Maslink Overselling the American dream overseas

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

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

Youth Immigration Bill Blocked by Republicans



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

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

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

Rare immigration bills pass Congress

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

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

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

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

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

Arizona Border Patrol Agent Shot Dead

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

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

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

Democrats delay action on young immigrants bill

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

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

Filipinos sue CA hospital over English-only rule

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

Immigration - Minority - Majority

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

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

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

Whites Predicted to be in Minority over the next 40 Years

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

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

State lawmakers preparing citizenship legislation

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

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

Brief for 9 states backs Arizona immigration law

DETROIT – Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has filed a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.

The Republican gubernatorial candidate said Wednesday that Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court. Michigan is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.
Cox says states are authorized to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders.
The Arizona law directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.
President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit to block it, saying immigration is a federal issue.

List of alleged illegal immigrants mailed in Utah

SALT LAKE CITY – A list containing the names and personal information of 1,300 people an anonymous group contends are illegal immigrants has been mailed around Utah, terrifying the state's Hispanic community.
Republican Gov. Gary Herbert wrote in a tweet Tuesday that he has asked state agencies to investigate the list — sent anonymously to several media outlets, and law enforcement and state agencies. A letter accompanying the list demands that those on it be deported immediately.
Most of the names on the list are of Hispanic origin. The list also contains highly detailed personal information such as
Social Security numbers, birth dates, workplaces, addresses and phone numbers. Names of children are included, along with due dates of pregnant women on the list.
"My phone has been ringing nonstop since this morning with people finding out they're on the list," said Tony Yapias, former director of the Utah Office of Hispanic Affairs. "They're feeling terrorized. They're very scared."
The list's release comes as several conservative Utah lawmakers consider sponsoring a tough new illegal immigration law similar to the one passed recently in

Arizona.
Arizona's law, which takes effect July 29, directs police enforcing other laws to ask about a suspect's immigration status if there is reason to believe the person is in the United States illegally.
Herbert has said a new immigration law likely will be passed when lawmakers convene in January, although he said it may be different from Arizona's. Herbert spokeswoman Angie Welling was traveling back from Washington, D.C., Tuesday and could not immediately be reached for comment.
The letter included a long recipient list, including newspapers, broadcast outlets, The Associated Press, law enforcement and state agencies, various Utah officials, and the Department of Homeland Security. The letters began arriving in mailboxes in recent days.
Dave Lewis, communication director for the state Department of Workforce Services, said his agency didn't receive a copy of the list from the governor's office until late Tuesday.
"We've got some people in our technology department looking at it right now," he said. "It's a high priority. We want to figure out the how's and why's."
He said his agency is one of several with access to the information included in the list.
The letter says some names on the list were sent to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in
Salt Lake City in April. It says the new list includes new names, for a total of more than 1,300.
Included with the new letter is one dated April 4 addressed to "Customs and Immigration" and from "Concerned Citizens of the United States."
In the April letter, the writers say their group "observes these individuals in our neighborhoods, driving on our streets, working in our stores, attending our schools and entering our public welfare buildings."
"We then spend the time and effort needed to gather information along with legal Mexican nationals who infiltrate their social networks and help us obtain the necessary information we need to add them to our list," the letter says.
Agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice said ICE received a copy of the list, but she declined to say whether it is investigating the immigration status of the people on it.
"As a matter of policy, we don't confirm we are investigating an allegation or possible violation unless the inquiry results in some type of public enforcement action," Kice said.
She noted that because ICE has finite resources, it focuses its efforts "first on those dangerous convicted criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities, not sweeps or raids to target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately."
Kice added that the agency has had a means for the public to report suspected criminal activity for several years — a 24-hour tip line staffed by trained enforcement personnel.

Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals in Arizona

Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age
immigrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.
The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today,  Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.
Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.
Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.

Arizona Immigration Law FALLOUT: New Law Sparks Fiery Debate

WASHINGTON – Backed into a corner by Arizona's tough new immigration law, Democrats and Republicans alike find themselves grappling with a volatile issue neither party wanted to fight over just before important midterm congressional elections.

