Sunday, December 31, 2006
CNN Lou Dobbs - video:Criminal Alien Had Previous Arrests and Deportations Before Shooting Two Police Officers The man responsible for the chaos that followed this shooting of officers Abe Yap and Roy Wade was no stranger to Long Beach Police. A Mexican national, Oscar Gabriel Gallegos had been deported from the United States three times. Since his most recent deportation in 1996, Gallegos had at least four run-ins with Long Beach Police. So what was the criminal illegal alien doing on U.S. streets? Long Beach Police could not confirm whether they checked Gallegos' immigration status during his arrest. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says local police departments do have the ability to make those inquiries. Long Beach resident and Minuteman Project board member Marvin Stewart plans to voice his concerns to the Long Beach City Council next week. "They have a responsibility to enforce the laws of the land. They swore to do it. And they owe the people, particularly of Long Beach, a formal apology," Stewart said. Border security advocates say the message of this crime is that it could have been prevented by simply enforcing existing immigration laws. Meantime, the two wounded officers remain in critical but stable condition in a Long Beach hospital.
----Reply,
"WTF" is the best choice of words for this.
CNN Lou Dobbs - video:Troops on the Border May be Deterring Illegal ImmigrationThe use of National Guard troops to patrol the border with Mexico may be paying off. Since National Guard troops arrived at the border in a support role in June, southwest border apprehensions have plunged 34 percent, compared to the same five-month period last year. Although Guard troops aren't permitted to make arrests, illegal aliens perceive them to be more of a threat than the Border Patrol, according to a Homeland Security Department report. Still, some border security activists remain skeptical. Michael Cutler of the Center for Immigration Studies said: "Right now the National Guard on the border is nothing more than a Band-Aid, and it's a very flimsy one at that. I think it's more a matter of window dressing, and I don't think it's deterring as many illegal aliens as the president would like us to believe." But other signs indicate crossing is more difficult, including a 50 percent increase in fees charged by smugglers and complaints from farmers and others that they're struggling to find workers.
The Washington Post:
The Washington Post:
-----reply,
And they thought patrick j buchanan was nuts. Right from the start he was!!!
Friday, December 29, 2006
Rep. Tancredo Speech on floor of House of Representatives, October 9, 2001 "It is interesting to me to see what one, quote, friend, is doing for us. After the attack on September 11, scores of nations rushed to help us. One was conspicuous by its absence. That, of course, was the country of Mexico." Tancredo said. Tancredo suggested that the Hispanic Caucus, instead of trying to divide America, ask Vicente Fox to support America in its fight against terrorism. "Mexican nationalism has often been defined as anti-Americanism," Tancredo said.
Listen to above (41.5 min. total)Start -- 14:20 -- Hispanic separatism in the U.S.14:20 -- 41:30 -- Mexican anti-America
Advocates hope new Congress will reform immigration
By MIKE MADDEN
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON - Millions of immigrants marched from coast to coast demanding new rights. Small towns enforced their own statutes against undocumented residents. A fence may soon go up on the U.S.-Mexico border.
And by the end of 2006, Congress still hadn't changed one letter of U.S. immigration law.
The border practically exploded into politics this year, drawing attention from voters and lawmakers thousands of miles from the Southwest. An estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants live here already, and about half a million make it here every year, mostly from Mexico.
But for all the drama inside and outside of Washington around the issue, advocates for reforming immigration laws are again waiting to see if Congress - this time, controlled by Democrats - will be able to deliver after years of debate.
That could be more likely now. President Bush, Democratic leaders in the new Congress and a broad coalition of Latino civil rights groups, churches, labor unions and business organizations all support reforms that would make it easier for workers to come here legally and would allow most undocumented immigrants already here to get legal status.
House Republican leaders were the main obstacle to passing new immigration laws this year, refusing to negotiate with the Senate over the dramatically different bills the chambers passed. Instead, the House focused on beefing up border security without changing the underlying immigration system.
But November's elections saw several outspoken "enforcement first" candidates lose, despite their tough rhetoric, from GOP Rep. J.D. Hayworth in Arizona to GOP Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.
"I think we've got a better opportunity to get this thing done than I think we've ever had," said Marshall Fitz, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which is pressing for reforms.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he'll introduce legislation similar to the bipartisan bill the Senate passed in May as one of his top 10 priorities for the new Congress. That bill included a plan to offer millions of illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who will chair the Judiciary Committee - which will write any immigration legislation - also listed immigration reform as a chief goal for the year.
"Immigration is something that's not easy," Reid said. "But it's necessary."
Both the White House and Congress may be looking for issues where Bush and Democrats agree in an effort to start the next session without too much partisan rancor. Some observers say that could bode well for immigration reform.
"The list of major policy initiatives that this president and this Congress can agree upon is very short, and I think immigration reform is at the top of that list," said John Gay, a lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association and co-director of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, made up of trade organizations for industries that depend on immigrant labor.
Still, the issue won't be at the top of the agenda for all lawmakers.
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hasn't yet decided how or when to take up reform again, Democratic aides said. Many new House Democrats supported new border security restrictions on the campaign trail, which could complicate matters politically for Pelosi, even though lobbyists working on the issue believe a majority of the House would vote for reform.
But the stalemate this year taught advocates that they need to act fast, before election-year politics come into play, said Cecelia Munoz, vice president for advocacy at the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights group, Munoz hopes the House will take up a bill by spring in order for Congress to finish its work before 2008.
With the Bush administration already is ratcheting up border security and enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants - the two biggest busts of undocumented workers in U.S. history occurred this year - some observers say border hardliners could win by default if Congress doesn't pass new laws soon.
The crackdowns are slowing the arrival of new immigrants, even though conservative critics say the administration isn't doing enough. Already, agriculture groups are complaining that new security measures are contributing to a labor shortage.
--
Raid sparks a petition
Immigration activists seek humane system
By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News
In the wake of an immigration raid earlier this month at a Hyrum meat-packing plant, Latino community activists are working on statements and a petition drive to call for a more humane system to deal with undocumented immigrants.
The statements to be released next week will go to the governor's office and the public, along with a petition to be submitted to Congress in an effort to draw attention to the human aspects of illegal immigration and call for reform that includes some sort of guest worker program or amnesty.
Meanwhile activists against illegal immigration say there needs to be more such enforcement, and are working on their own petition drive — for a 2008 state ballot initiative to deny many state benefits to undocumented immigrants.
The raid at Swift & Co. plants in six states, including Utah, was the result of a lengthy investigation into identity theft. It netted 1,282 arrests, 145 of which were in Utah. The group will also be addressing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement through statements and possibly demonstrations in a push for arrests only of those who are the target of criminal investigations. ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said the federal agency enforces laws that are on the books. "Until those laws are changed, that is our sworn duty," she said.
But Frank Cordova, director of the Utah Coalition of La Raza, says it would have been more efficient to only arrest the 31 suspects who are now facing federal criminal charges.
"We can't sit on the fence and benefit from their labor and then call them illegal," Cordova said. "There are too many families."
The immigration debate died down earlier this year, after the House and Senate failed to come to agreement on reform. The stalemate came after Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano led a call by the Western Governors Association for comprehensive reform that would include enforcement and a guest worker program.
Huntsman said Thursday he believes the new session of Congress that convenes next week will take advantage of what he believes is a "window of opportunity" to enact the reforms sought by the governors. "That's very encouraging," Huntsman said.
As for the group's statement, the governor said he "will be happy to take a look," but the issues they're raising are federal, including enforcement.
The goal, Cordova said, will be to educate the community and to renew a call in the Democratic-led Congress for comprehensive immigration reform. Latino groups in other states are raising similar calls, he said.
"It's very complicated," Cordova said. "The reality is these folks are illegal. They really don't have any rights. ... We need to do something to alleviate all these problems."
But Alex Segura, head of the Utah Minuteman Project, said federal authorities are well within their rights to enforce the law.
"If these people possess any sort of false identification, they are violating the law," Segura said. "They are in violation of the law if they work in the United States without authorization."
Segura said the ballot initiative is still in the formative stages, but his group is looking at including language to deny state benefits, driving privileges, non-emergency hospital care, and in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants.
