Showing posts with label Anti Immigration Laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti Immigration Laws. Show all posts
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Silent March after Burning 60 Cars
link to photoA young man dies in what is believed to be a drug related confrontation in northeast France on Saturday night (14th). Sixty police officers were dispatched as dozens of cars were burned. People connected this confrontation with the French riots in the Banlieue in 2005. Right wing Marine La Pen Marine criticized Sarkozy for having soft position on security, which Marine believes led to the riot.
On Sunday, the 15th, a group held a silent march in response to the killing. Le Figaro newspaper states that about 50 people attended, however in the photo from the march (above) it appears to have been a higher number.
----
Agence France Presse -- English
June 15, 2008 Sunday 2:54 PM GMTFrench youths clash with police after shooting
LILLE, France, June 15 2008Dozens of French youths clashed with police in a town in northeast France overnight, burning cars during a rampage triggered by the killing of a 22-year-old man, an official said Sunday.
Two police officers, two firefighters and five residents suffered minor injuries during the violence that raged until Sunday morning in Vitry-le-Francois, said Sylvaine Astic from the regional prefect's office.
Armed with baseball bats and firebombs, about 50 youths went on a rampage, torching cars and setting fire to garbage bins in the town of 17,000 people, Astic told AFP.
The violence started around 10:00 p.m. (2000 GMT) after the 22-year-old man was gunned down in Vitry-le-Francois. A suspect was arrested overnight.
About 60 police officers were dispatched to the town late Saturday and remained in Vitry-le-Francois on Sunday.
A police union issued a statement denouncing what it termed as "hysteria" in relations between French youth and police.
"This started out as a murderous settling of scores," said Nicolas Comte of the SGP-FO police union.
"But quickly this tragic event prompted a violent group to attack police with baseball bats and molotov cocktails as young bystanders watched passively, like spectactors to the 'riot show'," said Comte.
He linked the latest outbreak to the 2005 suburban riots, France's worst unrest in decades, when poor immigrant-heavy areas around Paris and other major cities exploded into three weeks of violence.
"Nothing has been resolved since. The fire is still burning under the ashes," said Comte.
About 250 people took part in a silent march in Vitry-le-Francois on Sunday, led by the victim's mother who wept as she walked holding a photograph of her son through the low-income neighbourhood of Rome-Saint-Charles.
The last time there was major rioting was in the Paris suburb of Villiers-le-Bel in November when two teenagers riding a motorbike died after they collided with a police car. The incident led to three days of riots.
More than 100 police officers were injured in Villiers-le-Bel when rioters armed with hunting rifles and pellet guns opened fire, a new, worrisome turn in the ongoing clashes with police in the suburbs.
from Lexis Nexis
---
Le FigaroVitry-le-François : le meurtre serait lié à la drogue
C.J. (lefigaro.fr) avec AFP et Le Monde
16/06/2008 | Mise à jour : 22:23 |Le suspect a reconnu avoir un «différend portant sur plusieurs milliers d'euros» dans un trafic de cannabis avec le groupe qu'accompagnait le jeune homme abattu samedi.
Une confrontation sanglante liée à un trafic de cannabis. Les enquêteurs lèvent petit à petit le voile sur le meurtre, samedi, à Vitry-le-François d'un jeune homme, abattu d'une balle dans la tête par un ancien militaire, et dont la mort avait provoqué une nuit d'affrontements entre jeunes et forces de l'ordre. Le suspect, âgé de 22 ans, a reconnu avoir tiré sur la victime et expliqué avoir un différend concernant un trafic de cannabis avec le groupe de jeunes auquel appartenait la victime, a affirmé le procureur de la République. Cette querelle portait sur «plusieurs milliers d'euros».
Le meurtrier présumé, qui a été déféré au parquet lundi, « se sentait harcelé, menacé et il s'est rendu à ce rendez-vous avec une carabine 22 long rifle», a indiqué la magistrate. L'ancien soldat n'aurait toutefois pas visé la victime. Il a ainsi «répété» pendant sa garde à vue, «qu'il ne connaissait pas Mohamed». Des explications qui vont dans le sens du témoignage d'un des proches de Mohamed qui confiait au Monde, que son ami avait été fauché par «une balle perdue». «Mohamed a voulu séparer deux types qui se battaient», a-t-il assuré. Le procureur a pour sa part affirmé qu'on ignorait tout du rôle de la victime, inconnue des services de police et « appréciée de tous »...
for link to complete article click here
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Confused ...?
It is very interesting that some of the opinions in a town next to
To some the theory of ‘illegal is illegal’ is plain and simple. One has to realize that even though words are easy to read, the real circumstances of people can’t be as easy as words. Now
The mentality that all ‘immigrants’ are criminals is incredibly incorrect, makes it seem that these people are not reading the right statistics of what this country is going through. But then again the media does show the most controversial and at times wrong information. Sometimes certain people like to find a scapegoat or just be stupid and not want or care if they know the truth.
------
'Sanctuary city' issue surfaces in race for League City Mayor
Candidate wants to address how illegal immigrants are handled by police
Houston Chronicle Correspondent
With less than two weeks remaining until
When an illegal immigrant is arrested in
The practice is standard procedure, but is not a written policy, Ratliff said.
If elected, Chris Mallios said he would push for an ordinance that establishes that
"There is not any clear path right now," said Mallios, 48, a retired
Although there is no universal definition for "sanctuary city," most cities considered to be such have adopted "a don't ask-don't tell" policy that doesn't require their employees, such as police officers, to report illegal immigrants to federal officials, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
During the city's June 14 runoff, voters will decide between Mallios and Toni Randall, 45, owner of a Kemah hardware store, for a three-year term.
Randall received 533 more votes than Mallios in the city's May 10 election, but did not receive the majority of votes cast, which is required to win.
Current first-term Mayor Jerry Shults failed to make the runoff after finishing last in the three-candidate race.
Randall declined to say whether the city should take an official stance on the "sanctuary city" debate.
"I'm not going to feel comfortable answering that, because I feel 'sanctuary city' is a term that is used lightly," she said. "I think a lot of the citizens don't know what 'sanctuary city' means. That's where my concern comes in."
Mallios said he believes that all illegal immigrants who are arrested in
"If they are not here legally, then they need to go through the process to be expelled or deported or tried and then deported or whatever that process would be," he said.
Mallios said the city's police department, however, shouldn't specifically target illegal immigrants.
"I'm not for wholesale rounding people up just because they look like they could be illegal," he said.
Randall said the "sanctuary city" debate is "a federal issue."
"Illegal immigrants are here," she said. "They're not just from
If all of the illegal immigrants that are arrested in
It also would help reduce employers' hiring of illegal immigrants, he said.
"It affords the teenager who wants to cut grass to be able to cut grass," Mallios said. "It helps the community all the way around."
Randall said she does not condone employers' hiring of illegal immigrants.
"They ought to have proper documentation definitely," she said. "It's just the right thing to do."