As lawmakers learned during the last national debate on immigration, in 2007, the issue incites passions across the country, affecting everything from national security to states' rights to racial ambitions and resentments. It's fraught with political minefields.
Thus, President Barack Obama, the Democrats who control Congress and Republicans who are in the minority are doing a delicate dance, mindful not to anger their electoral bases — or independents — on the issue.
Underscoring the careful maneuvering, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tried to strike a balance in testimony to Congress on Tuesday, saying, "Continually enhancing border security is not only critical for border communities, but is a necessary part of any comprehensive attempt to fix our nation's broken immigration system to make it work for the 21st century."

Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration

PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.
Compliments of the New York Times
April 23, 2010
The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.
Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.”
The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally.
Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”
As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.”
The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August. Court challenges were expected immediately.
Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”
While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.
Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.
President George W. Bush had attempted comprehensive reform but failed when his own party split over the issue. Once again, Republicans facing primary challenges from the right, including Ms. Brewer and Senator John McCain, have come under tremendous pressure to support the Arizona law, known as SB 1070.
Mr. McCain, locked in a primary with a challenger campaigning on immigration, only came out in support of the law hours before the State Senate passed it Monday afternoon.
Governor Brewer, even after the Senate passed the bill, had been silent on whether she would sign it. Though she was widely expected to, given her primary challenge, she refused to state her position even at a dinner on Thursday for a Hispanic social service organization, Chicanos Por La Causa, where several audience members called out “Veto!”
Among other things, the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vetoed similar legislation repeatedly as a Democratic governor of the state before being appointed Homeland Security secretary by Mr. Obama.
The law opens a deep fissure in Arizona, with a majority of the thousands of callers to the governor’s office urging her to reject it.
In the days leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat, called for a convention boycott of his state.
The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues, has several provisions.
It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007, the last time a federal effort to reform immigration law collapsed. Last year, there were a record number of laws enacted (222) and resolutions (131) in 48 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The prospect of plunging into a national immigration debate is being increasingly talked about on Capitol Hill, spurred in part by recent statements by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader, that he intends to bring legislation to the Senate floor after Memorial Day.
But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could also energize conservative voters.
It could also take time from other Democratic priorities, including an energy measure that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has described as her flagship issue.
Mr. Reid declined Thursday to say that immigration would take precedence over an energy measure. But he called it an imperative: “The system is broken,” he said.
Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, have said that the House would be willing to take up immigration policy only if the Senate produces a bill first.

Is a Biometric Identity Card the Key to Immigration Reform?

Could a national identity card help resolve the heated immigration-reform divide?

