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.

Arizona may Criminalize Presence of Illegal Immigrants

PHOENIX — Over the past several years, immigration hard-liners at the Arizona Legislature persuaded their colleagues to criminalize the presence of illegal border-crossers in the state and ban soft immigration policies in police agencies — only to be thwarted by vetoes from a Democratic governor.
This year, their prospects have improved. A proposal to draw local police deeper into the fight against illegal immigration has momentum, and even opponents expect the new Republican governor to sign off on the changes.
The proposal would make Arizona the only state to criminalize the presence of illegal immigrants through an expansion of its trespassing law. It also would require police to try to determine people's immigration status when there's reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally.
An estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants live in the state.
"The greatest threat to our neighborhoods is the illegal alien invasion," said Republican Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa, sponsor of the proposal, explaining that some illegal immigrants who are criminals bring violence and other crimes to the United States.
Supporters say the new rules are needed because the federal government has done a lousy job of trying seal the border and crack down on immigrants in the country's interior. Opponents say such new duties would be costly and lead to racial profiling.
The proposal passed the Senate two weeks ago, and a similar bill could come to a vote of the full House as early as this week.
Paul Senseman, spokesman for Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, said the governor doesn't comment on pending legislation but generally supports pragmatic immigration laws. Her predecessor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed similar proposals.
Many of the state's local police bosses have long resisted suggestions that their officers conduct day-to-day immigration enforcement, saying it would distract them from investigating other crimes and sow distrust among immigrants, who might not help officers investigating crimes because they fear being sent home.
"We are not anti-immigration enforcement," said Kingman Police Chief Robert DeVries, who opposes the bill. "We are just concerned about some of the responsibilities that are being pushed on us and how it affects our ability to provide day-to-day services in our communities."
Immigrant rights advocates are especially concerned about the trespassing expansion, saying it would inevitably lead to hassles for U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who would be approached by police because of their skin color.
"Bills like this that cast a net so wide are guaranteed to trap U.S. citizens," said Jennifer Allen, director of the Border Action Network, an immigrant rights group based in southern Arizona.
Pearce said he doesn't see the trespassing expansion being used on a wide scale and said officers wouldn't be required to arrest all illegal immigrants under such a law. Pearce said officers could turn illegal immigrants over to federal authorities, as police now routinely do, or they could use the trespassing expansion to hold onto illegal immigrants who are suspects in crimes.
First-offense trespassing by an illegal immigrant would be a top-tier misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. Subsequent violations would be mid-tier felonies that would carry a penalty of one-and-a-half to three years in prison.
One element of the proposal would ban what anti-immigration groups call sanctuary polices — local rules that discourage or restrict officers from questioning immigrants.
Supporters of the bill say the policies — enacted by cities — create areas of "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. The bill would let any person file a lawsuit to challenge the polices. If a judge finds a city restricted enforcement, the city could face civil penalties of $1,000 to $5,000 for each day the policy remains in effect after the lawsuit is filed.
Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix, an opponent of the measure, disputes that cities and counties have any written or de facto policies that make them sanctuaries. "It's just not true," Sinema said

Early morning traffic stop nets 14 illegal aliens

Maricopa County, AZ. - A Maricopa County Sheriff’s patrol deputy arrested 14 illegal aliens, nine of which were for felony human smuggling charges, around 5:00 A.M. this morning during a traffic stop southwest of the Valley near Gila Bend.
These arrests are a result of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s recent promise to ensure that all 900 of his sworn deputies receive training on the enforcement of illegal immigration laws.
The Sheriff states that the rate of arrests made by his office for human smuggling violations at this point of the year is already double what it was this time last year. This is a significant increase considering the fact that Washington just recently stripped the Sheriff’s authority to allow 100 federally trained deputies to act as Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (ICE) agents under the 287(g) program.
“This proves that I am keeping my promise to the people of Maricopa County and will continue to press forward on the illegal immigration problem we are facing. Obviously the numbers suggest that illegal aliens are still coming into this country and we are still arresting them,” Arpaio says.
Since the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office began enforcing felony state human smuggling laws, 1,874 illegal aliens have been arrested and booked into the county jail on felony smuggling violations. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office continues to be the only law enforcement agency to enforce all aspects of the state human smuggling law.
Information obtained by deputies during these recent arrests will be instrumental in the determination of the location for the Sheriff’s next crime suppression operation.

