child care, school," Santamaria says. "You're so stressed that to actually pause and think about, hey, how do I fit within the neighborhood that I'm working in and build community."

So with seed money from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and donations from his clients, the Bay Area Gardeners Foundation began giving scholarships in 2006, starting with five students. The scholarships themselves are like seed money, $1,500 each.

"But for these kind of kids," Tapia says, "it means the whole world, because it pays for the books, transportation — and they don't have to worry about that extra work that they have to do for those things. To me, that's a blessing because you've got to see the faces of these kids when they receive the money."

The Gardeners Foundation also does not ask if a student is documented. Four out of its nine scholarship recipients are undocumented. The foundation nearly doubled the number of scholarships this year.

The board, made up of other immigrant gardeners and community members, discussed this strategy at a recent meeting. Tammie Pereira, an insurance agent and board member, says everyone was in agreement that "no matter what, they're going to have their education. So even though they don't have their papers and even though they might not be able to get a job with their Social Security number, no one will be able to take away their education."

Noel Chavez, a student at Canada College, was one of the foundation's first recipients.

Chavez was struggling in his third semester at the Redwood City community college trying to secure transportation to and from college.

"When I heard about the Bay Area Gardeners Foundation was when I needed it the most," Chavez says. "I was more amazed of who was giving it and their purpose than even thinking about if I was going to get it. Isn't that amazing that someone who's working and struggling out there, someone who has no education and having to give something back to their community. It's amazing."

Chavez, who is in the process of becoming a permanent resident, talks to high school students in the Bay area about their college options.

Margie Carrington, the financial aid director at Canada College, says she doesn't see a lot of outside scholarships rolling in to support students.

The Gardeners Foundation is "an option that helps students that don't really have access to other resources to pay for school," she says. "... More people in our community [should] take that same kind of initiative and give back."

Tapia, the man who started it all, knows that not everyone believes undocumented students deserve an education, but he has plenty of supporters. After a recent news article about his efforts, the foundation was flooded with e-mails, donations and inquiries from students.

Meanwhile Tapia says he is hoping to pursue his own dreams.

"When I retire, I'm going to go to school and get a high school diploma," he says. But that's not all. "I'm also taking guitar lessons. And I told my wife, when I learn how to play the guitar, I'm going to sing you a serenata."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16365269
Thanks to Sylvia Morin for telling dreamacttexas about this article.

The Growing Mob Mentality

The wave grows larger every few days. Not quite as extreme as a tsunami, but cumulatively it could have similar results. People being banished from one state, move to another and find new regulations forcing them to leave again?

Will the Kansas legislature want to stop this? Certainly in Oklahoma they didn’t. In Texas, thanks to a few legislators, the lives of immigrants didn’t sink into the abyss.

They all keep saying that these laws are in response to the federal government not taking care of immigration. I can’t imagine any federal laws being any easier these days.

As I mentioned in a previous post – the United States has sunken into a mob mentality. You may recall when this has happened in the past. Some instances were more violent than others.

If anyone noticed, a few years ago the U.S. Senate presented a resolution for the U.S. to apologize for taking too long to stop Lynching in the South – According to statistics from the Library of Congress, 2,522 African Americans were lynched between 1889 and 1919. This is where mob mentality took over. Otherwise rational and God-fearing people turned into savages… They would burn the bodies of the victim, cut off body parts and taken them home. If you don't believe me look it up on the Library of Congress website.

They would photograph the burned bodies hanging from the trees and sell the photos as postcards. Since the main perpetrators of these incidents generally wore white capes, many people didn’t know that their actual neighbors were part of the incendiary.


-----

The Associated Press State & Local Wire
November 19, 2007 Monday 7:20 PM GMT
Kan. lawmakers drafting bills to target illegal immigration
ROXANA HEGEMAN, Associated Press Writer
WICHITA Kan.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Kansas are drafting separate bills targeting illegal immigration amid fears about a potential influx of illegal immigrants from neighboring states that have already started cracking down.

Across the nation, at least 127 cities and states have passed or are considering local laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration, according to a database compiled by the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, a project of the Center for Community Change, an immigrant advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

In Kansas, some people are concerned that illegal immigrants may move here from the neighboring states of Oklahoma, Colorado and Missouri, which have passed laws or instituted policies aimed at illegal immigration.

"I don't believe Kansas should become a sanctuary state as other states continue to pass legislation," said Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita.

If the federal government is not going to solve the illegal immigration problem, she said, then states have to step in.

Her proposal, which is still being drafted, is based on laws in Oklahoma, Arizona and Colorado, Landwehr said. It would revoke business licenses and impose civil penalties on any Kansas business found to have employed an illegal immigrant, enforce federal law denying public benefits to illegal immigrants and strengthen local enforcement efforts.

The measure also would impose civil and criminal penalties on illegal immigrants and prohibit Kansas municipalities from becoming "sanctuary cities" by opting out of state immigration reform, she said.

Among Democrats, Rep. Ann Mah, D-Topeka, is circulating a measure that would focus on employers who hire illegal immigrants, imposing state penalties for businesses that do and giving county prosecutors the power to enforce the law.
Her proposal also would revoke state licenses for employers caught knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, require more state reporting by employers and limit tax breaks that employers who hire illegal workers can claim on their state tax returns.
"It is clear we need more workers in Kansas, but we need them to be legal, earning a fair wage and paying taxes in Kansas," Mah said.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius hasn't said whether she would support anti-illegal immigration legislation. Her office issued a written statement saying the governor would consider any future legislation on its merits.

"There is a real need for comprehensive immigration reform and better border security. Unfortunately, Congress has not taken action on this issue and states are forced to deal with it on our own," Sebelius said. "I expect that until Congress passes legislation to address our porous border, backlogged naturalization system and work force shortages, this issue will continue to be a topic of serious discussion."

Sebelius signed a bill this year designed to make sure employers don't hire illegal immigrants and misclassify them as independent contractors.

The Pew Hispanic Center has estimated that 40,000 to 70,000 illegal immigrants live in Kansas, based on 2005 census data. But there is little evidence, other than scattered anecdotal accounts, of huge numbers of immigrants now fleeing to Kansas because of immigration crackdowns in neighboring states.

School enrollment figures, an early indicator of shifting populations, have remained essentially flat at schools in meatpacking towns such as Dodge City, Garden City and Liberal, where immigrants often settle, said Dale Dennis, deputy commissioner of education. Any enrollment growth this school year is showing up as usual in large suburban areas in Johnson and Sedgwick counties, near military bases and in major university towns, he said.

Nonetheless, with immigration measures pending for the legislative session that starts in January, activists on both sides of the issue have been marshaling their forces.
Pat Fennel, director of Latino Community Development Agency in Oklahoma City, said Kansas Hispanics should concentrate on potential economic impacts of anti-immigration measures.
As an example, she pointed to the Smithfield Beef processing plant, which had proposed a $200 million project that would create as many as 3,000 jobs in Hooker, Okla. The company has put those plans on hold amid fears since the Oklahoma law's passage that the company will not be able to find enough workers, Fennel said.

"This law is not just impacting the Latino undocumented," Fennel said. "This law is impacting all segments of the economy."
On the other side of the issue is the Kansas chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which hosted a strategy session in Wichita in September on how to push state laws targeting illegal immigrants.

Among the speakers was Carol Helms, director of Immigration Reform for Oklahoma, whose lobbying efforts were credited for passage in Oklahoma of a sweeping anti-illegal immigration measure. She gave Kansas participants a primer on lobbying tactics.

Immigrant groups may find an uneasy ally among Kansas farm organizations that have expressed concerns about a labor shortage and have opposed federal efforts to make employers more accountable for immigration laws.

Allie Devine, general counsel for the Kansas Livestock Association, said her group has not taken an official position on the proposed anti-immigrant legislation in Kansas because it has not yet seen the bills. She added that while the association does not condone employers knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, it doesn't think employers should be enforcers of immigration law.

from Lexus-Nexus database
detail --cartoon: http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dmc0148l.jpg

Home Countries Taking Care of Their Immigrants in U.S.

Although the article below is presenting the idea that Latin American countries are beginning to help out their own immigrants in the U.S. with health care, I am not so sure this is not just a token gesture to make people think that something is actually being done.

Only being able to speak for Mexico, where I lived in 1999 while doing research, I don't see a country that has much empathy for those in poverty or other types of distress. If people have money they pay their way into health. Otherwise it's a lost cause. There isn't much talk of endowment funds, charitable foundations or social service for that matter.

Of course this is not saying that the United States is that far ahead.


-----

Health Care Lost in Translation
Consulates Try to Help Their Nationals Get the Basics
By Marcela Sanchez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 19, 2007; B03

With a comprehensive immigration overhaul now perhaps years away, Latin American governments concerned with the well-being of their nationals living in this country are taking on an equally thorny issue: the U.S. health-care system.

In Washington, some foreign consulates are providing eye exams and medical tests in addition to the traditional passport renewals and marriage registrations.

The Salvadoran consulate, which serves the largest immigrant group in the Washington area, began offering "Estaciones de Salud" (Health Stations) two years ago. The Mexican consulate followed suit last year, offering similar health services that it hopes to expand to its 47 consulates throughout the United States by year's end.

"My health is important," said Luz de Mar¿a Mej¿a, 34, a nanny and restaurant worker who came to the United States four years ago without papers. She found navigating the health-care system "extremely complicated" and has turned to the Salvadoran consulate for help.

Jos¿ Rigoberto Mart¿nez, a burly, 48-year-old carpenter with a temporary work permit, said he believes that immigrants tend to neglect their health.

"If we have a headache but there is work, we work," he said.

While waiting to get his blood pressure checked, Mart¿nez said he has never received medical treatment, other than a few visits to a chiropractor. He stopped seeing the chiropractor because getting time off work and justifying $45 a visit proved prohibitive.

Seventy-five percent of the more than 3,600 Salvadorans and Mexicans who received medical attention at their consulates in Washington this year had not had a medical checkup in the past three years, said German Valbuena, director of the local Hispanic Institute for Blindness Prevention, the lead agency running both consulates' health programs.

Salvadoran Consul General Ana Margarita Ch¿vez said that soon after arriving in Washington, she fell ill and realized how expensive health care is in the United States. On average, 50 people a week received health services last year at the consulate. Those services normally include a referral to a health center or clinic that offers care regardless of the patient's economic or immigration status.

Mexico's secretary of health, Jos¿ ¿ngel C¿rdova, said in a telephone interview that his government wants Mexican nationals in this country to have the "peace of mind of having access to basic health services."

As part of his government's goal of providing universal health care by 2010, C¿rdova said he hopes to provide "health care to all Mexicans regardless of where they are."

"The migratory phenomenon has been growing [around the world], and it is something we will be grappling with for some time. I believe there should be agreements among countries to guarantee a basic service such as health," C¿rdova said.

Although U.S. authorities might not share C¿rdova's goal of universal health care, they don't deny the universality of the problem.

"From our perspective, there is no border in terms of health anymore," said William Steiger, director of the Office of Global Health Affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "We know that not just immigrants but travelers in this age of globalization can represent a challenge because they can bring diseases and export them as well."

Steiger cited recent measles cases brought to the United States by Japanese boys coming for the Little League World Series.

As part of efforts to protect Americans, Steiger said the department is responsible for the health of refugee populations within the United States and focuses efforts overseas on preventing diseases from reaching U.S. territory. Those efforts, he added, are not unique to the United States. Other countries are just as interested in ensuring that disease does not reach their populations.

"Good health is a positive-sum game for all us," he said.

Steiger and C¿rdova said the United States and Mexico are beginning to explore some innovative ideas, such as a binational health plan that would provide coverage to Americans living in Mexico and Mexicans living in this country.

Aware that there are many more Mexicans here than Americans there, C¿rdova suggested that a plan could fully cover U.S. citizens in Mexico but would offer only primary care to Mexicans here. After all, he said, most Mexican immigrants are young and healthy, and primary health care covers 85 percent of diseases. Those with more serious problems could be sent to Mexico for treatment, he said.

Often employed in low-wage jobs in small service- or trade-sector firms, Latin American immigrants are less likely to receive health benefits than the average resident of the United States. This might be a large factor in the rise in the number of the uninsured. In 2003, immigrants represented more than one of every four uninsured individuals in the United States, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

In a 2005 report, the institute said that "immigrants accounted for about one-third of the increase in the uninsured between 1994 and 1998." But after the 1996 welfare reform that restricted access to public assistance programs to immigrants with more than five years of legal residency, "immigrants accounted for 86 percent of the growth in the uninsured between 1998 and 2003," the report said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/18/AR2007111801303_pf.html

Parents of Juan Gomez are Now in Columbia

There are going to be many more stories like that of the Gomez family. Anti-immigration rhetoric will continue to intensify until our government makes some type of major change.

If the polls are correct, a majority of Americans are against undocumented immigrants staying in the U.S., don't want them to have driver's licenses and don't want the DREAM ACT. It is amazing how mob mentality has taken over. It could all change if those who have been silent finally speak out.

_______

Torn from their sons and deported from U.S. couple starts over
Posted on Sun, Nov. 18, 2007
By JOSHUA GOODMAN
Associated Press Writer
Miami Herald

BOGOTA, Colombia --
"Welcome to your homeland," the immigration official said as he fingerprinted Julio and Liliana Gomez. "Here you'll never be considered illegal."

That's how the couple said they were greeted two weeks ago after being deported from Florida to their native Colombia - a move that separated them from their sons, whose battle to avoid the same fate has become a test case for hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth in the United States.

The sons - 18-year-old Juan Gomez and 20-year-old Alex - were born in Colombia and taken as toddlers by their parents to the United States in 1990. The family later sought political asylum because of threats Julio Gomez said he received from leftist rebels who killed his brother, but the request was rejected and the family ordered to leave the United States in 2003.

Instead, they stayed illegally in Miami.

Their case likely would have gone unnoticed among the thousands of deportations processed every day if not for a text message that Juan - a recently graduated high school honors student with Ivy League ambitions - sent to friends as he was being taken away in handcuffs from the family's home in July.

Overnight they mounted a sophisticated campaign on his behalf, contacting lawmakers in Washington and using the popular networking Web site Facebook.

An outpouring of sympathy for Juan and Alex - even from illegal-immigration critics like CNN pundit Lou Dobbs - prompted several federal lawmakers to write legislation that lets the brothers stay in the country until 2009, pending action on the bill.

But no such lifejacket was thrown to their parents and 84-year-old grandmother, who are now living with Liliana's sister in Bogota and trying to reacquaint themselves with a country they fear less but barely recognize after nearly two decades in the United States.

Between trips to the mall, where strangers offer hugs of support, they anxiously await news from their children.

"They've never been separated from us their entire lives," Liliana said, wiping away tears. "They don't know how to cook, they can't work and have nobody to take care of them."

Juan, reached by telephone at home in Miami, said the family house "is too big for just two people. It feels so quiet and lonely not having my dad watching TV and my mom cooking dinner."

He said he and brother Alex had been offered jobs by supportive community members - in a law office and at a hotel, but can't begin until pending working papers arrive.

In a mid-August speech to supporters posted on a Web site dedicated to his case, Juan said "every drop of sweat I've spilled, every ounce of blood I've shed, every single friend I've made, every pledge of allegiance I've recited, and every pivotal point of development in my life has been in the United States. I was not fortunate enough to have been born here, but I was fortunate enough to enjoy my progression from a toddler to a man in this country."

The couple told The Associated Press they sold their small party rental business for $30,000 to be able to support their sons in Florida. Miami Dade College has offered to waive tuition for Juan, who finished near the top of his class but had trouble applying to Harvard because of his undocumented status.

But the money is running out fast.

Despite being deported, Julio Gomez said his family's dream, like that of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, remains the American dream.

"God bless America," he said, flashing his U.S. Social Security card. "It's a beautiful country and it gave my children the opportunity to have a better future."

That future is now in peril for increasing numbers of undocumented immigrants, as aggressive immigration enforcement led to a record 27,900 detentions in the 2007 fiscal year ending Sept. 30, about 10,000 more than the previous year, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Deportations also rose, from 177,000 two years ago to 261,000.

"It doesn't matter if you succeeded in school or grew up here as infants," said Josh Bernstein of the Washington-based National Immigrant Law Center. "The law is very harsh."

Legislation is pending that would grant permanent residence to students who finish high school and go on to college or the military. Known as the Dream Act, it could benefit some 360,000 graduates and another 715,000 still in school, according to the Migration Policy Institute, an independent Washington think tank.

But the bill has lain idle since it was first proposed in 2001 and was blocked again last month by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate.

"The Gomez brothers are a symbol of young people who came to the United States because of their parents' decision," said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Florida, a sponsor of the Dream Act. "Their only decision was to work hard, study and make their communities


http://www.miamiherald.com/775/story/312851.html

Immigration Policy Around the Globe

The title of the following article is offensive - but the information is worth having.
----

The Age (Melbourne, Australia)
November 19, 2007 Monday
First Edition
Fear of 'migrant hordes' gazumped by need for cheap labour;
EYE ON EUROPE
James Button - Europe correspondent.


Migrants are pouring in to Western Europe, despite public disquiet.

IN THE past three years, as Britain has experienced the largest wave of immigrants in its history, opinion polls have shown a big increase in the number of people who are alarmed about immigration. The Conservative Party accordingly pledges to cut migrant numbers, while rattled Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown talks of "British jobs for British workers" - a slogan that was once linked to the far-right British National Party.

The parties look to be vying with each other to build Fortress Britain. Yet it has not happened.

Brown promises tighter skilled migration quotas and better border control to reduce illegal immigration, but neither will dramatically affect numbers. The Conservatives struggle to specify which categories of immigrants they would cut. Meanwhile the British National Party, for all the fears of Labour MPs in working-class seats where the BNP is strongest, simply fails to rise.

It is not just Britain. Three in four Americans say they want more controls on immigration, according to the latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey. Yet neither main party in the US plans to seriously wind back legal immigration: the United States continues to take a million migrants a year.

The Pew Research Centre polled 45,000 people in 47 rich and poor countries and found that in 44 of them, majorities believed "we should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we do now." (Australians, who were not polled, seem to be comfortable with their current high levels of immigration.)

Nevertheless, Spain, where 77% of people want more controls, is running a huge immigration program, with 4 million newcomers since 1996. Immigration to Italy is even larger - 700,000 a year - and 87% of people want more controls. Yet Prime Minister Romano Prodi has urged Italians to embrace the first mass immigration in their history.

What is going on? Are politicians totally out of step with the public, and is a reversal of policy therefore just a matter of time?
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Immigration is a fact of modern life and, despite periods of public unease, almost certain to remain so. That unease is hardly new. Arthur Calwell, the architect of Australia's postwar immigration program, was terrified of a backlash to his policy, and polls in the 1960s regularly showed that eight out of 10 Britons thought too many black people were entering the country.

If governments have dared defy public opinion, it is not out of brotherly love for foreigners but for hard-nosed economic reasons: to run factories and farms, to get streets swept.

Since the factories closed down in the 1970s and 1980s, Europe has struggled to integrate a mass of unskilled migrant workers and their children but even as it debates the perceived failures of integration, the clamour for new workers in new industries resumes.

Romanians, whose 500,000-strong presence in Italy is provoking huge hostility, are vital to the country's agriculture and aged-care sectors. Britain's biggest nursing home provider, the Southern Cross Healthcare Group, says it must have foreign workers because locals will not do the jobs (the pay is too poor). Without foreign doctors and nurses, former prime minister Tony Blair once said, the National Health Service could not run.

Could this new mobility of global workers be stopped? Yes, but probably not while the economy is good.

Many European countries are also experiencing high levels of emigration. Last year the Netherlands took 100,000 people but lost 130,000, while 200,000 Britons left last year - the highest figure in postwar history. Many of the leavers are skilled and must be replaced. Yet they are far less likely than earlier migrants to stay in their adopted countries. At least half the 400,000 Poles who have come to Britain in recent years are expected to go home.