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Pope Speaks on Immigration
Photo of Pope Benedict from Collegamento pro Sindone
Tancredo is screaming again about immigration. The Pope did bring the issue up with President Bush, but clearly, the conversation meant nothing since there were ICE raids all over the country that day.
The NYT says that some of the Catholic hierarchy was shocked. Perhaps the Times doesn't realize that many more people were shocked, many of whom are not Catholics. ICE's explanation that it was coincidental is unfortunate .
"they were shocked that on the same day that Benedict and President Bush affirmed in a joint statement the need for a policy that treats immigrants humanely and protects their families, federal agents were conducting raids at five chicken plants. They arrested more than 300 immigrants accused of being illegal workers."
--------
April 20, 2008
Pope Speaks Up for Immigrants, Touching a Nerve
By DANIEL J. WAKIN and JULIA PRESTON
New York Times
Even as he was flying to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of protecting immigrant families, not dividing them.
He raised the issue again in a meeting on Wednesday with President Bush, and later that day spoke in Spanish to the church’s “many immigrant children.” And when he ends his visit to New York on Sunday, he will be sent off by a throng of the faithful, showing off the ethnic diversity of American Catholicism.
The choreography underscores the importance to the church here of its growing diversity — especially its increasing Hispanic membership.
Of the nation’s 65 million Roman Catholics, 18 million are Latino, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, and they account for more than two-thirds of the new Catholics in the country since 1960.
Millions of other recent arrivals come from Asia and Africa. More and more parishes depend on priests brought from abroad to serve the flock.
Benedict has calibrated his immigration stance with care, stating the need to protect family unity and immigrants’ human rights, but pointedly avoiding any specifics of the American immigration debate, like the issue of whether to grant legal status to illegal immigrants. Yet last week his visit quickly stirred the crosscurrents of the debate.
His comments drew a rebuke from Representative Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado who has been a leading opponent of illegal immigration.
Accusing the pope of “faith-based marketing,” Mr. Tancredo said Benedict’s comments welcoming immigrants “may have less to do with spreading the Gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the Church.” Mr. Tancredo, a former Catholic who now attends an evangelical Christian church, said it was not in the pope’s “job description to engage in American politics.”
On the other side of the issue, some members of the Catholic hierarchy said they were shocked that on the same day that Benedict and President Bush affirmed in a joint statement the need for a policy that treats immigrants humanely and protects their families, federal agents were conducting raids at five chicken plants. They arrested more than 300 immigrants accused of being illegal workers.
The timing was coincidental, immigration officials said, and it was not clear whether the pope had known about the arrests when he met with Mr. Bush.
But the raids surprised some American Catholic leaders, who are often on the forefront of advocacy for immigrant rights.
“I was stunned,” said Cardinal Roger Mahony, the archbishop of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest Roman Catholic diocese and one with many Hispanics. “I just feel these raids are totally negative. I thought it was very inappropriate to do it in such a blatant way when the pope was coming, when he has been so outspoken in defending the rights of immigrants.”
The American bishops have been consistently outspoken in favor of legislation to give legal status to illegal immigrants and expand legal avenues for immigrants to bring their family members from abroad.
They and other Catholic activists were among the most visible supporters of a broad bill, supported by Mr. Bush but not enacted by Congress last year, which included a path to legal status for 12 million illegal immigrants.
They took Benedict’s statements last week as affirmation of their work. For while the immigration theme has been overshadowed during Benedict’s trip by his denunciations of the sexual abuse scandal in the church, it was the second issue after the abuse cases that he addressed on the plane from Rome, when he responded to reporters’ questions that were submitted in advance and picked by the Vatican.
The separation of families “is truly dangerous for the social, moral and human fabric” of Latin and Central American families, the pope told reporters aboard his plane. “The fundamental solution is that there should no longer be a need to emigrate, that there are enough jobs in the homeland, a sufficient social fabric,” he said. Short of that, families should be protected, not destroyed, he said. “As much as it can be done it should be done,” the pontiff said.
The pope did not just send a message to the president and the public, he spoke to the bishops. In his private meeting with them on Wednesday evening, he emphasized that recent newcomers to the United States are “people of faith, and we are here to welcome them,” Cardinal Mahony said.
The pope also dwelled on the negative impact of family separation. Several bishops took that as a direct reference to the impact of previous immigration raids and deportations, in which illegal immigrant parents were separated from spouses and children who were United States citizens or legal immigrants.
“Obviously the Holy Father is not encouraging people to do anything illegal,” Cardinal Mahony said. But the raids “do not serve as a deterrent,” he said, adding, “They simply create fear and uncertainty in our communities.”
Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City said the pope was “not going to get into the specific points that our country has to hash out.” Bishop Wester, who is chairman of the Committee on Migration of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the pontiff had told the bishops “very clearly that we need to attend to the basic human rights immigrants have.”
Bishop Wester also criticized the immigration raids, which took place at plants in five states belonging to Pilgrim’s Pride, a major poultry processing company. Immigration officials said they did not consider the pope’s visit when planning the operations, which they said came after a yearlong investigation.
But Bishop Wester said: “It did strike me as inappropriate. The pope comes as a man of peace, a man of good will, the leader of a major religion. Many of the persons arrested were Catholic.”
As recently as mid-March, he said, his committee met with Julie L. Myers, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that carried out the raids. The bishops asked Ms. Myers not to conduct raids in churches and to ensure legal representation for immigrants, Bishop Wester said.
The pope returned to the theme several times over the course of his visit, which ends Sunday. About 4,000 church members from the Diocese of Brooklyn, which includes Queens, will hold a prayer service in 29 languages at Kennedy Airport. About half will be immigrants, said Msgr. Ronald T. Marino, the Brooklyn Diocese’s vicar for migration. Many will wear the costumes of their homelands. The pope will not attend, but the crowd will bid him farewell.
“Not a word has to be spoken,” the monsignor said. “What you will see says it all.”
In Washington, Benedict encouraged the American bishops and their communities “to continue to welcome immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home.” That, he said, was the American tradition. And in a meeting with Catholic educators, he emphasized the importance of keeping Catholic schools open, especially to serve immigrants and the underprivileged.
Catholic leaders say such words have bolstered their work, yet the pope’s emphasis is no surprise in a country where much of the church’s growth and vitality comes from the influx of immigrant Catholics.
Following the polyglot practice of his predecessor, John Paul II, Benedict used Spanish to directly address the Latino portion of his flock during the homily at his Mass at Nationals Park in Washington on Thursday.
The Church has grown thanks to their vitality, he said, and God calls on them to keep contributing.
Priests and bishops who lobby elected officials and minister directly to immigrants can be more explicit.
Monsignor Marino, for example, who also heads the Brooklyn Diocese’s Catholic Migration Office, said, “In my judgment, immigrants are heroes.”
He applauded the pope’s words. “The simple pointing to it as one of his priorities, something coming out of his mouth, is real important,” Monsignor Marino said. “For him to say one sentence means he knows the rest.”
Thomas G. Wenski, the bishop of Orlando, Fla., and a former head of the bishops’ Migration Committee who remains a consultant to it, said he hoped the pope’s visit would have a practical effect.
