Immigration News

[Soldier4Christ]

Immigration woes

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Thirty-three years ago Jean Raspail wrote an almost-prophetic book on immigration gone wild. In his novel 'The Camp of the Saints,' the French author explained how social conditions in the developing world deteriorated to the point that it forced millions of refugees from the Indian subcontinent to storm the beaches of southern France after commandeering an armada of cargo ships. At the same time, another million or more hungry Chinese oozed across the Amur River into Russia. With refugees flowing like uncontrolled mercury into Europe from the east and west simultaneously, the face of Europe was suddenly changed -- forever.

Monday`s massive protests by mostly Latino immigrants in dozens of cities across the United States of course came nowhere near the epic scale described in Raspail`s spellbinding narrative. Monday`s marches were orderly and colorful, unlike Raspail`s army of humans eating their way through Europe like a cloud of locusts; the human tragedy of large-scale migration forced by socio-economics gone wrong.

Yet, seeing tens of thousands of demonstrators -- many of them illegal entrants into the United States -- spill almost like marbles out of a bag as they rounded the corner of Vermont Avenue, a mere block from the White House, it was hard not to make the analogy with Raspail`s book. With a few differences, however.

Raspail wrote his book in 1973. At that time a million illegal refugees swimming from tramp freighters onto European shores seemed to represent a frightful number. One million! Today, 33 years later, there are 11 or 12 times that many illegal immigrants in the United States alone.

One out of 12 'illegals,' close to one million, some say as many as two million marchers, took to the streets of America`s major cities: Washington, D.C., San Diego, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, and dozens of smaller cities and towns. It was the largest coordinated protest on immigration to ever take place in the United States.

At stake is a proposed law that would make illegal immigration in the United States a felony. Waving American flags and chanting 'Si, se puedo,' Spanish for 'Yes, we can,' the protestors passed within hearing distance of the White House. But they were also waving Mexican flags, and flags from San Salvador and other countries, too. A reminder of how much of a melting pot this country is.

This issue of immigration, and what to do about it, places President George W. Bush and the Republican Party under new pressures and at contradictions. Giving the majority of illegal immigrants amnesty and U.S. citizenship does not seem to be the solution, as some politicians on the left are suggesting. And nor is expelling 12 million people a possibility, as some politicians on the right would like to see happen.

Congress needs to find a workable middle ground for the sake of all parties concerned. President Bush has made of immigration a central point of his presidency, along with the war on terror. The president wants a guest worker program that would not penalize illegal immigrants, giving them and foreign workers access to the vast U.S. labor market. The millions of blue-collar laborers provide the American marketplace with a work force able to fill jobs that Americans would never want to consider.

In a move they hoped would please conservative districts faced with a flood of immigrants, the House of Representative passed legislation last December that would allow building hundreds of kilometers of fences along the U.S.`s southern border and declare illegal aliens who cross into the United States, felons. This would make it even more difficult for those with a police record to find lawful employment. The fate of the 12 million illegals currently living in the United States now rests with the U.S. Senate, which is trying to find a workable solution to the border security issue.

America`s problem today is not dissimilar to that of Europe`s. Europe is encircled by almost 6 billion people. 'Only 700 million of them white, hardly a third of them in our little Europe,' writes Raspail. 'And those no longer in bloom but quite old. They face a vanguard of 400 million North Africans and Muslims, 50 percent of them less than 20 years old...' The United States has similar problems, with the baby boomers ageing and Latinos banging at America`s gates, jumping over them, burrowing under them and swimming across them.

Raspail writes that the Roman Empire 'did not die any differently, though, it`s true, more slowly.' This time, Raspail predicts, 'we can expect a more sudden conflagration.'

The problem facing the United States today is no different. But shutting the gates on immigration, be it in the United States or Europe, will not make the problem disappear. Immigrants will find a way around, under or over whatever wall is built to keep them out. The intelligent solution is to assist developing nations in creating programs that will encourage their young to stay at home and find decent paying jobs there. Otherwise, the result will undoubtedly be the human deluge of biblical proportions imagined by Raspail.

[Soldier4Christ]

Groups Ask Mexicans to Boycott U.S. Firms


MEXICO CITY — "Nothing gringo," warns the rallying cry of Mexican activists calling for a boycott of all U.S. businesses south of the border on May 1.

The campaign, aimed at pressuring Congress to legalize undocumented migrants, was timed to coincide with "The Great American Boycott," in which activists are urging migrants in the United States to skip work and avoid spending money to demonstrate their importance to the U.S. economy.

The Mexican boycott was being promoted on Web sites and through e-email messages, one of which warns that "people shouldn't buy anything from the interminable list of American businesses in Mexico."

"That means no Dunkin' Donuts, no McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks, Sears, Krispy Kreme or Wal-Mart," the message said.

Promoted by some of the same groups that organized massive immigrant marches across the United States, the protest _ also dubbed "A Day Without Immigrants" _ comes as Congress debates immigration bills proposing everything from toughened border security to the legalization of all 11 million undocumented migrants in America.