Immigration activists seek humane system
By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News
In the wake of an immigration raid earlier this month at a Hyrum meat-packing plant, Latino community activists are working on statements and a petition drive to call for a more humane system to deal with undocumented immigrants.
The statements to be released next week will go to the governor's office and the public, along with a petition to be submitted to Congress in an effort to draw attention to the human aspects of illegal immigration and call for reform that includes some sort of guest worker program or amnesty.
Meanwhile activists against illegal immigration say there needs to be more such enforcement, and are working on their own petition drive — for a 2008 state ballot initiative to deny many state benefits to undocumented immigrants.
The raid at Swift & Co. plants in six states, including Utah, was the result of a lengthy investigation into identity theft. It netted 1,282 arrests, 145 of which were in Utah. The group will also be addressing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement through statements and possibly demonstrations in a push for arrests only of those who are the target of criminal investigations. ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said the federal agency enforces laws that are on the books. "Until those laws are changed, that is our sworn duty," she said.
But Frank Cordova, director of the Utah Coalition of La Raza, says it would have been more efficient to only arrest the 31 suspects who are now facing federal criminal charges.
"We can't sit on the fence and benefit from their labor and then call them illegal," Cordova said. "There are too many families."
The immigration debate died down earlier this year, after the House and Senate failed to come to agreement on reform. The stalemate came after Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano led a call by the Western Governors Association for comprehensive reform that would include enforcement and a guest worker program.
Huntsman said Thursday he believes the new session of Congress that convenes next week will take advantage of what he believes is a "window of opportunity" to enact the reforms sought by the governors. "That's very encouraging," Huntsman said.
As for the group's statement, the governor said he "will be happy to take a look," but the issues they're raising are federal, including enforcement.
The goal, Cordova said, will be to educate the community and to renew a call in the Democratic-led Congress for comprehensive immigration reform. Latino groups in other states are raising similar calls, he said.
"It's very complicated," Cordova said. "The reality is these folks are illegal. They really don't have any rights. ... We need to do something to alleviate all these problems."
But Alex Segura, head of the Utah Minuteman Project, said federal authorities are well within their rights to enforce the law.
"If these people possess any sort of false identification, they are violating the law," Segura said. "They are in violation of the law if they work in the United States without authorization."
Segura said the ballot initiative is still in the formative stages, but his group is looking at including language to deny state benefits, driving privileges, non-emergency hospital care, and in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants.
Bipartisan bill planned to ease immigrants' path to citizenship
Rachel L. Swarns
New York Times News Service
Dec. 26, 2006 11:38 AM
WASHINGTON - Counting on the support of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and their Republican allies are working on measures that would place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship than would a bill the Senate passed in the spring.
The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.
The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.
Details of the bill, which would be introduced early next year, are being drafted. The lawmakers, who hope for bipartisan support, will almost certainly face pressure to compromise on the issues from some Republicans and conservative Democrats.
The proposals reflect significant shifts since the November elections, as well as critical support from the Homeland Security Department.
Proponents said the prospects for such a measure, which would include tougher border security and a guest worker plan, had markedly improved since Nov. 7.
The Senate plans to introduce its immigration bill next month with an eye toward passage in March or April, officials said. The House is expected to consider its version later. President Bush said last week that he hoped to sign an immigration bill next year.
The major lawmakers drafting the legislation include Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., along with Reps. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill. The four met this month, and their staffs have begun working on a bill.
"I'm very hopeful about this, both in terms of the substance and the politics of it," said Kennedy, the incoming chairman of the Senate Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee.
Kennedy acknowledged that there would be hurdles. But he and other lawmakers say Republicans and Democrats are now more likely to work together to repair a system widely considered broken.
House Republicans blocked consideration of the bill that passed the Senate this year, saying it amounted to an amnesty for lawbreakers and voicing confidence that a tough stance would touch off a groundswell of support in the congressional elections. The strategy largely failed.
Hispanic voters, a swing constituency that Republicans covet, abandoned the party in large numbers. Several Republican hard-liners, including Reps. John Hostettler of Indiana and J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, lost their seats. After the dismal showing, House Republicans denied F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the departing chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an architect of the House immigration approach, a senior position on any major committee in the new Congress.
Domestic security officials have voiced support for important elements of the framework under consideration. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has repeatedly raised doubts about the effectiveness of border fencing in remote desert areas. Bush signed the fence bill this year, but Congress did not appropriate enough money for it. Officials say they would also prefer a less burdensome process than the original Senate bill outlined.
That bill divided the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants into three groups, those living here for five years or more, those here for two to five years and those here for less than two years.
All but the illegal immigrants living here for five years or more, roughly 7 million, would have to leave the country briefly to be eligible for legal status. Those here for fewer than two years would have to leave the country and would not even be guaranteed a slot in a guest worker plan.
Domestic security officials said the original plan would have been enormously difficult to administer because many illegal immigrants lacked documentation to prove how long they had been in the United States.
The officials said it would have fueled a market in fraudulent documents as illegal immigrants scrambled to offer proof of residency.
The three-tiered approach would also discourage millions of illegal immigrants from registering, driving millions deeper underground.
"We do have concerns over breaking it down into that tiered system," said a domestic security official who insisted on anonymity. "When you do that, you run the risk of people trying to create false documentation that would get them the highest benefits."
Lawmakers in favor of immigration bills say that combination of factors, coupled with Bush's strong support, will provide momentum for passage next year.
Also expected to have prominent roles in the debate are Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who is likely to head the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee; Howard L. Berman, D-Calif., who has followed immigration issues closely for many years; and Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who is set to lead the House Homeland Security Committee and has said he plans to re-evaluate the 700-mile fence.
Flake described himself as optimistic, saying the elections had disabused many Republicans of the notion that opposing legalization and guest worker plans would win widespread support.
"That illusion is gone," he said.
The percentage of Hispanics who voted for Republicans fell to 29 percent, from 44 percent in 2004, and some Republicans say passing immigration bills is a crucial part of the effort to win them back.
Flake warned that some Republicans might balk at proposals like broadening the number of illegal immigrants eligible for a less burdensome path to citizenship, making passage of bipartisan legislation potentially "politically more difficult."
The prospects for a bill that contains such a proposal remain particularly uncertain in the House, where many prominent Democrats want to ensure broad bipartisan backing as part of their efforts to maintain their majority in 2008, congressional aides said.
The House Democrats are concerned about protecting newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats, some of whom had campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.
It is also unclear whether Gutierrez and Flake will produce the only House legislation on immigration and whether their plan will ultimately become the basis for the bill that emerges.
In the Senate, Kennedy's bill certainly has the backing of the Democratic leadership, congressional aides said.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, argued that expanding citizenship eligibility and abandoning financing for the fence would alienate moderates in both parties. The three-tier legalization system, a hard-fought compromise, was critical for moderate Republican support for the original bill.
The plan under consideration would allow 10 million or 11 million illegal immigrants to become eligible to apply for citizenship without returning home, up from 7 million in the original Senate bill. To be granted citizenship, they would have to remain employed, pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, and enroll in English classes.
"I think it's a nonstarter," said Cornyn, who opposes a path to citizenship for illegal workers, but supports a plan for temporary workers that would let foreigners work here temporarily before returning home.
Congressional aides and lawyers familiar with the proposed bills emphasize that it will be very difficult for a smaller group of illegal immigrants, those who arrived after a certain date, perhaps 2004, to become citizens.
The aides said the bill might include incentives for illegal immigrants to leave the country. Some powerful unions, which expect to exert more leverage in the new Congress, remain deeply opposed to the temporary worker program in the Senate bill. The unions say it threatens American jobs.
Officials at the AFL-CIO say they can scuttle such a plan next year, even though Bush and businesses say it is critical to ensure an adequate labor force.
There is also the political clock to consider. Supporters of immigration measures acknowledge that the prospects for a bipartisan bill will dim significantly if a bill is not passed before the presidential primaries of 2008 are in full swing.
Some congressional aides and immigrants' advocates worry about the commitment of McCain, a likely presidential candidate in 2008.
McCain has long supported legalization that would not require illegal immigrants to leave the United States. Some advocates fear that his ambitions may lead to a shifting of that stance to avoid alienating moderate Republicans.
A spokeswoman for McCain said last week that he would not comment on the bill being drafted.
Many lawmakers say their hope is growing that Congress will pass an immigration bill next year.