The proportion of skilled immigrants is growing, and so is the number of countries from which migrants come. In Britain, whereas the first postwar migrations mainly comprised Pakistanis, Indians and West Indians, a report from the Institute of Public Policy Research names 18 groups of immigrants (including Australians) with populations of about 100,000 or more. As Australia's experience shows, more groups with fewer people in each makes the formation of so-called ethnic enclaves very difficult.

It would be wrong to be utopian. Immigration comes with costs, most of all to immigrants themselves, but also, disproportionately, to the poorer communities among whom many settle. There is evidence immigration is driving down low-skilled wages in Britain. Working-class concerns that it frays old social bonds should not be simply dismissed as racism.
Understandably, governments will want to manage migration in hard economic times or to ease public concern. They also have the right to make demands of migrants, such as language learning, which most want to do anyway. As Dutch sociologist Paul Scheffer says, if you demand nothing of migrants, "the veiled message is: you will never be part of this society". However, "when you make demands of newcomers, the receiving society also undertakes an obligation".

Over 50 years, millions of migrants have transformed and enriched Western societies, without provoking vast upheavals. Even so, British migration specialist Professor John Salt estimates that only 3% of the global population are migrants - a figure that has not risen for nearly 20 years. Australia is next door to 230 million, mostly poor, Indonesians, yet only a handful have ever tried to go to Australia.

There is no human tide overwhelming the West. Most people prefer to stay home.
James Button is Europe correspondent.

His Dragon Spouting Fire: Romney Continues the Offensive on Immigration

Today on ABC's This Week, the round table discussion highly criticized Romney and Guiliani for proposing immigration policy that is directly opposite what they endorsed as governor of MA and mayor of NY. They are beginning to look silly to the country.

Huckabee was praised, but as usual what is hurting him is lack of funding. I wish money wasn't so important to a presidential campaign. If a Republican were to be there I would rather have Huckabee or maybe (?) McCain.

Romney is still focusing on DREAM ACT students, having said: "people that are here illegally should not be able to get a tuition break that allows illegals to have tuition that's lower than the children of our citizens."

What this means in code is that if DREAMERS are allowed in-state tuition, then U.S. citizens from other states should also receive the discount.-- which of course is impossible. Most public universities depend on the extra tuition from out of state students. Besides, how can you say a DREAMER is not an "in-state" tuition student if he/she has lived in the state since they were 2 years old?

If on the very long shot Romney is elected president, I think that much of the fire his dragon is spouting would be snuffed out. He is pretending so he can impress us.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-romney18nov18,1,59014.story?ctrack=5&cset=true
From the Los Angeles Times
Romney: Aid illegal immigrants, lose funds
The GOP candidate criticizes states that offer driver's licenses or tuition breaks.
From the Associated Press

1:17 AM PST, November 18, 2007

HENDERSON, NEV. — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Saturday promised if elected to cut federal funding for cities and states that he considers tolerant of illegal immigration. But he said he was unsure how deep the cuts would be.

The former Massachusetts governor repeated statements he has made in recent days that he would deny funding to so-called sanctuary cities, states that issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and states that allow the children of illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition discounts at universities.

"They are practices that, if you will, extend this sanctuary state of mind we have," Romney told more than 200 people gathered at a public library. "I like immigration -- legal immigration."

Romney also outlined a plan for an employment verification card that he said would make it easy for companies to determine a prospective employee's citizenship status before hiring.

Romney told reporters he was unsure how much federal funding he would cut. "I can't give you the specifics," he said. The campaign later described the in-state tuition plan as a proposal to "trim back" education funds.

Romney said Saturday that he did not think students in the U.S. legally should be denied discounted tuition, even if their parents were here illegally, but that "people that are here illegally should not be able to get a tuition break that allows illegals to have tuition that's lower than the children of our citizens." California grants undocumented students in-state tuition if they graduated from a California high school.

Romney has used the issue to criticize opponent Mike Huckabee, who as governor of Arkansas supported a failed attempt to extend in-state tuition and scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants.

image: http://www.growingtreetoys.com/images/products/bg/014062.jpg

Driving in New York Part V: The Washington Post Thinks a Driver's License is a Good Idea for Undocumented Immigrants

The Washington Post published an editorial today on driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. I have posted some of the comments to the editorial, minus the nasty ones:

-----
A few comments on the editorial below:

reporter1 wrote:
The WaPO lays out a pretty level-headed assessment of the benefits of having ALL drivers in the U.S. licensed.

Our cowardly presidential aspirants shamefully pander to the xenophobes who feel that immigration is the premier problem the U.S. faces today and ignore thoughtful debate on the war, the economy, health care, and the need to avoid another Republican despot in the White House.

If the hoi polloi could be trusted then we wouldn't have suffered through eight years of a former crackhead ruining what was once a pretty decent country--"Pueblo idiota es seguridad del tirano".
11/17/2007 11:38:13 PM

Amminadab wrote:
When did Americans become so bigoted and hateful? How does freedom survive with walls and fences? Were the pilgrims illegal immigrants? Thanksgiving? Bah!

Borders are imaginary delusions.
11/18/2007 1:49:17 AM

codexjust1 wrote:
Automobile insurance, registration and drivers licensing is inherently the province of the states, not the federal government. By mandating that the states refuse licenses immigrants, the federal government has effectively broken New York State’s legislative scheme which links insurance, registration and licensing into a necessary trinity that ensures the safety of the state’s residents. As someone who sees the consequences of hit-and-run and uninsured motorist accidents on a daily basis (i.e., shattered bodies and shattered lives with no recompense to the injured) I applaud Governor Spitzer for his attempt to deal with a very real and very tragic problem. Those who criticized the Governor’s actions by default are acquiescing to higher insurance rates, higher motorist fees and higher taxes. Significant public revenue will have to be raised to cover the cost of having a class of drivers on the road that will never be licensed, never be registered and which will never be insured.

The irresponsibility of those who opposed Governor Spitzer’s plan without offering any solutions themselves are only one symptom of a national problem we face on immigration. Today, many Americans classify any policy that falls short of short of a massive round up and deportation of 12 million immigrants as unacceptable amnesty. They call for closing our borders first, which translates into a policy of only closing our borders and refusing any other reforms. They call for all immigrants to return to their country of origin and apply to reenter the U.S., which in essence is a call to go back where an immigrant came from and stay there. These policies will result in a huge population being driven underground, the creation of a nation within a nation. The implications to our national security of such a policy are far more ominous than the issuing of drivers licenses could ever be. Those who support such a policy would create a natural refuge for criminals, terrorists and eventually revolutionaries.

_____

Posturing and Driver's Licenses
Illegal immigrants already drive. The real question is whether to promote safety.
Washington Post
Sunday, November 18, 2007; B06

LISTEN TO the fumblings and bumblings of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two otherwise canny and articulate senators, and you can hear a pair of candidates who probably know that granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is smart public policy but maybe not such smart politics. Both Mr. Obama, who supports the idea, and Ms. Clinton, who now says she does not, have come in for derision by seeming to straddle an issue that is becoming a surrogate for the broader, unresolved problem of illegal immigration.

Eight states already grant licenses to undocumented residents, from Washington and Utah in the West to Maine and Maryland in the East. All adopted the stance for clear and convincing reasons of public safety and in many cases at least partly at the behest of law enforcement officials. None has come to tragedy because of it.

At least 12 million illegal immigrants live in America, and many of them, probably millions, are already driving regularly or periodically. They drive to jobs, to schools, to hospitals, to shopping malls and to grocery stores. By making licenses available to them, states are not enabling them to drive more; they are encouraging them to get the insurance and training that will allow them to drive safely. Deny them licenses, and be prepared to pay the consequences.

A report prepared for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety gives a sobering assessment of those consequences. The report, based on data collected in the 1990s, says that unlicensed drivers are almost five times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than drivers with valid licenses and that 20 percent of all fatal accidents involve at least one driver without a valid license. Such drivers are also more likely to operate vehicles under the influence of alcohol.

While the Democratic front-runners have equivocated, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who signed legislation allowing illegal immigrants to be licensed four years ago, was lucid about his reasons. Speaking at the Democratic forum held Thursday in Las Vegas, Mr. Richardson, who may feel that he has less to lose by his honesty than the equivocating Democratic front-runners, put the matter succinctly: "When we started with this program, 33 percent of all New Mexicans were uninsured. Today it's 11 percent. Traffic fatalities have gone down. It's a matter of public safety."

That was also the logic that led Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York to announce in September that driver's licenses would be issued without regard to immigration status. He withdrew the plan last week following a firestorm of political protest, not least from the state's Democratic congressional delegation. It was notable that many of those who urged the governor to reverse course did so not because they thought the policy was foolish but because they worried about an electoral backlash.

Polls show that a majority of Americans believe issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a bad idea. Many fear that it will tempt more immigrants to enter this country illegally. That's hokum; people who sneak into the country or overstay their visas do so for jobs, not licenses.

A more serious concern is that granting licenses to illegal immigrants may give would-be terrorists a tool they would otherwise lack and that the licenses could be used to gain access to commercial flights. That could be addressed by making driver's licenses valid only for driving, not as all-purpose identity documents, and by creating for other purposes a separate national ID card, with stringent biometric and other safeguards -- much as European and other countries already have. Doing so would mean rethinking the federal Real ID Act, which requires states to adopt heavily vetted driver's licenses that would serve as all-purpose IDs. But with many states already balking at Real ID's onerous provisions, a rethink is in order anyway.

Rhetoric and reality already diverge on many aspects of the debate over illegal immigrants. Now driver's licenses are providing easy fodder for elected officials to prove their toughness and intolerance on the issue. By doing so, they ignore the everyday reality of safety on the nation's roadways. Illegal immigrants will continue to drive regardless of posturing by politicians. The important question is whether they will do so safely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701304_pf.html

How Many Other Rapes Have There Been?

Two years ago, just before Christmas I was returning home from Mexico. There were two of us traveling in my car. My friend Yolanda was accompanying me - she is a resident of Monterrey. We crossed at the Pharr International Bridge, in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

The immigration officer who issued her a visa was extremely rude and angry with her. As usual we didn't say anything, because as we all know, if you call them on something you will get bounced back in a hurry.

But his inapproapriate demeanor wasn't enough. As Yolanda and I were about to leave the parking lot of the Immigration office at the bridge, she decided to go through her purse to make sure she had all her documents in order, especially since she was so stressed from being mistreated by the ICE officer. She found that her "matricula" was missing. This is a very important identification card used by Mexican citizens - in the United States it can be used to board airplanes...

The card was not in her purse, she had not dropped it on the floorboard of the car, it was not somewhere in the parking lot. We both walked back into the ICE office and before we said anything, another officer walked towards us with his hand raised in the air. He was holding her matricula. The officer who had kept the card was in the back.

Was the first officer stealing her card? He handed her documents back to her in a group - minus the matricula. We decided not to complain at that moment because we didn't want to risk Yolanda being stopped at the border (which had happened before because she was not carryiing her proof of employment card).

Later as we told friends about the incident, similar stories came up, about lost papers, lost matriculas, lost passports... ICE agents who sell these documents.

No one wants to report them. I know a DREAM ACT student whose mother complained to ICE and was deported - and had to leave her children behind.

How many women have been raped by ICE agents, but were afraid to report the crime? As we know, if ICE gets angry, they can go to your home and take everyone who isn't documented - and even a few citizens if they want to.


-----
Posted on Sat, Nov. 17, 2007
Miami Herald
Immigration agent charged with raping woman

BY ALFONSO CHARDY AND JAY WEAVER
An immigration agent driving a Jamaican woman from a Miami-Dade detention center to one in Broward took her to his home instead and raped her, according to federal criminal charges filed late Friday.
A criminal complaint filed in Miami federal court alleges that Wilfredo Vazquez, 35, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, sexually assaulted the 39-year-old Jamaican mother of two on the afternoon of Sept. 21 at his Tamarac home.

The woman said she was ''afraid'' of Vazquez, according to the three-count criminal complaint. She ``emphasized that Vazquez was wearing his firearm at all times, and she did not know what he was capable of doing to her.''

Federal authorities are poring over computer records and other documents that track Vazquez's involvement in previous detainee transfers to see if other women were attacked but feared coming forward.

Vazquez, who worked for the agency for less than a year as an immigration enforcement agent, was picked up Friday evening in Tampa, where he had been on rotation with an unidentified military reserve unit. He is scheduled to make his first appearance in Tampa federal court on Monday.

Cheryl Little, executive director of Miami-based Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, which represents the victim, said the woman was released from immigration detention Nov. 1. The Miami Herald, as a policy, does not identify rape victims.

''I was scared for my life,'' the woman said in a telephone interview before being released. ``He had a gun. He's a big man, and I was in his custody. I expected him to protect me, not to take advantage of me.''

Little said the woman cried with relief when told Friday night about the arrest.

''It was such an emotional moment when I told her,'' Little said.

Vazquez denied several times to investigators that the incident happened or that he stopped other than to get gas, according to an affidavit by Homeland Security agent David Nieland.

But records from Florida's Turnpike SunPass electronic toll system showed Vazquez's official vehicle left the highway at a Commercial Boulevard ramp near his home, the affidavit said, and the woman described his home and neighborhood to investigators.

The sexual assault case is the first since 2000, when officials at the Krome detention center opened an investigation into sexual misconduct by guards and officers at the west Miami-Dade detention facility.

At least one officer and one contract employee were convicted. The scandal prompted immigration authorities to remove female detainees from Krome. Most women are now housed at the Broward Transitional Center at Pompano Beach, though some are first processed at Krome.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a statement late Friday saying Vazquez was fired ``shortly after the allegation was lodged against him.''

''ICE takes employee misconduct very seriously,'' the statement said. ``As such, Wilfredo Vazquez was arrested [Friday] following a thorough criminal investigation by the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility, the [Department of Homeland Security] Office of Inspector General and the Broward County Sheriff's Office.''

The Broward Sheriff's Office first opened the investigation in late September after the victim disclosed the episode to authorities. The U.S. attorney's office in Miami then developed the case under prosecutor Daniel Rashbaum.

The Jamaican woman was being processed at Krome for transfer to Pompano Beach after being sentenced to time served in connection with a false claim to U.S. citizenship. Immigration officials planned to put her in deportation proceedings after having lived in in the United States for 12 years. She has a 20-year-old daughter and a young son.

She was at Krome's intake room when Vazquez noticed her among a crowd of male detainees, according to a statement she gave to her attorneys.

In that statement, the woman said the officer told intake officials he would drive her to the Pompano Beach facility. Then he turned to the woman and said: ``I'll rescue you, so you don't have to wait for them to process all the men.''

Before putting her in the back of a van, Vazquez took the handcuffs off the woman and allegedly said: ``I don't cuff females.''

A Broward Sheriff's Office report said Vazquez later stopped the van, after asking the woman if she was hungry, and said: ``You can sit in the front if you are going to be a good girl.''

Vazquez then asked the woman if she needed to make a phone call, handed her an earpiece and dialed calls to the woman's daughter and a friend.

After she finished the calls, the officer asked her if she was wearing ''federal underwear'' and to show it to him. ''I told him no,'' according to the statement.

Later, the officer called his wife on his cellphone to check if she was at home. ''He told me that she was not,'' the woman said in the statement.

Inside his home he asked her to ``take off those federal clothes.''

'I just stood there praying to myself, saying, `God, please don't let this man hurt me.' I was asking God to have mercy so this man wouldn't kill me. . . . All I could think of was . . . if he was crazy enough to bring me to his house and rape me, then what would he be willing to do to cover it up?''

After about 15 minutes, the agent ordered her to get dressed and walk to the van.

She noticed a van parked across the street with lights on.

''I thought about running over there and screaming for help,'' she stated. ``But then I thought he might just shoot me in the back and say that I tried to escape from him.''

After arriving at the Broward facility, the woman was taken to her room. ``I just laid on my bed in the fetal position crying.''

A short time later, another Jamaican female detainee asked why she was crying. The woman shared what happened. The next day, the other detainee reported the conversation to facility officials, who took the victim to the BSO and a treatment center.

The woman told The Miami Herald that she keeps replaying the episode in her mind and wondering whether she could have done something to prevent it.

'I keep thinking, `What could I have done to stop him?' '' she asked.


http://www.miamiherald.com/519/v-print/story/311312.html

ICE Takes Nursing Baby From Mother

Could this be the man from ICE?






Forcibly taking a nursing baby from its mother is tantamount to child abuse. In this case, the child is an American citizen.
Wouldn't this be something child advocate organizations would protest? There is a web site that is calling this a "sob story" - the image depicting the blog's author (above) is appropos to his attitude. Just ask any pediatrician what the effects are if a nursing baby is suddenly taken away from its mother.

This NYT article states that over 13,000 American citizen children have seen their parents deported since 2005.


-----
November 17, 2007
Immigration Dilemma: A Mother Torn From a Baby
New York Times

By JULIA PRESTON


Federal immigration agents were searching a house in Ohio last month when they found a young Honduran woman nursing her baby.

The woman, Saída Umanzor, is an illegal immigrant and was taken to jail to await deportation. Her 9-month-old daughter, Brittney Bejarano, who was born in the United States and is a citizen, was put in the care of social workers.

The decision to separate a mother from her breast-feeding child drew strong denunciations from Hispanic and women’s health groups. Last week, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency rushed to issue new guidelines on the detention of nursing mothers, allowing them to be released unless they pose a national security risk.

The case exposes a recurring quandary for immigration authorities as an increasing number of American-born children of illegal immigrants become caught up in deportation operations. With the Bush administration stepping up enforcement, the immigration agency has been left scrambling to devise procedures to deal with children who, by law, do not fall under its jurisdiction because they are citizens.

“We are faced with these sorts of situations frequently, where a large number of individuals come illegally or overstay and have children in the United States,” said Kelly A. Nantel, a spokeswoman for the agency. “Unfortunately, the parents are putting their children in these difficult situations.”

Yesterday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement released new written guidelines for agents, establishing how they should treat single parents, pregnant women, nursing mothers and other immigrants with special child or family care responsibilities who are arrested in raids.

The guidelines, which codify practices in use for several months and apply mainly to larger raids, instruct agents to coordinate with federal and local health service agencies to screen immigrants who are arrested to determine if they are caring for young children or other dependents who may be at risk. The agents must consider recommendations from social workers who interview detained immigrants about whether they should be released to their families while awaiting deportation.

The new guidelines were a response to intense criticism from officials in Massachusetts about one raid, at a backpack factory in New Bedford in March. They do not specifically address the American citizen children affected by raids, whose numbers have only become clear in recent months.

About two-thirds of the children of the illegal immigrants detained in immigration raids in the past year were born in the United States, according to a study by the National Council of La Raza and the Urban Institute, groups that have pushed for gentler deportation policies for immigrant families.

Based on that finding, at least 13,000 American children have seen one or both parents deported in the past two years after round-ups in factories and neighborhoods. The figures are expected to grow. Over all, about 3.1 million American children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant, according to a widely accepted estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

Under the 14th Amendment, any child born in the United States is a citizen and cannot be deported. But with very rare exceptions, immigration law does not allow United States citizen children to confer legal status on parents who are illegal immigrants, until the children are 18 years old. While the federal government does not keep statistics on the children of deportees, immigration lawyers said that most immigrants who are deported take their children with them, even if the children are American citizens.

“Children have no rights to keep family members here because they are citizens,” said Jacqueline Bhabha, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who specializes in citizenship law. When parents face deportation, she said, the law “penalizes United States citizen children by forcing them to choose between their family and their country.”

Ms. Umanzor, 26, was arrested in her home on Maple Street in Conneaut, Ohio, on Oct. 26 and was released 11 days later on orders of Julie L. Myers, the head of the immigration agency. While in detention, Ms. Umanzor did not see her daughter Brittney, who had been fed only breast milk before her mother’s arrest. Ms. Umanzor remains under house arrest with Brittney and her two other children in Conneaut, 70 miles east of Cleveland, under an order for deportation. Her lawyer, David W. Leopold, has asked that her deportation be delayed on humanitarian grounds.