Two Senators, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, certainly seem to think so. They recently presented an immigration-bill blueprint to President Barack Obama that includes a proposal to issue a biometric ID card - one that would contain physical data such as fingerprints or retinal scans - to all working Americans. The "enhanced Social Security card" is being touted as a way to curb illegal immigration by giving employers the power to quickly and accurately determine who is eligible to work. "If you say [illegal immigrants] can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it," Schumer told the Wall Street Journal. Proponents also hope legal hiring will be easier for employers if there's a single go-to document instead of the 26 that new employees can currently use to show they're authorized to work.
But with a congressional skirmish over comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon, skeptics from the left and the right have raised numerous concerns about the biometric ID - some of which pop up every time a form of national identification is proposed, and some that hinge on the shape this plan ultimately takes.
The sheer scale of the project is a potential problem, in terms of time, money and technology. The premise of using a biometric employment card (which would most likely contain fingerprint data) to stop illegal immigrants from working requires that all 150 million–plus American workers, not just immigrants, have one. Michael Cherry, president of identification-technology company Cherry Biometrics, says the accuracy of such large-scale biometric measuring hasn't been proved. "What study have we done?" he says. "We just have a few assumptions."
Schumer estimates that employers would have to pay up to $800 for card-reading machines, and many point out that compliance could prove burdensome for many small-to-medium-size businesses. In a similar program run by the Department of Homeland Security, in which 1.4 million transportation workers have been issued biometric credentials, applicants each pay $132.50 to help cover the costs of the initiative, which so far run in the hundreds of millions. "This is sort of like the worst combination of the DMV and the TSA," says Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU, an organization that has traditionally opposed all forms of national ID. "It's going to be enormously costly no matter what."
Lynden Melmed, former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, says the pace of expanding the program is crucial. He believes that issuing the cards on a rolling basis and viewing them as "the next version of the driver's license" makes the idea of a nationally issued biometric ID seem much less daunting. "I think that there is a risk in overreaching too quickly," he says.
Another potential issue is whether the card will result in people being wrongfully denied work. The average person isn't equipped to determine whether two fingerprints are a match - even FBI fingerprint experts have their off days, as when they incorrectly implicated a Portland, Ore., attorney in the 2004 bombings in Madrid - which means employers would be relying on an automated system. And that, as well as the fingerprinting process itself, invariably leads to some small number of mistakes.
In testimony given at a Senate immigration hearing in July 2009, Illinois Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, who has led the drive for immigration reform in the House, pointed out that an error rate of just 1% would mean that more than 1.5 million people - roughly the population of Philadelphia - would be wrongly deemed ineligible for work. "This is no small number," he said, "especially in this economy, where so many workers already face extraordinary obstacles to finding a job." Dean Pradeep Khosla, founding director of Carnegie Mellon's cybersecurity lab, estimates that the error rates of computerized systems would likely be less than 2% (and could be less than 1%) but says they can never be zero. Civil-liberties advocates, citing the secret post-9/11 no-fly lists that innocents couldn't get their names removed from, worry about whether those mistakenly put on the no-job list will ever be given the chance to correct the information.
Many skeptics also worry about false positives that come not from the computer but from counterfeits or employers looking to bypass the system. "It's naive to think that this document won't be faked," Calabrese says. "Folks are already paying $10,000 to sneak into the country. What's a couple thousand more?" In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Schumer and Graham said the card would be "fraud-proof" and that employers would face "stiff fines" and possibly imprisonment if they tried to get around using it. But Cherry half-jokes that someone could falsify such an ID in 15 minutes, and Khosla says that while current technology makes fingerprints the most feasible biometric marker to use, they're also one of the easiest to steal.
Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, believes that keeping biometric information out of a centralized database is "the biggest challenge." Otherwise, she says, the prospect of having millions of fingerprints on hand would be too tempting for the government not to abuse. In their op-ed, the Senators said the information would be stored only on the card.
Although the card is being presented as existing solely for determining employment eligibility, "it will be almost impossible to say that this wealth of information is there, but you can only use it for this purpose," Coney says. "Privacy is pretty much hinged on the notion that if you collect data for one purpose, you can't use it for another." Calabrese expresses worries that this ID will become a "central identity document" that one will need in order to travel, vote or perhaps own a gun, which Melmed calls "mission creep."
Some dismiss privacy concerns as reflections of general government mistrust rather than legitimate technology issues. But Melmed believes that the practical issues will have to be addressed before the "social-acceptance debate" over biometric cards can even begin, and both rely on many details that the Senators have yet to present. "People are waiting to see something in writing," Calabrese says. "But the idea doesn't fill people with a warm, fuzzy feeling."

Thousands rally for immigration reform in DC

WASHINGTON – Frustrated with the pace of action to overhaul the country's immigration system, thousands of demonstrators descended on the nation's capital Sunday, waving American flags and holding homemade signs in English and Spanish.

President Barack Obama, who promised to make overhauling the immigration system a top priority in his first year, sought to reassure those at the rally with a video message presented on giant screens at the National Mall. The president said he was committed to working with Congress this year on a comprehensive bill to fix a "broken immigration system."
Obama said problems include families being torn apart, employers gaming the system and police officers struggling to keep communities safe.
The president, whose comments were released as he worked to get last-minute votes on a health care overhaul, said he would do everything in his power to forge a bipartisan consensus on immigration reform.
Some demonstrators were disappointed immigration reform hasn't come sooner.
Adolfo Recinas, 38, held one end of a large banner reading "Latinos for Legalization and Immigration Reform." Recinas said his message to Congress was: "Don't make any more excuses."
"I'm illegal and I got a business. I pay taxes," said the Prince Georges County resident who moved to the U.S. some 23 years ago and now lives northeast of D.C.
There are about 12 million undocumented immigrants. March organizers said people traveled from around the country in hopes the rally will re-energize the legislative effort to create a mechanism for them to gain legal status.
"It is hard because most people are worried about health care reform and stuff," said Manuel Bettran, a 21-year-old college student from Chicago who came by bus.
Bettran said his parents overstayed their visas in the U.S. but were able to take advantage of an amnesty in the 1980s to become citizens.
"Fortunately, they were able to become citizens during the last amnesty but I know many people that weren't that lucky," said the American-born Bettran, adding that his brother was never able to gain legal status and had to leave the U.S.