"There are going to be hard choices that are going to be made, because we need to build a bipartisan, broad-based coalition," said Gutierrez, who leads the House Democratic immigration group. "But I'm hopeful that in the environment in which we're working now we can get it done."
Over 14% of Mexican Workers Now Work in the U.S. According to a recent report by the Migration Policy Institute, a libral think tank in washington, one in seven Mexican workers -- or 14.28% -- have left their country and are now working in the United States. There were more than 7 million workers from Mexico in the U.S. labor force this year, 2 million more than six years ago, said Jeanne Batalova, author of the report. Up to 9.4 percent of the all persons born in Mexico were living in the United States in 2005, according to the report. In the same year, 14 percent of Mexican workers had jobs on U.S. soil, compared to 2.5 percent of Canadians. Based on data from the Census Bureau's 2006 Current Population Survey, Batalova found that Mexicans accounted for nearly one-third of the 22.6 million foreign-born workers in the United States, or almost 5 percent of the total civilian labor force. More than 11 million illegal immigrants, most of them from Mexico, live in the United States, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, another think tank in Washington that follows immigration trends.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
St. George Residents Take Stand Against Illegal Immigration
December 28th, 2006 @ 2:40pm
Andrew Adams Reporting
A new group of illegal immigration watchdogs is setting up shop in Utah's Dixie.
It's actually a new branch of the minutemen. St. George resident Vic Shade is starting it up, saying it's time to take steps in that community.
Vic Shade: "It's beginning to foment. I'm trying to get things cooled down in a good way, and get this settled down somehow."
Shade says rather than recruit for a volunteer border patrol, he wants the St. George group to focus on legal means of solving illegal immigration problems. He says he'd like to get people voted out of office who aren't supporting the legal citizens of this country.
Hispanic community leaders say they aren't scared by another anti-illegal immigration voice in Utah.
December 28th, 2006 @ 2:40pm
Andrew Adams Reporting
A new group of illegal immigration watchdogs is setting up shop in Utah's Dixie.
It's actually a new branch of the minutemen. St. George resident Vic Shade is starting it up, saying it's time to take steps in that community.
Vic Shade: "It's beginning to foment. I'm trying to get things cooled down in a good way, and get this settled down somehow."
Shade says rather than recruit for a volunteer border patrol, he wants the St. George group to focus on legal means of solving illegal immigration problems. He says he'd like to get people voted out of office who aren't supporting the legal citizens of this country.
Hispanic community leaders say they aren't scared by another anti-illegal immigration voice in Utah.
–Reply,
Yet another group starting to take action;Great stuff!
The pot is on high and boy is it boiling over! HooRaa to Utah!!
Yet another group starting to take action;Great stuff!
The pot is on high and boy is it boiling over! HooRaa to Utah!!
A Year End Message from FAIR
Now that Congress has finally adjourned for a few weeks, it seems fitting that we take a break from our normal routine here at FAIR to reflect on the progress of immigration reform over 109th Congress. And in reviewing the events of the last two years, it is clear that our lawmakers talked a great deal, but achieved few results. This was mainly because the entire immigration debate was saddled by proposals to enact a mass amnesty and reward those who have broken the law. Sadly, the 109th Congress yet again missed an opportunity to pass an immigration reform agenda that we all believe will truly serve our national interest.
Looking at the bright side, it is clear that the biggest success of the 109th Congress was accomplished not in Washington, D.C., but at the grassroots level with the extraordinary mobilization of true immigration reform advocates. Across the United States, FAIR activists educated themselves on the issue, the legislation, and the quickly-changing political environment as never before. Armed with information, FAIR activists and members by the tens of thousands called their Representatives and Senators to oppose amnesty and advocate true enforcement measures. As Congress was on the brink of passing the largest amnesty in American history, these actions made the difference in stopping what some considered the inevitable. We were successful then and, with your continued dedication, we can be again in 2007!
Indeed, this year there were some gains in the enforcement arena. Congress authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, the hiring of more law enforcement agents, and the creation of more detention space. In addition, Congress passed the REAL ID Act to improve the uniformity and integrity of driver's licenses issued throughout the United States. These were all reforms that FAIR advocated and fought for on Capitol Hill.
Unfortunately, while the passage of these measures suggests progress, it is entirely uncertain whether they will bear fruit. First, the funding for these reforms is by no means certain. For example, Congress only authorized about $1.2 billion needed for fencing, an amount proponents say will actually only build about 390 miles. Ongoing funding is also needed for the creation of detention space and the hiring and training of law enforcement agents. And, even if lawmakers are dedicated to funding these reforms, it will take at least a couple of years to see results. Finally, the incoming Congress and the election of many new members creates further uncertainty with respect to these enforcement reforms and any others on FAIR's agenda. Some members of Congress have publicly stated they intend to revisit immigration-related legislation passed in the 109th Congress (specifically the Secure Fence Act) and make adjustments where deemed necessary. This does not bode well for reformers who supported their passage in the first place.
In the area of legal immigration, the 109th Congress can claim no progress whatsoever. No action was taken on the urgent need to limit and roll back immigration, no action was taken to eliminate abuse in the refugee and asylum program, and an immense backlog still exists in processing immigration applications due to slow-moving background checks. Meanwhile, in the last waning hours of the session, Congress managed to pass special interest language extending three guest worker programs. These programs allow nurses, doctors, and certain skilled individuals to work in the United States and compete with U.S. workers.
We can and must do better! In the coming weeks, FAIR will release its legislative agenda for the 110th Congress. At this moment, however, I want you to know that we are all dedicated to working with both Democrats and Republicans as we advocate for true immigration reform in the 110th Congress. Political pundits may spin the November elections in many ways, but the election of enforcement-oriented Democrats across the country proves that true immigration reformers have friends in both parties. It is with this bi-partisan support that we will work hard to move our agenda forward.
Finally, I would like to thank you for your hard work and support. You are the key to our success.
Happy New Year —There's more at stake than ever in 2007!
Dan Stein,
President
Government Claims Guard HelpingWian: ...Border Patrol apprehensions are the best available indicator of attempted illegal entries into the United States. Since National Guard troops arrived at the border in a support role in June, southwest border apprehensions have plunged 34 percent, compared to the same five-month period last year. ....Cutler: Right now the National Guard on the border is nothing more than a Band-Aid, and it's a very flimsy one at that. Watch Transcript
Associated Press via KVOA-TVArrests of illegal immigrants at border down more than 11 percent
Drop in apprehensions meaninglessWatch "The Truth About the Border" -- by American Border Patrol
Associated Press via KVOA-TVArrests of illegal immigrants at border down more than 11 percent
Drop in apprehensions meaninglessWatch "The Truth About the Border" -- by American Border Patrol
Chicago church housing illegal immigrant mom fears raid imminent
December 28, 2006 (CHICAGO) - Members of a storefront church said Wednesday they fear U.S. authorities plan to raid their building and arrest an illegal immigrant who has taken refuge there.
Adalberto United Methodist Church has sheltered Elvira Arellano and her 8-year-old son, Saul, since August. Arellano sought sanctuary at the West Side church after she was ordered deported, saying she didn't want to be separated from her son, a U.S. citizen.
The Rev. Walter Coleman said neighborhood residents reported seeing U.S. marshals taking photos of the church Tuesday night. But Mark Gregoline, deputy U.S. marshal for northern Illinois, said Wednesday that his agency is not involved in the case.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Carl Rusnok said he had heard the same rumors Wednesday, but said his agency was not involved in surveillance, either. Agency officials have said Arellano's case is not a high priority, but there is nothing to prevent them from arresting her.
Church members -- who keep the glass doors chained and covered with heavy curtains -- said they will resume a 24-hour vigil that includes prayer and standing watch at windows and doors and from the rooftop.
They said the recent multistate raids at Swift & Co. meatpacking plants and the arrest two weeks ago of Martin Barrios, a Berwyn factory worker who'd been featured in a Chicago Sun-Times article, made them even more fearful for Arellano.
"To carry out these raids in this holy season, separating families who have no criminal records, who have done nothing wrong, who have been workers and taxpayers and whose children are U.S. citizens ... for that to happen now is inexplicable to me," Coleman said.
Coleman said church members wouldn't resist in the event of a raid.