“The pope’s visit will unleash some good will here so that Congress might live up to its responsibility and deal with the issue,” Bishop Wenski said.
In a letter in December, Cardinal Mahony chastised all the presidential candidates for campaigns that he said had “inflamed anti-immigrant sentiment in the country.” Since then the three remaining candidates, Senators John McCain of Arizona, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, have lowered the volume on the immigration issue.
Secular advocates for immigrants also welcomed the pope’s words. “That’s big news,” said Teresa Gutierrez, a coordinator for the May 1st Coalition for Immigrant and Workers Rights. “Any decent comment about the reality of what’s really happening to immigration in the United States coming from such a prestigious person as the pope is extremely helpful.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Thursday, March 6, 2008
America's Shrine of Martyrdom
Left: Alamo as it looked in 1836
Left: Alamo in 2008
As I read Katie Halper's post I wonder, how many say "happy Alamo day?" Yet, the date and especially the year mean so much to many people - to the point that 1836 was considered for the name of Houston's new soccer team (after a large outcry by the Latino community, it was changed to the Dynamos).
Remembering the Alamo as a shrine to Texas Independence is a paradox - considering that all the Texian soldiers were killed during the battle, some brutally. Yet, martyrdom is seen as something to be valued - March 6 is a "happy day" because it shows the outstanding bravery by the Anglo people (men) who founded Texas.
Just like we have "Remember 9-11" - the Texas Republic had "Remember the Alamo" - at the battle of San Jacinto, * some days later, the Texas Army was propelled into killing everyone they could see, even soldiers that were running away. Eyewitness accounts describe hundreds of Mexican soldiers running away and crossing a nearby river. When the Texians killed Mexicans (shooting them in the back) running across the river the bodies fell like a bunch of dead chickens into the water. The Mexican soldiers continued to run in the same direction, crossing the river by stepping over their dead comrades. And, the Texian soldiers continued to shoot the Mexicans, shouting "Remember the Alamo!" all the while. At least 700 Mexican soldiers were killed this way.
Our own "Remember 9-11," a day that thousands (not hundreds) died needlessly, - propelled us to attack Afghanistan and destroyed the population and infrastructure of Iraq. Our next targets are people living inside our nation. We identify those who resemble what we think is the enemy (brown skin, dark hair, a foreign tongue) and we begin to hunt them down, one by one, family by family.
Some people may say undocumented Mexicans are not American because they do not have "our permission" to be here. But in reality all of us living here are part of the American community. We live together in cities, many work together, go to school together. Perhaps if we were not so obsessed with our 9-11 revenge we could see that not having a green card only means it gives official U.S. citizens permission to insult, banish, and even harm those who entered our boundaries without our permission.
What a great holiday. Remember the Alamo! Remember the undocumented!
-----
Happy Alamo Day: Let Us "Never Forget" the Battle by Batting Immigration
It's hard to believe it, but the Alamo fell 172 years ago today. As we commemorate the Alamo, let us consider these words: Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.* If you listen closely, you can hear the Alamo's warning cry. And it is warning us against an imminent threat. Sadly, few people realize the connection between national security and immigration. Let us look at the history: 3/6/1836. The Alamo. Never Forget. We live in a post-3/6/1836 world. And we need to be thinking in a post 3/6/1836 mind set. For centuries we've been unable to eliminate the debilitating terrorist campaign of Montezuma's revenge, which continues to attack our values and our bowels. Readers: don't say I didn't warn you. Because by the time a cell of undocumented Mexican gardeners drives their lawnmowers into the pentagon, it will be too late.
In all seriousness, this is my real message for all the people out there who tell "aliens" to go back to where they come from and get out of "our" country: unless your name consists of a gerund adjective followed by an animal, this actually isn't your country either!
for link to original click the title of this post
*a few days after the Alamo battle, another group of Texian soldiers were captured and executed at their camp about 150 miles west of what is now Houston.
photo#1: http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~hyde/SanAntonio/AlamoOld1211.JPG
photo#2 http://texashistory.info/i/Alamo.jpg
photo#3 http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-texas/AlamoToday.jpg
Monday, January 14, 2008
Legal and Illegal, Again
A post from December 20, 2007 ("Not a Crime: Undocumented Immigration is a Civil Offense") discussed the concept of illegal. Here, three letters from the Washington Post present different opinions about the state of illegality.
-----
Letters to the Editor
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302287_pf.html
-----
Letters to the Editor
Washington Post
Who Among Us Has Never Broken the Law?
Monday, January 14, 2008; A20
A Jan. 10 Metro section headline said it all: "Driver Fees, Illegal Immigration Top Agenda as Legislators Convene."
Virginians don't think it's fair to have to pay large fines for illegal, dangerous driving, but immigrants in the United States without proper documentation are not worthy of being here because they are "breaking the law." I'd love to see the correlation for people holding both opinions.
As the daughter of immigrants from Poland, I've met too many people who knew that their ancestors bought other people's names, falsely claimed they were relatives of citizens, "married" people they didn't know or obtained fraudulent letters from potential employers stating that they were the only ones who could do particular jobs.
The iconic immigration film, Elia Kazan's "America, America," was about Kazan's uncle who came to the United States and sent for the others in his family. He took the identity of someone who would have been here legally but died on the ship.
The hypocrisy goes on.
ARLENE HALFON
Washington
Unless we all are prepared to wear the word "illegal" around our necks, we need to drop it when referring to undocumented immigrants ["Two Views of Illegal," Metro, Jan. 10]. Most of us are illegal in some way, having chosen at times to ignore certain laws. With the exception of my mother and a few others, all of us over the age of 16 have willfully, if only occasionally, flouted an inconvenient law or two. And we didn't even do it to escape oppression, poverty, death squads or starvation.
I would like to ask this question of those who believe that all undocumented immigrants are criminals, because, in the words of lawyer Norman Hammer, "people can't choose which laws they want to abide by and which ones they don't": How many of us can honestly say we have clean slates -- that we never tried cigarettes or alcohol before we were old enough to be legal, for instance? Choosing which laws to bend or break is a time-honored American tradition.
Last I checked, it hasn't exactly destroyed the "fabric of this country."
CRAIG W. CULP
Gaithersburg
I take exception to The Post's claim that there are two views of illegal.
Illegal is illegal, despite all the sob stories about the supposed plight of illegal immigrants who are overrunning this country and expect that we should speak their language and offer them the benefits of citizenship.
The only two views of the immigration situation are "legal" and "illegal." The whys and wherefores of illegal immigrants shouldn't enter the process.
JOANNE E. DUMENE
Alexandria
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302287_pf.html
Friday, January 4, 2008
Drawing Tighter Boundaries: The Beginning of Hysteria
La Jornada in Mexico City is reporting that the U.S. is planning to expel Mexican students that are enrolled in California schools. According to the article, the United States is now photographing Mexican students as they cross the international border to attend school on the American side- which has been a common practice for decades.