Mexican unions, political and community groups, newspaper columnists and even some Mexican government offices have joined the call for a parallel boycott of U.S. businesses in Mexico. For some it's a way to express anti-U.S. sentiment, while others see it as part of a cross-border, Mexican-power lobby.

Advocates occasionally missed their mark in identifying boycott targets. For example, they incorrectly identified Sears stores in Mexico as American owned even though Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim bought Sears Mexico operation since 1997.

And in an ironic twist, the protest targets the U.S. business community _ one of the strongest supporters of legalization or guest-worker programs.

"Boycotting would only hurt corporations that are backing what people want done in the immigration bill," said Larry Rubin, chief executive of the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico.

In place of a boycott, Rubin encouraged Mexicans who have relatives in the U.S. to urge family members to write to their lawmakers in support of comprehension immigration reform.

Some organizers of the U.S. rallies have told people not to risk their jobs or education after some workers and students were fired or cited for truancy. But many others say marchers want to make the sacrifice to show the importance of immigration reform.

Roberto Vigil, who works in the Mexico City office of the California-based immigrants rights group Hermandad Mexicana, said his group has asked some of Mexico's largest labor unions to back the protest in Mexico.

The president of the Phoenix-based Immigrants Without Borders, Elias Bermudez, also actively promoted the boycott in interviews with Mexican radio and television stations.

Mexican groups were responding.

Pablo Gonzalez, spokesman for one of Mexico's largest labor unions, the Federation of Revolutionary Workers and Farmers, said his organization will support a boycott against "at least four of the most important U.S. firms, among them Wal-Mart," Mexico's largest retailer.

Two other major labor groups _ the telephone workers' and auto workers' unions _ also were expected to join, Vigil said.

Even parts of the Mexican government have signed on to the protest.

"We are not going to be buying any products from the United States on May 1," said Lolita Parkinson, national coordinator for the National Board of State Offices on Attention for Migrants, which represents state government-run migrant aid offices.

For some, the boycott was fueled not just by debate on the immigration bill, but by long-standing resentment over the perceived mistreatment of Mexicans in the United States.

"We want to show the power we have as Mexicans," said Carlos Chavez y Pacho, vice president of the chamber of commerce in Piedras Negras, across from Eagle Pass, Texas. Chavez y Pacho is also urging Mexicans not to shop in U.S. border cities on May 1, in part to protest what he calls arrogant behavior by U.S. customs officials and border officers.

Rafael Ruiz Harrell, who writes a column in the Mexico City newspaper Metro, predicted the boycott could give rise to a broader, pan-Latino movement.

"If we could get all of Latin America, for one day, to leave the U.S. firms without customers, we would be sending the kind of clear message they seem incapable of understanding," he wrote.

[Soldier4Christ]

Illegal aliens and the speech police (and the coming breakup of the United States?)


Three U.S. journalism groups want their fellow scribes to stop using terms "illegal immigrant," or simply "illegal" [often used as a shorthand noun], and "alien" when covering the immigration issue. It's "dehumanizing," you see. That applies especially to "illegal alien." The proper term is "undocumented people."

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), and the Asian-American Journalists Association (AAJA) are leading the cry to stop saying illegals are — well, illegal.

As one of their spokesmen put it, "The words we use frame a debate, and we need to make sure those words are not loaded with baggage."

Well, okay, why stop there? Here's another idea. Maybe we should not define those who help themselves to other people's money at gunpoint as "muggers" or "bank robbers." Similarly, let us see or hear no more news reports of "embezzlers," or "white collar criminals." Those terms are so "dehumanizing," and "loaded with baggage." How about "unproven money-sharing people"? After all, "they just want a better life," right?

This political correctness is the latest outrage in the ongoing debate over whether violating the law is — guess what — illegal. If most journalists take it seriously, George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" will have morphed into the funny farm.

In fact, the Senate this past week became the funny farm when it appeared to be on the verge of approving legislation that said — I'm not making this up — that illegal aliens who have been in this country violating the law for five years or more would be rewarded with a pass toward citizenship. All would be forgiven. But those who have been violating the law for only two-to-five years, shame on them. Next time, violate the law early and often. They would have to go home and re-enter as temporary workers, albeit with a path toward citizenship. Those who are in this country illegally for less than two years would be punished for not getting in on the border-crashing racket soon enough. They would have to go home and get in line like everyone else who is dumb enough to think the laws of the United States mean what they say. Little questions like whether an honor system is sufficient to determine how long a person has been living here illegally are overlooked.

Conservatives tried to inject some measure of sanity into the bill. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid would have none of it. Apparently convinced we do not have enough criminals already on our shores, the senator from Nevada blocked amendments such as one that would have barred American citizenship for any illegal alien convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors or who ignored a court order to leave the country.