Ms. Umanzor had been at home with two of her three children, both American citizens, when the immigration agents arrived, along with a county police officer carrying a criminal warrant for a brother-in-law of Ms. Umanzor who also lived in the house.

As the agents searched, Ms. Umanzor breast-fed her jittery baby, she recalled in an interview after her release.

The baby was born in January in Oregon, where Ms. Umanzor’s husband, also Honduran and an illegal immigrant, was working in a saw mill.

Through a quick records check during the raid, the immigration agents discovered a July 2006 order of deportation for Ms. Umanzor, who had failed to appear for a court date after she was caught crossing a Texas border river illegally.

The agents detained her as a fugitive. She was forced to leave both Brittney and the other American daughter, Alexandra, who is 3, since the agents could not detain them.

“Just thinking that I was going to leave my little girl, I began to feel sick,” Ms. Umanzor said of the baby. “I had a pain in my heart.”

Ms. Umanzor turned over her daughters to social workers from the Ashtabula County Children Services Board, who had been summoned by the immigration authorities. In all, the social workers took in six children who lived in the Maple Street house, including Ms. Umanzor’s oldest child, a son born in Honduras. They also included three children of Ms. Umanzor’s sister, an illegal immigrant who was at work that day. Four of the children were born in the United States.

In jail and with her nursing abruptly halted, Ms. Umanzor’s breasts become painfully engorged. With the help of Veronica Dahlberg, director of a Hispanic women’s group in Ashtabula County, a breast pump was delivered on her third day in jail. Brittney, meanwhile, did not eat for three days, refusing to take formula from a bottle, Ms. Dahlberg said.

After four days, the county released all six children to Ms. Umanzor’s sister, who managed to wean Brittney to a bottle.

On Nov. 7, after two dozen women’s health advocates and researchers sent a letter protesting Ms. Umanzor’s detention, Ms. Myers issued a memorandum instructing field officers “to exercise discretion” during arrests by releasing nursing mothers from detention unless they presented a national security or public safety risk.

In cases where the breast-feeding children were United States citizens and entitled to public services, Ms. Myers urged the officers to seek assistance from social agencies to “maintain the unity of the mother and child.”

In their study, released this month, La Raza, a national Hispanic organization, and the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, examined three factory raids in the past year, in Greeley, Colo.; Grand Island, Neb.; and New Bedford. A total of 912 adults arrested in the raids had 506 children among them, three-quarters of whom were under 10 years old. About 340 of those children were born in the United States.

The study found that the children faced economic hardship after one or both of their bread-winning parents were detained or deported. Many families hid for days or longer in their homes, sometimes retreating to basements, the study reported. Although many children showed symptoms of emotional distress, family members were reluctant to seek public assistance for them, even if the children were citizens, fearing new arrests of relatives who were illegal immigrants.

Groups advocating curbs on immigration say that children of illegal immigrants cannot be spared the consequences of their parents’ legal violations just because they are American citizens.

“Children are not human shields,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Nobody wants to hurt anybody’s kids. But any time parents break the law, it has an impact on their children.”

Joseph Hammell, a lawyer from the Minnesota firm of Dorsey & Whitney who is conducting a separate legal survey of recent raids for the Urban Institute, noted that the authorities were guided by immigration law, which includes few of the protections for citizen children that are basic in family and criminal courts.

“In the context of immigration and deportation proceedings,” Mr. Hammell said, “we are completely out of step with our societal values of protecting the best interests of our children.”

Ms. Nantel, the immigration agency spokeswoman, said the primary responsibility for the plight of the American children of illegal immigrants rests with parents who violated the law. “It’s a challenging situation” for the agency, Ms. Nantel said. “It’s unfortunate that children are impacted negatively by the decisions of their parents.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17citizen.html?pagewanted=print

image from: http://thepiratescove.us

More Deportations

November 17, 2007
Longtime US Residents Fight Deportation
NYTimes

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:12 a.m. ET

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- Immigrants Pedro and Salvacion Servano have been model U.S. residents since arriving from the Philippines in the 1980s. Pedro Servano, 54, is a prominent family doctor in an underserved area of central Pennsylvania. His 51-year-old wife runs a grocery store and bakery.

But apparent misstatements they made about their marital status 17 years ago have come back to haunt them, and now they are facing possible deportation back to the Philippines.

The couple have been told to report to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office the day after Thanksgiving for the start of deportation proceedings, agency spokesman Michael Gilhooly said Friday.

Their attorney, Gregg Cotler, is devising a flurry of last-ditch legal and political appeals to allow them to remain in Selinsgrove, about 100 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

''We love this country and this is our American dream to be here,'' Salvacion Servano said in a telephone interview. ''We've been here for 25 years. This is our home.''

Their difficulties can be traced back to 1978 when, while both were single, their mothers applied for visas for them to come to the United States.

The couple married in the Philippines in 1980, and two years later, Salvacion Servano's visa was granted and she left the country. Pedro Servano followed in 1984 after getting his visa, and the couple moved to Philadelphia.

The Servanos applied for U.S. citizenship while living in San Diego in 1990, but an immigration official noticed during an interview that their visa application listed them as single. They were accused of lying and misrepresenting their marital status, and the deportation process began, Cotler said.

''I guess it's an honest mistake,'' Salvacion Servano said. ''It's not premeditated.''

The Servanos went about their lives as they filed appeals. They moved back to Philadelphia in 1992 before settling in Selinsgrove three years later. Pedro Servano works at Geisinger Medical Group in Selinsgrove, where he has about 2,000 patients.

Two of their four children graduated from Temple University, while one is in high school and another is in middle school.

Several years ago, the Servanos bought and renovated two properties in nearby Sunbury. Salvacion Servano recently opened a small grocery store there, selling Asian goods and baked items.

''They had an error on their visas when they first came here,'' said Terry Specht, Sunbury's city clerk, who frequents the store. ''It's ridiculous to think they would lie about that.''

But their appeals have been unsuccessful and appear to have run their course.

The Servanos turned to Cotler after receiving notice earlier this month that they had to report to the immigration enforcement office.

''It was a surprise to us,'' Pedro Servano said. ''After that, it was as if a ton of bricks had fallen on our family.''

Gilhooly declined to discuss the specifics of the case, citing ICE policy.

''They have had their due process through the U.S. immigration court system,'' he said. ''They have exhausted their appeals.''

Cotler hopes otherwise. His legal team is considering emergency appeals in court and directly to the U.S. attorney general's office.

The family has lobbied for help from politicians. Friends scheduled a prayer vigil in Sunbury for Saturday night.

Letters of support to the government have poured in from local dignitaries, Servano's patients and even someone from the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.

''I fervently believe in the ICE mission. However, the Servanos did not sneak into this country illegally, they have broken no laws, and they have not been a burden to the economy. They pose no threat,'' DHS counterterrorism operative Bill Schweigart wrote in a letter obtained by The Daily Item of Sunbury. ''I cannot fathom how deporting the Servanos fulfills any portion of the ICE mission. In fact, I would argue the action runs counter to it.''

Cotler said the couple understands the government's position, but would simply like another chance to tell their story.

''You would not find two nicer people, two more unassuming people,'' Specht said. ''It's a shame that these two are caught up in all this.''


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Doctor-Immigration-Appeal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Raw Virginia: http://9500liberty.blogspot.com/

The following is a letter to the editor responding to an article about the 9500 Liberty Project - See blog post "Nativism on Film: The 9500 Liberty Project" from November 3, 2007.


_____

Stirring a Melting Pot in Prince William
Washington Post
Saturday, November 17, 2007; A16

The Nov. 3 front-page story "Raw Look at Immigration Crucible" described the attempt of filmmakers Annabel Park and Eric Byler to deepen the debate in Prince William County on illegal immigration.

During the past few months, this issue has been promoted as a "crisis" by a county politician, but the debate has been based on no credible, objective information. Instead, it has been an attempt to elicit negative emotions from the residents in a way that divides the community and garners votes for the politician.

Part of this nation's economy has been based on the labor of undocumented workers for decades, if not centuries. Would this have continued for so long if it were not beneficial? We have seen no cost-benefit analysis of the current situation.

It is well documented that it takes three generations for assimilation to occur in immigrant families, yet people are now clamoring for instant assimilation. We have been given no objective information to support this expectation for recent immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

Whenever someone sets out to stir people up based solely on negative feelings, the only one who benefits is the instigator. Ms. Park and Mr. Byler are exposing this issue for what it is, and I applaud their effort.

MARGARET GRIFFIN

Manassas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601829_pf.html

image: taken from Liberty by Peter Max http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images/428/216424t.jpg

A Debate on Immigrants and Military Service

November 12, 2007 Monday
CNN
Immigrants and Military Service; Hillary Clinton Under Fire

Jim Acosta, Ted Rowlands, Rick Sanchez, Elizabeth Cohen

GUESTS: Darrell Scott, Ed Morrissey, William Gheen, Ole Anthony, Reggie Walton


HIGHLIGHT: Should illegal immigrants in the U.S. military be granted automatic citizenship?...

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: It's Veterans Day.

So, there's something really important that I think we should talk about. You know, I always say in this show and in my conversations with Lou that it's not about the immigrants. It's about immigration, immigration, a policy. That's what we in this country somehow have to fix, especially -- You ready? -- especially if the immigrants in particular are willing to give their lives for this country, die for the United States of America.

On this Veterans Day, here are the facts. And these are important. More than 100 immigrants have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten killed as part of the U.S. military. That's important. Thousands more are there fighting for our country right now, in fact, tens of thousands we now learn. And the president has signed an order that gives those guys something called the fast track, which essentially says this.

Look, if you're willing to fight for America, you should be treated like an American, those people. It's like an exception. Well, most people would agree with that, right?

Not William Gheen. He's joining us right now. He's the president of Americans For Legal Immigration.

Let me read to you, Mr. Gheen, what the president actually said. Let's put that up, if we can.

If somebody is willing to risk their lives for our country -- quote -- "They ought to be full participants in our country."
Where is he wrong?

WILLIAM GHEEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE: Well, immigrants in the military are fine. But trying to stick illegal aliens in the military, come on, Rick. They have shown a disregard for our territorial jurisdiction and our borders.
(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about what you would call illegal aliens. Those are the ones the president is talking about.

(CROSSTALK) GHEEN: All right. Well, you called them immigrants, and I wish you would stop insulting immigrants by comparing them to illegal aliens. It's very rude to call them that, because immigrants have done things the right way. Illegal aliens have broken many laws.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, actually, I will tell you where you're wrong. Most of the people who are in your words illegal aliens or illegal immigrants actually came to the United States legally and then tried to process their papers after they were here or allowed their visa to expire.

So, they actually came into the country legally to begin with. And that's about half the people that you call illegal aliens. Answer that, sir.

GHEEN: Well, right at that point, they become legally termed illegal aliens. And it is affront and anti-immigrant to try to compare them to America's law-abiding immigrants.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: So, you're saying, a soldier goes to Iraq, either dies or is there willing to die for his country, and still we shouldn't make an exception?

Hold your answer, because we have got a report that we prepared. I want you and our viewers to watch this. And then we will talk about it a little bit more on the other side.

Here's CNN's Ted Rowlands now following one immigrant who fought in Iraq and just took the citizenship oath.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Thirty-five-year- old U.S. Army Sergeant Darwin Phillips saw combat in Iraq wearing an American uniform, but he has never seen the inside of an American voting booth, because he is a foreigner.
DARWIN PHILLIPS, NEW U.S. CITIZEN: I believe deeply about this country and what it stands for. I'm willing to put my life to defend this country.

That I will support and defend...

ROWLANDS: Until this ceremony last week, Phillips was not an American citizen. This is the payback the U.S. government gives Sergeant Phillips and other immigrants willing to put their lives on the line for America, a fast track to citizenship.

UNIDENTIFIED MALES AND FEMALE: And justice for all.

ROWLANDS: At this ceremony, Sergeant Phillips was one of 36 so- called green card troops representing 17 different countries that became citizens of the country they had already been defending. Darwin Phillips came to the U.S. 15 years ago from the Philippines. His wife, Nicole, and three sons are already U.S. citizens.

NICOLE PHILLIPS, WIFE OF DARWIN PHILLIPS: It makes me so proud of him and of all his accomplishments and his dedication to everything that he does every day for our country.

ROWLANDS: Because of his service, Sergeant Phillips was allowed to move through the citizenship process faster than someone not in the military, saving him an estimated year-and-a-half. He also didn't have to pay the $600 plus in filing fees. Immigration officials say these soldiers do get preferential treatment, but it's not a free ride.

TOM PAAR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES: They fill out the same forms. They do everything. But we just -- as we say, we have a special agency and organization in Nebraska that handles these applications and handles them very quickly.

ROWLANDS (on camera): Is it fair for you to get different treatment just because you're in the military?

D. PHILLIPS: We serve the military knowing that this is what we want. So, you know, sacrificing our -- putting our life on the line even before we're citizens, bearing arms.

This is it right here.

ROWLANDS (voice-over): Darwin Phillips says taking the oath of citizenship fulfills a dream he's had since coming to America. He's looking forward to voting for president next year and if he's sent into harm's way again, he will be defending a country that is his.

D. PHILLIPS: Now I'm truly part of America. And it's wonderful.

ROWLANDS: Ted Rowlands, CNN, Las Vegas, Nevada.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: All right.

So, Bill, you would tell this guy -- he comes back to the United States -- hey, thanks for doing your job; thanks for sacrificing your life; now get out of the country; you're deported? You would say that to him?

GHEEN: No. No. I would say, if he's an illegal alien, he shouldn't be in the military anyway, for three important reasons.
One, it's ridiculous to think that illegal aliens are going to defend our borders and our states against invasion, Rick. Two, we already have a problem where forces trained by the U.S. military, such as Las Zetas, which controls the border more than the Border Patrol, were trained by the American military at Fort Benning, South Carolina. Now they're importing drugs and illegal aliens.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, hold on a minute. I want to go back to number one. I just started thinking about what you just said.
It's ridiculous to think that an illegal alien would defend our country.

GHEEN: Defend our borders.

SANCHEZ: You just had one.

GHEEN: Yes.

SANCHEZ: We just had one on the air who did just that.

GHEEN: That's an illegal -- you said that guy is an illegal alien in the military?

SANCHEZ: He is. He's an illegal alien in the military.

GHEEN: He needs to be arrested and detained as soon as possible and put back in his home country.

You think that training these people with arms and demolitions is a good idea? You have got 60 percent of the people in Mexico that feel that the United States shouldn't even control the Southwest United States, and you're going to train them in arms and explosives? Bet the French are glad they didn't do that before the illegal aliens started burning half the country over the last two years, Rick.

SANCHEZ: So, man, you just hate these guys. You just want them -- I mean, you want them punished altogether.

(CROSSTALK)

GHEEN: There's no hate. The truth is not hate.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: This guy is not -- he's a decent American. He's married. He has got a lovely family. He loves this country and he's willing to give his life for his country, just like...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: ... already have.

GHEEN: You just lost this debate. The DREAM Act, which would have allowed military service to turn into citizenship, didn't even get off the ground. And Rasmussen polls reports that only 22 percent of the public supported that measure.
SANCHEZ: Right.

GHEEN: And 68 opposed it.

We have had this conversation. We have won. We have won it.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: But you know what? If all you want to do is tell me that you're right because there's a majority of people who agree with you, man, I can go back in history and tell you about majorities that agreed with a lot of things that we have gotten rid of because they were wrong, though. They were wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

GHEEN: Why don't you do this in American history? Go back and read about how it is the people of this country that run this country, Rick. Why don't you study that? And let's reflect the will of the American majority.

SANCHEZ: What does that have to do with anything? The will of the majority was to defend slavery as well.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: I mean, that was wrong.

GHEEN: No. What -- Rick, you're playing the race card. You're trying to be the Al Sharpton of illegal immigration.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: I'm not playing the race card.

(CROSSTALK)

GHEEN: We have already got Geraldo doing this projection racism thing. We don't need that.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: William, with all due respect -- and I like you and I like the fact that you come on our show, and we always have good, decent, respectable arguments.

GHEEN: I even wore the blue shirt. I wore the blue shirt you like, Rick.

SANCHEZ: Here's the point that I'm trying to make. These guys who go and defend their country are decent Americans. They're not here to hurt the United States in any which way. Would you not agree with that?

(CROSSTALK)

GHEEN: If they're an illegal American, they're not American and they're not decent. They have broken the laws, and they're illegal aliens.

SANCHEZ: All right. All right. We will continue the conversation at another time.

My thanks to you, William Gheen, for coming on and talking to that.

By the way, most of the polls show that even conservatives on this one disagree with you and agree with the president on this policy. We will come back and we will talk again.

Who is the Bigot

Sometimes its worth a look at what the other side is saying. This article talks about Reid and Durbin's anger over the failure of the DREAM ACT on the Senate floor.

The author of this article notes that Durbin thinks that people against the DREAM ACT are racists. I don't believe Durbin actually said this, although many others have made that statement.

Pinning bigotry on someone is not just about the DREAM ACT. While many anti-immigrationists say it's not about race, but about illegality, I don't believe they would be so upset if the current wave of immigration was from northern Europe. There are few complaints about undocumented Irish immigrants these days.


-----
November 13, 2007 Tuesday
Stand on merits, please;
A Congress too sly
Alan Nathan, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES



'...Mr. Reid has been demonstrating all the tactical sure-footedness of a running-back in dress shoes. He tried, and mercifully failed, to pass the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act. This would have granted legal status to aliens arriving before the age of 16, providing they graduate high school, sustain a clean criminal record and demonstrate a "good moral character." Mr. Reid was furious over his failure, saying "Children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents." Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, a Democrat, added 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.

...Mr. Durbin is correct when he asserts that hatred was involved in this debate. That hatred, however, was against politicos like him who unpardonably castigate folks as bigots merely because they want laws universally applied regardless of the offender's demographic origin."'

John McCain on the DREAM ACT

John McCain with his much younger wife Cindy









Would it be fair to say that one shouldn't vote for any presidential candidate that has a second or third wife who is younger by 20 years or more? At the moment I can think of a few, Chris Dodd, Fred Thompson, and of course, John McCain. What does this mean about a man's character? Another question; do trophy wives only come with blonde hair?

I was hoping on a long shot that McCain would have been for the DREAM ACT since he initially supported immigration reform. But then, he did change his position after he was highly criticized. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it could be possible that his not being present for the vote meant he had mixed feelings about turning down the DREAM ACT?


-----
According the conservative blog "Powerline" October 25, 2007:

'John McCain held another blogger call today. He began by discussing the two major votes in the Senate yesterday -- the confirmation of Judge Southwick and the failure of the Democrats to force a vote on the Dream Act. McCain returned to Washington to help get Southwick confirmed, but left for Iowa before the Dream Act vote, in order to attend an event at which he gave what he described as a major speech about what's next in the entire Middle East region now that "we're succeeding in Iraq."

...As for the Dream Act, McCain told us that he would have voted against cloture (i.e., in favor of preventing a vote) because he "got the message" this summer that Americans want the border secured before we "go on to the rest." McCain would deem parts of the border secure when the governor of the relevant state so certifies.

Since McCain is clearly on record as to how he would have voted on the Dream Act cloutre motion, and since his vote was not needed to prevent cloture, there seems to be no basis for criticizing his departure for Iowa prior to the vote.'



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018851.php
this information was previously posted in Slade Magazine November 12, 2007

photo: http://www.thanksforthemusic.com/events/images2/fn0420.jpg

From Luis Sotelo at Northwestern University

USA TODAY
November 15, 2007 Thursday
Given the chance, illegal immigrants can succeed
by Luis Sotelo

I am an immigrant, and regardless of what some people might think, I have the potential to become somebody in American society. I'm a college student at Northwestern University, and I plan to become a lawyer.