While the article reports the development of a number of draconian proposals in different sections of the U.S. - the details of this are not specific and somewhat misleading. For example, the author states that some states (Texas among them) have begun or are considering initiatives that will prevent immigrants from sending money to their home countries. This is technically correct, but is far from becoming an actual law.
At the same time, for La Jornada, that is usually fairly centered in its reporting) to begin to sound somewhat hysterical means that there is already a significant amount of hysteria among immigrants (both documented and undocumented). - proposals like Huckabee's are sounding alarms - even if they are only empty words.
_____
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/01/04/index.php?section=politica&article=008n1pol
While the article reports the development of a number of draconian proposals in different sections of the U.S. - the details of this are not specific and somewhat misleading. For example, the author states that some states (Texas among them) have begun or are considering initiatives that will prevent immigrants from sending money to their home countries. This is technically correct, but is far from becoming an actual law.
At the same time, for La Jornada, that is usually fairly centered in its reporting) to begin to sound somewhat hysterical means that there is already a significant amount of hysteria among immigrants (both documented and undocumented). - proposals like Huckabee's are sounding alarms - even if they are only empty words.
_____
Pide cónsul de Calexico a padres de familia evitar maltrato a sus hijos
Expulsa EU a estudiantes mexicanos que asisten a escuelas públicas de California
Personal originario de México retrata en las garitas a los niños que cruzan a diario la frontera
Antonio Heras (Corresponsal)
4 enero 2008
La Jornada - Mexico
Mexicali, BC, 3 de enero. Las autoridades de Estados Unidos reforzaron los controles en la frontera para expulsar a estudiantes mexicanos inscritos en escuelas públicas de California, denunció Pablo Arnaud, cónsul de México en Calexico.
El funcionario invitó a los padres de familia de Baja California a inscribir a sus hijos en escuelas mexicanas para evitar maltrato con la aplicación de la ley de California, la cual establece que sólo pueden ingresar a centros educativos públicos las personas que residen en Estados Unidos.
El gobierno estadunidense contrató a personal –la mayoría de origen mexicano– para que tome fotografías en las garitas internacionales a los estudiantes que cruzan la frontera de manera cotidiana para acudir a escuelas públicas del condado de Imperial, limítrofe con Mexicali.
Este padrón fotográfico se envía a los distritos escolares para que los directivos detecten a los niños y adolescentes y procedan a su expulsión.
El diplomático comentó que lo importante es hacer conciencia con los padres de familia para que no arriesguen a sus hijos y los inscriban en México, donde hay una excelente educación pública, a diferencia de las escuelas privadas.
En otro orden, la agencia Notimex dio a conocer la existencia de un documento elaborado por el Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (IME), en el cual se destaca que en los últimos dos años, las iniciativas de ley o reglamentos antimigrantes en Estados Unidos han aumentado de manera importante, con el propósito de que las autoridades locales puedan controlar directamente el ingreso de indocumentados.
Por medio del Sistema de monitoreo de leyes sobre el control de la migración en los ámbitos local y estatal, el IME señala que hay una tendencia a otorgar facultades a las autoridades locales para aplicar las leyes migratorias.
En 39 condados (equivalentes a municipios), correspondientes a 18 estados de Estados Unidos, existen iniciativas –tanto aprobadas como en proceso– desde el nivel de ordenanza hasta el de ley, indica un recuento del IME.
De acuerdo con el documento, muchas de estas iniciativas han sido presentadas en localidades que antes no combatían la inmigración irregular, y están enfocadas concretamente a impedir el ingreso ilegal de mexicanos.
Los estados de discuten o ya tienen una reglamentación al respecto. En segundo término se encuentran las iniciativas que pretenden sancionar a los empleadores que contraten a indocumentados.
Sobre este tema, existen proyectos en Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachussetts, Missouri, Nevada, Nueva York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Illinois y Virginia.
Mientras tanto, en Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Nueva Jersey, Pennsylvania y Texas han sido presentadas iniciativas para sancionar a caseros que alquilen propiedades a indocumentados.
De acuerdo con el documento del IME, en Arizona, Carolina del Norte y Texas se analizan o se aplican restricciones para la transferencia de dinero al extranjero.
Igualmente, en Arizona, Colorado y Virginia se llevan a cabo o se pretende poner en práctica medidas para la aceptación de identificaciones consulares, como la Matrícula Consular que otorga el gobierno mexicano.
El monitoreo del IME incluye el análisis de cada una de las iniciativas presentadas de 2005 a diciembre de 2007, en un catálogo de 121 cuartillas, en el que se establecen las consecuencias de la operación de cada nueva reglamentación antinmigrante.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/01/04/index.php?section=politica&article=008n1pol
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Why is there so little rational discourse on immigration?
The following article from the WP describes the current situation in Arizona. The state has joined Prince William County for having more angry people than anywhere else in the U.S. As I read the comments on the article I am continuously dismayed that people have so many facts wrong, are so angry, don't see undocumented immigrants as people.
Immigration Ground Zero
In Arizona, the fruit of Congress's failure
Wednesday, December 26, 2007; A20
Washington Post
THE NEW ground zero in the debate over illegal immigration is Arizona, where the nation's toughest and potentially most far-reaching crackdown on undocumented workers and their employers is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The Arizona law, passed resoundingly by the state legislature after Congress failed to enact immigration reform last summer, penalizes companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants by suspending their business licenses for up to 10 days; ; on a second offense, the business license would be revoked -- what Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) has called a corporate "death penalty." Thus the Arizona law may become a test case for how much pain a state is willing to endure, and inflict, in the name of ridding itself of a population that contributes enormously to its economic growth and prosperity.
Illegal immigrants have flocked to Arizona for years to fill jobs that native-born people don't want. While the state's unemployment rate remains low, undocumented employees comprise an estimated 9 to 12 percent of the state's 3 million workers. Companies in agriculture, construction and service industries rely heavily on illegal immigrants, and any successful attempt to drive them out will have economic repercussions that may be severe.
In construction alone, Judith Gans of the University of Arizona has estimated that a 15 percent cut in the state's immigrant workforce would result in direct losses of about 56,000 jobs and some $6.6 billion in economic output. The direct loss to state tax revenue would be approximately $270 million. The study, and others like it, including in Texas, refute the arguments that illegal immigrants are an overall burden on state economies because of the education, health care and other services they require; in fact they contribute heavily to economic growth.
That explains why so many business owners were livid in June when the U.S. Senate killed legislation to provide an eventual path to citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants already living in America; to create a legal mechanism to satisfy the national economy's annual appetite for hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers; and to tighten enforcement of existing sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers. That political failure has spawned hundreds of state and local attempts to deal with illegal immigration, including Arizona's.