Illegal immigrants add to patient Backlog for Services

Fort Myers Florida
State mental health workers are starting to better track, and may eventually help federal authorities identify, illegal immigrants that are adding to the backlog of patients needing treatment.

This follows a state legislative report last month that showed Florida spent $19.6 million treating a recent group of illegal immigrants and inconsistently counts such patients in its mental hospitals.
There are 75 illegal immigrants in the state mental health system and a 79-bed waiting list, according to the state Department of Children and Families.
Sally Cunningham, who oversees Florida’s mental health facilities, said she supports new reporting rules and coordination with federal authorities, which would require legislative approval.
Even so, illegal immigrants usually account for about 3 percent of mental hospital beds statewide, she said. The system annually serves about 3,200.
“I think that it would probably be unfair to say that this population is creating the problem,” she said. “There are waits, but this is not the only reason there are waits to get in.”
The report offers options for reducing their numbers in the system:
•Change privacy laws to allow state mental health facilities to report illegal immigrants and release their medical records to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
•Illegal immigrants determined to be sexually violent predators could be turned over to federal authorities rather than be held in the Florida Civil Commitment Center.
•DCF, which oversees state mental health facilities, should assist patients who wish to return to their home countries upon release, the report said.
It is unclear what, if any, of the proposed policy options the Legislature will take up this session.
DCF is creating standardized procedures for checking and verifying the immigration status of state mental patients, said DCF analyst Wendy Scott.
Informal and sporadic counts started in 2005.
The bulk of illegal immigrants come from Central America and Caribbean countries, the report said.
A quarter of the total listed as “undocumented aliens” in the report were Cuban, who may not be deported and become legal U.S. residents once they step foot on American soil.
Whatever the numbers, a crackdown on illegal immigrant patients could be popular with state lawmakers facing an estimated $3.2 billion budget shortfall.
Florida generally spends about $9 million a year treating illegal immigrants in state mental hospitals. The total mental health budget is $375 million.
“We spend $9 million a year for mental health care for illegal immigrants when our own people stand in line and can’t get help,” said Paige Kreegel, R-Punta Gorda, chairman of the House Health Care Services Policy Committee. “That’s a problem.”
Maria Rodriguez, executive director of the Miami-based Florida Immigrant Coalition, said she considers this more immigrant scapegoating.
“It’s kind of getting old, this blaming immigrants for the fiscal woes of the state,” she said. “All the data and the research show that immigration has been good for Florida and the nation.”
Lee County has no state mental health hospitals. A state hospital in Arcadia, in DeSoto County, closed in 2002.
Most patients enter state treatment facilities by way of the legal system. They are either deemed a threat to themselves and others, or they require treatment before they are competent to stand trial.
The report, by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, only looked at state-run facilities.
It did not address potential waits at private and non-profit facilities such as Lee Mental Health Center’s Vista campus, which serves as Lee County’s sole receiving facility for the mentally ill arrested under the Baker Act.
Vista, on Deer Run Farms Road in Fort Myers, has 30 beds and is routinely over capacity. In 2009, it saw 4,000 committals.
Lee Mental Health does not ask for proof of citizenship when processing patients, said spokesman Michael McNally. Nor does it report suspected illegal immigrants to federal authorities.
Last year, the center confirmed only one such patient.
“It doesn’t appear to be a problem for us,” he said. “If it were a pervasive problem, I’m sure more would come to light.”

Graham tells Politico "President Must Step it UP"