I came to the USA illegally when I was 5 years old, but I became a U.S. citizen and, thankfully, I was able to pursue my higher education. Sometimes I think about what life would have been like had I not received my certificate of citizenship. I wouldn't be in college, that's for sure -- just like many high schools students who graduated across the USA this year.

The U.S. Senate refused to take up the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or the DREAM Act, shutting the doors of opportunity for many immigrant teens. This carefully constructed legislation could have made thousands of students' higher educational dreams a reality.

Many intelligent individuals cannot attend college because they are illegal immigrants. America might value education, but it is failing to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to receive it. Ironically, U.S. officials go to other countries across the world to promote and develop educational institutions -- to ensure that as many people in the world become educated citizens. Yet, the U.S. government can't provide postsecondary education for many students in its own country?
Immigrants have the potential to become great participants in American society, too.
Luis Sotelo, student
Northwestern University

Oklahoma Anti-Immigration Laws Will be More Harsh with Son of 1804

Landlords facing illegal resident law?
By Richard Mize
The Oklahoman
November 15, 2007
Real Estate Editor

State Rep. Randy Terrill wants police and prosecutors to be able to seize and liquidate the property of people who give aid and comfort to illegal residents — the same type of civil procedure used to complement criminal drug cases.


But some property owners don't like his position one bit.

"Is this Oklahoma? Is this America? Is this what we're headed for? I don't think that's fair, Cliff McBeth said.

Nonetheless, such a law is next on the legislative agenda for the Moore Republican who has made a national name for himself in efforts to deal with illegal immigration while providing a model for other states in House Bill 1804, which went into effect Nov. 1.

"Son of HB 1804,” some call the next big measure.

"The rule of law, and our sovereignty, are not for sale — and they're not for rent,” Terrill said.

The idea is "further along than the conceptual stage but not fleshed out and ready for drafting,” Terrill said, but the aim is to give authorities power to go to court to seize the real estate and other property of people convicted of "harboring, transporting, concealing or sheltering” illegal residents.

He said giving authorities the ability to go after real estate civilly wouldn't be that far removed from the power they have now under the drug laws. Property can be seized now, he said, if a property owner knew methamphetamine was being made on the premises.


‘Is this America?'
But McBeth has had enough of such talk. McBeth, who owns more than a dozen rent houses in Oklahoma City, said it's unfair to treat landlords like real traffickers of illegal residents.
"As far as rentals, I'm probably not going to own any rentals a year from now,” he said, insisting that the new law already creates burdens that some landlords can't afford to carry.

Add the possibility of losing their property, and many commercial property owners will sell out, McBeth said.

"This is not just about me,” said an angry McBeth. "Older people who are relying on rental income to help supplement Social Security — they may have one house or 10 — now they're going to be faced with being the Border Patrol!

"(Terrill) is saying it's like a pickup load of (illegals) on the street.”

Ridiculous, Terrill said.

"That's just preposterous. We require him to make sure tenants are not manufacturing drugs in his rental property,” the lawmaker said, and any landlord who doesn't know that doesn't understand the obligations property owners already have under the law.

"You're going to have some who are going to cry and whine about it being burdensome when it, in fact, is not,” Terrill said.

Terrill said his own in-laws own rental property around Duncan and Comanche and have already redrawn the lease agreements they use to meet the requirements of HB 1804.

Anyone complaining, Terrill said, doesn't want to ask hard questions of potential tenants for fear of losing the rental income.


Renting as ‘racketeering'
State Sen. Anthony Sykes of Moore said the next law will be aimed at a system that perpetuates "exploitation of illegal aliens” in situations that amount to "racketeering operations.”
"There are certain landlords who basically — all they rent to is illegal aliens, or at least they target that population,” Sykes said.

Sykes said allowing property seizures in civil cases against lawbreaking landlords and other property owners would do three things:

Provide another tool for ridding the state of illegal residents by targeting property owners who rent to them, protect illegal residents now being exploited by landlords who now have them "over a barrel” with "illegal contracts” — and help pay for enforcement of the new laws.

That last thing — more money for law enforcement to enforce the laws — probably won't be as sure or as plentiful as the lawmakers hope, said Dennis A. Smith, chairman of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council and the D.A. for Beckham, Custer, Ellis, Roger Mills and Washita counties.


Property rights at issue
"To be able to rely on something like that is really a pipe dream. You don't know whether those types of situations are going to exist in your jurisdiction or not,” Smith said from his office in Arapaho. "Strictly speaking, law enforcement agencies are like anyone else in the public sector — we're trying to do the most with the least. Asset forfeiture is not a big piece of my budget. But obviously, if it's available, we use it.”
However, Smith said property seizure wouldn't necessarily be as certain as its proponents might want — depending on how a bill is written and changed during the legislative process.

Civil forfeiture of real estate "is scrutinized very closely by the courts, as it should be,” the prosecutor said. "Obviously, there are lots of issues out there anytime you talk about seizing people's property. That's one of the constitutional safeguards of this country.”

Constitutional protections would not be threatened with a carefully crafted law, Terrill said.

"We're in an area that is clearly within the scope of state authority,” he said.

Sykes said he thought lawmakers would be ready, by the next session, to take the next step in dealing with illegal immigrants.

Terrill chastised landlords who rent to illegal residents — and those who sell houses to them or loan money to them — for not being "good corporate citizens,” and said that people should keep "small but vocal” groups of opponents to the state's crackdown in perspective.

"Don't mistake that for the voice of the people of Oklahoma,” he said.

http://newsok.com/article/3168923/?print=1

cartoon: http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/immigration.jpg

Eight states allow undocumented immigrants a Driver's License

Hawaii

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

New Mexico

Oregon

Utah

Washington



Photo:
http://www.bvallc.com/pensionblog/uploaded_images/Green%20Light-732415.jpg

Scholar Not Allowed in U.S. for His Political Views

Voices of Protest, edited by Adam Habib, R. Ballard and I. Valodia

Christian Science Monitor
November 16, 2007, Friday
South African fights denial of U.S. visa
By Scott Baldauf Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Johannesburg, South Africa

A South African scholar and critic of the war in Iraq is now fighting in US courts to clear his name, after being denied a visa for having "links to terrorism."

The US government has not directly declared Adam Habib, a respected social scientist and deputy vice chancellor of the University of Johannesburg, a terrorist. But when Mr. Habib asked why he was denied entry at immigration at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport in October 2006, and denied a visa this past summer, the US Embassy in Pretoria handed him the statute under which his visa was denied.

The relevant statute, from the US Immigration and Nationality Act, allows the US to deny entry to a person who has either engaged in terrorist acts or who has signaled an intention to engage in a terrorist act.

"I think it's completely outrageous," says Dr. Habib, who has filed a court challenge in Boston with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "I asked [the US Embassy] specifically what exactly have I done to have you guys conclude that I'm a terrorist. [They said]: 'The State Department doesn't enter into that specificity of detail.' My attitude toward the US is not defined by what the present administration does. But it does bug me if I'm suddenly accused of something I haven't done."

Habib is just one foreigner of many who have faced either strenuous interrogation or expulsion by US immigration officials since 9/11. But his legal challenge shines a media spotlight on a visa process that has become more opaque in recent years, raising questions about the rights of individuals to free speech and to due process.

"This is a problem that is much bigger than just Professor Habib," says Melissa Goodman, an attorney with the ACLU who is handling Habib's case. "Since 9/11, writers, artists, and other have found it much more difficult to get into the US. What they have in common is that, like Professor Habib, they are vocal critics of US foreign policy."

The government points to recent legislation allowing it to make decisions in the national interest if there is a terrorist threat.

But since Habib was traveling to give a speech at an academic conference, the denial of his entry into the US deprives him of his right to speak and his audience's right to hear Habib. "It's different when First Amendment cases are heard. The law says that if a First Amendment right is involved, they [the government] have to provide evidence."

To date, the US Embassy in Tshwane (as Pretoria is now called officially) has refused to comment on the Habib case.

Although Habib's academic focus is mostly on domestic affairs, he has been a frequent critic of the US for its war in Iraq and its treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

Habib says his treatment by the Homeland Security and immigration officials was polite and that there were no signs that he was singled out either for race, religion, or national origin. For this reason, the ACLU charges that Habib was denied entry because of his political views.

While no US official will comment on the Habib case, US officials have repeatedly defended the government's right to exclude foreigners whom it views to be a threat.

"I believe we are at war," said US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in a May 2007 speech before the European Parliament in Brussels. He urged the European Union to extend the current Passenger Name Records law, under which US and EU officials are allowed access to passenger lists of airlines flying into their countries.

"We are collecting data because it has proven time and time again to keep dangerous people out of the country," said Mr. Chertoff. The US would never sacrifice civil liberties, but "life is the liberty on which all others depend," he says.

In the meantime, while the US government withdraws the 10-year visas for Habib's children and wife, academic institutions such as the American Sociological Society continue to send Habib invitations to speak in 2008. Habib says that he will continue to apply for visas, while his court case continues to seek a reversal of his previous rejections by US immigration officials.

The New American Century Will Belong to the DREAM ACT Students

Well, I am carrying the title to this post a little further than the article in the London Guardian suggested. However, there is reality to my comment. Once the DREAM ACT is passed, and DREAMERS start working towards citizenship, anything could happen.

The Guardian is telling us the "US is currently in the grip of a demographic change the like of which has not been seen since the 19th century." Who else could be the leaders of tomorrow? It won't be the Cholos or the guys who have to hold up their pants when they are running down the street.* It will be the people who studied and worked hard, made good grades and stayed out of trouble... who else but the DREAMERS.

Even before they can vote, the DREAMERS will begin organize voting blocs...anything could happen.


*I apologize if there are any DREAM ACT students out there who use low rider pants. The "dress for success guy" may be wrong after all. Clothes do not make the person.

The Guardian (London) - Final Edition
by Paul Harris
November 16, 2007 Friday

Viva la revolucion!: For decades Hispanics have lived in the shadows of the American dream. Now they hold the key to the new American century.

Eddie "El Piolin" Sotelo does not look like a revolutionary threat to America. He is short, stocky, with neat dark hair and a broad smile. His nickname means simply "Tweety Bird" in Spanish. Until 18 months ago Sotelo was virtually unknown. Although more than a million listeners tuned into his radio show, the majority of America was blissfully unaware of his championing of the rights of illegal immigrants - simply because he did it in Spanish.

Then one day he publicised protests against a draft law to classify undocumented migrants as felons. Sotelo urged his Hispanic listeners to take to the streets. They answered his call in their millions. In dozens of cities, millions of people were suddenly protesting against a law few other Americans even knew about. And Sotelo was at the front of the marchers. "More than 2 million marched. And I am proud that we were peaceful," he said.

The demonstrators left America asking one question: who are these people? The answer, it seems, is simple: they are America's future. The US is currently in the grip of a demographic change the like of which has not been seen since the 19th century. A mass immigration is taking place that dwarfs the flow of Irish, Germans, Jews and Italians that, 100 years ago, saw America rise to a superpower. It is a movement of Hispanic immigrants - legal and illegal - and the explosive growth of their descendants.


In 1950 there were just 4 million Spanish-speaking Americans, and the word Hispanic had not even been coined. Now their number stands at 44 million, and they have surpassed black people as the country's largest minority. By 2050 there will be 103 million Hispanics - or a quarter of all Americans.

That change has had a huge impact on what it means to be American. From politics to the economy, sport and the arts, the US is changing. Spanish is becoming the nation's second language. A Hispanic, Bill Richardson, is running for president. Their spending power is nearly $1 trillion, which, if Hispanic America were a separate country, would give it the ninth-largest economy on earth. "What is happening now is one of the most important moments in American history," says Professor Ruben Rumbaut, a sociologist at the University of California.

Every immigrant has a story. Rodolfo Acevedo left Argentina in 1990 for the same reason most other migrants come to America: opportunity. "Argentina had just gone through hyperinflation. It was a chance to get a better life," he says.

Acevedo wanted to be an architect, but on arrival in Boca Raton, Florida, the only job he could get was at a restaurant. But as the diner was popular with architects, Acevedo brought in his drawings. Eventually he got an entry-level job and by 2002 was a partner. Last August he took up American citizenship. Acevedo's voice trembles as he recalls the ceremony: "It was unreal. The culmination of a dream."

Acevedo took a legal route, following a relative already living in the US. Such networks stretch out from every city in America through Mexico and Latin America to the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. Many follow Acevedo's path of taking any job and working their way up. They see America as classless, a place where hard work brings just rewards. "In Argentina it was about who you were and where you came from. In America that is less true," Acevedo says.

But there is another side of the Hispanic wave - the illegal immigrants, who likely measure some 12 million or so. These are the "wetbacks" who cross the border with Mexico, risking their lives. These are the people whose bodies are found in the desert and who are at the bottom of America's low-wage economy: working the nation's kitchens and harvesting its crops. They harbour the same dreams as Acevedo and some have similar success. Amazingly, Sotelo is one of their number. He entered the US illegally on a forged green card. Now he is a famous DJ. No wonder so many answered his call. "I am one of them," Sotelo says. "I am just like my listeners."

But the Hispanic revolution is not simply a story of migrants. If immigration stopped tomorrow, the massive growth of the Hispanic population would continue apace. Hispanic America is younger than the rest of America and it has more children. The average non-Hispanic family has 1.8 children; for Hispanics it is 2.8. Some 15% of non-Hispanics are over 65, but the figure for Hispanics is just 5%. "Stopping immigration would not change a thing. Most of them are born here," says Nestor Rodriguez, a professor at the University of Houston.

Hispanics are firmly entrenched in everyday American life. You can see that reality on the streets of New York, in areas that have always played host to the latest wave of hopeful immigrants. The South Bronx has been home to Irish, Jews and Italians. Now it is Hispanic. On a walk down Third Avenue, the streets are full of Hispanic life. The shops sell Latin American food; a family sits on the pavement playing loud Spanish rap; a van drives by with a Dominican flag flying from its windows.

It is in this hardscrabble place that Jorge Medina was born. And when he grew up and became a success, he built a factory here. Hailing from a poor Puerto Rican family, Medina's identity as both Puerto Rican and American sits easily with him. His firm, which he started in his Bronx apartment, now has sales of more than $1m. It supplies sporting equipment to some of the most famous names in baseball, such as Carlos Beltran, who reflect the dominance Hispanic players now have in America's national game. "I am proud to be American. I am proud to be of Puerto Rican descent," Medina says. "I don't distinguish between the two." He stands in front of a rack of baseball bats: the perfect image of Americana. Then he reaches up and plucks a T-shirt from the shelves. He grins as he shows off the logo: "Viva la revolucion."

The Hispanic revolution is changing parts of the country beyond recognition. It is not just a cultural transformation - a political earthquake is brewing. The explosion of the Hispanic population has huge ramifications for Republicans and Democrats as they face a fundamental truth: whichever party captures the Hispanic vote will capture the White House.

The signs of this growing political power are most obvious in Texas, a state that has already ushered in one political revolution in the shape of President George W Bush and his evangelical Christian backers. Now, a different political wind is blowing. Texas will soon be a state in which the majority of people are from a minority, and most will be Hispanic. By 2040 for every white Texan there will be two Hispanics. You can see the changes already in a city like San Antonio. This is the home of the Alamo, where Davy Crockett's army lost a battle to Mexico but triggered a war that eventually saw Texas join America. Now San Antonio, the US's seventh-largest city, is 60% Hispanic. Just yards from the Alamo sits the newly opened Museum of Hispanic America.

But it is not just Texas. The whole southwest - the fastest-growing region in America - is turning Hispanic: they make up 28% of Arizona, 25% of Nevada, 20% of Colorado and 43% of New Mexico. That brings political power. Across America there are 5,129 elected Hispanic officials, a rise of 40% in 10 years. One, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, is running for president.

The Hispanic community has become a battleground for Democrats and Republicans, and it is a battle the Republicans are beginning to lose. The reason is simple: immigration. In 2000 the Republicans and Democrats almost split the Hispanic vote. But as a national backlash against illegal immigra tion has swept white America, the Republican party has been carried along by its grass roots. Earlier this year Bush attempted to pass an immigration law that would have allowed millions of illegals a path to citizenship. It was destroyed by a Republican rebellion that devastated the party's chances of winning the Hispanic vote.

America's 44 million Hispanics have the potential to wield enormous power, yet 60% of them do not vote: either they are too young or ineligible, or afraid of government. But that is changing. Political activists are out urging the community to go to the polls. And Sotelo has turned his attentions to the cause, using his radio show to emphasise the importance of the vote. That, he believes, is the true cutting edge of the Hispanic revolution, and his listeners hear it every day. Soon the rest of America will hear it too. "At the next election they are going to find out: we know how to vote," he laughs.

But for every wave of change there is always a backlash. The fight against the Hispanic revolution is gathering momentum in small towns across America. None is more on the frontline than the seemingly sleepy Illinois village of Carpentersville, one of a string of towns hereabouts that were founded by Irish and Polish immigrants, thrived on trade and factories, and have now hit harder times.

The Fox river cuts through Carpentersville, and is proving a very real division. On the west side the town is mainly white; on the poorer eastern side it is Hispanic. A steady influx has turned a once homogeneous community into one that is 40% Hispanic.

Now, like scores of other towns, Carpentersville has drawn up laws promoting English-only communication and is cracking down on companies that hire illegals and fining landlords who rent rooms to them. The public face of the backlash is Paul Humpfer, an accountant who wrote the anti-illegal immigrant measures. For him, it is simple: "People just don't think it's their own town any more."

Critics say such moves are resonant of the racially segregated South, as people single out one ethnic group for different treatment. The agitators say their communities are drowning under a wave of crime and that they simply want to see the law upheld.

The power of the backlash was most keenly felt in the defeat of Bush's immigration bill. Tens of thousands of activists rallied against it, sending millions of faxes to politicians that scared them into voting down the law. The main group behind the protest, Numbers USA, had just 55,000 members three years ago. Now it has more than half a million. Much of their distress over immigration is based on a simple fear of difference. "They come here to work but they make no effort to integrate. They do not want to," says Edwin Rubenstein, an economics consultant and commentator on anti-immigration issues.

The hero of the anti-immigration backlash is Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, whose 2004 the book Who Are We?: America's Great Debate postulated that Hispanic immigration would destroy America's protestant Anglo-Saxon character. "He was right," says Rubenstein, whose own ancestors were Russian Jews. "They keep their culture and customs. When other immigrants arrived they had to break their bonds and commit themselves to the US for better or worse."

But behind the cultural and political arguments lies a more powerful economic phenomenon. Hispanic migration is also driven by the desire of major corporations to create a low-wage workforce. The fear of the American middle class is not just over Spanish or a brown skin; it is also a more justifiable anxiety that jobs are disappearing and wages being lowered. Much of the rhetoric of the right attacks big business. "It is a betrayal. The corporate elites have hijacked government on behalf of business interests and profits," says Rubenstein.

That may be true. But the backlash is having an impact on ordinary Hispanics, not big business. There are regular round-ups of illegal immigrants. Often parents are deported while their American-born children, who are citizens, remain. There are an estimated 3.1 million children at risk of being in such a parentless situation. Many towns that have passed anti-immigrant laws have sparked an exodus of Hispanic residents, illegal or not.

Yet the fears of "nativists" seem blown out of all proportion. America is transforming, but the more it changes, the more it looks the same. In interview after interview, Hispanic Americans show that - as with those other waves of Italians, Irish and Jews - the power of assimilation is strong.

Take Flaco Navaja. He is a poet, singer and actor in New York City and the son of a Puerto Rican nationalist father. Sitting in a swanky cafe on Manhattan's Upper West Side, he talks of a poor childhood growing up in the South Bronx and his pride in his Hispanic identity. "My dad refused to speak English to us," he says. Yet the story of Navaja's family is a classic American tale. His parents, once poor and struggling, have retired and own their own home. Navaja will soon appear in films with Sigourney Weaver and Ed Norton. "Yeah, I guess that is the American dream," he laughs. "But we can maintain our own identity." Then he laughs and tells me about his young daughter. She is 10 years old and her native language is English. "She's learning Spanish. I'm teaching her," he shrugs and smiles.