The Arizona law illustrates the self-defeating hazard of addressing one part of the problem -- enforcement -- without also recognizing the plain reality of America's need for immigrant labor. It was enacted and is taking effect in an atmosphere of extreme emotion, ugly diatribes in the blogosphere and occasional street scuffles -- the sort of environment that defeats rational discourse. It is likely to be enforced with gusto in and around Phoenix, the nation's sixth-largest city, by an ambitious state prosecutor who is urging citizens to blow the whistle on offending companies -- anonymously if they wish -- and by a county sheriff whose stock in trade is hounding, arresting and helping to deport immigrants whose behavior or appearance suggests they may be here illegally.
Although the authorities are paying lip service to their commitment to fair enforcement, they are in fact contributing to a situation tailor-made to enable racial profiling and false, defamatory or vengeful reports by those who might harbor a grudge against an employer. Already, in the weeks before the law is to take effect, there were reports of businesses considering moving out of state or reconsidering in-state expansion plans, as well as hundreds of illegal immigrants pulling their children out of school and seeking work elsewhere.
There is little clarity about the law itself, which is being challenged in court by major business associations, Hispanic groups and the American Civil Liberties Union. The statute was sloppily drafted, and Ms. Napolitano signed it at least in part because she feared an even more draconian ballot initiative by immigrant-bashers (who are trying to organize one anyway). While Ms. Napolitano believes the law applies only to workers hired after Jan. 1, Andrew Thomas, the Maricopa County (Phoenix) prosecutor whose purview includes most of the state's population and workforce, says it applies to any employee on a firm's payroll, regardless of hiring date.
Reasonable suspicions exist that many companies will continue hiring and paying illegal workers off the books to evade the law's sanctions, which may give rise to a sizable underground economy and encourage exploitation of vulnerable workers. The system of verification that employers will be required to use to check workers' status relies on a federal database whose error rate regarding non-native-born Americans is believed to be as high as 10 percent -- and for which Congress has appropriated no funds beyond next year. All in all, a recipe for chaos and confusion.
Arizona has undergone explosive population growth in recent decades, along with sharp demographic change. At least 14 percent of the state's 6 million people are foreign-born, more than twice the percentage in 1990. Much of that growth can be explained by illegal immigration; the 620,000 (mostly undocumented) noncitizens in the state in 2004 were almost four times the number there were in 1990. The shift has contributed to a rise in nativist and outright racist sentiment, as well as to legitimate concerns about the effect of so many illegal immigrants -- most of them from one poor country, Mexico -- on neighborhoods, crime rates and municipal budgets.
In responding with this law to the popular anger and anxiety about illegal immigration, Arizona may have been within its legal rights; the courts will decide that shortly. But the price the law will exact is likely to be severe -- to the state's economy, to thousands of immigrant families and, very likely, to the civil rights of legal Hispanic residents who will come under unwarranted suspicion. Those costs may cause Arizonans to question the prudence of their state lawmakers and highlight the folly of Washington's failure to come to grips with illegal immigration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500877.html
map: http://www.thepepper.com/map_arizona2.gif
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Sex on the Plaza
Tomorrow I leave Madrid. Its been a few weeks of (mostly) boring work. A colleague of mine came into town last week... today she told me the strangest story.
In broad daylight today (a Wednesday) she was walking through a neighborhood plaza in downtown Madrid and saw 2 people having sex - right there, with scores of people around. She said that people all around were watching. Two men were taking pictures with their cell phones, some men were laughing...
The two people involved appeared to be homeless and native born Spaniards. The incident was disturbing and surprising. Yet, what surprises me even more is that the whole 16 days I have been here I have heard constant complaints about immigrants flooding the city, esp. Romanians and Africans. That these people bring problems, violence, crime, unsanitary conditions.
Yet, as I just mentioned, the most outrageous act was performed by two Spàniards.
In broad daylight today (a Wednesday) she was walking through a neighborhood plaza in downtown Madrid and saw 2 people having sex - right there, with scores of people around. She said that people all around were watching. Two men were taking pictures with their cell phones, some men were laughing...
The two people involved appeared to be homeless and native born Spaniards. The incident was disturbing and surprising. Yet, what surprises me even more is that the whole 16 days I have been here I have heard constant complaints about immigrants flooding the city, esp. Romanians and Africans. That these people bring problems, violence, crime, unsanitary conditions.
Yet, as I just mentioned, the most outrageous act was performed by two Spàniards.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Anger is Not Really About Immigration
Anwer Sher writes in the Post Global WP blog that it isn't immigration that causes all the problems, it's people's attitudes
towards other people that produce the most harm.
He brings up a point I have mentioned many times:
"you cannot argue for free trade and then put up controls on people who want to immigrate."
If you think of the logic in this.... you might wonder what is wrong with all the people that are screaming their nativism full blast. How can you (a country) want globalization while simultaneously controlling the immigration you need so you can achieve global significance?
I don't want to make it very simplistic, but it does seem that much of the problem revolves around nativists' fear of the dark-skinned people that are now surrounding them. As long as their numbers are kept to a controlled minimum, and they are basically out of site except for certain situations... then they are ok... but it's the whole idea of being "surrounded" that creates the fear that creates the anger.
-----
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/immigration_disruptive_only_to.html
towards other people that produce the most harm.
He brings up a point I have mentioned many times:
"you cannot argue for free trade and then put up controls on people who want to immigrate."
If you think of the logic in this.... you might wonder what is wrong with all the people that are screaming their nativism full blast. How can you (a country) want globalization while simultaneously controlling the immigration you need so you can achieve global significance?
I don't want to make it very simplistic, but it does seem that much of the problem revolves around nativists' fear of the dark-skinned people that are now surrounding them. As long as their numbers are kept to a controlled minimum, and they are basically out of site except for certain situations... then they are ok... but it's the whole idea of being "surrounded" that creates the fear that creates the anger.
-----
ANWER SHER
Dubai, UAE
Washington Post
Post Global Blog
December 4, 2007
Originally from Pakistan, Anwer Sher is based in Dubai and writes for Gulf News, Khaleej Times and Emirates Today. His varied career experience includes banking, consulting, and real estate development. He has a Masters degree in International Relations.
Immigration Disruptive Only to Some
Is immigration disruptive? The answer all depends on your individual perspective. From my view, you cannot argue for free trade and then put up controls on people who want to immigrate. You cannot use a lack of integration as an excuse to discriminate against immigrants; after all, most colonizers did not integrate into the countries they colonized. Societies prosper when they open their doors, and despite how much the Americans, the British or the French complain about non-Caucasian minorities, they also need to see how much immigrant doctors, engineers and professionals have contributed to their society. Every American who is not a Native American is an immigrant, and one should never forget that no land belongs to anybody in the true historical sense.
This is an interesting question given the recent riots in France, protests in Malaysia by Malaysians of Indian origin, and with human migration generally becoming a more critical subject. Immigration has always been an integral part of the human saga of development, and under various names the phenomenon of people seeking new opportunities in new lands has always been there: in America, in Australia, and so on. In the modern world it has become more of an issue and more 'disruptive,' as nationalist sentiments make one question the rationale of allowing 'other people' into a society. In a number of former colonizing societies – Great Britain, France, The Netherlands – the 'import' of cheaper labor in the post-colonial era resulted in large migrations of people, particularly in England. With higher birth rates and the tendency of such immigrants not to assimilate, one can are England is now facing 'reverse colonialism'; who would have though 50 years ago two members of the House of Lords will be Asian descent.