"We are going to pray; that is the only weapon we have," he said.
Arellano is a former cleaning woman at O'Hare International Airport convicted of using a false Social Security number.
The church has asked the Bush administration to suspend deportation of illegal immigrants with U.S.-born children until Congress passes an immigration reform bill. In November, Saul Arellano traveled to Mexico and successfully lobbied its Chamber of Deputies to call on the U.S. Congress to suspend such deportations.
Health-Costs for Immigrants Have Become National Issue
Los Angeles (AP) -- More than 100,000 undocumented women each year bear children in California with expenses paid by Medi-Cal, according to state reports.
Such births and related expenses account for more than $400 million of the nearly $1 billion that the program spends annually on health care for illegal immigrants in California, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing official records.
California long has been one of the more generous states in offering such benefits to illegal immigrants, covering everything from pregnancy tests to postpartum checkups.
Many illegal immigrants who might otherwise shy away from government services view care associated with childbirth as safe to seek.
``I wasn't afraid at all,'' said Sandra Andrade, an illegal immigrant from Colombia who recently gave birth at a Los Angeles hospital. ``I'd always heard that pregnant women are treated well here.''
Nationally, a debate is simmering about the costs of providing medical care to illegal immigrants.
Anti-illegal immigration groups argue that ``birthright'' U.S. citizenship for babies born in America is an incentive for illegal immigrants to have their children here.
``I think most Americans think that while they certainly don't want to do anything to harm children you cannot have a policy that says anybody in the world come here and have a baby and we have a new American,'' said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation of American Immigration Reform, an immigration control group based in Washington, D.C.
Prenatal care is one of the most controversial aspects of providing health care to illegal immigrants.
While labor and delivery long have been considered emergencies, entitled to some federal reimbursement, federal officials have often balked at covering prenatal care. Generally, the state and federal governments share the cost of Medicaid programs, called Medi-Cal in California.
Advocates of such coverage say it's cheaper to pay for prenatal care than risk complications that could saddle the government with huge medical bills.
``Without prenatal care, there's a serious risk that a child will be born with severe disabilities,'' said Lucy Quacinella, a lobbyist for the Los Angeles-based social service nonprofit group Maternal and Child Health Access. ``The cost of caring for that child over a lifetime is astronomical when you compare the cost of having provided the prenatal care.''
Still, investing in pregnant illegal immigrants is costly.
Births and prenatal care are the biggest single outlay by Medi-Cal for illegal immigrants' health care, with the rest going for various other emergency treatments, limited breast and cervical cancer treatment, abortions and some nursing home care, according to the state.
In Los Angeles County's public and private hospitals, undocumented women accounted for 41,240 Medi-Cal births in 2004, roughly half the deliveries covered by the public program.
In the four county-run hospitals alone, undocumented women and their newborns will receive more than $20 million in delivery, recovery, nursery and neonatal ICU services this year, according to a county estimate.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Consensus solution: The Secure Fence Act of 2006Vote in House: 67% ayeVote in Senate: 81% ayeSigned by the President 10/26/06 Watch: Segments 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6See Jobs Americans Won't Do
---Reply,
Just shocking crap! America is a great place "Specially" if your illegal!
15 Mexico citizens are indicted
Charges stem from raid at Hyrum meat-packing plant
By Linda Thomson and Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News
Federal indictments were handed down Wednesday for 15 Mexico citizens who were among 145 people arrested in last Tuesday's raid at the Swift & Co. meat-packing plant in Hyrum. Some of those arrested are also facing state criminal charges.
One indictment was sealed; the 14 others allege such crimes as identity theft, false use of a Social Security number, sale of citizenship papers and illegal use of documents for employment.
The arrests emerged after federal officials grew suspicious about massive identity theft that led to raids at Swift plants in Utah, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota and Iowa.
In all, 1,282 people were arrested in what was called "Operation Wagon Train." Some are not facing criminal charges, but face deportation.
Among those who were indicted in Utah Wednesday are: Araceli Anguiano-Estrada, 25; Silvia Munoz-Fuentes, 47; Samuel Beltran Flores, 19; Juan Chavez-Alvarado, 25; Jesus Estrada-Trujillo, 52; Ignacio Sanchez-Medina, 20; Juan Ocampo-Ocampo, 40; Federico Pedraza-Santa Maria, 33; Alejandro Rodriguez-Velasquez, 19.
All but Anguiano-Estrada and Munoz-Fuentes are in custody.
Each has been indicted on use of unlawfully obtained documents for employment; use of false identification for employment eligibility verification; aggravated identity theft; and false use of a Social Security number.
Others who were indicted include Jesus Tafolla-Biana, 23, and Auturo Alegria-Murillo, 24, who are in custody. They have been indicted on unauthorized re-entry by a deported alien; use of unlawfully obtained documents for employment; use of false identification for employment eligibility verification; aggravated identity theft, and false use of a Social Security number.
The remaining three individuals are: Maria Jesus Satoya-Almanza, 28; Enrique Barriga-Sanchez, 28; and Sandra Moreno-Candanedo, 32. They were indicted on fraudulent use of means of identification. They are in custody, except for Santoya-Almanza.
In addition, two other people, Eleuterio Gutierrez, 48, (a U.S. citizen and resident of Texas) and Veronica Carrillo, 41, (a Mexico citizen) were charged last week with sale of citizenship papers and aggravated identity theft. Carrillo is in custody; Gutierrez is at large.
Some people who were arrested in last week's raid are being charged with identity fraud and/or forgery in Utah's state district court, rather than federal court.
"By tomorrow, there probably will be 78 and there may be several more," pending further investigations, said Tony Baird, chief prosecutor for the Cache County Attorney's Office.
Baird said there also could be more arrests: "They were not able to pick up everyone they had an arrest warrant for."
Meanwhile, Wednesday, about two dozen protesters rallied and prayed outside the Federal Building in Salt Lake to show their support for the arrested workers.
"We believe that any time workers are struggling they should support each other," said Julie Holzner of the United Steel Workers Local 12-593. "That's what we're doing."
Across the street, Michelle Herzog was among a handful of Utah Minuteman Project members out to support continued crackdowns on illegal immigration. "It's very scary that our identity could be stolen by other people who are not legally in this country," she said.
Federal law enforcement officials say most people caught up in the raid will not be charged with crimes, but their situations will be handled administratively and they could be deported.
In Utah, 114 arrests were for administrative matters related to immigration status, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It remained unclear how many of those 114 remain in federal custody, or if any now face criminal charges.
ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley said information wasn't immediately available on how many had taken the option of "voluntary removal," which does not count as a deportation, rather than face a hearing. Haley said she also didn't have information on whether ICE had released any of those arrested, pending a hearing, or if they all remained in custody.
If any of those detained opted for a hearing, their case would be handed over to the Executive Office of Immigration Review under the Department of Justice. Agency spokeswoman Elaine Komis said she couldn't provide information on specific cases without knowing alien numbers, which is how the agency tracks cases.
Komis said, in general, an immigration judge considers two questions: Whether a person is removable under immigration law and if the person is eligible for relief of removal.
While the most common request is by those seeking asylum from persecution in their homeland, non-permanent residents who meet several criteria may also seek relief.
Those criteria include good moral character, living in the United States for at least 10 years, and demonstrating that removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" for an immediate family member who is a citizen or legal permanent resident.
Manuel Morodo, consul for the Department of Protection for the Salt Lake Mexican Consulate, said some of those arrested will face deportation hearings today.
Based on the latest information he had, Morodo said 24 of the roughly 130 Mexican nationals arrested have been returned to Mexico. Morodo said about 11 people have been released, seven of those at the consulate's request. Those individuals granted temporary relief are mostly single mothers or pregnant women, who must still appear before an immigration court.
"We will have to wait," he said. "The authorities are following their own legal procedures."
The aftermath of these recent raids has been swift and vocal:
• Pro-Hispanic advocates have decried the government's actions, which have broken up families just before Christmas, and members of the Hispanic community are worried about relatives who have been detained and also the children of those arrested.
• People opposed to illegal immigration have insisted the raids were warranted because identity theft, forgery and immigrating to the U.S. illegally are criminal actions that should not be tolerated.
• Eighteen former Swift employees, all of whom are U.S. citizens, have sued the company for $23 million, claiming that the firm conspired to deliberately hire illegal workers to keep wages low. Swift has denied the charge.