Maricopa County Sheriff Press Release

Napolitano Says People From Countries Tied to Terrorism Could ‘Potentially’ Enter USA, But DHS Reports Says Thousands Already Have

Courtesy of CNSNEWS.com
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told senators it is a national security concern that people from countries with ties to terrorism could 'potentially' gain entry into the United States by crossing the country’s southern border.

But according to the Department of Homeland Security’s own reports, thousands of people from 14 “special interest” countries already have come into the United States illegally, including some across the U.S.-Mexico border. (The State Department designates some nations as "special interest" counties because of their links to terrorism.)
Napolitano testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday. Her remarks on “special interest” persons came after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked her about the ongoing violence in Mexico and the possibility of that violence spilling over into the United States.
“So, if the drug cartels succeeded, then it would be a matter of time before the violence would spill over onto our side of the border,” McCain said. “Not to mention the free, basically free, access they would have to bring drugs, as well as humans, into our country.”
“We haven’t seen spillover violence in that sense yet,” Napolitano said. “It is a risk. The ability to traffic in drugs cause their own damage to lives in the United States.
“Our ability to curtail that would be affected,” she said. “On the human trafficking side, it’s not solely illegal immigrants coming to work, but the ability of people from countries of special interest to immigrate into Central America and be ferried up to the border and over into the United States is also a concern.”
McCain responded: “Countries of special interest – people could come up through our southern border?”
“Potentially, yes,” Napolitano said.
The State Department lists four special interest countries as sponsors of terror – Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran. The other 10 countries of interest are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.
A prototype of a tower for a virtual fence along the U.S.-Mexico border at a test facility in Playas, N.M. According to the DHS’s 2008 Yearbook of Immigration Studies, from the Office of Immigration Statistics, a total of 791,568 people where detained by federal law enforcement agencies in fiscal year 2008 – 5,506 of those people were from those 14 “special interest” countries.
The report states that those individuals were detained “at the borders of the United States, in the interior of the country and at designated sites outside of the United States.” It does not disclose those details for each individual, however.
The specific numbers of individuals by country are labeled in the yearbook at the chapter, “Deportable Aliens Located by Region and Country of Nationality: Fiscal Year 2008.”

Afghanistan – 29
Algeria – 41             
Cuba – 3,896
Iran – 98
Iraq – 118
Lebanon – 188
Liberia – 98
Libya – 11
Nigeria – 299
Pakistan – 494
Saudi Arabia – 71
Somalia – 66
Sudan – 46
Syria – 71
Yemen -- 78
In accordance with federal law, any individual arrested by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) are then turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is responsible for detention and deportation.
Aside from the number of individuals and their country of origin, the DHS does not release any further information about the individuals, including whether they were found to have links with terrorist groups. CNSNews.com is seeking further information about illegal aliens in U.S. custody from 2007 to 2009 from the 14 countries of special interest, through the Freedom of Information Act.
According to an August 2009 report on checkpoints and border security by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 530 illegal aliens from countries of special interest were “encountered” at CBP checkpoints in fiscal year 2008.