In the overall scheme of human settlement, the disruptive element of immigration has been nominal. While riots may seem to suggest a catastrophe waiting to happen, the reality is less troublesome. In France it is the French youth who are being hooligans; they happen to be of African or Moroccan descent, but make no mistake: they are born and bred Frenchmen. Immigration is not the issue - our attitude towards people is.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/immigration_disruptive_only_to.html
Monday, December 3, 2007
Eclipsed by a Fevered Minority
To the World:
Most Americans are not like Tancredo, Giuliani, and Romney!
·····
As I move around Madrid, go to stores, libraries etc. I am still surprised at the rudeness of many Spaniard. No! they aren´t all like this, but it happens often enough to leave me a little shaken.
It may be a cultural thing, but then I wonder, maybe they are angry at us because of Iraq... since the Madrid subway bombing was related to the IRAQ war that we started. Maybe they think all Americans are jerks who think they own the world (like our presidential administration?)
Well, it has been said many times, but I´m saying it again. A large percentage of Americans DID NOT want the IRAQ war, and did not vote for Bush-Cheney in either election. In fact many think the elections were stolen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scare tactics on the border
Most Americans back citizenship for illegal migrants, but are eclipsed by a fevered minority
Michael Tomasky in Washington
Monday December 3, 2007
The Guardian (London)
It may not look like it much of the time, but we Americans are a fairly reasonable people. The rugged individualist streak inherited from the frontier culture cohabits in the collective soul with a civic and communal strain that started in New England and spread from there. The strong hatred of government you hear so much about is balanced by an affection (in many cases stronger than the hatred) for many of the outcomes the government makes possible, such as the delivery of a social security cheque.
However, we're living through an age when this commonsensical balance tends to get overshadowed by a very vocal and fevered minority. On no issue is this truer than on immigration, which figures to emerge as the leading rightwing scare issue for next year's voting.
Earlier this year, Congress was, remarkably, fairly close to passing major immigration reform legislation, something that hasn't happened in Washington in 20 years. The bill's chief adherents, who had spent years working on it, were a Democrat and a Republican, Ted Kennedy and John McCain respectively. For the right, it strengthened the Mexico border with more secure fencing to keep new illegal migrants out; for the left, it offered the 12 million or so undocumented people already in the US a shot at working their way toward citizenship.
Solid majorities of my reasonable compatriots supported the bill's main provisions. According to a New York Times poll in May, for example, 67% supported renewable visas for illegal migrants, and 62% backed the more controversial notion that those in the States for at least two years should be allowed to seek legal status.
Well, the bill died. Liberals disliked certain provisions that changed a key premise of immigration policy from family reunification to employer need. But what really did the bill in was the tsunami of anger that swept across rightwing America. This, the nativists thundered, was an amnesty bill for law-breakers. It was not - amnesty means amnesty, as in all is forgiven, while the bill's provisions for securing citizenship were in fact fairly onerous.
It was a minority view - 33% in that Times poll felt that illegal migrants here for two years should be deported, as opposed to the 62% who backed a citizenship process. But it happens to be a minority that is in possession of: 1) overrepresentation in the Republican party and in Congress, which because of the way individual districts are drawn skews more conservative than the country as a whole; 2) an apoplectic propaganda network on various talk radio stations that reaches at least 25 million Americans every day; and 3) Lou Dobbs, the CNN host who is to immigration in America what, say, Peter Hitchens is to "Britishness", except that Dobbs has the more prominent pulpit of a nightly cable show from which to launch his artillery shells, and does so every single night.
And so the immigration debate as presented in the media is not about how three out of five people think a path to citizenship is an acceptable idea that is preferable to deportation; that may be true, but it's boring and lacks good visuals. So it is instead about how furious "everyone" is, which isn't necessarily true but makes far better television.
Into this maelstrom arrive our presidential candidates. The Democrats strive to represent that safe and poll-tested 62%, with the added fillip that, because of their Latino constituencies, they try to brush past any discussion of fences.
But the ground isn't always safe there. Not long ago, Hillary Clinton strolled into the propellers during a Democratic debate by taking no position (or two positions) on the question of whether illegal migrants should be able to get drivers' licences in her "home" state of New York, where the governor had proposed it. It should be noted that several other states already grant such permission, without overwhelming discord. She has since come out against such a plan. Interestingly, and perhaps riskily, Barack Obama stood by (or, based on the way he answered the question, sort of hunched by) his support for it.
On the Republican side, the two leading candidates, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are men with humane track records on immigration now running as far and fast as they can from those records. Their sparring in last Thursday night's debate about who could be tougher on illegal immigrants was as distasteful a display of pandering as we've seen all year. Mike Huckabee, the current belle of the Republican ball, has had compassionate words to say about the children of illegal migrants, though not the migrants themselves.
In sum, the Democrats represent views held by a larger percentage of the population, while the Republicans by and large are pandering to the same 33% they usually pander to. And yet, it is assumed with near unanimity here in Washington that the issue will help the Republicans next autumn, for the reasons cited above and because of the minority's intensity of feeling.
Campaigns usually win by controlling the day-to-day issue agenda. If, next November, American voters are thinking about healthcare and jobs and not seeming insane to the rest of the world, the Democrat should win. But, of course, Republicans know this. They will want Americans to be thinking about terrorism and our porous borders - preferably in tandem. Next year's Willie Horton will not be black, but brown. I hope my fellow Americans stay reasonable when he appears.
· Michael Tomasky is editor of Guardian America michael.tomasky@guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2220788,00.html
Most Americans are not like Tancredo, Giuliani, and Romney!
·····
As I move around Madrid, go to stores, libraries etc. I am still surprised at the rudeness of many Spaniard. No! they aren´t all like this, but it happens often enough to leave me a little shaken.
It may be a cultural thing, but then I wonder, maybe they are angry at us because of Iraq... since the Madrid subway bombing was related to the IRAQ war that we started. Maybe they think all Americans are jerks who think they own the world (like our presidential administration?)
Well, it has been said many times, but I´m saying it again. A large percentage of Americans DID NOT want the IRAQ war, and did not vote for Bush-Cheney in either election. In fact many think the elections were stolen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scare tactics on the border
Most Americans back citizenship for illegal migrants, but are eclipsed by a fevered minority
Michael Tomasky in Washington
Monday December 3, 2007
The Guardian (London)
It may not look like it much of the time, but we Americans are a fairly reasonable people. The rugged individualist streak inherited from the frontier culture cohabits in the collective soul with a civic and communal strain that started in New England and spread from there. The strong hatred of government you hear so much about is balanced by an affection (in many cases stronger than the hatred) for many of the outcomes the government makes possible, such as the delivery of a social security cheque.
However, we're living through an age when this commonsensical balance tends to get overshadowed by a very vocal and fevered minority. On no issue is this truer than on immigration, which figures to emerge as the leading rightwing scare issue for next year's voting.