• Some groups are questioning why Swift has not had any charges brought against the company, which knew in advance of the raid and tried unsuccessfully to get a federal judge to stop it.
• All six Swift plants are operating, although there was an interval of reduced productivity immediately following the raids. Swift employs about 15,000 workers in the U.S.
E-mail: lindat@desnews.com; dbulkeley@desnews.com
The New York Times:Low-Wage Workers From Mexico Dominate Latest Great Wave of Immigrants The calculation Mexican immigrants make is simple: there are jobs across the border at wages that are much higher than in Mexico. In the United States new Mexican immigrants mostly earn poverty wages by American standards, a median income of only $300 a week, the Pew Hispanic Center reported last year. But that is as much as four times what they would make for similar work at home. While Mexicans are coming in ever larger numbers, their legal avenues have not expanded. One result is that Mexican families often have mixed immigration status. There might, say, be a legal resident mother and an illegal father with children who are American citizens because they were born in the United States. For Mexican immigrants the ties of family and religious faith are often more compelling than national allegiance. When immigrants first arrive, they rely on relatives already established in this country to give them shelter and steer them to jobs. Mexicans sent back $20 billion last year to aid families at home, the Inter-American Development Bank reported.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Dallas suburb sued over anti-immigration lawANABELLE GARAY
Associated Press
DALLAS - Two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a suburb's new law that outlaws renting to illegal immigrants, alleging the ordinance violates federal law and forces landlords to act as immigration officers.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed the suit on behalf of Farmers Branch residents and landlords.
The law, along with a measure that made English the official language of the city, was passed in November and is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 12.
The lawsuit claims the ordinance is so poorly drafted that it excludes even legal immigrants from renting in the city just north of Dallas.
"Immigration enforcement must be left to the federal government, not each local municipality," said Lisa Graybill, legal director of the ACLU of Texas. "Otherwise Texas will end up with a patchwork system that is impractical and unenforceable."
Farmers Branch spokesman Tom Bryson said the city will not comment on pending litigation. City leaders had expected legal challenges like the one filed Tuesday, which is the third brought against the city since the ordinance passed.
"I don't know if there is any real expectation of what would be coming down the pipe and what wouldn't," Bryson said.
On Friday, three apartment complexes filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to halt the renter law from going into effect, saying it should be declared unconstitutional.
In November, City Council members unanimously approved having property managers or owners verify the immigration or citizenship status of apartment renters. Council members also approved resolutions making English the city's official language and allowing local authorities to become part of a federal program so they can enforce immigration laws.
In another lawsuit filed this month, a Farmers Branch resident alleged that the city's mayor repeatedly violated the state's open meetings laws to deliberate the ordinances.
Opponents of the ordinances have also submitted a petition that they hope will force a vote on the measures. If at the city verifies at least 726 of the signatures, a public vote is expected in May.
Since 1970, Farmers Branch has changed from a small, predominantly white bedroom community with a declining population to a city of almost 28,000 people, about 37 percent of them Hispanic, according to the census. It also is home to more than 80 corporate headquarters and more than 2,600 small and mid-size firms, many of them minority-owned.
More than 50 municipalities nationwide have considered, passed or rejected similar laws, but until now that trend hasn't been matched in the Lone Star State.
Associated Press
DALLAS - Two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a suburb's new law that outlaws renting to illegal immigrants, alleging the ordinance violates federal law and forces landlords to act as immigration officers.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed the suit on behalf of Farmers Branch residents and landlords.
The law, along with a measure that made English the official language of the city, was passed in November and is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 12.
The lawsuit claims the ordinance is so poorly drafted that it excludes even legal immigrants from renting in the city just north of Dallas.
"Immigration enforcement must be left to the federal government, not each local municipality," said Lisa Graybill, legal director of the ACLU of Texas. "Otherwise Texas will end up with a patchwork system that is impractical and unenforceable."
Farmers Branch spokesman Tom Bryson said the city will not comment on pending litigation. City leaders had expected legal challenges like the one filed Tuesday, which is the third brought against the city since the ordinance passed.
"I don't know if there is any real expectation of what would be coming down the pipe and what wouldn't," Bryson said.
On Friday, three apartment complexes filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to halt the renter law from going into effect, saying it should be declared unconstitutional.
In November, City Council members unanimously approved having property managers or owners verify the immigration or citizenship status of apartment renters. Council members also approved resolutions making English the city's official language and allowing local authorities to become part of a federal program so they can enforce immigration laws.
In another lawsuit filed this month, a Farmers Branch resident alleged that the city's mayor repeatedly violated the state's open meetings laws to deliberate the ordinances.
Opponents of the ordinances have also submitted a petition that they hope will force a vote on the measures. If at the city verifies at least 726 of the signatures, a public vote is expected in May.
Since 1970, Farmers Branch has changed from a small, predominantly white bedroom community with a declining population to a city of almost 28,000 people, about 37 percent of them Hispanic, according to the census. It also is home to more than 80 corporate headquarters and more than 2,600 small and mid-size firms, many of them minority-owned.
More than 50 municipalities nationwide have considered, passed or rejected similar laws, but until now that trend hasn't been matched in the Lone Star State.
Anti-gang injunction polarizes a town
West Sacramento's experience may hold lesson for S.F., which has adopted similar strategy
- Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
(12-26) 04:00 PST West Sacramento -- A police officer stopped Robert Sanchez one night in April as he walked near his home in this blue-collar city, though Sanchez wasn't suspected of committing a crime.
Sanchez, 18, admitted he was a member of the Norteño gang, the officer said. He also wore a gang tattoo and was with another Norteño, his sister's fiance.
"You are being served with a permanent gang injunction," the officer told him.
With that, Sanchez lost the right to move freely in his neighborhood. He's now prohibited indefinitely from hanging out with more than 125 other alleged Norteños, some of them relatives, in a wide swath of the city. He must also obey other restrictions, including a 10 p.m. curfew.
The court injunction against the Norteño "Broderick Boys," named for the neighborhood where many of them live, has stirred controversy since a judge issued it nearly two years ago, dividing residents who feel safer because of it from those who see it as racial profiling.
West Sacramento's experience may be a lesson for San Francisco, where City Attorney Dennis Herrera secured the city's first anti-gang injunction last month and is preparing to ask for more.
Herrera's action against the Oakdale Mob is narrower than the West Sacramento injunction, applying to a housing project in Bayview-Hunters Point instead of a 3-square-mile "safe zone" in West Sacramento. But it raises many of the same legal and cultural issues.
The toughest question is whether the injunctions work well enough to justify their rigidity.
"It's absolutely worked," said Jeff Reisig, the Yolo County prosecutor who sought the injunction before his successful run this year to become district attorney. "The fact that San Francisco has decided to pursue a gang injunction is telling. This works, and it's legal."
Taking a break from his custodial job at a West Sacramento elementary school, Danny Velez, 56, said the injunction hurt his son, even though the 15-year-old has nothing to do with the Norteños.
"Ever since this injunction, it's been pure hell to raise a son. They've been profiled and segregated," Velez said of young Latinos. "He's constantly harassed about whether he's in a gang, by teachers and by police."
Sanchez, who is on probation for a robbery conviction, concedes he is a member of the Norteños("Northerners"), one of two prison-based gangs that have warred since the 1960s. Rival Sureños ("Southerners") are often newer arrivals to the country. Norteños claim the color red; Sureños wear blue.
Sanchez is looking for work and says he grudgingly complies with the injunction. But at some point, he said, he'll inevitably violate one of the rules.
"I'm going to get in trouble like I was banging," he said, "when I'm not banging anymore."
West Sacramento's safe zone covers roughly one-seventh of the city, including the heavily Mexican American and Russian American neighborhoods of Broderick and Bryte, across the Sacramento River from the state capital. Latinos make up 30 percent of the city's 45,000 people.
Once an industrial backwater isolated by the river, West Sacramento started growing after residents voted to incorporate in 1987 and the city improved roads and water supplies. When the Oakland A's minor-league affiliate built a ballpark seven years ago, it chose West Sacramento.
Some residents, like Ray Martinez, are excited about the growth. "Cleaning up the neighborhood is good," said Martinez, 48, a floor designer who lives in Broderick. "If it wasn't for the real estate market, I don't think the police would be doing this."