In bowing to the criminal lobby, Reid has disgraced the Senate seat once held by the late patriot Pat McCarran, co-author of the reasonable, orderly, compassionate, and generous 1952 McCarran-Walter Immigration Law. Like Reid, McCarran — a relentless foe of communism — was a Democrat. Unlike Reid, McCarran was one of the true giants of Senate history.

The death of immigration reform (at least until after the Easter recess) was deliberate sabotage on Reid's part. On the advice of New York Senator Chuck Schumer, denying sensible amendments was aimed at denying the Republicans a victory in this election year. It was not lost on anyone that — by sheer coincidence — Schumer heads the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. Oh! So that's why my computer's spell-check keeps trying to get me to spell his name "Schemer." One of these days, I'm going to start obeying my spell-check.

The senators also managed to kill a border security-only bill — with no "guest worker" programs.

Meanwhile, in my own backyard of Montgomery County, Maryland — whose officials are heavily influenced by a segment of the population with propellers at the top of the head — the school system has granted students community service credit for attending a rally in downtown Washington (on Monday April 10) in support of "immigrant rights" (a "right" to break the law, that is).

According to information on the Chris Core radio talk show on WMAL-AM, no such credit would be available to a student who shows up to engage in a counter-protest in support of effective border security. The "civics lesson," as school officials call it, apparently is narrowly focused on one side of the debate.

School Superintendent Jerry D. Weast just can't understand why he is getting all these angry calls from parents who have this weird off-the-wall idea that school officials should focus more on education, not political advocacy. Weast thinks this is strange because what he is doing is "consistent with how the system has operated." Alas, that's the problem. But we'll save that discussion for another day.

As you watch demonstrators carrying the Mexican flag and damning the country they say they want to be a part of, consider the "compassionate" laws in the government of the very country that in many ways is egging them on and implying that we who have problems with willful lawbreakers are bigots. Check out Frank Gaffney's archived columns on this website. Mexico's immigration laws are extremely restrictive. If we imposed similar legislation in the U.S., we would be branded as "mean-spirited." (See Gaffney-April 3-"The Mexican Solution")

Now let us get right down to the plot — and that term is not used lightly — that serves as a major driving force behind this great lawbreaking machine:

Contrary to what the mainstream media would have you believe, the National Council de La Raza — the most prominent group agitating for illegal immigration — is not simply the "Hispanic Rotary Club."

Congressman Charles Norwood has done some digging, and has unearthed chilling information that La Raza serves as a "respectable front" for radical secondary groups whose agenda includes nothing short of dismantling the United States.

Writing in Human Events, Norwood identifies a "radical racist group" as "key" in the coalition. The Georgia Republican says the "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA) seeks to carve a racist nation out of the American West."

MEChA was "reported to be one of the main organizers" of the street demonstrations. The lawmaker writes "MEChA and the La Raza movement teach that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, and parts of Washington State make up the area known as Aztlan — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America."

All these areas of the U.S. are to be surrendered to "La Raza," after enough immigrants — legal and illegal — can claim a majority. Miguel Perez, a key figure in Cal-State's MEChA chapter, is quoted as saying "Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power." All of this will happen "once Aztlan is established" at which point "ethnic cleansing would commence."

And what kind of government would emerge in "Aztlan?" Says Perez: "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest to it."

Lest you think these are just the outer fringes of a nut faction (Every group has some shady characters in its past and unbalanced characters today), Congressman Norwood says this rhetoric comes from official MEChA chapter sites at universities all over America, including Georgetown, U. of Texas. UCLA, U. of Oregon, U. of Michigan. and U. of Colorado.

Despite the National Council of LaRaza's suspect ties, Congressman Norwood believes the majority of its members are not racist. But unless La Raza completely separates it self from MEChA and unequivocally repudiates its entire racist agenda, then the Council should be barred from receiving federal funds (Yes, it has been receiving some of your tax dollars), and barred from testifying before Congress. Also the White House "should sever all ties."

To which we would add that no self-respecting journalist will be coaxed or intimidated into ignoring this "wolf in our midst" or sugar-coating it with mealy-mouthed Orwellian language.

[Soldier4Christ]

Immigration, yes! Colonization, no!

When people come from abroad to make a new home for themselves, and they are committed to the goal of becoming part of our nation -- that's immigration. When they come to exploit economic opportunities while proudly flaunting their determination to continue in their allegiance to a foreign flag -- that's colonization.

During the Los Angeles march, large numbers of foreigners marched proudly under the flag of a foreign country, to demand the right to live in the United States. They claim that the issue is immigration. But by their own actions, they reveal what is in fact a determined effort to force Americans to accept large foreign colonies in our midst, and to pay handsomely for the privilege of doing so. We have both the right and the moral obligation to say no.

Obviously our political leaders do not understand the real nature of the issue. In his radio address, President Bush told us that his guest-worker program is not intended to lead to citizenship for the illegal aliens in our midst. He actually seems to believe this is a point in its favor. At the same time, he and others like him want us to believe that the latest so-called immigration bill is somehow in line with the great tradition of immigration that literally created the American people. This is a lie.

