Obama Administration To Stop Deporting Younger Undocumented Immigrants And Grant Work Permits(Video)

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration responded to years of pressure from immigrants rights groups on Friday with an announcement that it will stop deportations and begin granting work permits for some Dream Act-eligible students.

"They pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper," President Barack Obama said of those young people in a press conference announcing the policy change.

Some 800,000 people are expected to come forward to receive deferred action from deportation, as first reported by the Associated Press on Friday morning. The policy change will apply to young undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children, along the same lines as the Dream Act, a decade-old bill that passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate in 2010.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters that the policy change is part of a general shift by the Obama administration to focus on deporting high-priority undocumented immigrants.

"This grant of deferred action is not immunity," she said. "It is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system. It will help us to continue to streamline immigration enforcement and ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low-priority cases involving productive young people."

"More important, I believe this action is the right thing to do," she continued.

The policy change will effectively enable Dream Act-eligible young people, often called DREAMers, to stay in the United States without fear of deportation, and without legislation from a Congress that is unlikely to pass a bill.

Undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years can apply for the relief, so long as they are under the age of 30, according to a memo from DHS. They also must be either an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces, or a student who has graduated from high school or obtained a GED. Immigrants will not be eligible if they "post a threat to national security or public safety," including having been convicted of a felony, a "significant" misdemeanor or multiple misdemeanors.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border Protection, were instructed in a memo to immediately react by reviewing individual cases and preventing eligible immigrants from being put in removal proceedings. Those already in proceedings could be granted deferred action for two years, and then may apply for renewal. They will be given work authorization on a case-by-case basis.

A senior administration official told reporters on the condition of anonymity that most eligible undocumented immigrants will be required to go to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to provide documents and pay a fee.

Still, there will be no pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants eligible for the policy change, because "Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights," according to the DHS announcement.

The administration has been under intense pressure from immigrant rights groups, some led by undocumented youth themselves, to make an executive order protecting DREAMers from deportation. Previously, though, officials had said the administration did not have the power to make an executive order blocking deportations for undocumented young people.

Asked about that change, a different senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that this is "the next step of prosecutorial discretion" along the same lines as it is already being applied, and not inconsistent with past statements.

The administration also emphasized that the policy change is no substitute for legislation on the issue. Obama called out Republicans -- some, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), by name, and others, like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), more vaguely -- for supporting immigration reform in the past but opposing it now. Hatch was one of the original cosponsors of the Dream Act in 2001, but voted against it in 2010. In time, Obama said he thinks Republicans will come around to support the bill as well.

"I've said time and time and time again to Congress, send me the Dream Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away," Obama said. "Both parties wrote this legislation."

McCain responded in a statement, calling the action "a politically-motivated power grab that does nothing to further the debate but instead adds additional confusion and uncertainty to our broken immigration system."

The announcement comes several months before the presidential election, where Obama hopes to win a significant portion of the vote from the Latino population, which supports the Dream Act by large margins. The majority of the population at large also supports the Dream Act, as defined by the 2010 bill, although by lower margins. The announcement also comes on the heels of Obama announcing his support for same-sex marriage -- similarly after years of urging from advocacy groups.

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would veto the Dream Act under the 2010 framework, but has expressed some openness to considering upcoming legislation on young undocumented immigrants from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). That plan, which has yet to be introduced, would allow some undocumented immigrants who came as children to stay legally, but without any path to citizenship. A spokesman for Rubio did not respond to a request for comment on the administration announcement by the time of publication, nor did the Romney campaign.

A senior adviser for Romney told MSNBC's Chris Cilliza later Friday that the candidate will "focus intently on the economy," including in his message to Latino voters.

Rubio later said in a statement that the administration's action would hurt "broad support" for the idea that undocumented young people should be helped, but without encouraging unauthorized immigration. He said the new policy "will make [it] harder to achieve in the long run."

"Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem," Rubio said. "And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one."

Republicans in Congress have largely decried legislation on the issue as amnesty. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said on Fox News Friday that the policy change could be "a backdoor opportunity to allow people to vote" -- though eligible young people would not be given voting rights under the new policy -- and that it should go through the legislative process instead.