Others think gentrification is harming longtime residents and refer to a wall that separates Broderick from a housing development called the Rivers as the "Great Wall of Divide."
"What we've learned is you follow the money," said Rebecca Sandoval, a Sacramento activist who has organized injunction opponents. "Wherever the developers go, up comes an injunction."
Reisig, the county prosecutor, said development had nothing to do with the suit he filed in December 2004. It called the Broderick Boys the city's "most powerful criminal street gang," with 350 members acting in packs to deal drugs, rob and assault.
In a move that still angers opponents, prosecutors gave notice of the suit to just one alleged member, and he lived in Rancho Cordova, 15 miles away. Reisig wrote in a court filing that the alleged Norteño, Billy Wolfington, would spread the word to compatriots.
Wolfington didn't show up in court to contest the injunction, however, and neither did any other alleged members of the gang. With no opposition in attendance, Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner granted a permanent injunction on Feb. 3, 2005.
Police have since served about 130 alleged Norteños, said Lt. David Farmer. The group, which includes some women and non-Latino whites, also was placed in a gang database accessible to police around the state.
In San Francisco, attorneys say they will file evidence in court against alleged Oakdale Mob members before serving them. But in West Sacramento, police officers carry papers so they can serve people on the spot who fit criteria such as admitting Norteño membership or having visible gang tattoos.
The result has been a polarizing debate. Reisig wrote in a filing that "nobody who lives in the safety zone is immune from a random and violent assault by the Broderick Boys," an assertion rejected as too strong by many city leaders and residents.
"It's not as though you couldn't walk down the streets of Broderick without being gunned down," said Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, who supports the injunction.
West Sacramento recorded two homicides last year; San Francisco had 96, or about three times as many per capita.
The primary victims of Norteños, many residents said, were teenagers who were recruited or attacked for being Sureños -- even if they weren't. West Sacramento has some Sureños, but they are not subject to the injunction.
"Three or four years ago, it was pretty bad. If you walked to the store, they'd ask you what gang you're representing, and you had to be very careful," said Antonio Ramirez, 21, a construction worker who lives in Broderick. "Usually it's not only one (gang member who approaches), but around six or seven."
Ramirez emigrated from Mexico in 2000 and said he was soon threatened because he had Sureño friends. As a result, he said, he dropped out of West Sacramento's River City High School as a junior. He said he believes the injunction has made a positive difference.
But some injunction opponents say there is no such thing as the Broderick Boys, and that the injunction singles out people who aren't connected by a chain of command.
Martha Garcia, a former state worker who heads the anti-injunction Americans for Freedom, said those who have been served are either "wannabes," or Norteños who participate in the gang only in prison, or people who did nothing worse than grow up together in a hardscrabble neighborhood.
Lt. Farmer acknowledged that not everyone who has been served with the injunction is a Broderick Boy. Some on the list, like Sanchez, grew up elsewhere.
"It really had to do with Norteños," Farmer said. "It's like throwing a net out in the ocean, and you're trying to catch salmon. You're going to catch other fish."
Prosecutors and police reject the argument that a person can be a Norteño but not be involved in crime, saying the gang itself is an organized criminal enterprise.
Mayor Cabaldon called the argument that no gang exists "an unfortunate tactic" that "distracted from the question of how we can make this as surgical as possible to avoid problems."
Garcia's nephew, Richard "Trino" Savala, said his aunt's assertions contradict his own experience. A former boxer who became a gang and addiction counselor after serving time in prison, he said he was one of the original Broderick Boys in the 1970s, when he sold drugs and was shot twice.
The Broderick Boys, he said, started with young men drawn to Cesar Chavez's farm labor movement but became more powerful, aggressive and violent.
"Over the years, homeboys kept coming out of prison and promoting this stuff to their little boys and cousins and nephews," said Savala, who left the gang in 2000. "The goal was to put fear in the neighborhood and allow them to profit from selling drugs."
Savala said some people, including his brother, have been unfairly served with the injunction, but he still had harsh words for opponents of the action.
"They're in so much denial," he said. "You have parents who want to point the finger at the police and the schools. They need to open their eyes."
The legal questions in the case have been as intense as the cultural debate. One involves an "opt-out" application offered by police. Those served with the court order can sign a form saying they "renounce any actual or alleged membership" with the Broderick Boys or Norteños. With police approval, they can escape the injunction's restrictions.
Just three people served with the injunction have opted out, Farmer said. Injunction opponents say the reason is simple: The form is an implicit confession.
Robert Sanchez said he wouldn't sign the form because he would be considered a snitch.
"That's paperwork on you," he said. "You're going to get f -- up by your own homies."
The American Civil Liberties Union has tried to fight the injunction, representing four men who said they weren't given fair notice of the initial hearing. A judge, though, said the ACLU couldn't represent the gang's interests if its clients claimed they weren't members. An appeal is pending.
"You don't want to go to court and concede one of the main points they have to prove," ACLU attorney Jory Steele said.
Whether the injunction has made the community safer is difficult to determine. Yolo County Public Defender Barry Melton said the strategy has worked "to some degree. But if I imposed a curfew in the Tenderloin, crime would go down there, too. It's been used more than anything else for monitoring, to stop folks and control them."
Farmer said crime is down in Broderick but said he could not give statistics. Reisig said violent crime prosecutions of Broderick Norteños dropped 80 percent in the year after the injunction.
Reisig said he has prosecuted more than 75 violations of the injunction; one person served 90 days. Melton said two fathers were detained for attending the same youth baseball game, an account Farmer called inaccurate.
Police and opponents disagree on whether officers are honoring the injunction's exceptions for school and church, or traveling to legitimate business and entertainment activities at night.
Standing outside his apartment with family members on a recent afternoon, Sanchez said the injunction was not reforming Norteños. He suggested, though, that it might have some benefit for West Sacramento.
"Hell no, people are just getting smarter," he said. "They're taking it to Sacramento."
His 17-year-old brother, Angel -- who sipped from a 40-ounce bottle of malt liquor -- and his sister's fiance, Jesse Contreras Jr., 20, each said they had been served with papers.
"How can I provide for my family?" asked Contreras, a warehouseman whose fiancee is seven months pregnant. "What if we run out of diapers at 11 at night and I have to go to the store?"
Each said it was hard for young men to avoid Norteño membership when, in Contreras' words, "it's all around you. It's never OK to bang, but you grow up in it."
By continuing to identify themselves as Norteños, they said, they were not admitting to being involved in crime.
"You're still where you're from," said Contreras, who wore a striped red polo shirt common among Norteños, "but you're not acting stupid anymore."
----Reply,
Welcome to California!
Brokaw On Immigration: Neither Wall, Nor US Teens at $16-hr, Will Work
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on December 26, 2006 - 08:11.
Appearing on this Boxing Day edition of the Today show to plug tonight's airing of "In the Shadow of the American Dream," the latest in the “Tom Brokaw Reports” series, the former Nightly News anchor offered a variety of views on the subject of illegal immigration straight out of the amnesty-crowd playbook.
View video here.
Annotated excerpts:
"It's not going to work to send everybody back."
Why not? And if sending illegals home isn't the solution, how about drying up the jobs here so they will have their own motivation to return home?
"I don't think you can build the highest wall in the world and it will stop them from coming."
Really? How much would it cost to build, say, a high-tech, 20-foot tall/20-foot deep fence along the border, and how much of the illegal immigration would it stop? I'm guessing a lot.
"They're filling jobs that Americans don't want to fill anymore."
Ah, the classic formulation. But says who, and at what wages?
"You can't get high school kids to earn $14-16 to dig ditches and carry bricks and do the hard work. They don't want to do it. They'd rather be at their computer or work in fast food stores."
Really? High school kids won't work for $16/hour and would rather flip burgers for half that? Data please, Tom.
"The other part of it is, we can't do this alone. Mexico has to play a big part of this. And Mexico is not much interested because these illegal immigrants across America are sending back an estimated $8 billion a year. So it's going to take, I think, the good efforts of all parties to get this resolved and Mexico has to be a big piece of that."
Except you just said - and history proves - that Mexico doesn't want to solve the problem. Which makes it our problem. To quote Mark Steyn, this sounds like a job for America, alone.