In the past, the large majority of people coming to America from abroad came here to become part of the nation. They brought habits, customs and creeds that enriched the panoply of our emerging national identity, but they also accepted the challenge of becoming an integral part of it. Citizenship is the proper fruit of that kind of immigration, and that's what makes it good for America.

Accepting the presence of large numbers of people who maintain their allegiance to a foreign flag, a foreign language and a foreign culture -- and who mean to claim many of the benefits but none of the responsibilities of citizenship -- is a departure from the tradition that built this nation, and the culmination of inept policies that will end in its dissolution.

Given the destructive consequence of allowing such colonization, it is especially dismaying to see supposed moral leaders demanding that we accept it. I must assume that Cardinal Mahony means well when he encourages people to violate laws intended to enforce our immigration policies. I'm sure he honestly believes that it is morally right to help individuals in need regardless of their immigration status.

But as a Catholic leader, I must question his willingness to abandon the wisdom of Catholic moral tradition, which has always cautioned against the impetuous inclination to do good for particular individuals while bringing on greater evils for society as whole. This wisdom has been at the heart of the reasoning derived from the just war doctrine that requires, for example, opposing zealots who justify killing abortion doctors on the plea that they are saving the life of an innocent child. Their particular act saves some innocents, but at the great risk of civil violence and war that will plunge the whole society into destructive evils that endanger all its members.

True moral responsibility requires that we compare the good we may do by violating the immigration laws with the harm that will result from destroying our capacity to enforce immigration rules and regulations. Will the absence of immigration controls (in effect, open borders) lead to greater evils than the effort to enforce them?

As we ponder the response we should consider the spectacle of the major cities in many countries around the world, where the pressure of uncontrolled migration from rural to urban areas has led to excessive burdens on their infrastructure, and the development of enormous slums riddled with disease and poverty. The United States is, as it were, the urban capital of the world. Uncontrolled migration from the global hinterland will result in pressures upon our economic, social and political infrastructure that will degrade both our material well being and the always fragile fabric of our national identity.

The result will be greater poverty, greater social friction and unrest, and sharper, more irreconcilable differences in our political life. The latter will be especially true if we have permitted large communities of non-citizen workers to become a permanent feature of our national life. This would be a population of people who pay taxes and yet, as non-citizens, have no say in the political process that determines their ultimate disposition. "No taxation without representation" was the early battle-cry of political justice in America, and it still indicates the truth that representative government is part of the natural birthright of all human beings. It makes no sense to adopt policies that encourage the permanent existence of a large, disenfranchised population in our midst.

All this suggests that immigration control is prudent and necessary for the common good of the country. Moral reasoning that ignores the common good is in fact not moral at all. Cardinal Mahony and other Catholic leaders should revisit and ponder this principle of the Catholic moral tradition. If immigration control serves the common good, then effective immigration laws are appropriate and morally obligatory.

Thomas Aquinas rightly points out that law without enforcement is no law at all. Therefore, effective immigration law means effective enforcement of the laws. When Cardinal Mahony encourages citizens to ignore the laws, and thus undermine their effectiveness, he encourages them to take particular actions that, by contributing to the overall collapse of the economic, social and political infrastructure, will result in far greater misery and suffering than they purport to alleviate.

This is irresponsible, immoral and contrary to the rational requirements of Christian conscience. Christ exemplifies the truth that, for the sake of the whole, even innocent individuals ought to be willing to sacrifice themselves. Encouraging illegal immigrants to seek their own advantage by a route that undermines the common good thus represents a corruption of their respect for the principle that ought to govern their Christian consciences.

It is both unfair and dishonest to react to this analysis as if it represents some willingness to slam the door of opportunity in the face of the hopes and aspirations of less fortunate people around the world. On the contrary, the effort to develop and enforce responsible immigration policies aims to assure that the invitation to hope is not extended in ways that destroy its fulfillment. It is also intended to make sure that our policies do not aid and abet the tendency of some foreign elites to enrich themselves at the expense of their people, and then escape accountability for their viciousness by pushing the victims across the border into the United States. Is it morally right to facilitate the corruption and greed of these self-serving exploiters?

I believe that immigration in the true sense is good for America. This would mean policies aimed at assuring that by and large the people who come to America come with the intention of becoming full and responsible citizens of the republic. It also means discouraging any who think they have the right to establish foreign enclaves in our midst, in order to gain economic advantages for themselves without fully committing to help us build this free society.

Immigration, yes; colonization, no. The first prerequisite of any immigration policy, however, is to regain full control of the borders of the United States. Currently proposed legislation falls far short of what is needed to achieve this goal. Until and unless our political leaders put in place the tools and forces needed to achieve this control, responsible and moral Americans ought to oppose any measures that would signal our acceptance of the de facto colonization of our country.