Some Republicans plan to swiftly investigate whether the administration overstepped its authority by making the policy change. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced in a statement that he will launch "an immediate review into the possibility that DHS will direct Border Patrol agents to conduct selective enforcement" and that it could encourage more immigrants to enter the country without authorization. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Judiciary committee, which focuses on immigration, said in a statement that the policy change will serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants -- although only those already in the country would be eligible.

Some Republicans plan to swiftly investigate whether the administration overstepped its authority by making the policy change. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced in a statement that he will launch "an immediate review into the possibility that DHS will direct Border Patrol agents to conduct selective enforcement." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) later told Mike Huckabee that he plans to sue to block implementation of the policy. Earlier, a spokeswoman for King, one of the biggest critics of the president on immigration reform, did not respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Judiciary committee, which focuses on immigration, said in a statement that the policy change will serve as a magnet for undocumented immigrants -- although only those already in the country would be eligible.

"President Obama's decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with the American people," Smith said. "It also blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy. This huge policy shift has horrible consequences for unemployed Americans looking for jobs and violates President Obama's oath to uphold the laws of this land."

A spokesperson for Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), who leads the House subcommittee dealing with immigration issues, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democratic supporters of the Dream Act applauded the decision. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of the most vocal critics of the administration on immigration, called the announcement a "tremendous first step," while Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he was "profoundly grateful" and that the policy change "will change [DREAMers'] lives forever." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the Dream Act in 2001, called it a "historic humanitarian moment."

"This action will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home," Durbin said in a statement.

DREAMers said on Friday they were cautiously optimistic about the news, but happy that the administration responded to their concerns.

Lizbeth Mateo, an undocumented 27-year-old who works with the National Immigrant Youth Alliance, said she has been disappointed before by seemingly positive announcements from the administration on immigration, such as when it took up stronger application of prosecutorial discretion, with the stated intent to close a number of deportation cases. Although many cases have been closed, immigrant rights groups argue that the policy has fallen short.

Another undocumented advocate for the Dream Act, Gaby Pacheco, said she, too, is waiting to see how far the policy goes in implementation.

"We feel that the work that we have been doing for the past couple of years has really come to fruition," she said. "A community has been able to organize and to speak out, and the president has responded."

Immigrants trickling back to Alabama despite crackdown

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Ana Jimenez and her husband were so terrified of being sent back to their native Mexico when Alabama's tough crackdown on illegal immigrants took effect that they fled more than 2,000 miles to Los Angeles, cramming into a two-bedroom apartment with more than 20 other relatives.

Now they are among the families coming back to cities like Birmingham, as the mass deportations never materialized and courts blocked parts of the law. No one knows how many people initially left the state, so it's impossible to say how many have returned. But some illegal immigrants are trickling back, unable to find work elsewhere and missing the place that had been home for years.

Of 18 Hispanic immigrants interviewed by The Associated Press in the Birmingham area, six said they had friends or relatives who had returned to Alabama after fleeing because of the law.

As for Jimenez, she left Birmingham with her husband, father and brother three days after the law took effect. Now, all except her brother are back. Jimenez said through a translator that not much had changed, though she can't reclaim her job at a McDonald's restaurant because managers are checking citizenship papers.

"Everything is the same. I just can't work now," Jimenez said through a translator. She said the family is living off the income of her husband, who installs carpet and flooring.

The Obama administration, immigrant groups and others sued over Alabama's law, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to consider arguments about it on March 1. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments a month later over Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration, which isn't considered as strict as Alabama's.

Republicans who supported the crackdown had said they hoped the tough provisions — which made it difficult if not impossible to legally find work and housing, among other things — would force people to "self-deport" and move out of the state.

Among those who self-deported were Verenece Flores and her husband. They sold their home in metro Birmingham and moved with their three young children to Chicago. But the couple, originally from Mexico and living in the U.S. without legal documents, also could not find work, and relatives told them people weren't being deported after traffic stops as some had feared.

The family is staying with relatives and doesn't have their own place, and Flores remains "a little scared" of the law. But she said she was happy to be back. Flores had lived here for 15 years before the short move to Chicago, and her children are happier and her husband is back working construction jobs.