UPDATE: In claiming that Mexican immigrants remit $8 billion/year to Mexico, Brokaw understates the figure by a factor of three, according to this recent WaPo article. H/T to FReeper TomGuy.
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on December 26, 2006 - 08:11.
Appearing on this Boxing Day edition of the Today show to plug tonight's airing of "In the Shadow of the American Dream," the latest in the “Tom Brokaw Reports” series, the former Nightly News anchor offered a variety of views on the subject of illegal immigration straight out of the amnesty-crowd playbook.
View video here.
Annotated excerpts:
"It's not going to work to send everybody back."
Why not? And if sending illegals home isn't the solution, how about drying up the jobs here so they will have their own motivation to return home?
"I don't think you can build the highest wall in the world and it will stop them from coming."
Really? How much would it cost to build, say, a high-tech, 20-foot tall/20-foot deep fence along the border, and how much of the illegal immigration would it stop? I'm guessing a lot.
"They're filling jobs that Americans don't want to fill anymore."
Ah, the classic formulation. But says who, and at what wages?
"You can't get high school kids to earn $14-16 to dig ditches and carry bricks and do the hard work. They don't want to do it. They'd rather be at their computer or work in fast food stores."
Really? High school kids won't work for $16/hour and would rather flip burgers for half that? Data please, Tom.
"The other part of it is, we can't do this alone. Mexico has to play a big part of this. And Mexico is not much interested because these illegal immigrants across America are sending back an estimated $8 billion a year. So it's going to take, I think, the good efforts of all parties to get this resolved and Mexico has to be a big piece of that."
Except you just said - and history proves - that Mexico doesn't want to solve the problem. Which makes it our problem. To quote Mark Steyn, this sounds like a job for America, alone.
UPDATE: In claiming that Mexican immigrants remit $8 billion/year to Mexico, Brokaw understates the figure by a factor of three, according to this recent WaPo article. H/T to FReeper TomGuy.
---Reply,
Is this guy on dope? Someone needs to slap some reality across this guys face! Since when did these jobs start paying $16.00 an hour? I am lost ,and last time I checked these jobs barley made minimum wage! 6-7 bucks an hour! Not $16! This guy needs to put the pipe down because we Americans are fed up with the BS! If you want the real story, you will not find the real news on NBC! Unless you like fictional news coverage, and slanted news coverage. If they actually paid a decent wage, these jobs will be filled, Its the fact that they don't! Its the big companies that want cheap labor for nothing! Just like General Electric that owns NBC. That's why you get slanted NEWS in favor for illegal aliens!As you can see from the 60 sec video clip, this guy is full of you know what! I think the best "systematic" way to solve this problem is to deport all these doped up reporters.
Stealing From Peter to Pay Pedro
Written by John Lillpop
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Fabian Nunez is a political warrior in the Reconquesta movement, a group of angry brown men and women who believe that the southwestern United States still belongs to Mexico.
Nunez and banditos of his ilk apparently have little or no regard for the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, which was ratified by both the United States and Mexican congresses in 1848. That treaty ended any and all claims that Mexico had to land now a part of the United States.
Hispanic activists like Nunez also discount American sovereignty, borders, and immigration laws as racist barriers designed solely to keep “people of color” out of America. In his view, any Latino who wants to enter America is entitled to do so when and where he or she chooses—simply because he or she is brown.
Has there ever been a more contemptible definition of racism?
Unfortunately for California and its good people, Fabian Nunez has been installed as the Speaker of the California State Assembly. This coveted position was gifted to the Nunez by Democrats eager to snare the Hispanic vote, regardless of the impact on the Golden State.
After all, power is power, and, besides, since when do Democrats give a tinker’s dam about anything but power?
Nunez’s latest legislative proposal calls for insuring all Californians, including illegal aliens who, coincidentally, just happen to be overwhelmingly from Mexico.
The speaker said that he is adamant about insuring all California children--whether they are legal residents or not. "The only document I care about for children is a clean bill of health," Nunez said, exposing his blatant disregard for American taxpayers, law, and responsible governance.
As with most liberals, Nunez also chooses to ignore the wishes of the majority of Californians who are opposed to providing public services, including health care, to those here illegally.
Most people believe that no taxpayer money--local, state, or federal--should be spent on illegal aliens. Rather, many believe that such people and their children should be returned to their nation of origin, which for the overwhelming majority is Mexico.
The Mexican government, not U.S. taxpayers, should bear the responsibility for the health and well being of Mexican citizens.
Health care will be a major issue in California in 2007. Whether or not socialists like Fabian Nunez are able to fleece California taxpayers will depend in large measure on our Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The governor has indicated that health care is an issue that must be addressed, but has refused to even consider a tax increase to pay for universal coverage. But proposals like those advanced by Nunez are impossible without increasing income taxes, or by forcing California businesses to absorb crippling costs.
The bottom line: In order to prevent Democrats from robbing Peter to pay Pedro, California needs its superstar governor to just say NADA to Nunez and socialized medicine.
Written by John Lillpop
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Fabian Nunez is a political warrior in the Reconquesta movement, a group of angry brown men and women who believe that the southwestern United States still belongs to Mexico.
Nunez and banditos of his ilk apparently have little or no regard for the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, which was ratified by both the United States and Mexican congresses in 1848. That treaty ended any and all claims that Mexico had to land now a part of the United States.
Hispanic activists like Nunez also discount American sovereignty, borders, and immigration laws as racist barriers designed solely to keep “people of color” out of America. In his view, any Latino who wants to enter America is entitled to do so when and where he or she chooses—simply because he or she is brown.
Has there ever been a more contemptible definition of racism?
Unfortunately for California and its good people, Fabian Nunez has been installed as the Speaker of the California State Assembly. This coveted position was gifted to the Nunez by Democrats eager to snare the Hispanic vote, regardless of the impact on the Golden State.
After all, power is power, and, besides, since when do Democrats give a tinker’s dam about anything but power?
Nunez’s latest legislative proposal calls for insuring all Californians, including illegal aliens who, coincidentally, just happen to be overwhelmingly from Mexico.
The speaker said that he is adamant about insuring all California children--whether they are legal residents or not. "The only document I care about for children is a clean bill of health," Nunez said, exposing his blatant disregard for American taxpayers, law, and responsible governance.
As with most liberals, Nunez also chooses to ignore the wishes of the majority of Californians who are opposed to providing public services, including health care, to those here illegally.
Most people believe that no taxpayer money--local, state, or federal--should be spent on illegal aliens. Rather, many believe that such people and their children should be returned to their nation of origin, which for the overwhelming majority is Mexico.
The Mexican government, not U.S. taxpayers, should bear the responsibility for the health and well being of Mexican citizens.
Health care will be a major issue in California in 2007. Whether or not socialists like Fabian Nunez are able to fleece California taxpayers will depend in large measure on our Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The governor has indicated that health care is an issue that must be addressed, but has refused to even consider a tax increase to pay for universal coverage. But proposals like those advanced by Nunez are impossible without increasing income taxes, or by forcing California businesses to absorb crippling costs.
The bottom line: In order to prevent Democrats from robbing Peter to pay Pedro, California needs its superstar governor to just say NADA to Nunez and socialized medicine.
A new entitlement for illegals
Never say Ken Boehm didn't warn you.
He's not a kook or an alarmist and he doesn't hear voices, strange eerie ones, in his head. He understands all too well what can happen and how if the public has been lulled into a false sense of security -- especially when the issue is illegal immigration.
As absurd as this story line surely must seem to rational people, Mr. Boehm worries that someday taxpayers actually could be forced to pay for lawyers representing illegal aliens in the U.S. who want amnesty and citizenship.
Boehm is co-founder and chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a Virginia nonpartisan foundation promoting ethics in public life. He also is not delusional.
No one need be a visionary to picture a day so surreal when taxpayers pay for legal representation for illegals. It almost happened a few months ago and it could happen before you know it if opponents of illegal immigration are not vigilant once Congress (with all those new members, mostly Democrats) convenes in January.
"Once again, the government was requiring taxpayers to pay for something not in the best interest of taxpayers," Boehm says about this year's U.S. Senate immigration bill. "In effect, it's an entitlement program for criminals."