President Bush's guest-worker proposal is such a measure. It may serve short-sighted business interests intent on cheapening the cost of labor in our economy; it may serve the corrupt interest of Mexican and other foreign elites seeking to relieve the pressure created by their own policies of greedy exploitation. But it does not serve the common good. Such service demands policies that give preference in immigration not just to workers seeking jobs and money, but to those who seek liberty and the responsibilities of citizenship.

[Soldier4Christ]

Prominent local publisher deported


ST. LOUIS - The publisher of a Spanish-language newspaper has been deported, ending a five-year legal battle over her immigration status.

Cecilia Velazquez was escorted into Mexico on Friday and will be barred from re-entering the United States for 10 years, said Carl Rusnok, spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency.

Velazquez, 36, is publisher of Red Latina, a Spanish-language newspaper. "Red Latina" means Latin network. She also is president of Radio CuCui, a group that brings ethnic performers and commentators to WEW-AM radio.

"I'm devastated," Velazquez said from her cell phone, as she stood in Juarez, Mexico, an hour after being escorted back into her homeland. "No doubt they used me as an example."

Her attorney, Raymond R. Bolourtchi, said her departure "can only hurt and damage the Hispanic community. She was their voice."

Rusnok said Velazquez was given two weeks to return to Mexico after officials who stopped her in December 2000 in Houston determined she was "actually an intending immigrant." Velazquez had entered the country on a visitors visa.

Despite the order to leave, Velazquez remained in the country and was arrested in 2003 in St. Louis.

Though she lost a series of appeals, she was hopeful letters of support written by politicians including U.S. Sen. Jim Talent and U.S. Reps. William Lacy Clay Jr. and Russ Carnahan would stave off her deportation.

"All the big guys were trying to get a special deal for me," she said.

Lydia Padilla, president of TRC Staffing Services in St. Louis, which places Spanish-speaking workers with area employers, advertised in Red Latina.

She said the paper is the most respected in the Hispanic community, and the only local paper that is 100 percent Spanish.

"I did not know her legal status, but what I do know is she donated lots of time and money to needy causes," Padilla said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Immigration debate irks Hispanics
‘We will vote … to give a lesson to the xenophobic crowd,’ leader says


INDIANAPOLIS – The debate over how the U.S. should treat illegal immigrants – fueled by rallies in Indianapolis, Fort Wayne and other cities across the nation – could push more Hispanic voters to the polls this year, some Hispanic leaders say.

Max Montesino, president of the Hispanic Leadership Coalition of Northeast Indiana, said he expects a backlash from immigrant voters, especially Hispanics, this November against legislators who want to remove all undocumented aliens.

“Now immigrant people are realizing they have to register and they have to vote,” he said. “I truly believe they will be surprised in November. It is really energizing the immigrant community.”

Montesino organized a rally in Fort Wayne on April 2 that drew more than 1,000 people. He said a future “gathering of reflection” will be at 5 p.m. May 1 at the Foellinger Outdoor Theatre.

He said most Hispanic Americans have a relative or friend who is undocumented.

“We will vote en masse to give a lesson to the xenophobic crowd and those in Congress who agree with them,” he said.

The Hispanic vote nationwide has lagged behind other groups. About 18 percent of Hispanics voted in the 2004 presidential election, compared with 51 percent of whites and 39 percent of blacks, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a non-partisan research organization supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

In Indiana, a 2004 study by the National Association of Latino Elected Officials showed about 80,000 Hispanics are citizens and voters.

Another 80,000 are citizens but not registered to vote, said Ricardo Gambetta, director of Latino affairs for Indianapolis.

Hispanics make up about 4.4 percent of Indiana’s population, representing the fastest-growing ethnic group in the state, according to the most recent census numbers.

With the immigration debate, Hispanics may believe they have more of a stake in the outcome of elections this year, officials said.

“There is great potential,” Gambetta told the Indianapolis Star for a Friday story. “The community is becoming more active in the political process statewide.”

John Nieto-Phillips, associate professor of Latino studies at Indiana University, said the immigration bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, which would make felons out of undocumented immigrants, has galvanized the Hispanic community.

“It will not fade in their memories,” he said. “They will not forget.”

Frances Vegasaw, state director for Hispanic/Latino outreach at Ivy Tech Community College, agreed.

“Hispanics will come out (to vote) in numbers. I really believe that,” Vegasaw said.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Indiana have taken notice, especially after this week’s Indianapolis rally of about 20,000 people marching against the immigration bill.

“They demonstrated to the world they can organize,” said Bill Oesterle, who managed Republican Mitch Daniels’ 2004 run for governor.

Robin Winston, former chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party, saw intensity in the crowd.

“There’s too much passion and too much energy for that not to be channeled” into political action, Winston said.

Although both Allen County Democrats and Republicans said they hoped to take advantage of the expected increase in Hispanic voters, Montesino said the issue likely won’t help one party over the other.

Efrain Escobedo, director of voter engagement for the Los Angeles-based National Association of Latino Elected Officials, said the immigration issue has given “an opening to the Democrats.”