"I missed everything about it — friends, family, the weather," Flores said. She knows two more families that left Alabama for Washington state only to return.

Estela Fuentes said friends of hers moved to Atlanta because the law required that public schools verify the citizenship status of students, yet they returned late last month after learning courts had put that section of the law on hold. The family was sad throughout its exile to Georgia, she said through a translator.

"One of their daughters cried and cried because she had no friends over there," said Fuentes, who is originally from El Salvador.

And while there are families returning, some officials say they haven't heard anything to suggest the numbers are huge. Zayne Smith, an immigration attorney with the nonprofit Alabama Appleseed legal center in Montgomery, said she had been hearing that some people wanted to wait until after the 11th Circuit considers the case in March.

State agriculture officials who say the new law led to a chronic shortage in agricultural labor said they haven't seen evidence of large numbers of immigrants returning to the state. Many immigrants worked in the state's poultry processing plants or out in tomato fields, planting and harvesting crops.

Gwen Ferreti, a researcher and activist in the Hispanic community, said some immigrants remain wary but are coming back because of their deep ties to the state.

Some initially feared the law would mean that people would be rounded up, or that "you'd be stopped just for being Hispanic," said Ferreti, an anthropologist from the University of Texas who is living in Tuscaloosa, about 60 miles southwest of Birmingham, for her studies. "That has not happened, but people are aware that racial profiling is going on if you are Hispanic. They are still uneasy."

US cancels 'virtual fence' along Mexican border. What's Plan B?

Christian Science Monitor - The dream of a high-tech barrier stretching from one end of America’s southern border to the other – originally hailed by then-President George W. Bush as “the most technically advanced border security initiative” ever – is officially burst.

In announcing that it would pull the plug on the troubled “virtual fence” project, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday it would instead pursue a region-by-region approach, with different parts of the US border protected in different ways as dictated by terrain and other area-specific conditions.
“This new strategy is tailored to the unique needs of each border region, providing faster deployment of technology, better coverage, and a more effective balance between cost and capability,” said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement.
Almost from the onset, the virtual fence – known as the Secure Border Initiative network, or SBInet – ran into problems. As pilot projects were built in two spots in Arizona along the border with Mexico, cost overruns mounted. Just as worrisome was that the technology – in the form of camera-topped surveillance towers that was supposed to pinpoint for border agents in a distant command post the exact location of illegal border-crossers – was often flummoxed by conditions on the ground such as terrain and weather.
“Cameras don’t come down off the poles and grab people by the ankle and arrest them,” T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council representing border patrol agents, told the Monitor in 2009. The technology, he said at the time, was effective only on level ground; in terrain with mountains and valleys it was ineffective beyond a few hundred feet.
In all, the government spent almost $1 billion on the virtual fence project since its inception in 2005, as contractor Boeing Co. endeavored to work out the kinks and refine SBInet’s capabilities. In the end, though, the cost per mile of coverage made it grossly inefficient: It is operational along 53 miles of Arizona’s 386-mile border with Mexico.
By contrast, the DHS expects that security for the rest of Arizona’s border can be buttressed for $750 million, by using commercially available surveillance measures, unmanned drones, thermal imaging, and other equipment.
“SBInet cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border-security technology solution,” Secretary Napolitano said Friday. It now falls to her department to propose alternative, region-by-region plans for improving border security, which she said would come later this year. In surrendering the “one-size-fits-all” solution offered by the virtual fence, DHS expects to use some of its proven components elsewhere.
The Obama administration has from the beginning made a point of highlighting its efforts to improve border security, knowing it will stand no chance of reforming America’s broken immigration policy unless it demonstrates to Congress and the public that it has first moved aggressively to prevent illegal entry into the US. Indeed, the DREAM Act, a bill to resolve the status of some illegal immigrants already in the US, failed to pass the Senate late last year.
The president, for his part, last year signed legislation to spend $600 million on two more unmanned drones to patrol the border and on 1,500 additional Border Patrol agents and other law-enforcement personnel to crack down on illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. And DHS noted Friday that Border Patrol manpower has doubled – now at a force of 20,500 – since 2004.
Few lamented the demise of the virtual fence project – even those who have criticized the Obama administration for not doing enough to tighten the southern border.
Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, now chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told The New York Times that the Obama administration should have ended SBInet before now.
Nor did Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona object to ending the project in his home state. “I am pleased to hear that Secretary Napolitano finally allowed the SBInet contract to expire,” he told The Arizona Republic. “A complete and thorough investigation should be conducted related to this waste.”