But the fact is that while the Hispanicisation of America is strong, so is the Americanisation of its Hispanics. Academic studies have shown that Spanish is spreading so fast only because of new immigrants. Among Hispanics born in America, it almost always dies out. "It is unmistakeable," says Nestor Rodriguez at the University of Houston. "By the third generation, English is dominant in 95% of families." You can see that in the personal stories of those who chart the assimilation. When Rumbaut's Cuban-born father spoke English, his strong accent marked him out as "other". Yet Rumbaut became an academic who testified before Congress on immigration issues. And Rumbaut's 10-year-old son? "When I speak to him in Spanish, he answers in English. I have not just studied this experience," Rumbaut says. "I have lived it."

As with all revolutions, the Hispanic immigration will leave untouched as much as it alters. A Hispanic America will still be America. Perhaps that is because it is a fundamentally human story whose emphasis on language, skin colour and cultural differences masks the universal desire to make a better life. That is also why it is impossible to stop. When Acevedo, the Florida waiter turned architect, arrived from Argentina, he brought not just his language and culture but his drive and ambition. "I never lost sight of my dream," he said. Acevedo recently won a huge new project. Soon his buildings will start popping up across Florida. He has made them pleasant, light and eco-friendly. He has ensured they are as welcoming as possible to those who will use them. For he has designed Florida's new immigration centres.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2203110,00.html

Calderón: Mexican Migrants are Thematic Hostages

Mexican President Felipe Calderón













-----
Mexican Leader Sees Bias in U.S. Politicking;
Stop Disparaging Migrants, Calderón Says
Manuel Roig-Franzia; Washington Post Foreign Service

Nov. 14, 2007

Mexican President Felipe Calderón took the unusual step Wednesday of injecting himself into U.S. presidential politics, calling Mexican migrants "thematic hostages" of the race and urging candidates not to use them as a talking point.

Speaking at a conference here, Calderón criticized what he called "the growing harassment" of Mexicans in the United States and said his administration would finance a media campaign to underline immigrant success stories.

Calderón made his remarks one day before his environment minister, Rafael Elvira Quesada, is scheduled to release a report concluding that the U.S.-Mexico border wall is damaging the environment.

Calderón's statement on the U.S. presidential race caught many people here by surprise. Addressing delegates at a conference sponsored by the Mexican government agency that assists migrants, he said: "It is my duty to make a respectful but firm call to the candidates of the various political parties in the United States for them to stop using Mexicans in that country as thematic hostages of their speeches and their strategies."

Calderón has frequently criticized U.S. immigration policy, as do many Mexicans. But it is unusual for a Mexican president to make such a direct comment about U.S. presidential campaign strategies.

Immigration has emerged as a hot-button issue in the 2008 presidential contest, consistently ranking high on the list of voter concerns and figuring prominently in debates. Immigration also tops a list of issues that voters in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses want candidates to address, according to a CBS-New York Times poll released Tuesday. And 44 percent of caucus-goers want illegal immigrants to lose their jobs and leave the country, the poll said.

A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released two weeks ago found that 65 percent of Republican voters and 50 percent of Democratic voters ranked illegal immigration as a "very important" issue.

Republican candidate Fred Thompson has proposed taking federal grant money from so-called sanctuary cities in the United States that do not report illegal immigrants to the federal government. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has run television ads saying migrants cross the border "to take our jobs."

The potency of the immigration issue has been highlighted by the furor over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) speaking favorably about a plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in New York state. Some analysts have said Clinton's recent drop in the polls was caused in part by her comments about the license plan, which was dropped Wednesday by Democratic Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer of New York.

Given the national focus on immigration, it is very unlikely that candidates would heed Calderón's call, Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew Research Center, said in a telephone interview.

"Good luck," Dimock said of Calderón's plea. "It's a potentially powerful voting issue for a significant segment of the electorate."


photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Felipe_Calderon.jpg

Eight Year Old Separated From Her Mother at Hutto

Immigration Officials Separate Girl, Mom
By ANABELLE GARAY
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 15, 2007; 5:12 PM


DALLAS -- An 8-year-old girl was separated from her pregnant mother and left behind for four days at a detention center established to keep immigrant families together while their cases are processed.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say they had to transfer the Honduran woman Oct. 18 because she was potentially disruptive, having twice resisted attempts to deport her.

ICE spokesman Carl Rusnok said guards and ICE staff watched over the child after her mother was removed from the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility, a former Central Texas prison where immigrant families with no criminal records are held while their cases are processed.

People who want the facility closed, contending it puts children in prison-like conditions, say the agency put the girl at risk.

"Here, it's the government itself that has the custody of this child and then leaves her without proper supervision," said Denise Gilman, who oversees the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, which provides legal services to Hutto detainees. "We certainly don't want to see it happen again."

The 28-year-old woman, who was about seven months pregnant at the time, and her daughter lost a bid for asylum; they were reunited when they were sent back to Honduras. Immigration Clinic attorneys plan to file a complaint with the federal government.



The woman's sister, Irma Banegas of Fort Worth, said her sister and niece told her they cried inconsolably after they were awakened and separated.

"They've never been apart," she said.

Banegas said the pair fled Honduras earlier this year to escape an abusive relationship and growing gang violence in that country, including attacks that broke her sister's ribs and left her with scars. She asked that her sister and niece not be named because of concerns for their safety.

The girl and her mother had traveled from El Balsamo, Honduras, to Mexico and then crossed by boat into South Texas, where they were apprehended in August. They were held for about two months.

The agency attempted to deport the woman twice in October, but she wouldn't comply. ICE officials didn't reveal specifics about her efforts to resist deportation. But as a result, Rusnok said, she was considered a high risk for disruptive behavior and moved from Hutto to a South Texas detention center in Pearsall.

During the separation, the girl continued her regular routine at Hutto and "felt comfortable and safe," Rusnok said in a statement.

"Such family separations at Hutto are extremely rare. ICE personnel took extraordinary care to minimize family disruption and separation time," Rusnok said.

Advocates said detainees who endanger themselves or others should be removed, but decry the lack of guidelines for transferring or punishing troublemakers.

A lawsuit over conditions at Hutto was settled in August. Immigration officials agreed to changes including privacy curtains around toilets, a full-time pediatrician and dropping rules that required families to be in their cells 12 hours a day.

Commentary on NY Driver's License Debacle - Democracy Now

DemocracyNow
Thursday, November 15th, 2007
Faced With Bipartisan Opposition, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer Drops Effort to Grant Driver's Licenses to Undocumented Immigrants

The plan had drawn praise from immigrant rights activists, but fierce opposition from Republicans and many Democrats. We speak to Chung-Wha Hong of the New York Immigration Coalition. [includes rush transcript] New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer announced Wednesday that he is dropping his plan to grant driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. The plan had drawn praise from immigrant rights activists, but fierce opposition from Republicans and many Democrats. Spitzer spoke to the press on Wednesday.
...

The Governor added that he still believed the proposal would have benefited New Yorkers. He had previously defended the plan as a "commonsense" public safety measure that makes licenses and insurance available regardless of immigration status. But Spitzer faced a growing storm of criticism from politicians and the mainstream media ever since he first announced the plan in late September.

CNN anchor Lou Dobbs was particularly harsh in his almost daily condemnation of Governor Spitzer and the driver’s license plan.

...

Governor Spitzer’s driver’s license policy featured prominently at the October 30th Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. This is an excerpt featuring presidential hopefuls Senators Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd. It begins with a question from the host, NBC’s Tim Russert.

...


JUAN GONZALEZ: New York State Governor Elliot Spitzer announced Wednesday that he’s dropping his plan to grant driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. The plan had drawn praise from immigrant rights activists, but fierce opposition from Republicans and many Democrats. Spitzer spoke to the press on Wednesday.

GOV. ELIOT SPITZER: I have listened to the legitimate concerns of the public and those who would be affected by my proposal and have concluded that pushing forward unilaterally in the face of such strong opposition would be counterproductive. It does not take a stethoscope to hear the pulse of New Yorkers on this topic.

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Governor added that he still believed the proposal would have benefited New Yorkers. He had previously defended the plan as a “commonsense” public safety measure that makes licenses and insurance available regardless of immigration status.

But Spitzer faced a growing storm of criticism from politicians and the mainstream media ever since he first announced the plan in late September. CNN anchor Lou Dobbs was particularly harsh in his almost daily condemnation of Governor Spitzer and the driver’s license plan. I want to play excerpts from his show Lou Dobbs Tonight. They aired in October.

LOU DOBBS: It’s hard to imagine what this governor is thinking and how he can even possibly rationalize this in any kind of conscience, talking about it being practical and moral to simply provide those licenses. Where is the practicality? Where is the morality and his obligation to fulfill his responsibilities to citizens of the State of New York and, certainly, to uphold the law? It is -- again, this governor, in his early going, is demonstrating such absurdity and a disappointing capacity that it is -- it’s breathtaking.

KITTY PILGRIM: This, done by executive order. That’s one of the big sticking points for many people.

LOU DOBBS: Yeah. You know, this is a governor who requires training wheels. And that may be the kindest thing I could say about his position.

He may be what he calls a steamroller, but I think he’s a weak-kneed, spineless steamroller who is absolutely acting against the interest of his citizens and ignoring -- ignoring -- the will of New York State citizens. It’s absolutely an outrage.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Governor Spitzer's driver’s license policy featured prominently at the October 30th Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. This is an excerpt featuring presidential hopefuls Senators Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd. It begins with a question from the host, NBC’s Tim Russert.

TIM RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the national New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million, at any one time, who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform, because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Clinton, at the October 30th Democratic presidential debate. Chung-Wha Hong is with us now, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition. Her group supported Governor Spitzer’s driver’s license policy. She joins us here in the firehouse studio.

Welcome to Democracy Now! What happened? Were you more surprised by Governor Spitzer proposing this, going along with this, or pulling back?

CHUNG-WHA HONG: I don’t think anybody could have foreseen what would have -- what happened. We campaigned for several years to restore driver licenses to undocumented immigrants, because -- not because we're immigrant rights activists, but because we are pro-public safety people, really, because we pushed for that under the assumption that -- why should we be carving out a million people from our public safety rules and regulations? Let's have them come out of the shadows, in the system, so that they could drive safely, and that we need to shatter this myth that you can’t be pro-security and pro-immigrant at the same time. And so, we were praising the governor for his very pro-public safety policy, that was tough, but fair.

And then the backlash started. And it is just so amazing how people, anti-immigrant, have taken this issue as the red meat issue of the century and have used this to really foment the kind of hysteria, anti-immigrant hysteria, against undocumented immigrants. And it really is a sad state of the debate, you know, on immigration reform. And it just -- our country has to learn how to talk about immigration in a different way. Otherwise, we are going to be permanently divided along the lines of legal versus illegal, and we cannot let this happen.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But my understanding -- and I wrote about this in the Daily News today in my column, that this is just obviously part of a broader national issue that is raging now, in that, for instance, last week the Republicans managed to put onto an appropriations bill in Washington a requirement that the federal EOC can no longer prosecute cases where employers are discriminating against their employees who speak a language other than English at the job. And many Democrats, however, voted with the Republicans, fearing this very backlash you’re talking about.

And now, there is a furious divide in the Democratic Party over this issue. Some are saying that Governor Spitzer made this decision in advance of tonight's debate, Democratic debate, to prevent the issue from creating more problems for Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democratic candidates. Your reaction to how the Democrats are functioning, at the national and right here at the local level?

CHUNG-WHA HONG: First of all, I think there’s a huge vacuum in leadership when it comes to immigration issues on the national level. There are either -- there’s only two kinds of people when it comes to immigrants. You either jump on the anti-immigrant bandwagon, and you just trash, trash, trash undocumented immigrants, and you’ll see your poll, you know, going up, or you just avoid the issue and try to give us sound bites, instead of putting out a comprehensive solution.

And I think both parties just need to step up, and somebody’s got to put out a solution. Otherwise, twelve million people who are here illegally, right, they’re not going away. And it’s hypocritical for us to be calling them criminals, because they come and work in these jobs that our economy needs, and we all benefit from them. And for us to turn around and call them criminals, as if we're doing them some kind of a favor by giving them driver's licenses is just, you know, out of this world.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Senator Clinton was responsible for putting tremendous pressure on Spitzer, since she is from New York, of course, and she’s the one who’s being targeted by the other Democrats and Republicans on this issue?

CHUNG-WHA HONG: You know, I don’t know what went on behind the scenes, but I know that there’s pressure all around, right? You know, there’s Blue Dogs in Congress, you know, many, many Democrats who hold the same anti-immigrant views as Republicans. I think Rahm Emanuel, you know, part of their kind of political strategy is to use immigration issue when it helps them win races. So it’s really -- there is no party line when it comes to immigration, right? There is no coherent vision on immigration.

Now, they need to -- my big message to Democrats is that, look, you can’t avoid this issue. If you’re going to lay out a vision for how this country -- how you’re going to run this country, immigration needs to be integrated into that vision. Otherwise, when you talk about healthcare, they’re going to be, “Well, let’s exclude immigrants.” When you talk about education, “Well, let’s exclude immigrants.” It’s going to come up every single issue that they talk about, and they just have to deal with it.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's end with this ad that just was unveiled in Iowa by the Republican presidential contender Congressmember Tom Tancredo.

REP. TOM TANCREDO: Hi, I’m Tom Tancredo, and I approve this message, because someone needs to say it.

NARRATOR: There are consequences to open borders beyond the twenty million aliens who have come to take our jobs.

Islamic terrorists now freely roam US soil, jihadists who froth with hate, here to do as they have in London, Spain, Russia. The price we pay for spineless politicians who refuse to defend our borders against those who come to kill.

AMY GOODMAN: For our radio and listeners, it then says “Tancredo, before it’s too late.” And the images, Juan, describe them in this ad.

JUAN GONZALEZ: The images are of a hooded young man in a shopping mall with a backpack that clearly is carrying a bomb, and he walks in, and then, as the ad dissolves, you hear the explosion of the bomb in the shopping mall.

AMY GOODMAN: Chung-Wha, final comment?

CHUNG-WHA HONG: This is so offensive. All I can say is that this country is going to be permanently divided if we don’t shatter this deep, deep line between legal and illegal and the kind of branding of immigrants as criminals and terrorists. Somebody has to step up and say that’s not the way to go. We need to include immigrants. Immigrants are part of the solution. And we have a vision of America that includes them. We’re not going to deport everybody and turn our country into a police state. So we need to do that in this country right now.

AMY GOODMAN: Chung-Wha Hong, I want to thank you for being with us, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.

interview: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/15/1432259

photo: http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3345126.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193B3EA2C03450C9486463059CAAB583F7D5A5397277B4DC33E

Soriano's Father Given Reprieve on Deportation

PFC Armando Soriano died in Iraq in 2004. His father, who is undocumented has been threatened with deportation ever since his son's death. His mother was able to obtain a green card, but his father and siblings have not. Finally, Congressman Gene Greene was able to do something. Mr. Soriano has a one year reprieve.

see blog post from August 27, 2007: "ICE Still Trying to Deport Parents of Houston Soldier Killed in Iraq in 2004" from August 27, 2007

Nov. 15, 2007, 12:07AM
Dead soldier's dad gets reprieve in immigration case
Move to deport him is put on hold while House looks at bill

By SUSAN CARROLL
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle



U.S. immigration officials have granted the father of a U.S.-born soldier killed in Iraq a reprieve from deportation while Congress considers a private bill that would give him a green card.

Enrique Soriano, an illegal immigrant and the father of Pfc. Armando Soriano, was facing deportation from Houston until U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials recently decided to grant him "deferred action," which will allow him to live and work legally in the U.S. for one year, said Maria Elena Garcia-Upson, a spokeswoman for USCIS.

Officials with the agency formally notified Soriano's attorney, Isaias Torres, of the reprieve by fax on Wednesday. It is effective for one year from the date of its request by the USCIS district director in Houston, meaning it will expire Sept. 10, 2008.

"It's a step forward, but it's not a long-term solution," Torres said. "At least he's not under the threat of being detained and removed anymore."

Enrique has lived with the fear that immigration agents would appear any day at his front door, decorated with a faded yellow ribbon in remembrance of his son. On Wednesday, the 47-year-old Pasadena resident said his worries have been eased.

"I can breathe a little now," Enrique said. "It gives me hope that my case is progressing."

The Soriano story has drawn widespread attention since the Houston Chronicle first reported on it in August. The family's plight highlighted the complicated issue of service members whose family members are illegal immigrants.

U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, has introduced a private bill that would grant Enrique and Armando's younger sister, Areli, legal permanent resident status. The bill, HR 3772, remains in committee. Jesse Christopherson, spokesman for Green, said they are optimistic about the bill's chances.

A private bill provides benefits to specified individuals. Immigration is one of the most common subjects of such legislation. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican in East Texas, has a private bill pending to stop the deportation of an Albanian immigrant who fears his life could be in danger if he's deported.

The House Judiciary Committee has approved a handful of private bills in recent months.

Wife granted green card
Armando was killed in Iraq in February 2004 when a military vehicle he was riding in rolled off a road, according to the Army's account of his death. The South Houston High School graduate was 20 years old. He was buried with military honors and awarded the Bronze Star posthumously.

After his death, the Soriano family benefited from an unofficial policy that gives the immediate relatives of service members who die in war the chance to become legal residents, even if they came to the U.S. illegally.

Armando's mother, Cleotilde, was approved for lawful permanent resident status. But Enrique's petition for a green card was denied.

In 1999, Enrique was formally deported after falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen, but he sneaked back across the Rio Grande to rejoin his family in Houston. Immigration officials apparently didn't know he was back in the U.S. until his green card application was filed.

His application apparently alerted U.S. immigration officials that he was in the country illegally. He was facing deportation until the recent USCIS decision to grant "deferred action."

This distinction is granted at the district and regional level of USCIS, and does not offer a chance at a green card. It does, however, allow recipients to work legally in the U.S. — at least temporarily.

Enrique spends his days working in construction. Because he was tied up with work, he couldn't visit his son's grave on Veterans Day.

So he stopped by the cemetery on Wednesday afternoon before he heard about his case and wiped down Armando's marble headstone. About two hours later, Torres called to tell him that he didn't have to leave his family any time soon.

susan.carroll@chron.com

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5303236.html

Noriega's Campaign for U.S. Senate

Who says that David can't win over Goliath? Anything is possible in Texas politics.

Just a note, whatever anyone says, Rick Noriega is NOT related to Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Rick's family is from southeast Texas, and as been here a long time. There are no relatives in Panama.

Anyone that brings that up is looking for a way to defame R. Noriega.

Nov. 15, 2007, 6:26AM
Noriega's Senate bid attracts national Democrats
State lawmaker goes to Las Vegas to let donors know 'Texas is in play'

By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau


AUSTIN — With millionaire Mikal Watts out of the U.S. Senate race, the national Democratic Party is now treating Houston state Rep. Rick Noriega as the apparent party challenger to Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.

Noriega is traveling today to Las Vegas as a guest of the Democratic National Committee to meet national party donors who are attending the Nevada Democratic Party's presidential debate, which begins at 7 p.m. Central Time.

"They've got a lot of national donors coming to this, and we wanted them to put a face with the name," Noriega told the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday. "What's going to happen is across the country folks are going to start realizing that Texas is in play."

In the past several weeks, Noriega also has picked up endorsements from past Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Wesley Clark.

"It's a different race now, from a primary to a general election," Noriega said Wednesday.

Another sign that Noriega is turning the national party to his favor occurred last week in Austin, where he was a guest at a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The senatorial committee will not decide which state races to finance until late next summer, but chairman Sen. Charles Schumer had in the past indicated a preference for Watts as the party nominee because Watts, a San Antonio trial lawyer, could largely finance his own campaign.