But he said Hispanic voters will choose leaders who advance their interest in other issues as well.

“We are up for grabs,” he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Illegal-alien activists target Lou Dobbs
'Ax AOL' campaign designed to pressure CNN parent company to fire newsman

WASHINGTON – Illegal-alien activists who have pulled off major rallies in several cities in recent weeks plan to shift part of their focus May 1 by targeting a newsman they see hurting their cause.

An "Ax AOL" campaign is being organized to coincide with a national action by various groups defending illegal immigration, but the real target of their wrath is Lou Dobbs of CNN.

"Why AOL?" asks one of the promoters of the campaign rhetorically. "Lou Dobbs is the number one money maker for CNN so he is not going anywhere as long as he makes money for CNN and right now he is making a ton of money for CNN bashing 'illegal immigration.' CNN is owned by Time Warner and Time Warner also owns AOL, which is being extensively promoted to increase its value as witnessed last week by selling 5 percent of AOL stock to Google. This 5 percent cost Google $1 billion setting a benchmark value for AOL stock. The Google-AOL deal gives AOL a valuation of $20 billion. Billionaire Time Warner shareholder Carl Icahn who controls 3 percent of Time Warner shares has been organizing a proxy battle for control of Time Warner wants to sell AOL."

But why Lou Dobbs?

According to the organizers: "Lou Dobbs has become the champion zealot of bashing 'illegal immigration' each night at CNN promoting HR 4437 as the only way of dealing with 'Broken Borders' to protect the USA. The only way to stop Lou Dobbs, the raving populist xenophobe, is to invoke 'The Achilles heel: AOL.'"

Interestingly, Jon Garrido of Hispanic News, the mastermind of the AOL campaign, believes Dobbs is too popular to take on directly.

"We could never directly muzzle Lou Dobbs because the revenue his trashing of Hispanic/Latinos generates for CNN is huge and CNN's revenue belongs to Time Warner," he writes. "The Achilles heel is AOL. If the value of AOL was to decrease dramatically because of the loss of the Hispanic/Latino market, Time Warner, and more so, Carl Icahn, would move to stop this hemorrhage. The only way to stop the hemorrhage would be to meet the demands of the Hispanic/Latino community: Remove Lou Dobbs off the air."

The organizers believe the firing of Lou Dobbs would be the death knell of the current move in Congress to pass tough border security measures and an enforcement plan to deal with the millions of illegal aliens already residing in the U.S.

"Removing Lou Dobbs off the air would completely disarm the national leader of promoting HR 4437 and would be the most powerful message that could be provided to the Congress, President Bush, 2008 presidential candidates and the entire USA," Garrido writes. "The demise of Lou Dobbs would be fatal. There would be nowhere for him to land because wherever he surfaced such as FOX, the Ax AOL campaign would follow him by simply changing our name to Ax FOX."

While Dobbs has become an almost legendary hero to Americans who feel abandoned by their government on the illegal alien issue, he is being vilified in many other quarters.

The left-leaning Media Channel isn't advocating any convoluted targeting of AOL in its anti-Dobbs campaign – just a direct boycott.

Indian-Americans have also launched their own petition to get Dobbs dumped.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, another radical group, is also attacking Dobbs – claiming his reports on immigration fail to acknowledge anti-Hispanic racism is at the root of concerns about illegal immigration.

Even someone Dobbs has had on his show as a guest commentator is getting into the act of calling for his firing by CNN. Enrique Morones, an activist from Southern California, has reportedly written a letter to the president of CNN calling for Dobbs' head.

[Soldier4Christ]

More children discovered crossing border illegally



MEXICO CITY -- The number of children deported from Arizona after U.S. agents caught them crossing the border illegally or found them in the desert more than doubled in the first three months of 2006, Mexico's Interior Department said on Friday.

Most deportees are simply released by U.S. authorities at border crossings, but children are handed over directly to Mexico's child-welfare agency, giving Mexican authorities a much more precise count.

From January through March, Mexican authorities took charge of 3,289 deported minors at border crossings in the state of Sonora, across from Arizona, more than double the 1,566 deported in the same period of 2005.

The Interior Department statement did not give a reason for the increase in deportations of the children -- who ranged in age from a few months to 17 -- many of whom were found crossing on foot, alone or in the company of non-relatives.

However, some border analysts say they have witnessed what appears to be a general migrant rush to reach the United States. They say the migrants appear to be motivated by immigration bills under discussion in the U.S. Congress that could legalize some illegal migrants and increase border security.

In south-central Arizona, the busiest migrant-smuggling area, total detentions by the U.S. Border Patrol rose by more than 26 percent from Oct. 1, 2005, through early April, totaling 105,803 compared with 78,024 for the same period a year earlier. Along the entire border, arrests are up 9 percent in the same period.

Francisco Loureiro, the manager of an immigrant shelter in Nogales, Mexico, said that in March, 2,000 migrants stayed at the shelter -- 500 more than last year.