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

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.

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.

Canada - Elgin Police Chief: Illegal immigration is a federal issue

Daily Herald
Elgin Police Chief Lisa Womack Thursday during a conference call with other police chiefs reiterated her position that illegal immigration is a federal issue.
"If there was a local solution to this issue, and this goes back to my Texas roots, the border states would have already figured it out," said Womack, who was police chief in Sugarland, Texas, before coming to Elgin in 2005. "In my opinion, there is not a local solution."
Womack's remarks were made during a 45-minute conference call and discussion with the Sacramento-based Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, which hopes to advance a dialogue on immigration reform.
Reporters from Chicago suburban news outlets and even The New York Times listened and asked questions.
Sheriff Richard Wiles of El Paso County, Texas, and Chief Sam Granato of the Yakima, Wash., police, also spoke.
Womack talked for five minutes in general terms about immigration's effect in Elgin and took several questions from reporters.
Wiles and Granato said the large majority of illegal immigrants are in the United States for economic reasons. They said illegal immigrants are often targeted for crimes because victims are afraid police will deport them.
Some Elgin groups, such as the Association for Legal Americans, have pressured the city to do more to fight illegal immigration.
Two years ago, the city enacted several steps, such as using e-Verify to double check Social Security numbers of new city employees and auditing companies that do business with the city to ensure their employees are in the United States legally.
Womack said Elgin police check the residency status of all who are arrested and report that information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
ICE generally only deports people who commit violent crimes, are gang members, sex offenders or drug dealers.
Elgin police do not check residency status of people reporting crimes, Womack said.
Womack said there is a misconception in the community that Elgin police can deport illegal immigrants.
"There is a perception, a feeling and at times a demand, to enforce residency status," Womack said.
"Immigration law and enforcement is a federal law enforcement matter ... We have no one voice on this issue and it has been polarizing at times for this community."
The two other chiefs said they don't have the resources to enforce immigration laws and doing so would destroy trust and goodwill built up within the Hispanic and minority community.
They compared the immigration situation to the absurdity of asking police to collect taxes for the Internal Revenue Service.
Womack, like the other chiefs, called on federal lawmakers to enact clear, concise and consistent immigration reform.
"This is a problem that has gone on too long," Granato said. "It's time this Congress and this President step up to the plate and give us some reform."
Womack also stressed that she was not endorsing or backing any political agenda, but noted that "securing the borders is absolutely the first step."

Illegal Workers Spark Immigration Probe

The Department of Immigration is investigating who hired 14 illegal Indonesian workers arrested near Stanthorpe in southern Queensland yesterday.
They were caught on the state's southern border as part of a joint police and Immigration Department operation, and it is believed they were working in the horticulture industry.
Department spokeswoman Cian Manton says it is following a number of inquiries and that big fines apply for hiring illegal workers.
"Sometimes people do directly employ workers but oftentimes we do find that people may go through a third party, a labour hire contractor or intermediary, to source their workers," Ms Manton said.
"People who are convicted relating to these matters face fines of up to $13,000 and two years imprisonment.
"Individuals and companies can face fines of up to $66,000 per illegal worker, so we are talking about serious penalties here for serious matters."
The Immigration Department is reminding employers to check the status of their workforce.
Twelve workers have been transferred to Brisbane and will be deported as soon as possible.
The other two have been given bridging visas and are making their own arrangements to leave.

Va. program IDs more than 600 illegal immigrants

Associated Press -
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) - Fairfax County has identified more than 600 illegal immigrants over the past year using a jail fingerprinting program.
The county checks the fingerprints of anyone processed at the jail against an immigration database to see if officials have noted they should be deported. The Secure Communities program found 619 inmates with matches in 2009. Another 474 illegal immigrant inmates were identified in other ways. About a third have been deported; the remainder are in immigration proceedings or serving sentences.
Fairfax County was among the first of about 100 jurisdictions nationwide to participate in the program which the Obama administration plans to expand to the nation's some 3,100 local jails by 2013.