President Barack Obama is summoning two key senators to the Oval Office on Thursday for an update on immigration reform efforts — but one of them, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), thinks Obama should be the one giving the update.
Graham, less than thrilled at the notion of providing the equivalent of a book report to the headmaster in chief, said Obama’s lack of direction on immigration reform is hampering Graham’s efforts to recruit additional Republicans to the cause.
“At the end of the day, the president needs to step it up a little bit,” Graham told POLITICO on Tuesday. “One line in the State of the Union is not going to do it.”
For the past six months, Graham and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — who meet with Obama at 3 p.m. Thursday — have worked on a reform framework. Their plan, which hasn’t been introduced yet, includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (a liberal must-have) while sweetening the pot for moderates by proposing tough new safeguards, including a biometric national ID card for workers.
To the frustration of many reform advocates, Obama has kept his opinions of the possible deal vague, giving a head nod to reform in his State of the Union speech but not much more.
Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro offered no response to Graham’s challenge but reiterated the administration’s intention to allow Congress to hash things out before Obama weighs in, an approach reminiscent of his health reform strategy.
“The president’s commitment to fixing our broken system remains unwavering,” Shapiro said. “Earlier, the president told members of both parties that if they can fashion a plan to deal with these problems, he is eager to work with them to get it done, and he has assigned [Homeland Security] Secretary [Janet] Napolitano to work with stakeholders on that effort.”
Shapiro went on to reiterate Obama’s core principles — not prescriptions — including resolving “the status of 12 million people who are here illegally.” He punted when asked about the controversial ID system, which has the backing of some immigrant groups while sparking fierce opposition from civil libertarians.
“There are a number of options on the table, but we are clear that we need to build on and improve the existing verification system if we are going to get control of the job market for undocumented workers,” he said.
Napolitano, who has held dozens of meetings on the topic with House members and senators, was supposed to attend a previously scheduled Graham-Schumer meeting Monday, which had to be postponed when Graham’s flight from South Carolina was delayed. She’ll be overseas during Thursday’s meeting, an administration official said.
Graham said he wants a greater sense of direction to break the cycle of distrust that doomed comprehensive immigration reform during the Bush administration, despite the support of a Republican president and major party figures like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
“I think moderate Democrats have to come on board before you get Republicans, and Republicans have to come on board before you get Democrats,” said Graham.
At the moment, only a few brave congressional souls have walked the reform gangplank. With health care blanketing the capital like a horror-movie fog, and jobs, climate change and budget bills next in line for consideration, the chances of passing a politically risky immigration reform bill are somewhere between nil and exceptionally remote.
The hope, instead, is to build a consensus around a measure that could pass sometime in the not too distant, non-election-year future. While many Democrats publicly embrace comprehensive reform, most are privately rooting for inertia rather than tying themselves to any proposal that could be used against them in the midterms.
The tough part for Obama, however, is that the Obama-Graham-Schumer summit is also being closely watched by Hispanic groups, who are demanding proof of action as a reward for their overwhelming support of Obama in 2008.
With a massive March 21 pro-immigration reform rally planned for Washington, and Latinos the fastest-growing segment of the electorate, Obama can ill afford to alienate them.
“For the Latino community in this country, it’s the civil rights issue of their time, so delay obviously adds to disillusionment,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Cuban-American who has urged the administration to move more quickly.
Immigration reform, he added, “would seal the community’s commitment to the Democratic Party.”
That opinion is shared by a collection of Hispanic groups, who have pressured the White House in forceful terms, threatening to withdraw support if Obama doesn’t follow through on his commitment.
But the appetite for a huge new push in immigration is as weak as it has been in years, with moderates like Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) — ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee — saying it’s not even on her radar.
“I’m not even thinking about it,” she said.
And Graham’s friend McCain, now facing a tough primary challenge from anti-immigration-reform conservative J.D. Hayworth, said he hasn’t even spoken with Graham about supporting the latest proposal.
And he offered low marks for Obama’s immigration reform efforts since taking office: “I don’t know what he’s done, so I don’t know how to comment on his performance,” McCain said of his 2008 opponent, adding that any attempt at reform would be “very, very difficult in this environment."

ID Card for Workers Is at Center of Immigration Plan

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.


Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.
The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.
The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.
"It's the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. "If you say they can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it."
Journal Community ..The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.
"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."
Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. "We've all got Social Security cards," he said. "They're just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That's all I'm saying."
U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.
Last year, White House aides said they expected to push immigration legislation in 2010. But with health care and unemployment dominating his attention, the president has given little indication the issue is a priority.
Rather, Mr. Obama has said he wanted to see bipartisan support in Congress first. So far, Mr. Graham is the only Republican to voice interest publicly, and he wants at least one other GOP co-sponsor to launch the effort.
An immigration overhaul has long proven a complicated political task. The Latino community is pressing for action and will be angry if it is put off again. But many Americans oppose any measure that resembles amnesty for people who came here illegally.Under the legislation envisioned by Messrs. Graham and Schumer, the estimated 10.8 million people living illegally in the U.S. would be offered a path to citizenship, though they would have to register, pay taxes, pay a fine and wait in line. A guest-worker program would let a set number of new foreigners come to the U.S. legally to work.
Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.
Mr. Schumer first suggested a biometric-based employer-verification system last summer. Since then, the idea has gained currency and is now a centerpiece of the legislation being developed, aides said.
A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.
The card requirement also would be phased in among employers, beginning with industries that typically rely on illegal-immigrant labor.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't have a position on the proposal, but it is concerned that employers would find it expensive and complicated to properly check the biometrics.
Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.