The report states:
“Checkpoints also help screen for individuals who may have ties to terrorism. CBP reported that in fiscal year 2008, there were three individuals encountered by the Border Patrol at southwest border checkpoints who were identified as persons linked to terrorism.
“In addition, the Border Patrol reported that in fiscal year 2008 checkpoints
encountered 530 aliens from special interest countries, which are countries the Department of State has determined to represent a potential terrorist threat to the United States.
“While people from these countries may not have any ties to illegal or terrorist activities, Border Patrol agents detain aliens from special interest countries if they are in the United States illegally and Border Patrol agents report these encounters to the local
Sector Intelligence Agent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Force, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations, and the CBP National Targeting Center.
“For example, according to a Border Patrol official in the El Paso sector, a checkpoint stopped a vehicle and questioned its three Iranian occupants, determining that one of those occupants was in the United States illegally. The individual was detained and turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further questioning.”
As reported earlier by CNSNews.com, the federal government, including DHS, have extensive information about the drug and human trafficking over the U.S. border with Mexico.
The entire U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, according to the International Boundary and Water Commission. While 697 of those miles are now under “effective control,” according to the Border Patrol, 1,257 miles are not under “effective control.”
Each year, the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) produces “drug market analyses” for each of 32 regions of the country that the NDIC describes as “high intensity drug trafficking areas.” Five of these areas sit along the U.S.-Mexico border. These include the California border region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and South Texas.
The latest reports, released in March and April of 2009, use candid language in portraying the U.S.-Mexican frontier as wide open to drug smuggling and even vulnerable to penetration by potential terrorists.
The California-Mexico border, the NDIC said, was “easily breached” on both foot and in vehicles.
“The vast border area presents innumerable remote crossing points that traffickers exploit to smuggle illicit drugs, primarily marijuana, into the country from Mexico,” said the NDIC. “These areas are easily breached by traffickers on foot, in private vehicles, or in all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) as they smuggle drugs between POEs [ports of entry], particularly the mountainous areas in eastern San Diego County and the desert and sand dune areas in Imperial County.”
Arizona’s border was judged to be open not only to drug smugglers but also aliens with “extensive criminal records” and from “special interest countries,” which are defined as “countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism.”
“Some criminal organizations smuggle aliens and gang members into the United States,” said NDIC’s report on Arizona. “These particular individuals typically have extensive criminal records and pose a threat, not only to the Arizona HIDTA [High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area] region but also to communities throughout the United States. Alien smuggling organizations reportedly also smuggle aliens from countries other than Mexico, including special-interest countries.”
“Special-interest countries are those designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism,” said the NDIC report.

Number of Illegal Immigrants Rises in Southeast

When the Olympic Games came to Atlanta in 1996, a building boom transformed the landscape of downtown and brought with it an influx of Latino immigrants both legal and illegal.

In the years since, the number of illegal immigrants living in Georgia has skyrocketed, more than doubling to 480,000 from January 2000 to January 2009, according to a new federal report. That gave Georgia the greatest percentage increase among the 10 U.S. states with the biggest illegal immigrant populations during those years. Many in metro Atlanta say the explanation for the boom is simple.  It was because of the jobs.
For years, Chamblee, Georgia was the last stop for three bus companies carrying immigrants from the border city of Brownsville, Texas.  With cheap housing, easy transportation and an abundance of work, the immigrants put down roots and were quick to tell family and friends back home of the opportunities in the Atlanta area.
The large immigrant populations in Georgia and North Carolina are largely Mexican and undocumented,  a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center.

As recently as the 1980s, Southeastern states, with the exception of Florida, had very few immigrants, legal or illegal, Passel said. California, which is still home to about 24 percent of the country's illegal immigrants, used to account for about 40 percent. Five other states,Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey shared another 40 percent, he said.
But a recession in California in the early 1990s, and a ready supply of low-skilled jobs in other regions prompted immigrants to look elsewhere, especially the Southeast.
Nationwide,  illegal immigrant population grew 27 percent during the above mentioned study period, though the numbers fell in the last two years. The population was 11.8 million in January 2007. It fell to 11.6 million in January 2008 and dropped to 10.8 million in January 2009. That coincides with the downturn in the U.S. economy, and demographers say the drop is likely to be temporary.

Once the economy rebounds, construction will pick up, as will the service industry, and illegal immigrants will return for those jobs.

Demographers expect the Southeast to bounce back faster than states like California, Nevada and Arizona. And they don't expect hostile attitudes or get-tough laws to keep illegal immigrants from coming back to Georgia.
"The only way you're going to get the illegal immigrant population in Georgia to go down or nationwide is to legalize them or get rid of the jobs," said Dowell Myers, a specialist in demographic trends at the University of Southern California.