Company Fined Over Immigration Violations At Fairfield Plant

February 12, 2010
A company accused of hiring illegal immigrants has paid a steep fine for employment violations.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency announced Friday that Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC paid a $536,046 fine for administrative violations of U.S. immigration laws.
The ICE Office of Investigations in Cincinnati conducted a worksite investigation of Koch Foods after receiving information from a concerned citizen alleging that the company was employing more than 100 illegal immigrants at their poultry processing facility in Butler County
In August 2007, ICE subsequently executed a search warrant at Koch's Fairfield processing facility and arrested 161 illegal immigrants and seized relevant documents. ICE also executed a search warrant at Koch's corporate offices in Chicago seizing relevant documents.
Employers are required to complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. This form requires employers to review and record the individual's identity document(s) and determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and related to the individual.
The fine relates to I-9 violations at Koch's Fairfield facility. The company has cooperated with ICE in the investigation employing the use of E-Verify and ensuring that its policies and procedures are in compliance with legal requirements
"Employers have a responsibility to hire men and women who are authorized to work in the United States and fines are an important component of ensuring their compliance," said Brian Moskowitz, Special Agent in Charge of ICE investigations in Michigan and Ohio, in a news release. "The significant civil fines leveled here represent ICE's firm commitment to holding employers accountable."
ICE issued a Notice of Intent to Fine in the specified amount on Feb. 8. The Final Order was issued and fine paid on February 9 in Cleveland. The company has implemented measures revising its hiring and immigration compliance program, and has established new procedures to prevent future violations of federal immigration laws, which includes the removal of the individual employed as the human resource manager during the time period surrounding the violations.