Earlier this year, Congress was, remarkably, fairly close to passing major immigration reform legislation, something that hasn't happened in Washington in 20 years. The bill's chief adherents, who had spent years working on it, were a Democrat and a Republican, Ted Kennedy and John McCain respectively. For the right, it strengthened the Mexico border with more secure fencing to keep new illegal migrants out; for the left, it offered the 12 million or so undocumented people already in the US a shot at working their way toward citizenship.
Solid majorities of my reasonable compatriots supported the bill's main provisions. According to a New York Times poll in May, for example, 67% supported renewable visas for illegal migrants, and 62% backed the more controversial notion that those in the States for at least two years should be allowed to seek legal status.
Well, the bill died. Liberals disliked certain provisions that changed a key premise of immigration policy from family reunification to employer need. But what really did the bill in was the tsunami of anger that swept across rightwing America. This, the nativists thundered, was an amnesty bill for law-breakers. It was not - amnesty means amnesty, as in all is forgiven, while the bill's provisions for securing citizenship were in fact fairly onerous.
It was a minority view - 33% in that Times poll felt that illegal migrants here for two years should be deported, as opposed to the 62% who backed a citizenship process. But it happens to be a minority that is in possession of: 1) overrepresentation in the Republican party and in Congress, which because of the way individual districts are drawn skews more conservative than the country as a whole; 2) an apoplectic propaganda network on various talk radio stations that reaches at least 25 million Americans every day; and 3) Lou Dobbs, the CNN host who is to immigration in America what, say, Peter Hitchens is to "Britishness", except that Dobbs has the more prominent pulpit of a nightly cable show from which to launch his artillery shells, and does so every single night.
And so the immigration debate as presented in the media is not about how three out of five people think a path to citizenship is an acceptable idea that is preferable to deportation; that may be true, but it's boring and lacks good visuals. So it is instead about how furious "everyone" is, which isn't necessarily true but makes far better television.
Into this maelstrom arrive our presidential candidates. The Democrats strive to represent that safe and poll-tested 62%, with the added fillip that, because of their Latino constituencies, they try to brush past any discussion of fences.
But the ground isn't always safe there. Not long ago, Hillary Clinton strolled into the propellers during a Democratic debate by taking no position (or two positions) on the question of whether illegal migrants should be able to get drivers' licences in her "home" state of New York, where the governor had proposed it. It should be noted that several other states already grant such permission, without overwhelming discord. She has since come out against such a plan. Interestingly, and perhaps riskily, Barack Obama stood by (or, based on the way he answered the question, sort of hunched by) his support for it.
On the Republican side, the two leading candidates, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are men with humane track records on immigration now running as far and fast as they can from those records. Their sparring in last Thursday night's debate about who could be tougher on illegal immigrants was as distasteful a display of pandering as we've seen all year. Mike Huckabee, the current belle of the Republican ball, has had compassionate words to say about the children of illegal migrants, though not the migrants themselves.
In sum, the Democrats represent views held by a larger percentage of the population, while the Republicans by and large are pandering to the same 33% they usually pander to. And yet, it is assumed with near unanimity here in Washington that the issue will help the Republicans next autumn, for the reasons cited above and because of the minority's intensity of feeling.
Campaigns usually win by controlling the day-to-day issue agenda. If, next November, American voters are thinking about healthcare and jobs and not seeming insane to the rest of the world, the Democrat should win. But, of course, Republicans know this. They will want Americans to be thinking about terrorism and our porous borders - preferably in tandem. Next year's Willie Horton will not be black, but brown. I hope my fellow Americans stay reasonable when he appears.
· Michael Tomasky is editor of Guardian America michael.tomasky@guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2220788,00.html
Monday, November 26, 2007
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.
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
Monday, November 19, 2007
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
Friday, November 16, 2007
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.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2203110,00.html
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
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Reading the End of the Article is Often Worth the Effort
A few lines before the end of this Wash. Post article, the reader is informed that next week the Virginia state crime commission will vote on a proposition that includes " automatically denying bail to illegal immigrants who commit crimes unless they can prove they are not flight risks."
Even though the article is about how anti-immigration efforts by the GOP have hurt the party's chances... this bit of information right at the end is still somewhat unnerving.
How in the world can people prove they are not a flight risk? And if they can't they are denied bail? Will they end up like the people held at Guantanimo - who have no charges against them, no trials and no release? See post for November 5, 2007 "More than 30,000 Immigrant Detainees in the U.S."
Now that our senate seems to think there are no laws against waterboarding, something less complicated like the life of an undocumented immigrant will have an even less value.
Hopefully the title to the article is an accurate prediction.
-----
Losses Might Doom GOP-Led Crackdown on Illegal Immigrants
_
By Anita Kumar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 9, 2007; B05
RICHMOND, Nov. 8 -- House Republican leaders, who made immigration a centerpiece of the fall campaign, said Thursday that efforts in the Virginia General Assembly to crack down on illegal immigrants probably are doomed because of losses their party suffered in the election this week.
"It's dead on arrival," said Del. David B. Albo, (R-Fairfax), who chairs the Virginia Crime Commission, which is considering immigration proposals. "It's very disappointing."
House leaders said they still would introduce anti-illegal immigration bills, including those that would prohibit illegal immigrants from attending public colleges, require sheriffs to check immigration status and suspend the business licenses of companies that hire illegal immigrants.
They said, however, that even if the GOP-led House approves the proposals, they are not optimistic that the Senate, which will be controlled by Democrats for the first time in a decade, would consider any of them. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) has said he believes immigration policy is largely a federal issue.
"It's going to be a lot tougher," said Del. Terry G. Kilgore (R-Scott), chairman of the House Republican caucus. "I'm sure it's not on the top of [the Democrats] list. . . . But we are going to push forward."
Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax), who is poised to become majority leader in the Senate, accused Republicans of using the illegal immigration issue to try to win voters in Tuesday's legislative elections and said his chamber would not tolerate the same kind of "grandstanding." Many of the House and Senate candidates who embraced the party's stance on illegal immigration lost, including several in Northern Virginia.
Saslaw said he would consider all legislation but immigration is not one of his priorities. Instead, he would rather see lawmakers revisit the costly and contentious abusive-driver fees, the budget shortfall and education funding.
"I'm willing to look at all legislation," he said. "It doesn't mean I have to vote for it all."
More than 50 bills dealing with illegal immigration were proposed during the legislative session this year. Only seven were sent to Kaine for his signature, including increased penalties for housing violations.
Many of the bills died after they reached the Senate, which is now controlled by a group of moderate Republicans who often collaborate with Democrats. After Tuesday, Democrats have a 21-seat advantage in the 40-member chamber, with one race undecided.
Tim Freilich, legal director for the Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers, said he hopes legislators will be thoughtful when considering proposals next year.
"Unfortunately, I think there will be many proposals introduced that I would consider to be both anti-immigrant and anti-Virginia," he said. "More than 10 percent of Virginians were born outside the United States. When you hurt Virginia's immigrants you hurt Virginia."