Because of campaign finance limits, it will be difficult for Noriega to finance his general election against Cornyn with just the money donated by Texans. Noriega ended September with $510,000 in the bank to Cornyn's $6.6 million.

The task is not insurmountable, though. Democrat Ron Kirk in the 2002 Senate race raised $912,000 in the year before the election. By the end of the campaign, Kirk had raised $9.6 million. Cornyn won the race, raising $9.3 million, but both candidates received several million dollars more in independent expenditures by national party committees.

Cornyn has national help
Cornyn already is getting his national party's help. In the past two weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney was featured at a fundraiser in Dallas, and President Bush was the headliner at Cornyn fundraisers in Houston and San Antonio. The Bush events raised $1.3 million, according to Cornyn's campaign.

Cornyn has a joint fundraising committee with the National Republican Senatorial Committee called the Cornyn Majority Fund. A Jackson, Wyo., event in September netted $63,000 for the senatorial committee and $55,000 for Cornyn. The Cheney event also was a joint fundraiser, but the amount raised was not available.

At present, there are no signs that any major candidates will enter the Democratic race against Noriega, apparently giving him all but a free ride to the nomination.

Corpus Christi college teacher Ray McMurrey has entered the race as a protest against big party politics. And perennial candidate Gene Kelly of Universal City also may enter the race. Kelly won the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in 2000 in a field of unknown candidates.

Noriega said he personally spoke with some of the other people who had been mentioned as possible candidates, including retired Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and former Comptroller John Sharp, and was assured they are not going to run.

One big impact on Noriega with Watts dropping out of the race was the amount of money he could raise from individual donors dropped dramatically.

Watts had signed the millionaire exemption from campaign finance laws because he was planning to personally finance his campaign. That gave Noriega the ability to raise $13,800 from each donor for each election in the cycle. But with Watts out of the race, Noriega's cap dropped to $2,300 a donor.

Looking to Watts backers
Noriega campaign manager Sue Schechter said the loss of money from individual donors was made up by the fact that Watts supporters and those on the sidelines became free to give money to Noriega.

Noriega said he joked with Watts that he wished Watts had stayed in the race longer, though. Noriega can keep money raised at the higher limit prior to Watts dropping out.

Schechter said Noriega is working to match is first quarter of fundraising when he reports again in January. In his first three months of fundraising, Noriega reported a total of $530,000.

Campaign consultant James Aldrete said Noriega is aware that a lot more money will be needed to run a general election against Cornyn.

Noriega said the best thing he has working for him is a widespread voter frustration with the direction of the country. But he said he also knows that it will be a battle to defeat a Republican incumbent in a state that is still considered to be Republican.

"I realize this is a David and Goliath race. I like David's chances. Nobody likes Goliath," Noriega said.

r.g.ratcliffe@chron.com

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5303174.html#

A Safe Place in Virginia

What makes Arlington Virginia different from Loudon County? Is it really because the immigrants that have settled there came from higher socio-economic backgrounds? Have the increasing real estate values countered the usual fear that "the neighborhood will be ruined?"

It's worth studying what makes one county xenophobic and another realistic...


----
I

mmigrants Haven't Worn Out The Welcome Mat in Arlington
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 15, 2007; A01



When nearby counties began trying to drive out illegal immigrants this summer, Arlington said it would treat everyone with "dignity and respect, regardless of immigration status."

Other counties felt overwhelmed by immigrants, but Arlington officials said they would happily provide them with every service allowed by law.

After three decades of working to make foreigners feel welcome, Arlington has good reason to pointedly reaffirm this philosophical embrace. More than one in four residents is a first- or second-generation immigrant, yet the county boasts low crime and unemployment rates. School test scores are high, and newcomers interact peaceably with fifth-generation residents. That success results in part from the county's history of attracting a gradual, diverse stream of foreigners and in part from its strong efforts to help integrate them in the community.

Still, commercial development and rising real estate prices are making Arlington less affordable to many new immigrants, and school officials and business owners report that a sense of fear is beginning to filter in.

"The attitude has always been: They're here. They're part of the community. Let's help them succeed," said Chris Zimmerman, a longtime County Board member. He said his children attended schools with classmates from dozens of countries. "They got something from those relationships that you can't teach in a curriculum or show in test scores," he said, "something that will benefit them their entire lives."

The origins and evolution of immigrant communities in Arlington, a compact county of 200,000 where public school students speak 120 languages, have sowed economic success and social goodwill. Counties such as Prince William and Loudoun have faced a recent wave of Hispanic immigrants, many poorly educated and some illegal, but Arlington has received a more manageable and diverse flow, beginning with Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the late 1970s with extensive federal aid.

The county had more time and resources to study and meet immigrant needs. Arlington pioneered in teaching English to foreigners of all ages, made business licenses and loans accessible to immigrant enterprises, hired bilingual teachers and police, and established social services in ethnic enclaves.

This approach helped contain problems that festered elsewhere, including Latino gang violence and public loitering by day laborers looking for work.

Some immigrants became pillars of Arlington's cultural and economic life. One was Nguyen Van Thoi, a Vietnamese refugee and prisoner of war who arrived in 1978, opened a restaurant called Nam Viet and expanded to six eateries before he died of cancer in 2005. His eldest son now manages the family businesses, and his widow hosts an annual gathering of former POWs.

"Arlington always embraced us. I don't think we would have been able to flourish as much anyplace else," said the son, John Nguyen, 31. Thoi's restaurants benefited from small-business loans and tax incentives, and his children assimilated rapidly through county schools. Nguyen said about 400 people, including Arlington officials, attended his father's funeral. "More than anything, that tells you what this county is about," he said.

Waves of immigrants followed the Vietnamese, including thousands of refugees from conflicts in the Horn of Africa and Central America. They were attracted by Arlington's location, affordable housing, open-minded reputation and well-endowed school system, which kept up with the flow by expanding programs to boost the newcomers' skills, ambitions and sense of belonging.

Today, Arlington students consistently score high in English-based testing. At Gunston Middle School, eighth-grade geography students discuss the meaning of "assimilation" and "culture," exchanging examples of their native food, clothing and language. Science students conduct experiments while being taught simultaneously in English and Spanish.

"We're constantly trying new ways to keep them focused and engaged," Principal Margaret Gill said. Activities include homework clubs, brochures and parenting classes. "They aren't immune to negative headlines, but there are no barriers here. We see every child as potentially college-bound."

For immigrants who cannot keep up in high school or are too old to attend, the Arlington Mill Community Center provides free crash-course adult learning. This fall, students in the world history class include clowning Central American teenagers, tired South Asian night-shift workers and a gracious Lebanese woman fluent in French.

"The teachers here care whether we understand, and they even ask our opinions," said Huguette Assaf, 52, the immigrant from Beirut. "This is very different from what happens back home."

Assaf also said local residents had taken time to help her as a newcomer. "They hear my accent, and I hear theirs," she said. "It is slow, but people are patient."

Immigrants have benefited from the county's being a bastion of liberal Democratic activism -- not unlike Takoma Park, a self-proclaimed "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants. Many native Arlingtonians have international experience, including government travel and stints in the Peace Corps. Residents of North Arlington, which is more affluent and has fewer immigrants than South Arlington, appear just as proud of the county's reputation.

Hispanics have a champion in Walter Tejada, a U.S. citizen from El Salvador who was elected to the County Board in 2003. Tejada, who was reelected this month, said one of his priorities is to preserve Arlington's inclusive spirit. Illegal immigration, a burning election issue in other counties, was virtually unmentioned in that race.

Over the years, Arlington's immigrant population has shifted with the economic tides. Latin American families saved their money and bought townhouses in Herndon. Whole blocks of Asian shops moved to Fairfax. Lately, smaller groups have arrived from Mongolia and the former Soviet Union.

Today, the social and governmental welcome for foreign newcomers remains warm, but the economic reception is becoming colder. Along the apartment-lined bus routes where immigrants flocked for years, such as Clarendon Boulevard and Columbia Pike, new commercial corridors are pricing them out.

"It's really sad to see," said Hailu Dama, 50, who owns an Ethiopian restaurant and bakery on Columbia Pike. "Arlington was always a wonderful place for immigrants to integrate. They went the extra mile to help businesses like mine, and in one neighborhood, 16 or 17 countries would be represented. But now, with real estate prices and property taxes going through the roof, it is killing a little bit of that diversity."

There are also signs that the chilling effects of new policies elsewhere are beginning to be felt in Arlington. At Arlington Mill school, officials said they had received many calls this summer asking whether applicants had to bring proof of residency. And at El Rancho Migueleno restaurant, owner Oscar Amaya said his business had plummeted.

"Arlington is supposed to be totally safe for immigrants, but people are getting scared here, too," Amaya said. "The economy is good, the people are friendly, and the police got rid of the gangs. But there is a feeling of insecurity now, and people are talking about leaving. I want to tell them, 'Come back. Arlington is different.' But something bigger is happening, and I worry it is happening here, too."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402322_pf.html

Immigration Policy: Only "Legal Immigration" Matters?

Malanga has written an odd piece on immigration. He is saying that 1 million legal immigrants sound like plenty. But again the focus is on controlling the numbers, as if that is the most significant issue. It is all much more complicated than Malanga states. Its about capitalism, supply and demand, cheap labor, a dwindling American work force, and an inadequate public education system that is not preparing individuals for college, meaning they will not be qualified to apply for highly demanding technology jobs.

For one, the use of the word "illegal" is unnecessary. Malanga and others who use it know it's offensive. But what does it matter that they offend an immigrant who came here without permission? Apologies abound when someone at high levels of government are offended... like the recent incident involving a Congressman who criticized Bush too openly and was forced to apologize. But "illegals" to Malanga, Romney, Guiliani and others are "non-people" -- that is why these immigrants can so easily be detained and "disappeared" without being able to consult an attorney, why their houses can be entered without warrants and why so often people are manhandled during ICE raids - while complaints from Senators or other important people go unheard.

Malanga says its highly important what our next President says about immigration. Maybe so, but after watching the Senate "play fight" (like my two cats) these past few months, I realized that its the Congress that is much more important. They really control the game.

Early in FDR's administration, the President was able to push scores of bills through Congress. Yet once he got the "New Deal" passed, and tried to pack the court with liberals the Congress no longer cooperated with him, and I understand his influence on the Congress was significantly minimized from that point on.

Congress has the power to stop legislation, stand up to the President, pass a comprehensive immigration bill, and even ignore their constituents - when they want to.

------
Why Illegal Immigration Doesn't Matter
By Steven Malanga
Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town
Thursday, November 15, 2007; 12:00 AM

Hillary Clinton helped to elevate immigration to a central position in the Presidential election when she waffled on the question of whether she favored drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. Yet much of the public discussion that has followed Clinton's confrontation with questioner Tim Russert has focused only on illegal immigrants. We still know very little about what the candidates would do to reform our broken system of legal immigration.

Our current system results from changes begun in the mid-1960s, when the country scrapped its old immigration policy, based on quotas determined by a person's national origin, in favor of broader hemispheric quotas and visa preferences for family members of those already here. The framers of this new system claimed that they were merely tinkering with policy. "Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants," Sen. Edward Kennedy said.

But not only did legal immigration soar by 60 percent in the first 10 years after the reform legislation; the origins of immigration shifted to poorer countries around the world, and many new immigrants arrived with low levels of education and little job training, stranding them in low-paying jobs and slowing their economic mobility. A recent study by Harvard economists George Boras and Lawrence Katz of Mexican immigrants who came here in the 1970s found that after 20 years in the American workforce these workers were still earning about 40 percent less than American-born workers -- a sharp contrast with earlier generations of immigrants, who after several decades here tended to be virtually at par with American workers. The economists also estimated that recently arriving young Mexican workers (and Mexicans make up the largest category of legal immigrants to the U.S.) were starting off with an even bigger wage disadvantage relative to American workers than their predecessors did in the 1970s.

As a result of findings like this, many economists who study immigration don't even distinguish between legals and illegals. Instead, the line of demarcation for them is between low-skill immigrants with little education and better educated, better trained immigrants.

Other modern, industrialized countries that are, like the United States, magnets for immigrants, have reshaped their immigration policy in the last 20 years to favor the better trained immigrant. But there are important policy differences among those countries.

Australia, for instance, has among the most detailed systems, which relies on employment surveys to identify hundreds of job categories where workers are needed -- from blue collar trades to highly technical jobs. Today, 70 percent of Australia's immigration is skills based.

Canada has opted for a less complicated, broader approach, favoring immigrants with higher levels of education but not giving preferences to specific trades or job categories.

In a different vein, Ireland, whose economy has boomed since the early 1990s, allows employers to drive much of the legal immigration system by requesting visas for certain types of workers, with one very important qualifier: In order to prevent employers from pushing down wages by importing workers in category where domestic labor is already ample, Ireland creates lists of industries and jobs where it won't grant visas for workers.

Our Congress made a stab at changing our legal system to one that was broadly skills-based in the reform legislation proposed last summer. But other provisions of that bill, especially amnesty for illegals and guest worker programs, were so controversial that we never got around to debating the right legal system. For instance, do we want a very specific system like Australia's, where studies have shown that immigrants are doing very well, or a less complicated, broader system like Canada's, where government plays less of role, but the results are not as impressive economically as in Australia?

It's almost impossible to tell what the presidential candidates think is right for us. Clinton and Barack Obama make vague statements in their campaign materials about preserving the family preferences system, which amounts to little reform. Mitt Romney has talked about the advantages that well educated immigrants bring to our high-tech industries, but a well-rounded immigration policy should be about more than just importing workers for Silicon Valley.

What the next president thinks is vitally important. Today, our immigration system allows up to 1 million people to come here legally every year. That tells us that the debate should be about more than what to do with our illegal population.

The author is the senior editor of City Journal and co-author of The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today's, which was published in November by Ivan R. Dee.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402047_pf.html

San Francisco Approves a City ID Card

San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a "municipal identification" card to city residents.

It is not for driving, but for bank accounts, and maybe later for library use and metro card use. The card was promoted with the idea that people would not be as afraid to call the police should they need to. The questions remains- who will get the card? If only undocumented people do so, then it won't help them stay anonymous. Why would a U.S. resident or citizen want one of these if a driver's license of state ID is available?

_____
S.F. supervisors approve ID cards for residents
Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 14, 2007

(11-13) 15:56 PST San Francisco - -- The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to issue municipal identification cards to city residents - regardless of whether they are in the country legally - and to double the amount of public money available to candidates running for supervisor.

Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who authored the ID card legislation, said the program is a smart public safety measure because it would make residents living on the social margins of San Francisco more likely to seek the help of police and could give them more access to banking services.

"People are afraid to report crimes," Ammiano said, referring to illegal immigrants who avoid local law enforcement authorities over fear of being arrested or deported by federal immigration officials.

The legislation would require companies holding city contracts to accept the municipal card as a legitimate form of identification - except in cases where other state and federal laws require other forms of proof of age, name and residence.

Under San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance, it is city policy that no municipal government personnel or resources be used to assist federal immigration officials in the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants.

Ammiano said banking institutions in San Francisco have signaled their willingness to accept the municipal ID card for the purpose of setting up accounts. He noted that people without bank accounts are frequently more vulnerable to theft and robbery.

Officials with the city's Bank on San Francisco program, which helps people obtain bank accounts, said institutions such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Washington Mutual and US Bank had expressed interest in accepting the ID cards.

Bank on San Francisco is a city partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank. Although criteria for opening bank accounts are set in part through the USA Patriot Act, "to our knowledge that law is not a bar to a municipal ID," said David Augustine, spokesman for the city treasurer's office, which oversees the program.

The ID legislation, which was approved 10-1 on the first of two readings, has the support of Mayor Gavin Newsom and would make San Francisco the largest city in the country to issue municipal identification. The city of New Haven, Conn., began issuing cards earlier this year.

Ammiano said he hopes the card could eventually be used at city libraries and become compatible with the regional TransLink transit card system.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd voted against the measure, saying his opposition was primarily financial because the city doesn't know how much implementing the program will cost. "Next year's budget is not going to be pretty," Elsbernd said. "With all the services included, this could shortchange our budget discussion."

The San Francisco County Clerk has estimated the cost of the program could range between $1.07 million and $2.86 million in the first three years, much of that for staff to process the cards.

Supporters of tougher enforcement of U.S. immigration laws argue that local identification card programs have the effect of legitimizing the decisions of people who entered or have remained in the country illegally and making it more difficult for the federal government to enforce those laws...

E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com.

for complete article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/14/BAB9TBP5H.DTL

thanks to Juli for informing me about this article

The Impact of Deportation

Miami Herald
Posted on Wed, Nov. 14, 2007
ICE tears families apart

The impact of our government's crackdown on immigrants was captured by the media on Oct. 30 when Juan and Alex Gomez's parents had to leave their sons and report to immigration agents for deportation to Colombia. A family was torn apart after living in the country they called home for 17 years.

Generally, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportations occur behind closed doors, removed from public scrutiny. But families like the Gomezes are being dismantled overnight in record numbers.

Our war on terror has transgressed into a war on immigrant families who have lived here for years, worked hard, paid taxes and broken no criminal laws. Immigration detainees are the fastest growing prison population in the country, costing taxpayers more than $1 billion a year.

While reasonable people can disagree about how best to fix our broken immigration system, we're certainly no safer because families like the Gomezes have been deported. We're less safe because we're wasting precious resources targeting the wrong people. Just ask DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who in May said that Border Patrol and immigration agents were busy chasing maids and landscapers instead of focusing on drug dealers and terrorists.

Even former CIA chief of counter-terrorism, Vincent Cannistrano, has lamented that our government is targeting immigrants with no ties to terrorism rather than examining why anti-terrorism immigration laws passed in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing failed.

Deportations also devastate our economy. Undocumented workers contribute more than their fair share to our economy, adding between $6.5 and $7 billion to Social Security every year. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, by 2010 America will have 168 million jobs and only 158 million persons to fill them.

The debate over immigration policies has polarized our nation. One can only hope that in the interest of meeting our country's security and economic needs, Congress will find a way to put politics aside and permit those in the United States without proper documents to embark on a path to legal status.

CHERYL LITTLE, executive director, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Miami

http://www.miamiherald.com/456/v-print/story/307101.html

Spitzer Abandons Initiative: Driving in New York Part IV

No License for Undocumented Drivers in New York State - at least not for now








Hundreds, maybe thousands of people driving the New York freeways today are disappointed that they won't be able to get their driver's licenses. The rest of the drivers are oblivious to the consequences, that is unless they have had an accident with someone who doesn't have a license and insurance.

I recall Chip Dodd saying that for an undocumented person, having a license (or is it driving?) is a privilege. I don't really see it that way, since most industry requires people to drive. Maybe flying should be a privilege, or visiting the Statue of Liberty (that would be ironic), or visiting our all American Disneyland and Disney World.

Spitzer says that the opposition was too strong. I believe it. He needs to pick his battles and he knew this one was gone. I guess even he didn't know how much hatred and fear there is these days towards undocumented immigrants.

It would have been a great thing for NY to have this law. It could have been a great example for the rest of the country. And of course the DREAM ACT students are disappointed. How many in New York state are thinking that they will have continue to run an impossible obstacle course to get to their college classes?

November 14, 2007
Spitzer Dropping His Driver’s License Plan
By DANNY HAKIM

ALBANY, Nov. 13 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy.

The governor, who is to announce the move formally on Wednesday, said in an interview Tuesday night that he did not reach the decision easily.

“You have perhaps seen me struggle with it because I thought we had a principled decision, and it’s not necessarily easy to back away from trying to move a debate forward,” he said.

But he came to believe the proposal would ultimately be blocked, he said, either by legal challenges, a vote by the Legislature to deny financing for the Department of Motor Vehicles or a refusal by upstate county clerks to carry it out.