Loureiro said he has not seen such a rush of migrants since 1986, when the United States allowed 2.6 million illegal residents to get American citizenship.

One proposal before the U.S. Senate could legalize some of the 11 million people now illegally in the United States while tightening border security.

Some U.S. officials, however, say the rise in detentions may not necessarily mean more people are crossing, but that more are detained because of an increase in the number of Border Patrol agents.

[Soldier4Christ]

Demonstrations on Immigration Harden a Divide

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., April 14 — Al and Diane Kitlica have not paid close attention to the immigration debate in Congress. But when more than 100,000 mostly Hispanic demonstrators marched through Phoenix this week, the Kitlicas noticed.

"I was outraged," Ms. Kitlica told J. D. Hayworth, the Republican who is her congressman, as she and her husband stopped him for 20 minutes while he was on a walk through their suburban neighborhood to complain to him about the issue.

"You want to stay here and get an education, get benefits, and you still want to say 'Viva Mexico'? It was a slap in the face," Ms. Kitlica said, adding that illegal immigrants were straining the Mesa public school where she teaches.

A few miles west, Gus Martinez, a Mexican immigrant who was moonlighting at a hot dog stand after a day installing drywall, said the protests had changed his perspective, too.

Mr. Martinez, who said he was a legal immigrant, said he also supported border security to curb illegal entry. But he had taken the day off to march earlier in the week because he believed that the foes of illegal immigration were taking aim at Hispanics as a group. The demonstrations, he said, had instilled in him a sense of power.

"It showed that our hands — Latino hands — make a difference in this country," Mr. Martinez said. "They see you are Hispanic and call you a criminal, but we are not."

As lawmakers set aside the debate on immigration legislation for their spring recess, the protests by millions around the nation have escalated the policy debate into a much broader battle over the status of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants. While the marches have galvanized Hispanic voters, they have also energized those who support a crackdown on illegal immigration.

"The size and magnitude of the demonstrations had some kind of backfire effect," said John McLaughlin, a Republican pollster who said he was working for 26 House members and seven senators seeking re-election. "The Republicans that are tough on immigration are doing well right now."

Mr. Hayworth said, "I see an incredible backlash." He has become one of the House's most vocal opponents of illegal immigration and is one of dozens of Republicans who have vowed to block the temporary-worker measure that stalled in the Senate.

The Kitlicas, who had been unaware of his views, decided to volunteer for his campaign. Mr. Hayworth, who has been singled out by Democrats in his bid for re-election, faces a challenge from a popular former Democratic mayor of Tempe, Harry E. Mitchell.

The immigration issue is cropping up in areas as far from the border as Iowa and Nebraska. In one House district in Iowa, Republican primary candidates are running television commercials competing over who is "toughest" on illegal immigration, said Amy Walters, an analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican from another district, said his office had been flooded with angry calls about the recent marches. "It is one thing to see an abstract number of 12 million illegal immigrants," Mr. King said. "It is another thing to see more than a million marching through the streets demanding benefits as if it were a birthright." He added, "I think people resent that."

But Mr. King, who supported a House bill to restrict illegal immigrants without creating a guest-worker program, said he was also feeling new heat from the thousands of Hispanics in his district, many of whom worked in its meatpacking plants. Responding to a survey by his office, some Hispanics called him a racist for asking questions about building a wall with Mexico, or suggested a wall with Canada, he said.

The emotions around the issue are especially intense in Arizona, where thousands of illegal immigrants cross the border each month and more than a quarter of the population is Hispanic. In 2004, Hispanics accounted for about one in eight voters.

When voters approved a ballot measure that year to block access to state services for illegal immigrants, more than 40 percent of Hispanic voters supported it, according to some surveys of people leaving polling places.

But many Hispanics said opinions had changed dramatically in the past few weeks, partly because of the hostility they perceived in some proposals from Mr. Hayworth and other conservatives.

"When people are talking about shooting people who come across the border," said Harry Garewal, chief executive of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, "yeah, I think that causes some angst."

Leo Hernandez, assistant publisher of Prensa Hispana, a major Arizona Spanish-language newspaper, said the demonstrations had also played a role. "The Latino people in Arizona are more united," Mr. Hernandez said. "They are no more afraid; they go out into the streets."

In Scottsdale, where many employees are Hispanic but few residents are, some voters said the workplace absences on the day of the marches highlighted the importance of immigrant labor.

"If you don't get the Hispanics here working in this town, you don't have cooks in the back, you don't have people building houses," said Bruce Weinstein, an executive eating breakfast at a restaurant.

Many others, however, expressed alarm about the marches, saying the demonstrations could have been a chance to round up and deport illegal immigrants.

"They should all be ejected out of the country," said Andrew Chenot, a construction worker, who added, "They are in my country and they are on my job, and they are driving down wages."