Nebraska's View of Illegal Immigration

Most Americans realize that our federal government's deliberate refusal to control the influx of illegal aliens, primarily from Mexico, has had a deleterious effect on our nation's economy. Scores of California hospitals have had to close their doors because of a tsunami of illegals seeking "free" health care -- and receiving it.

Schools across the country are being forced to deal with the children of those here illegally, with many states now fighting over whether to offer these children in-state tuition to attend state colleges and universities.
Two of the largest business associations in the country are at odds over this issue. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sees cheap, illegal labor as a boon for big business, favors a program that keeps our southern border open. But the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small business owners, says its members frequently see illegals as competition with legitimate enterprise.
We even see sharp divisions in our politics over this issue, as challengers such as former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth take on former Republican presidential candidate John McCain in that state's primary election this year for the GOP nomination for McCain's Senate seat.
But these are only the most obvious consequences of a misguided policy that has overburdened the most prosperous society on earth, and now the corrosive effects of not enforcing our immigration laws is taking a toll on our body politic at a whole new level.
In my home state of Nebraska, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman currently enjoys sky-high approval ratings from constituents, thanks in large part to his stubborn resistance to tax increases, his principled opposition to Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback," and his veto of a bill that would have provided in-state college tuition for the children of illegals -- a stand that helped him beat back a 2006 primary challenge from former congressman and Nebraska football deity Tom Osborne. Now Heineman has taken another courageous position on behalf of taxpayers by threatening to veto a bill in the Legislature that would provide state-funded prenatal care for illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately, Nebraska's Catholic Bishops have come out in favor of the legislation, thereby causing a powerful, Catholic-dominated pro-life group, Nebraska Right-to-Life, to issue an ultimatum: candidates opposing the bill will not receive their endorsement in the upcoming fall election campaign.
"We want to assure that innocent, unborn children will receive prenatal services," says Brenda Eller, president of the group. The group's board voted unanimously to support the bill. "This is the right thing to do from a pro-life position, regardless of the immigration status," Eller declares.
But Gov. Heineman is standing firm. "After a careful and thoughtful review of the various aspects of this issue, we are opposed to illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer-funded benefits," the governor said in a letter read at a public hearing on the prenatal care plan. This once again stands him in good stead with Nebraskans.

Illegal Immigrants Caught Sabotaging American Train Tracks

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is requesting that Federal authorities charge the illegal aliens caught stealing over 500 railroad spikes in North Carolina with terrorism charges, since they entered America illegally and worked to sabotage train tracks in a way that could have resulted in mass casualties.
"We are at war with terrorists and stealing train spikes, which is likely to cause a train to derail is an act of terrorism," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The Obama administration must admit that their failure to adequately enforce our border and immigration laws is putting American lives at risk of terrorism."
The Asheville Citizen Times reported on March 2, 2010 that police had arrested TWO ILLEGAL ALIENS, Cruz Mario Carnacion, 37 and Jose Luis Trejo-Yanez for being in possession of more than 500 STOLEN 7-inch spike's that were taken from the railroad tracks owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad.
This latest incident is similar to arrests of illegal aliens stealing railroad tracks and spikes from railroads near Yuma, AZ, which was reported by US Customs and Border Patrol on March 11, 2008.
"We believe that this documented pattern of illegal immigrants stealing railroad parts from tracks and putting American lives at risk is a form of terrorism that will likely not be reported by the national media,"said William Gheen. "America are under attack in our own nation and many times illegal aliens are engaging in domestic terrorism against our citizens and nation."
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is warning Americans of these illegal alien terrorism attempts through an massive online network of supporters and blogger. Activists across the nation are being encouraged to contact their local talk radio shows and elected officials to share this information about the illegal aliens stealing railroad spikes. Activists are also being asked to call their members of Congress and Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security to ask her to focus on enforcing our existing immigration laws, instead of focusing on trying to pass the current AMNESTY legislation active in Congress.