Activists Inflamed Over Immigration Numbers

Feb. 12 -- The population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has fallen by 1 million in the past two years due to a combination of the recession and increased law enforcement, according to the latest estimate by the Department of Homeland Security. While activists largely agree that the influx of illegal immigrants is at a welcome ebb, some vehemently contest the accuracy of the agency's figures and remain bitterly divided on what impact they should have on the country's immigration policy going forward.
"I strongly disagree with the number of immigrants they say are living here," said Jim Gilchrist, president and founder of the Minuteman Project, a volunteer group of about 1,000 civilians who monitor the northern and southern borders of the continental U.S. for illegal crossings, which they then report to Border Patrol. "There's no credible way to way to tag and count them, and very few will admit to their illegal status, so it's all just a guesstimate at best."
To counter the Homeland Security estimate of 10.8 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. as of 2009, Gilchrist offered AOL News his own "guesstimate" of 30 million, which he said was based on older projections put forth by Time magazine and now-defunct banking firm Bear Stearns.
An activist on the opposite side of the immigration debate also questions official government counts.
"There are lots of scholars who do work on immigration, and nobody can give accurate figures," Kat Rodriguez, spokeswoman for immigrants advocacy group Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, told the Christian Science Monitor.
News media frequently confuse the number of illegal immigrants with the number of "apprehensions," a mistaken assumption since one person can be apprehended over and over again on different occasions, said Rodriguez, whose organization seeks to reduce what it sees as suffering among immigrants caused by the militarization of the border region.
Still others, including Shuya Ohno, a spokesperson for the National Immigration Forum -- the self-described "leading immigrant advocacy organization in the country" -- accepted the Homeland Security estimate at face value.
"The DHS figures are the most accurate," Ohno said in an interview with AOL News. "Most rational and apolitical academics put the number between 10 (million)and 12 million."
The full statistical methodology used to reach the estimates is described in the the latest Homeland Security report, which can be downloaded as a PDF from the agency's Web site.
No matter their opinion on the precise figures, activists largely agreed with Homeland Security that the rate of new illegal immigrants entering the country had slowed considerably following the economic meltdown in 2008.
"The reason for the decline is simple: fewer jobs," said Daily Finance's Jonathan Berr.
More contentious is the assertion by Homeland Security and other groups that the decline has as much to do with a corresponding increase in immigration law-enforcement resources made during the tail-end of the Bush administration.
As the Washington Times wrote: "After the last effort to pass an immigration bill failed in mid-2007, the Bush administration announced it would step up enforcement, including high-profile raids and granting powers to enforce immigration laws to some state and local police departments."
Since the election of President Barack Obama, an additional $30 million has been designated toward increasing security on the U.S. southwestern border, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has emphatically asserted that the new administration has taken a different tack than its predecessor, narrowing the focus of joint law enforcement efforts on apprehending "dangerous criminal aliens" as opposed to pursuing those who have committed minor offenses.
The new approach has disappointed both border-control and amnesty-minded groups.
"At a time when enforcement was beginning to pay dividends, the Obama administration has curtailed many aspects of enforcement -- particularly in the workplace," Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform told the Christian Science Monitor. FAIR is a nonprofit citizens' organization that seeks to "improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest."
On the contrary, assert some advocates, Obama has taken a stricter and less humane stance on immigration than his predecessor.
"As a Latina, I am fed up with President Obama's lack of leadership on immigration reform," Ana Perez wrote in The Progressive magazine. "More immigrants have been deported in Obama's first year than in the last year of the Bush administration. Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have found a behind-the-scenes strategy to get rid of immigrants. They have the immigration agency comb through local jails and place deportation holds on anyone suspected of being undocumented."
Still, one thing all activists maintain is that the decrease in the population of unauthorized residents affords the country the best opportunity to correct massive problems with U.S. immigration policy. It might be the last chance to do so before a resurgent economy again raises the incentive for people to immigrate illegally en masse.
"What this affords us is a great opportunity to fix the immigration system now," Ohno told AOL News. "Illegal crossing of the border is at its lowest point in 40 years. Just like we wouldn't want to fix a bridge during rush hour, we should take the same consideration with the country's immigration system."
He and his organization, the National Immigration Forum, support a "common sense" approach to allow immigrants who are currently classified as illegal to come forward, pay a fine and get to the back of the line for citizenship requests without fear of being deported.
"I'm saying let's force the debate on this issue and solve the problem," said Minuteman President Gilchrist. "Let's bring left, right and the political center together to make sure immigration is a process that occurs lawfully, according to our Founding Fathers. My main concern is that we might have another million illegal aliens who will come here shortly and stay, and not respect our rule of laws."
Gilchrist wants immigration laws currently on the books to be enforced emphatically, which he believes would require the repatriation of millions of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.

Former Advisor to U.S. Attorney General Rides with Deputies in Maricopa County

Maricopa County, AZ -
Sheriff’s Deputies arrested 42 more illegal aliens in recent days under the direct observation of Kris Kobach, a nationally recognized expert on immigration law and border security.
The 42 arrests were the result of four separate vehicles discovered and stopped by the Sheriff’s Human Smuggling Unit that were being used to transport illegal aliens in recent days. The Sheriff’s smuggling unit has arrested 1,839 illegal aliens on felony human smuggling charges to date.
Kobach has stated to the Sheriff that he is overly impressed with the professionalism and expertise that deputies have displayed while carrying out the enforcement of all immigration laws during his visit.
Kobach was brought in by the Sheriff’s Office in order to utilize his expertise on a new program launched by Sheriff Arpaio Monday that will require all of the Sheriff’s sworn deputies to attend training in the enforcement of state and federal immigration laws.
The Sheriff’s new program will act as a tool for sworn deputies especially given the fact that over 100 federally trained deputies were stripped of their authority to act as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents recently because of the U.S Department of Homeland Security Department’s disapproval of the Sheriff’s controversial crime suppression operations.
“I don’t need the federal government’s approval to enforce immigration laws that already exist, and I intend to continue the fight on illegal immigration,” stated Sheriff Arpaio.
Critics of the Sheriff’s enforcement of immigration laws have long contended that deputies have no business arresting illegal aliens and that the duty should fall solely on the federal government.
Kobach disagrees and carries the opinion that local law enforcement officials not only have the inherent authority to arrest illegal aliens during the course of their regular operations, but that it is also their duty to do so.
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Press Release

State Senate Panel Approves Immigration Bill

State Senate panel approves immigration bill
January 20, 2010 - 12:05PM
updated: January 20, 2010 - 4:01PM
Capitol Media Services