Republicans across the state, and some Democrats in conservative districts, seized the issue this fall, unveiling countless proposals to curb illegal immigration and talking it up on the campaign trail. But many candidates who campaigned the loudest for tough sanctions against illegal immigrants did not win.
"I am hoping that the people will really understand that the election sent a message that voters don't reward them for this issue," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, who represents several immigrant groups, including the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations.
But Corey A. Stewart (R) said his election to a full term as chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors proved that many Virginians want local and state government to step in because the federal government has failed to address the country's immigration problem.
Although state and local governments can do little to resolve immigration concerns, a Washington Post poll in early October found that 53 percent of Virginians said they want state and local governments to do "a lot" to deal with illegal immigration.
Since an immigration overhaul package died in Congress this summer, several organizations in Virginia have formed to try to address illegal immigration, and several localities have acted.
Prince William voted to curtail government services to illegal immigrants, and Herndon voted to close a controversial day-laborer center frequented by many illegal immigrants. Fairfax County officials are trying to determine which county services could be denied to illegal immigrants, although they have not decided to do that.
Sen. John S. Edwards (D-Roanoke), who sits on two Senate committees that often consider immigration bills, said he could consider any proposals that come up during session next year.
"We need to look at the proposals first," he said. "Some of their ideas are preposterous. Others we could work with."
The state crime commission would consider several proposals next week, including automatically denying bail to illegal immigrants who commit crimes unless they can prove they are not flight risks, and having authorities ask all arrestees about their immigration status. A new Virginia Commission on Immigration, which also is scheduled to meet next week, will advise Kaine and the General Assembly on what, if any, state policies should be adopted to address illegal immigration.
Sen. John C. Watkins (R-Chesterfield), who chairs the commission on immigration, said he expects the issue to be debated by his group and later by the General Assembly.
"It took two years to come up with a commission and put it in place," he said. "Why did we go to all the trouble of putting the commission in place?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802078_pf.html
Even though the article is about how anti-immigration efforts by the GOP have hurt the party's chances... this bit of information right at the end is still somewhat unnerving.
How in the world can people prove they are not a flight risk? And if they can't they are denied bail? Will they end up like the people held at Guantanimo - who have no charges against them, no trials and no release? See post for November 5, 2007 "More than 30,000 Immigrant Detainees in the U.S."
Now that our senate seems to think there are no laws against waterboarding, something less complicated like the life of an undocumented immigrant will have an even less value.
Hopefully the title to the article is an accurate prediction.
-----
Losses Might Doom GOP-Led Crackdown on Illegal Immigrants
_
By Anita Kumar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 9, 2007; B05
RICHMOND, Nov. 8 -- House Republican leaders, who made immigration a centerpiece of the fall campaign, said Thursday that efforts in the Virginia General Assembly to crack down on illegal immigrants probably are doomed because of losses their party suffered in the election this week.
"It's dead on arrival," said Del. David B. Albo, (R-Fairfax), who chairs the Virginia Crime Commission, which is considering immigration proposals. "It's very disappointing."
House leaders said they still would introduce anti-illegal immigration bills, including those that would prohibit illegal immigrants from attending public colleges, require sheriffs to check immigration status and suspend the business licenses of companies that hire illegal immigrants.
They said, however, that even if the GOP-led House approves the proposals, they are not optimistic that the Senate, which will be controlled by Democrats for the first time in a decade, would consider any of them. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) has said he believes immigration policy is largely a federal issue.
"It's going to be a lot tougher," said Del. Terry G. Kilgore (R-Scott), chairman of the House Republican caucus. "I'm sure it's not on the top of [the Democrats] list. . . . But we are going to push forward."
Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax), who is poised to become majority leader in the Senate, accused Republicans of using the illegal immigration issue to try to win voters in Tuesday's legislative elections and said his chamber would not tolerate the same kind of "grandstanding." Many of the House and Senate candidates who embraced the party's stance on illegal immigration lost, including several in Northern Virginia.
Saslaw said he would consider all legislation but immigration is not one of his priorities. Instead, he would rather see lawmakers revisit the costly and contentious abusive-driver fees, the budget shortfall and education funding.
"I'm willing to look at all legislation," he said. "It doesn't mean I have to vote for it all."
More than 50 bills dealing with illegal immigration were proposed during the legislative session this year. Only seven were sent to Kaine for his signature, including increased penalties for housing violations.
Many of the bills died after they reached the Senate, which is now controlled by a group of moderate Republicans who often collaborate with Democrats. After Tuesday, Democrats have a 21-seat advantage in the 40-member chamber, with one race undecided.
Tim Freilich, legal director for the Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers, said he hopes legislators will be thoughtful when considering proposals next year.
"Unfortunately, I think there will be many proposals introduced that I would consider to be both anti-immigrant and anti-Virginia," he said. "More than 10 percent of Virginians were born outside the United States. When you hurt Virginia's immigrants you hurt Virginia."
Republicans across the state, and some Democrats in conservative districts, seized the issue this fall, unveiling countless proposals to curb illegal immigration and talking it up on the campaign trail. But many candidates who campaigned the loudest for tough sanctions against illegal immigrants did not win.
"I am hoping that the people will really understand that the election sent a message that voters don't reward them for this issue," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, who represents several immigrant groups, including the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations.
But Corey A. Stewart (R) said his election to a full term as chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors proved that many Virginians want local and state government to step in because the federal government has failed to address the country's immigration problem.
Although state and local governments can do little to resolve immigration concerns, a Washington Post poll in early October found that 53 percent of Virginians said they want state and local governments to do "a lot" to deal with illegal immigration.
Since an immigration overhaul package died in Congress this summer, several organizations in Virginia have formed to try to address illegal immigration, and several localities have acted.
Prince William voted to curtail government services to illegal immigrants, and Herndon voted to close a controversial day-laborer center frequented by many illegal immigrants. Fairfax County officials are trying to determine which county services could be denied to illegal immigrants, although they have not decided to do that.
Sen. John S. Edwards (D-Roanoke), who sits on two Senate committees that often consider immigration bills, said he could consider any proposals that come up during session next year.
"We need to look at the proposals first," he said. "Some of their ideas are preposterous. Others we could work with."
The state crime commission would consider several proposals next week, including automatically denying bail to illegal immigrants who commit crimes unless they can prove they are not flight risks, and having authorities ask all arrestees about their immigration status. A new Virginia Commission on Immigration, which also is scheduled to meet next week, will advise Kaine and the General Assembly on what, if any, state policies should be adopted to address illegal immigration.
Sen. John C. Watkins (R-Chesterfield), who chairs the commission on immigration, said he expects the issue to be debated by his group and later by the General Assembly.
"It took two years to come up with a commission and put it in place," he said. "Why did we go to all the trouble of putting the commission in place?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802078_pf.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Katie Halper
Huffington Post
Posted March 6, 2008 | 05:31 PM (EST)