The controversial 614-page immigration "reform" legislation passed by the Senate in May would have done so much more damage than just giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. In the AgJOBS amendment, illegal aliens seeking amnesty could get "free" legal counseling paid by American taxpayers. The bill also required the alien to have an attorney file the application for him.
The amendment said that recipients of funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act "shall not be prevented" from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for adjustment of status under this section -- Washington-speak for illegals wanting to be legals.
The federally funded Legal Services Corporation, which pays for 138 legal aid programs and has 700 offices nationwide -- supposedly to help poor Americans gain equal access to the judicial system -- currently is prohibited from giving legal aid to illegals. Since 1974, LSC has received about $6 billion, according to Boehm.
So, if the Senate immigration bill had become law, aliens who illegally sneaked into America would have been rewarded with free legal assistance and a path to citizenship, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
But since the Senate and House could not reconcile their differences -- the House version actually would have protected the border with Mexico and did not offer amnesty -- why is Boehm sending newspapers commentaries and raising the issue on talk radio? After all, the good guys won the battle when the House essentially killed the Senate's illegal alien appeasement bill.
"Come January, the House, which had opposed the law, will be under new management," he says. "There's a very good chance the House will pass something similar to the Senate bill and there's a good chance that the president will sign it."
Can Americans stop this looming threat?
"This is the time to let elected officials know they (Americans) are opposed to paying for free lawyers for those who are here illegally," Boehm says.
Consider yourself warned.
Never say Ken Boehm didn't warn you.
He's not a kook or an alarmist and he doesn't hear voices, strange eerie ones, in his head. He understands all too well what can happen and how if the public has been lulled into a false sense of security -- especially when the issue is illegal immigration.
As absurd as this story line surely must seem to rational people, Mr. Boehm worries that someday taxpayers actually could be forced to pay for lawyers representing illegal aliens in the U.S. who want amnesty and citizenship.
Boehm is co-founder and chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a Virginia nonpartisan foundation promoting ethics in public life. He also is not delusional.
No one need be a visionary to picture a day so surreal when taxpayers pay for legal representation for illegals. It almost happened a few months ago and it could happen before you know it if opponents of illegal immigration are not vigilant once Congress (with all those new members, mostly Democrats) convenes in January.
"Once again, the government was requiring taxpayers to pay for something not in the best interest of taxpayers," Boehm says about this year's U.S. Senate immigration bill. "In effect, it's an entitlement program for criminals."
The controversial 614-page immigration "reform" legislation passed by the Senate in May would have done so much more damage than just giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. In the AgJOBS amendment, illegal aliens seeking amnesty could get "free" legal counseling paid by American taxpayers. The bill also required the alien to have an attorney file the application for him.
The amendment said that recipients of funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act "shall not be prevented" from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for adjustment of status under this section -- Washington-speak for illegals wanting to be legals.
The federally funded Legal Services Corporation, which pays for 138 legal aid programs and has 700 offices nationwide -- supposedly to help poor Americans gain equal access to the judicial system -- currently is prohibited from giving legal aid to illegals. Since 1974, LSC has received about $6 billion, according to Boehm.
So, if the Senate immigration bill had become law, aliens who illegally sneaked into America would have been rewarded with free legal assistance and a path to citizenship, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
But since the Senate and House could not reconcile their differences -- the House version actually would have protected the border with Mexico and did not offer amnesty -- why is Boehm sending newspapers commentaries and raising the issue on talk radio? After all, the good guys won the battle when the House essentially killed the Senate's illegal alien appeasement bill.
"Come January, the House, which had opposed the law, will be under new management," he says. "There's a very good chance the House will pass something similar to the Senate bill and there's a good chance that the president will sign it."
Can Americans stop this looming threat?
"This is the time to let elected officials know they (Americans) are opposed to paying for free lawyers for those who are here illegally," Boehm says.
Consider yourself warned.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Click the link to listen to a great song,
Archives/Alabama
http://bluecollarrepublican.com/bcr_radio/wimpy.php
Much love to BCR, a true group for the people.
From,
Frank L
Families of immigration detainees to get help
HYDE PARK — A benefit today will help the families of those arrested in this month's immigration raid at the Swift & Co. plant in Hyrum.
The food sale, garage sale and live auction starts at 4 p.m. at the St. Thomas Aquinas Church, 250 E. 795 South in Hyde Park.
While basic needs such as food and clothing are being met, ACELA member Rolando Murillo says there is a need for cash to pay rent, bills, and other expenses, along with family reunification.
Organizers are seeking donations of new or nearly new items to be sold or auctioned. Cash donations can be made under the name "Help to the Families of Those Detained at EA Miller" at Wells Fargo, account number 2016704831.
Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNN - December 22Mitt Romney: This program is not a highway program. The state troopers aren't going to stop people on the highways. They're not going into people's homes. This is, instead, during the investigation of crimes and that kind of circumstance, having this additional authority is something, which I think makes a great deal of sense. Tucker: Massachusetts Governor-elect Patrick doesn't think so. Even as he's promising to end the cooperative agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, officials in the Hawkeye State are threatening to no longer cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.Even as he's promising to end the cooperative agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, officials in the Hawkeye State [Iowa] are threatening to no longer cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Watch: Govs / Goode / PardonTranscript
---Reply,
Its just amazing!!!
Illegal is illegal! You break the law, you get jailed! You break immigration laws, you get deported!!!
USA destruction underway
12/22/2006 1:49:46 PM
HR2672 and S853 have been in committee ever since they were introduced early in 2005. That has kept the rest of Congress in the dark about the enormity and nature of the President’s plans for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. US citizens must get these bills released from committee and brought to the floor for a vote. That is the only way to get the members of Congress who remain unaware of their content to read the bills, recognize what the President has been doing behind their backs and end the President’s unilateral selling out of this country via his deceptive rubrics of “free trade” and “security.” Congress must weigh in.
HR 2672, entitled the “North American Cooperative Security Act,” was introduced by Ms. Kathryn Harris, Mr. Steve Pearce and Mr. Christopher Shays on May 26, 2005. Since then, the bill has languished in the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment. S853, entitled the “North American Cooperative Security Act,” was introduced in the Senate by Senator Richard Lugar on April 20, 2005. It never emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Under the Trade Act of 2002 – Sec. 2103, Trade Agreements Authority, the President would be required to inform Congress of his planned changes to US trade with Mexico and Canada and Congress would be required to vote up or down on the set of planned changes. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” President Bush has been acting as if the act has been passed and become law. Since the act has “not” passed, his actions and the actions of the involved members of his cabinet as pertain to the SPP of North America and the North American Union are unconstitutional and illegal.
Citizens should contact their senators and representatives to bring the bills to the floor. The Senate and House subcommittees on the Constitution will have jurisdiction over the constitutional aspect of the President’s unilateral trade-related wheeling and dealing.
C.D. Mills
12/22/2006 1:49:46 PM
HR2672 and S853 have been in committee ever since they were introduced early in 2005. That has kept the rest of Congress in the dark about the enormity and nature of the President’s plans for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. US citizens must get these bills released from committee and brought to the floor for a vote. That is the only way to get the members of Congress who remain unaware of their content to read the bills, recognize what the President has been doing behind their backs and end the President’s unilateral selling out of this country via his deceptive rubrics of “free trade” and “security.” Congress must weigh in.
HR 2672, entitled the “North American Cooperative Security Act,” was introduced by Ms. Kathryn Harris, Mr. Steve Pearce and Mr. Christopher Shays on May 26, 2005. Since then, the bill has languished in the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment. S853, entitled the “North American Cooperative Security Act,” was introduced in the Senate by Senator Richard Lugar on April 20, 2005. It never emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Under the Trade Act of 2002 – Sec. 2103, Trade Agreements Authority, the President would be required to inform Congress of his planned changes to US trade with Mexico and Canada and Congress would be required to vote up or down on the set of planned changes. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” President Bush has been acting as if the act has been passed and become law. Since the act has “not” passed, his actions and the actions of the involved members of his cabinet as pertain to the SPP of North America and the North American Union are unconstitutional and illegal.
Citizens should contact their senators and representatives to bring the bills to the floor. The Senate and House subcommittees on the Constitution will have jurisdiction over the constitutional aspect of the President’s unilateral trade-related wheeling and dealing.
C.D. Mills
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