A Senate panel approved a far-reaching bill designed to combat illegal immigration, including allowing police to stop and actually arrest anyone they just reasonably believe is in this country illegally.
Other provisions of the measure approved Wednesday by the Senate Committee on Public Safety and Human Services include:
Paving the way for law enforcement to conduct "sting" operations to find companies knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
Making it a crime to stop a vehicle on the street to pick up someone to do a "day labor" job.
Requiring police to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of anyone they contact officially if there is "reasonable suspicion" they are an illegal immigrant.
Permitting anyone to sue a city, county or any government that has policies limiting immigration enforcement by their employees "to less than the full extent permitted by law."
Wednesday's 4-3 party-line vote, with Republicans in the majority, sends SB1070 to the full Senate.
The move is the latest effort by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, to force local communities to do more to find, detain - and arrest or deport - those who entered the country illegally.
He specifically is taking aim at what he called "sanctuary policies" of some cities and police departments that direct police officers not to inquire about the legal status of those they encounter who are not otherwise being investigated for a crime. Pearce said that is why his legislation specifically allows anyone who finds governments are not living up to their obligations to sue.
That raised concerns by Sen. Rebecca Rios, D-Apache Junction, that people who are victims or witnesses would be hesitant to report crimes for fear of being arrested.
"That's valid concern," said Mark Spencer, the president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, which supports the bill. But Spencer said that presumes police officers would use "racial profiling" to try to determine whether victims and witnesses are in this country legally.
Much of the debate centered around what authority - if any - police have to detain those they suspect of being illegal immigrants.
John Thomas, lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, specifically questioned the section about officers being able to arrest suspected illegal immigrants.
"This requires federal immigration training," he said, referring to a section of federal laws that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement to train local police to enforce federal immigration laws. That training includes being able to properly identify who is and is not in this country legally.
But Pearce said all police officers have "inherent authority" to enforce federal immigration laws, even without special training. He said the only time that special training is required is after someone is arrested to determine their legal status.
Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, said what Pearce is proposing is necessary.
"We often lose sight of the fact that our porous border and costs related to illegal aliens are costing the citizens of Arizona in excess of $2 billion a year," he said. Melvin said that includes educating illegal immigrants and their children, incarcerating those who commit crimes and the cost of emergency hospital treatment.
"If we could solve this issue - and this legislation takes us in that direction - we could, in many ways, almost eliminate our budget woes, these gut-wrenching billions in budget deficits," Melvin said.
The Department of Corrections reports that 6,313 of the nearly 41,000 inmates serving time for felonies are illegal immigrants.
There are no accurate figures for education, as schools are precluded from asking the legal status of either students or their parents. But the Pew Hispanic Center figured last year that about one of seven students in Arizona schools are here because of illegal immigration, whether the youngsters themselves are undocumented or they are born in this country to parents who entered the United States illegally.
Joe Sigg, lobbyist for the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, said there is no need for the kind of "sting" operations this measure would facilitate, where police actively see if a company will hire someone who cannot prove legal residency as is already required by both state and federal law. He said if there are employers breaking the law, there will already be plenty of work for officers.
And Allison Bell, lobbyist for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said she feared some otherwise innocent companies might wind up in trouble.
The provision of concern spells out that companies are not "entrapped" if they were "predisposed" to breaking the law and officers simply provided the opportunity to break it.
Bell said the business group wants a definition of what makes a company predisposed to hiring illegal immigrants, suggesting that companies have an absolute defense to charges if they use the federal government's online E-Verify system to check the legal status of new workers.
Jennifer Allen, executive director of the Border Action Network, said one particular problem is a section of the measure making it a crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants. She said that could make criminals out of the immediate family members of someone here illegally simply for having them in their homes or driving them somewhere in their cars.
Another provision would allow officers to arrest those they suspect are illegal immigrants by making it a criminal violation of state trespass laws to be in the state, whether on public or private land, and be in violation of federal immigration laws.
Pearce said, though, he's not necessarily looking to fill Arizona jails with illegal immigrants. He said it gives discretion to law enforcement officers whether to seek prosecution or simply turn offenders over to ICE.