“I am not willing to fight to the bitter end on something that will not ultimately be implemented,” the governor said, “and we also have an enormous agenda on other issues of great importance to New York State that was being stymied by the constant and almost singular focus on this issue.”

Mr. Spitzer’s plan touched off a national debate over whether issuing licenses to illegal immigrants would make the state more secure or improperly extend a privilege to them that should be reserved for legal residents.

Opposition to the proposal sent his poll numbers plunging and stalled his broader agenda.

The decision is likely to be a relief to many of his fellow Democrats in Albany and in Washington, who feared the issue could haunt them into next year’s election season.

In the interview, the governor sounded disappointed but resigned. He acknowledged that he would be criticized for changing course on the issue for the second time in three weeks. (“You think so?” he said facetiously when a reporter suggested as much.)

“Part of leadership is listening to the public’s opposition,” he said. “Having heard that, and assessed the realities of implementing this policy, part of leadership is realizing that getting results is more important than sticking to what may be a principled position.”

Mr. Spitzer first unveiled his initiative in September, when he announced that the Department of Motor Vehicles would begin issuing driver’s licenses without regard to immigration status and said he wanted to bring illegal immigrants “out of the shadows.”

But the proposal, which was formulated with scant consultation with other politicians, set off a backlash far greater than the administration had anticipated.

So late last month, the governor shifted course and said the state would offer three tiers of licenses: a limited driver’s license that illegal immigrants could obtain, which could not be used for boarding planes or crossing borders; a secure, federally recognized license known as Real ID, which would be available only to legal residents; and an even more secure identification for people who travel across the border to Canada frequently, which would comply with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

But the revised plan pleased almost no one.

On Tuesday night, the governor said the state would make the third tier of license available for frequent border crossers, and continue offering the same driver’s license it offers now, but not extend eligibility for it to illegal immigrants.

He said the state would put on hold the plan to adopt the Real ID, which has been championed by the Bush administration. The governor said he wanted to wait until federal regulations for Real ID licenses were issued next year before deciding how to proceed.

Mr. Spitzer’s decision to abandon his plan comes as a poll released Tuesday by Siena College found that seven in 10 New York voters who had heard about it — and more than 80 percent of the 625 registered voters polled had — opposed it. It also found that for the first time, more people viewed the governor unfavorably than favorably.

The governor and his aides said that they were not reacting to the slumping poll numbers, but acting pragmatically. That the dispute had even tripped up Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who stumbled to answer a question about it in a presidential debate, “was symptomatic of where we were,” he said.

“The issue was gaining traction not based on thoughtful discourse, but based on sound bites and less than careful analysis,” he added.

Mr. Spitzer’s latest shift is likely to further complicate his relations with Hispanic lawmakers, who heartily supported his original policy but were upset when he moved to a three-tier system. Some felt that offering a lesser tier of license to illegal immigrants would stigmatize them and attract the suspicions of law enforcement.

“I stood up on a very tough issue,” the governor said. “I may not have succeeded in implementing the policy they desired, but I didn’t hesitate to stand up when not many have done so.”

The governor said he hoped the storm would pass and that the state would be able to begin tackling other issues.

Even before the license plan was unveiled, he and Republican lawmakers were locked in a standoff, some of it over policy but much of it the result of a feud between the governor and Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader.

Asked how his new position would be received, Mr. Spitzer responded: “The reaction will be what it is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/nyregion/14spitzer.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
photo: http://www.boulesis.com/boule/images/uploads/2006/10/semaforo.JPG

Romney: Demonizing In-State Tuition for DREAMERS

Romney is trying to strengthen his lead in Iowa by attacking Guiliani and Huckabee for supporting "tuition breaks and broader sanctuary for illegal immigrants or their children." It's pretty brutal to say children won't have "the opportunity to be awarded for academic achievements" - as Huckabee says in response to Romney's latest offensive.

Iowa is supposed to be a very conservative state. But does conservative also mean unethical or being heartless? I thought Americans from the heartland were supposed to be honest, ethical people - the ideal citizens? If they really are, how in the world could they vote for Romney?

Perhaps the leaders of the Mormon Church could approach Romney and explain that his campaign rhetoric is giving America a bad representation of Mormonism. The only other possibility besides the church elders speaking to him is if the leaders (whoever they are after Martinez resigned) of the Republican National Commitee pay him a visit.

On the other hand, he and Guiliani could keep blowing steam that will only turn into hot air. All that has to happen is for Iowa voters to open their eyes.

---



Romney Assails Foes on Immigration
By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; 6:28 PM

SIOUX CITY, Iowa -- Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, seeking to protect his lead and fend off challenges from rivals in this early-voting state, assailed Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee over supporting tuition breaks and broader sanctuary for illegal immigrants or their children.

The former Massachusetts governor singled out two of his Republican opponents and likened them to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying Tuesday: "There are those people in both parties who are in a sanctuary state of mind, who believe in sanctuary cities, who believe in policies which are sanctuary in nature."

In campaign appearances and advertisements in Iowa and elsewhere, Romney is increasingly using illegal immigration to differentiate himself from the rest of his opponents. The issue is particularly salient in Iowa's ultra-conservative western region, given the influx of immigrants coming to work in fields and factories in recent years.

Just weeks before voting begins, Romney is looking to solidify his double-digit advantage in polling in the leadoff caucus state while curbing Huckabee's recent rise in surveys and among religious conservatives. He also wants to prevent Giuliani from mounting a more serious challenge.

Going after both, Romney contended that Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, fought for tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants in his state, while Giuliani, the former New York mayor, provided tuition breaks at the City University for illegal immigrants. He said that Clinton, too, backs such breaks.

"Giving a better deal to the children of illegal aliens than we give to U.S. citizens from surrounding states is simply not fair and not right," Romney told reporters during a one-day visit.

In turn, Huckabee said in a phone interview with The Associated Press: "The attacks from a guy who has sanctuary cities in his state is interesting." Huckabee said he backed a bill in Arkansas _ and would do so again _ that gave children of illegal immigrants "the opportunity to be awarded for academic achievements" based on merit provided they were in the process of applying for citizenship.

"Why would you penalize the children for the crime of the parents?" Huckabee asked.

Also responding to Romney, Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella accused him of ignoring his own record as governor while he campaigns for president. "Under Governor Mitt Romney the number of illegal immigrants skyrocketed, while he recommended millions of dollars in state aid to numerous sanctuary cities and to companies employing illegal immigrants, not to mention the illegals working on his own lawn," she said.

During his time as governor, at least three Massachusetts cities offered sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

Speaking to reporters, Romney noted that he vetoed a bill the Massachusetts Legislature passed that would have allowed children born to illegal immigrants to get a tuition break in state schools. "Illegals do not get a break in our schools," he said.

While he focused on Huckabee and Giuliani, Romney broadened his criticism to include opponent John McCain, saying, "He is somebody who has taken the wrong side on this issue as well."...


for complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111301024_pf.html

cartoon: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://politicsoffthegrid.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/romney.jpg&imgrefurl=http://politicsoffthegrid.wordpress.com/category/media/page/2/&h=286&w=350&sz=41&hl=en&start=14&sig2=KXVmmFxei6X7esm9PHf5Qg&um=1&tbnid=9guRoMXvtb8W-M:&tbnh=98&tbnw=120&ei=3kk6R66DDJveggPkzuT7Cg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dromney%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN

Oklahoma's "Son of 1804"

This is from a state that has the honor of getting those transplanted Native Americans who were banished from their lands. Son of 1804 has been suggested by one state legislator I will not name. The proposed law will make other states' anti-immigration measures look like chld's play. And here, at least the Oklahoman is saying that Son of 1804 is too much. But the paper's criteria is the cost and time, not ethics.


_____


Mon November 12, 2007
Slow down: Too soon for more immigration law
The Oklahoman Editorial

OKLAHOMANS have barely begun to understand the practical implications of the state's new immigration reform law, and its author is promising even more such reform in the coming legislative session.


House Bill 1804 took effect Nov. 1. Within days, those with expired driver's licenses got a taste of the newest layer of immigration-related bureaucracy. Oklahomans who renew their licenses before they expire have nothing to worry about. But those who let their license lapse or are seeking an upgrade to a commercial driver's license must provide proof of residence to an examiner. That means rounding up a birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate and taking a trip to a driver testing station — rarely a pleasant experience.

The easy answer is not to forget about renewal, which is easier said than done since the state no longer sends out renewal reminders. This example is just a small taste of HB 1804's potential consequences for those here legally. The big and more costly issues lie ahead.

Unfortunately, Rep. Randy Terrill is too excited about publicity over what some are calling the nation's toughest immigration law. So now he's promising the "son of HB 1804” will take aim at children of illegal immigrants. He wants public schools to start keeping tabs on such children. He also wants to forbid noncitizen mothers from getting subsidized prenatal care and not issue traditional birth certificates to their children who are born in Oklahoma.

Our advice: Slow down. Legal challenges to HB 1804 need to be sorted out. State and local governments are still figuring out how to enforce it, and we don't know yet what the costs — in money and time — will be.

It would be best for the federal government to craft comprehensive immigration reform. Meantime, state lawmakers shouldn't hurry with new laws until we better understand the consequences of the one already on the books.

http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3167970/

Bad Title - Interesting Book on Mexican-Americans

Rodriguezs' book sounds interesting, but why in the world did he give it such a horrific title? Yes, I know that a number of writers have described people of Mexican descent in this manner, but does he have to do it too? I'm sure he is using these terms "for effect" - in an ironic mode. However, these days are not for irony. Too much is going on. Plus there are so many thousands of people (who are not Mexican-American) who will take the title for face value.

Its almost like using the "N-word" when describing African Americans.


_____


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book13nov13,1,834826.story
From the Los Angeles Times
BOOK REVIEW

'Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans, and Vagabonds,' by Gregory Rodriguez
'Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America'
By Yxta Maya Murray
Special to The Times

November 13, 2007

GREGORY Rodriguez's brilliant book on Mexican and Mexican American identity, "Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans, and Vagabonds: Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America," threatens my secret dream that I am a direct descendant of some feather-clad Aztec warrior princess who ruled over a Mexica queendom circa 1500. Perhaps because I am named after a fabled Aztec royal, Lady Ixtacihuattl, I have forever suspected that my DNA positively sparkles with glorious Xicana genes that were born in ancient Aztlan: the land of Mexican milk and honey, where lived the bards, mathematicians, philosophers, acrobats, architects and knights who were put to the sword and burned by the alien germs of the infamous conquistador Hernán Cortés.

Rodriguez, with whom I have crossed paths on occasion, has written a history which tells a far different tale of Mexican and Mexican American heritage. In "Mongrels," Mexican identity is no natural-born monolith, but rather a kaleidoscope crafted through creative strategies Mexicans used to resist and adapt to the rigors of white supremacy. Starting from the 1519 Spanish conquest of Mexico, his energetic saga recounts the ways in which Mexicans ingeniously absorbed the conventions of our conquerors by marrying with whites, sampling Anglo culture and even purchasing our way out of racial segregation up until the modern era. In these practices, Rodriguez, an opinion columnist for The Times, writes, Mexican Americans "have always confounded the Anglo American racial system, [and] will ultimately destroy it, too."

Since the first years of Cortes' appearance in the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán (present day Mexico City), the Mexica have crossed color lines through cohabitation or marriage with whites. Rodriguez's initial chapters read like a novel when he tells how Cortes' lover and translator la Malinche, who was "as beautiful as a goddess," not only helped him annihilate the Aztec emperor Montezuma, but also "gave birth to [his] son, Martín . . . [who] was later made a Knight of the Order of Santiago, one of the most prestigious military orders of Spain." Such intermarriages were common in colonial Mexico, the 19th century Southwest, and 20th century California. ("By 1963, 25 percent of married Mexican Americans in Los Angeles County had wed non-Mexicans.")

The resulting children challenged racial lines, and the colonists of 18th century New Spain worked to preserve the fantasy of white racial purity by creating no fewer than 16 racial classes, including "moriscos," "albinos," "lobos" and "coyotes." Later, states enacted anti-miscegenation laws that applied to African and African/mestizo/Anglo unions, but usually not "Mexican-Anglo" marriages, as Mexicans were (often, but not always) classified as "white."

When intermarriage didn't fully integrate Mexicans into Spanish, then U.S. society, Mexicans adapted to (and altered) Anglo culture. For example, the Virgin of Guadalupe is a syncretic Mexican-Anglo phenomenon that personalized the Spaniards' Mary for many Latinos. But because she was brown-skinned and was sometimes called Tonatzin, after the Aztec mother of the gods, she was condemned by a leading Franciscan "as idolatrous." Facing off with racist colonials whose vigor and inventiveness matched their own, sometimes Mexicans didn't use nuanced approaches to integration, but simply bought themselves into prestigious racial categories: "In 1779, sculptor Pedro Huizar was listed as a mulatto in the census. But after amassing some money, he was labeled Spanish in 1793."

Impediments to "upward mobility," however, were violence (there were vast killings of Mexicans throughout colonial history) and repatriation back to Mexico. For example, Rodriguez writes compellingly of the INS' infamous 1950s "Operation Wetback" roundup of illegal immigrants in the Southwest, and the beefing up of the border that began in the 1980s (though not much time is spent on the recent heated debates over immigration reform.)

In the bulk of "Mongrels," Rodriguez describes Mexicans as a pragmatic people who have assembled racial categories that are "vague" and "situational," in part because of this history of racism. But he regards with trepidation the 1970s Chicano "brown power" movement, or movimiento, which represents a "fundamental break" from Mexicans' long-standing flexible attitude: "Inspired by an Aztec legend . . . the Spiritual Plan of Aztlán, was a call for ethnic unity and nationalism."

Rodriguez sees the movimiento as a perilous, but temporary, daydream of a uniform Chicano brand that has given way in the new century to the more traditional, fluid constructions of a pan-"Latino" identity: "The Chicano portrayal of Mexican Americans as a unified, downtrodden people preternaturally loyal to their ancestral culture was astonishingly similar to the way Anglo racists had been characterizing Mexican Americans for more than a hundred years."

Yet, was it really? How about an alternative way to frame the movimiento: We can see the Chicano movement's celebration of La Raza not necessarily as a backward, newfangled fiction, but rather as an extension of Mexicans' venerable race-innovations, and also as a corrective to some of the problems caused by some of the assimilationist practices that Rodriguez so skillfully describes.

Through intermarriage, culture sampling, and color- or class-jumping, Mexicans have recut race to fit our own imaginations. Chicanos' excavations of Aztec heritage may not rebut Mexicans' supple racial vision but simply provide another example of that creativity in action: We continue to dream ourselves into existence.

Moreover, the practices that Mexicans used to blur racial boundaries had their shadow sides. Rodriguez writes that many of the "marriages" that disrupted racial categories were really rapes: "While some women were 'given' to the Spaniards, others were taken by force." Also, the color and class jumps often exacerbated other social divides -- those between the wealthy and the poor, dark vs. light, and black vs. white. The movimiento used the imagination to rename race once again in a way that acknowledged the rape of our people by distancing ourselves from colonials, built bridges with African Americans by recognizing our debt to black leaders who laid the foundations for "Brown Power" and also worked to upend the color and class divides through unification.

Of course, Chicano fundamentalism would create dangers like any other sort of extremism. But the recent nationwide immigration rallies, in which some protesters invoked La Raza in the midst of pan-Latino (as well as Chinese American, Polish American, Irish American, African American and Native American) protests, may prove that persistent chicanismo can coexist with other practices that undermine a monolithic Mexica identity. The dream of Aztlan doesn't necessarily have to die for the Mexican American people to develop in a healthy way. I believe I can refresh myself with the dream that I hail from a concrete, transcendent past even as I enjoy a post-modern skepticism about the reality of any pure Mexicanidad (particularly as I am half-Anglo!).

Modern Mexican American identity is nourished by a belief in an ancestral heritage and an understanding that romantic genealogy has never been entirely possible or desirable. That is, in my dream-mind, my Aztec ancestor's gold shield continues to glitter in the sun and the quetzal feathers shimmer in her onyx hair. Simultaneously, my inner critic wryly observes that Mexican Americans are ethnic centaurs born of the marriages, rapes, lost and created language, genocide, litigation, heresies, sell-outs and pure acts of willpower that are detailed in Rodriguez's politically savvy and enchanting book.

Yxta Maya Murray is a professor at Loyola Law School and a novelist whose latest work is "The Queen Jade."

Photo: http://www.randomhouse.com/images/dyn/cover/?source=9780375421587&height=300&maxwidth=170

Run-Down on the Presidential Candidates

Is it true that Guiliani has morphed into Tom Tancredo? As a long-time New Yorker, it seems like Rudy would be embarrassed to be confused with Tom T.

As Navarette tells it, Clinton has it mostly sown up with Latino voters. I'm still not so sure. Anything could happen in the next few months.

_____


Earn Latinos' respect
Ruben Navarrette Jr., San Diego Union-Tribune
Monday, November 12, 2007
Chronicle Sunday Insight

You've probably heard that Republican presidential candidates have blown their chance with Latino voters because of their hard line on immigration and other hardheadedness.

Unfortunately, too much of the conversation has been about the effect of all this on the party - about whether the GOP is condemning itself to years in the electoral wilderness by alienating an influential constituency.

What I haven't heard enough about is how this neglect hurts Latino voters. In politics, the surest path to irrelevance and powerlessness is to be taken for granted by one party and written off by another. That is the road Latinos are on now, thanks to some major blunders by the Republicans running for president.

In June, all but one of the candidates - Duncan Hunter - blew off an invitation to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. And in September, a debate on Spanish-language television had to be postponed after all but one of the candidates - John McCain - refused to commit. After taking criticism for the snub, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney have committed to the event, which is now scheduled for Dec. 9 at the University of Miami.
These missteps raised the question of whether Republicans respect Latinos enough to ask for their support. That bothers Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez, who wrote the book "Los Republicanos: Why Hispanics and Republicans Need Each Other." Sanchez is convinced the Latino vote is in play and that every candidate should be vying for it.

"With Hispanics, we don't make connections to parties," she told me. "Hispanics make connections to individual people. Politicians have to earn our respect."

Latinos are big on respect, and the more they move up the ladder, the more they insist on it. So the very Latinos who might be attracted to the GOP because of its economic policies are being turned off by its insensitivity to Latino issues.
A USA Today/Gallup poll found that Latinos identify with Democrats by a margin of nearly 3-1.

One reason is that the Democratic front-runner - Hillary Clinton - is aggressively going after the Hispanic vote by racking up the endorsements of seemingly every Latino officeholder from East Los Angeles to the South Bronx.

Polls show Clinton earning about two-thirds of the Latino vote among Democrats and making up ground lost by the two previous Democratic nominees, John Kerry and Al Gore. Both flunked Hispanic Outreach 101, in part because they had that deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance.

You see something similar in John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, who either don't realize they've lost the Latino vote or don't care.

Barack Obama is doing a bit better. He is trying to target younger Latinos. But he discovered this constituency too late and Clinton is already on her way to cornering the market.

Then there is Bill Richardson, who made history by being the first Hispanic to run a credible campaign for the presidency but seems to be losing Latino support, perhaps because he is too preoccupied with trying to prove himself acceptable to non-Latinos.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani has morphed from a champion of immigrants into a Tom Tancredo impersonator. Giuliani even promised that he could end illegal immigration within three years by securing the borders and identifying every noncitizen in the United States. To those of us who live along the border, such talk is a signal that this city slicker doesn't understand the phenomenon he is promising to tackle - and so it'll probably tackle him. Mitt Romney's sin isn't naivete but hypocrisy. Meanwhile, McCain has a history of appealing to Latinos in Arizona and earned more than 70 percent of the Latino vote in his 2004 U.S. Senate re-election bid.

Don't tell me that Latino voters don't have choices in this election. They do. And it's only by exercising them and spreading their support among members of both parties that they'll stay relevant and earn the respect they crave.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/12/ED9CT9KQP.DTL&hw=immigration&sn=006&sc=498

Macario Garcia & the Congressional Medal of Honor

On Veteran's Day 2007

Back in the 1950s and 1960s my father and Macario Garcia used to have a beer together when they got a chance. Macario's older brother Carlos married Tomasita Martinez, whose father (Don Atanacio Martinez) was my Dad's compadre.

I wrote a chapter on Macario Garcia in my new book. It's titled "The Warrior."

Below is an article from the Fort Bend Eagle by Chris Fernandez:

Macario Garcia- Texas Historical Commission dedicates Historical Marker to A Real American Hero...

Macario Garcia was born on January 2, 1920, in Villa de Castaños, Coahuila, Mexico. His parents Josefa and Luciano Garcia were peasant farmers. The family became aware that a better life could be obtained in America. In October 1923, at the tender age of four, Macario, his older brother Carlos, his parents, and his Uncle Felix headed north to America. The Garcia family settled 70 miles East of San Antonio in the town of Waelder, Texas. In 1935 the Garcia family moved to Sugar Land, Texas where they found work on the Paul Schumann Ranch. Macario Garcia remained on the ranch until he was drafted into the Army.

Macario Garcia came from a poor family and was a migrant farm worker for most of his early childhood. Education was a luxury that most migrant families went without. They needed every able body with hands working the fields. Macario often missed school and only achieved the equivalent of a 3rd grade education. It was not uncommon for Hispanic migrant workers to receive a limited education before having to work full time. Once a migrant worker could read and write, and do arithmetic, their education was considered complete. Military records indicate that he earned seven dollars a week as a farm laborer and could speak, read, and write in both English and Spanish.

On November 11, 1942, at age of 22, Macario Garcia was inducted into the United States Army. Although Macario was not yet an American Citizen he proudly and readily served his adopted country. Macario would later state that he felt it was his obligation to do something for his new country. Mr. Garcia stood only 5 feet 5 inches, soon his heart would overshadow his stature. He was sent to Fort Sam Houston, located in Texas for a week of Army Indoctrination. November 21, 1942 Pvt. Garcia was assigned to Company B, 51st. Training Battalion in Camp Robinson Arkansas where he received his basic training.

D-Day the Invasion of Normandy, June 6, 1944, on a 50 mile stretch of beach.

World War (WWII) 1944 the largest Military amphibious assault in history was launched.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the armies of both U.S. and Allied Forces; led the fight in liberating Europe from Nazi Germany and Chancellor Adolph Hitler’s death grip. The first waves of the U.S. 1st Army's 5th Corps were the first to land. First soldiers to land were engineers, men whose job was to rid the beaches of concrete stakes, mines, and other anti-invasion obstacles. The D-Day Invasion was supported by paratroopers, bombers, and warships.

Macario Garcia was involved in the single greatest show of military strategy know to mankind. Macario Garcia landed with the tank division led by General, George S. Patton, who had come across from Great Britain via the English Channel was now physically engaged with the enemy. Macario was injured during a tank battle days after his landing at Normandy. Pvt. Macario Garcia spent approximately 4 months recovering from his wounds. In October of the same year, Pvt. Garcia rejoined his company and was promoted to acting Squad Leader and then received a battlefield commendation to Sergeant. On November 27, 1944, Sergeant Macario Garcia single handedly destroyed 2 enemy emplacements near the town of Grosshau, Germany. Sergeant Garcia was injured on the shoulder and foot, but kept fighting. Macario Garcia fought until the mission was complete by finishing off the machine gun nests.

In August 23, 1945 President Harry S. Truman placed the highest honor a soldier can receive, The Congressional Medal of Honor, rested on the shoulders of one mighty soldier from the D-Day Invasion. The country of Mexico awarded him with their highest honor, Meritor Militar, the equivalent of the Medal of Honor. The ceremony took place in Mexico City on January 8, 1946. On June 25, 1947 Macario Garcia became an American Citizen. He earned his High School diploma in 1951 and in 1952 married.

In 1955 his wife Alicia gave birth to the first of three children, Carlos Roberto. In 1956 their only daughter was born, Maria Theresa. In 1960 the second son and last child, Rene Gustavo, was born.

In 1965 Macario Garcia was promoted to First Sergeant. In 1967 he was promoted to highest enlisted rank possible the rank of Sergeant Major. He would later receive an other promotion to Command Sergeant Major.

In 1963 Macario Garcia would meet and shake hands with President John F. Kennedy. He also attended a dinner during a LULAC affair in Houston, Texas on the eve of John F. Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, Texas.

On August 25, 1965, Macario Garcia Day was declared in the city of Houston, Texas. In 1968 "Mac" as he became known, volunteered to go to Vietnam where he would be assigned to the 22nd Replacement Battalion at Cam Ranh Bay where he would spend six months counseling returning veterans on their benefits upon returning to the states.

On Christmas Eve, 1972, Macario Garcia was involved in a head on automobile collision that ultimately took his life. Macario Garcia never knew of the many honors that were given in his name.

This country owes a great debt of gratitude to the many soldiers that never came back from Normandy and that did not come back from WWI, Vietnam or Korea. The free and the brave gave so dearly, so that we could have the rights that so many take for granted everyday.

I would like to thank Lupe Garcia, brother of Macario Garcia for his time, insight and authorization of this page. Lupe Garcia is also a Veteran of the United States Navy and served under the JFK and LBJ Administration. Lupe Garcia is the speaker for the family and became proactive a few years after Macario's death. In his statement Mr. Garcia speaks on a major issue in America today. “It is a heartfelt pain that strikes me every time I see so many standing up in hatred against the Hispanic community. America is turning its back on a community that willingly gave up their sons so that all could enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that this country has to offer. It is hurtful and insulting when political leaders speak negatively about Immigrants and city officials across the country make laws turning away immigrants and criminalizing those just seeking a better life. We know that the infrastructure, social, and economic development of this country was founded by immigrants. “

http://www.fortbendeagle.com/index-2.html


For comments email: miketorres@houston.rr.com

Immigrant Soldiers and Heroes

Some people grimace at the thought of Veteran's Day in 2007. With the true story of how badly our veterans are treated by our government after they are injured, it makes you wonder why in the world anyone would join the military these days - especially to go to a war (Iraq) that is not a war but a bloodbath.

Yet, we are a sovereign nation. We have an Army. I supposed war and the military are just part of being a nation-state.

This nation-state who today has such a negative position regarding immigrants - has gladly taken recruits (and draftees) who are not U.S. citizens... in fact has taken many who were not even U.S. residents - even though they say this is against policy.

Immigrants have served this country well, in fact, in an exceptional manner.

A Veteran's Day Remembrance: Immigrant Medal of Honor Recipients

by Stuart Anderson
CATO Institute


As Veteran's Day approaches, the time has come to pay tribute to those who have given their lives to this country, though they were not born in this country. Immigrants have received the Medal of Honor in every war since the medal was first established. To receive it, a recipient must risk his life, the bravery of his act must be considered beyond the call of duty and distinguished from other acts, and at least two eyewitnesses must have observed the act and provide incontestable evidence that it occurred.

More than 20 percent (over 700) of the Congressional Medal of Honor recipients in U.S. wars have been immigrants. As the official guide to recipients notes, "Those who have received the Medal of Honor since it was established in 1861 as the nation's highest decoration are as different as the melting pot population of our country..."

for complete article: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6269

previously posted on Immigration Prof Blog

Would the U.S. Coast Guard Try to Save Iraqi Refugees?

275 Iraqi Refugees rescued off the Greek coast


Considering immigration rhetoric these days, I wonder that would have happened to these Iraqi refugees is they were in trouble of the U.S. coast.

For having destroyed their country, the U.S. has been extremely negligent in helping those that made it out of the country alive.

November 12, 2007
Greeks Save Ship With 275 Migrants
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

ATHENS, Nov. 11 — The Greek coast guard on Sunday rescued 275 people believed to be illegal migrants crammed on a Turkish cargo ship that nearly capsized in rough seas southwest of the Greek coast, a Greek coast guard spokeswoman said.

The people on the ship, including dozens of women and children from Iraq, had been traveling for 13 days, en route to Italy, when the captain of the vessel issued a distress signal that sent two Greek coast guard frigates and a tugboat to their rescue in the Ionian Sea, said the spokeswoman, Aspa Popadopoulou.

The captain, who is Turkish, and his 14-member crew were arrested by Greek authorities, and they are facing charges linked to human smuggling. The Greek news media reported that some of the immigrants said they had paid $2,000 each for their passage to Italy and $1,000 for each child.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/world/europe/12greece.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Immigration Policy: No Longer a Matter of Decency

The polls are saying that Guiliani is ahead of the other GOP presidential candidates at the moment. How could anyone vote for a man that has changed from someone who says he is concerned with "decency" to a position that demonizes an entire population? Are people that afraid of undocumented immigrants that they will let pass what would be the indication of a deep character flaw? Remember we already did that in 2000 and 2004, why do it again?
____

Editorial

A Flip That's Flopped
Rudy Giuliani used to get immigration. Not anymore.
Washington Post
Monday, November 12, 2007; A20

AS MAYOR of New York in the 1990s, when undocumented immigrants were pouring into the city, Rudolph W. Giuliani extolled their contributions to the Big Apple's burgeoning economy, forbade city workers from denying them social services and benefits, bent over backward to help them navigate the path toward citizenship, and grasped the plain fact that they would never be deported en masse. As the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Giuliani has gradually purged such ideas from his campaign rhetoric, stressing instead his plans to erect a "technological fence" to secure the nation's borders, end illegal immigration, and monitor the comings and goings of "every noncitizen" in the country by means of tamper-proof, biometrically savvy ID cards.

He has gradually deemphasized all discussion of eventual citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to such a degree that when he mentions it at all, it's practically an afterthought, expressed obliquely. And he whispers not a word about the fact that the nation's employers and economic growth have come to depend on an annual influx of 500,000 or so workers, who, owing to a political impasse in Washington, are denied any legal means of entering the country.

Mr. Giuliani, himself the grandson of Italian immigrants, clearly understands the value of newcomers to this country in more than boilerplate terms. Until shortly before the immigration debate crested last spring, he spoke reasonably of the conditions by which the undocumented population might eventually be granted legal status -- paying a penalty, going to the back of the line, paying back taxes, mastering English and grasping American history. Setting the question in moral terms, he often said that fair treatment for illegal immigrants was a matter of decency...

For complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101197_pf.html


Additional editorials in this series can be found athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions.

Having a Democratic President Better than a Driver's License for Undocumented Immigrants?

Photo by Ron Petroncelli. Fabian Nuñez and Don Perata



Democrats debating immigration will tell us where they really stand. Do they want to look more like Republicans on this issue? California Assembly Speaker, Fabian Nuñez made a statement that could make people cringe. He told the LA Times "I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House than get the driver's licenses passed."

Who says having a Democrat in the White House would make things better. Remember the 1996 anti-immigration laws passed during Clinton's tenure? It was here that in-state tuition was banned for DREAMERS.

_____





A fine line for Democrats on border issues

Some think the party can toughen its image on illegal immigration without straying from traditional positions.
By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 11, 2007


WASHINGTON -- Top Democratic elected officials and strategists are engaged in an internal debate over toughening the party's image on illegal immigration, with some worried that Democrats' relatively welcoming stance makes them vulnerable to GOP attacks in the 2008 election.

...The internal debate has grown emotional in recent days, boiling over on Friday during a tense encounter on the House floor between Rep. Joe Baca (D-Rialto), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

The caucus was upset because some House Democrats had backed a Republican measure protecting employers that impose certain English-only rules -- the latest in what Baca called a series of frustrations with the party leadership's approach to immigration.

"We're tired of people trying to scapegoat the immigrants or Hispanics as a platform," Baca said. "Republicans have done it, and Democrats have followed . . . because they're afraid they're going to lose their elections. But we got elected to represent all communities, not to vote based on whether we're going to get reelected."

...Compassion and justice for illegal immigrants ends when taxpayer interests begin," the group said.

Several Democrats said last week that Clinton's difficulty with the driver's license issue, which first arose at a candidates debate Oct. 30, illustrated the very struggle many in the party will face next year

..."As soon as I saw that come up at the debate, I thought, 'Oh, this is a bad issue for Democrats,' " said California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles).

Nuñez added that he thought Democrats should pick their shots and probably avoid advocating driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

"I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House than get the driver's licenses passed," he said.

peter.wallsten@latimes.com


For complete article: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-immig11nov11,1,6588376.story

Photo: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/30/us/600_greenhouse.jpg

Anonymous You're Not: What is Your REAL Inner Nature?

Hate on the web.

This article from Salon.com is included in the blog because it totally relates to the nasty, vulgar, mean, insultive, and hateful comments that get posted in newspapers in response to pieces on immigration.

from Salon.com's Broadsheet:

"I continue to find it horrifying how many people seem to view the anonymity of the Web as an invitation to let loose with their vilest, most hate-filled selves. It makes me question people's inner nature -- sure, that guy at the gym seemed nice, but when he goes home, does he write things like "I wish to xxxx [DOE I] and [DOE II] xx xx xxx"?"

------
Broadsheet
Think you're anonymous? Watch out.
Salon.com
November 9, 2007

Back in March we wrote about an online discussion forum called AutoAdmit that advertises itself as "the most prestigious college discussion board in the world." According to the Washington Post, this "prestigious" discussion board also included threatening, sexist, racist and homophobic comments -- including strings of online attacks against two female law students who found out from friends that AutoAdmit users, often writing anonymously, had posted messages that included photographs gleaned from social networking sites, comments about the students' physical appearances, slurs about their supposed sexual promiscuity, and rape threats. The students, one of whom is a Yale Law student who graduated from college Phi Beta Kappa, were not only personally distressed by these anonymous attacks but also worried that the postings were harming their professional reputation and making it harder to get jobs.

Anyway, in June two of the women attacked on the site filed a lawsuit against the commenters -- along with Anthony Ciolli, a former administrator of the site (AutoAdmit's administrators refused the women's requests to have the offensive posts taken down). According to this blog post from the Wall Street Journal, many legal experts were surprised that Ciolli was named in the suit to begin with, since "the law was clear on protecting site administrators from lawsuits over content posted by a site's users." That's probably why, as the Journal reports, Ciolli's name was dropped from the complaint. (But, as the Journal points out, his absence was made up for by the addition of 11 new pseudonyms -- which now total 39, and include monikers like "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey" and "hitlerhitlerhitler.")

I bring this up for two reasons: First, the Post article from March doesn't really make clear how horrible the comments on the AutoAdmit threads were. If you read the actual complaint (posted here by the Journal) you'll see that the women -- named DOE I and DOE II in an attempt to protect them from further harassment -- were subjected to statements like "Clearly she deserves to be raped so that her little fantasy world can be shattered by real life" and "I would like to... [DOE I] but since people say she has ... this might be a bad idea" (that second one was posted to a thread called "Which female YLS students would you xxxxx?").

Please note that neither plaintiff knows who these commenters were; nor did they participate actively in AutoAdmit's community -- they found out about these postings from friends.

I continue to find it horrifying how many people seem to view the anonymity of the Web as an invitation to let loose with their vilest, most hate-filled selves. It makes me question people's inner nature -- sure, that guy at the gym seemed nice, but when he goes home, does he write things like "I wish to xxxx [DOE I] and [DOE II] in the xxx"?

Reading over the lawsuit also left me with a practical question: Now that Ciolli's name has been dropped, who exactly can the lawyers go after? It's a question that extends beyond this case -- I mean, having defendants with names like "Ugly Women" and "pauliewalnuts" is ridiculous enough, but it also presents the obvious challenge of how you're supposed to prosecute them. Someone who identifies him- or herself simply as "Spanky" isn't likely to provide a home address.

But I have good news for anyone wondering the same thing. I called up Keker & Van Nest, the law firm representing the two women, and spoke to one of the attorneys involved. He declined to comment specifically on this case, since he doesn't like to comment on pending litigation (and besides, why let these trolls know about how you can find them?). But when I asked him whether it was possible to track someone down purely from a pseudonym, he assured me that yes, yes it was. I asked him to keep me updated on the status of this case, so look for more updates in the future, but for the moment, let's just put it this way: Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey should be worried.



article: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/11/09/autoadmit/index.html

You Are Your Friends - Dime con quién andas y te digo quién eres.

Guiliani and Kerik












Dime con quién andas y te digo quién eres - translation - Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. That's a phrase my Dad would often use when I was a teenager and was hanging around with someone he thought would be a bad influence on me. He seemed to know all about what was going on in our little town - which kids had been arrested, who drank too much, who had a bad reputation.

An editorial in today's NYT tells us the same thing about Kerik and Guiliani without the folk saying. Did most of NY know about Kerik's activities, but just didn't say?

from NYT editorial:

"Mr. Kerik’s whole troubled record raise questions about Mr. Giuliani’s judgment. The men have an extraordinarily close bond. Mr. Giuliani plucked Mr. Kerik from obscurity to make him correction commissioner. He made him police commissioner even though he may have been briefed about Mr. Kerik’s ties to the company suspected of links to organized crime. Mr. Giuliani also made him a partner in his security business and promoted him for the Homeland Security Department post."

Remember that Guiliani is one of those candidates that is trying to look tough on immigration, when he really wasn't while mayor of New York. What does it mean that Kerik is his buddy? What kind of Michael Chertoff would Kerik make? Now that is scary.


-----
Editorial

Indicting Mr. Kerik
New York Times
Published: November 10, 2007


Bernard Kerik’s indictment on fraud and corruption charges is disturbing on its own, but it also raises broader issues. It is sobering to think how close Mr. Kerik came to becoming secretary of the Homeland Security Department, and it is also troubling that Rudolph Giuliani, a leading candidate for president, has been so close to him for so long, as a friend, boss and business partner.

Because of Mr. Giuliani’s role in Mr. Kerik’s life, the nation has a compelling interest in learning more about the former police chief’s misdeeds.

Mr. Kerik has been accused of accepting renovations to his Bronx apartment from a company that was suspected of having ties to organized crime and was seeking a license from the city. He allegedly used his office to help the company obtain the license. Mr. Kerik also has been accused of hiding the renovation income on his tax returns, along with more than $200,000 in rent payments on an Upper East Side apartment that a developer allegedly paid on his behalf.

It is always a sad day, as United States Attorney Michael J. Garcia noted, when a law enforcement official is accused of breaking the law. That is especially true when the official was New York’s top jailer, the head of the nation’s largest police department, and nearly became the chief of a 180,000-member federal department charged with keeping America safe.

Mr. Kerik must be presumed innocent. But he has already pleaded guilty to state charges arising out of the home renovations. After he did, Mayor Michael Bloomberg stripped his name from a Manhattan jail that had been named for him. Even those charges were not Mr. Kerik’s first brush with the law. He was fined by the city for sending police officers to do research on a book he was writing. His associates have also had more than their share of troubles. When he was correction commissioner, one of Mr. Kerik’s top deputies was convicted of taking $142,000 from a charity he managed and another was convicted of using department staff to work on Republican political campaigns.

Yesterday’s indictment and Mr. Kerik’s whole troubled record raise questions about Mr. Giuliani’s judgment. The men have an extraordinarily close bond. Mr. Giuliani plucked Mr. Kerik from obscurity to make him correction commissioner. He made him police commissioner even though he may have been briefed about Mr. Kerik’s ties to the company suspected of links to organized crime. Mr. Giuliani also made him a partner in his security business and promoted him for the Homeland Security Department post.

As recently as this week, Mr. Giuliani made the remarkable statement that any mistakes Mr. Kerik made were outweighed by his success in fighting crime — presumably not including the crimes Mr. Kerik himself was committing. Mr. Giuliani has since spoken more critically of him, but the public is entitled to know more.

Two important questions are precisely what are the mistakes the former mayor thinks he made in trusting Mr. Kerik, and how can voters be sure that he would not make them again as president, when the stakes for a disastrous appointment would be so much higher.


photo: http://www.allreaders.com/pictures/rudy_giuliani_kerik.jpg