Others here, like the Kitlicas, said the marches had only sharpened their worries that illegal immigrants from Mexico brought with them crime, financial burdens, national security risks, cultural disintegration and even diseases like drug-resistant tuberculosis — concerns echoed often by conservative talk radio hosts in the state.

Representative Hayworth said such fears were well-founded. "We have indicted felons from other societies on the loose here," he said. "You see the exponential rise of drug-resistant T.B. and other things. That is not indicting an entire culture, but it is pointing out a problem."

Mr. Hayworth recently published a book, "Whatever It Takes" (Regnery Publishing, 2006), in which he advocates enlisting agencies like the Internal Revenue Service to find illegal immigrants; arresting and deporting them all; deploying military troops on the southern border; and temporarily suspending legal immigration from Mexico.

His opponent, Mr. Mitchell, calls those ideas "unrealistic."

Randy Graf, a former Republican state legislator, is campaigning on the same border-security themes as Mr. Hayworth in his bid to succeed Representative Jim Kolbe, a Republican and a supporter of a temporary-worker program who is not running again.

Mr. Graf challenged Mr. Kolbe in the primary two years ago over the immigration issue and won 40 percent of the vote, putting him in a strong position against two more moderate Republicans in the primary.

Mike Hellon, one of the more moderate candidates in the current primary, said: "The marches have hardened positions on both sides. People who really want the border closed — who want to put troops down there — are more passionate than ever, and the other side is more sympathetic." He added, "It does escalate the risk factor for a moderate like me."

Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who supports a temporary-worker program that would allow illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, said that House conservatives like Mr. Hayworth remained a major obstacle to such legislation. "That is the oil in the water," Mr. Grijalva said.

But with the Hispanic electorate set to swell as the children of immigrants come of age, Mr. Grijalva said that history was on the other side.

"You might be getting a momentary bump," he said, "but in the long run you are going to lose."

[Soldier4Christ]

US immigration debate opens up great divide in Republican party
Yet again, a key issue for businesses has been turned into an internal political battle, pitting social conservatives against more economically liberal voices



WHILE the most visible reaction after proposed reforms to US immigration laws, stalled in Congress last week, was the hundreds of thousands of mostly Latino demonstrators drawn onto the streets, behind the scenes most US business leaders were equally disappointed.

Most US business leaders and lobby groups have vigorously supported the Bush administration's push for reforms that would legalise the residency and work status of most illegal immigrants, and put many on a path to US citizenship.

There are an estimated 11 million people who live and work illegally in the US, up from an estimated 3 million in 1985.

Over recent years, despite increased border security and heavy spending on fences, aircraft patrols and fancy detection technologies, the annual inflow is estimated to have hovered around 850,000.

As these individuals have become integrated into the economy, many industries have become dependent on them.

This is particularly true of labour-intensive areas such as agriculture, low-tech manufacturing, hotels and hospitality, residential construction and domestic services, where unskilled or semi-skilled illegal immigrants often form the backbone of the labour force.

Firms in these sectors have warned of the economic disruption that would follow if laws were changed to force employers to scrutinise the credentials of would-be workers more closely, and to increase penalties on companies found to be employing illegal workers.

This would be a radical departure from the current environment, where the federal Government, more or less, ignores breaches of the immigration rules by businesses that hire these workers, in what is a tacit acknowledgement of economic reality.

But there has also been more general business support for the reforms proposed by the White House, which would have created a new category of legal guest workers, and allowed the majority of the illegals already in the US to stay and eventually become citizens if they could present a solid work and tax-paying history.

This has partly been for the usual reasons that business groups support immigration. As in Australian, US businesses see it as a way to expand the domestic market, alleviate skills or labour shortages where they arise, and help keep wage costs down -- though they rarely admit to the last.

Of course alleged downward pressure on wages across the bottom rungs of the US labour force, due to availability of low-cost unskilled immigrant workers, is a prime rallying point for opponents of the Bush reforms such as unions who claim they want to protect US living standards.

As it turns out, empirical evidence for the impact of illegal immigration on US wages is mixed, but mostly suggests the impact is minimal, even for wages paid to unskilled Americans.

But business trade and lobby groups have also rallied in force behind the immigration reforms for another reason: because, yet again, the debate has turned a key economic issue for businesses into a battle between the worst instincts of the socially conservative, insular wing of the Republican Party and its more economically liberal business-oriented strands.

Business has lost a series of these battles since 2000 on the budget, on many trade issues, on tax and social security reform, and more generally on the domestic policy priorities of the ascendant Republican party. This time, on immigration reform, the prospects seemed brighter, not least because the President himself was championing the need for change, and forcefully advocating a set of business-friendly answers, at least in relation to the issues around illegal immigrants.

The other half of US immigration policy, the part which deals with legal entry of skilled or technical workers and attempts to meet economic objectives, has largely not been addressed in the current debate, and remains a shambles. Of course, any US debate over immigration after September 11 has also been heavily focused on the issue of border security.

Unsurprisingly, despite taking a tough stance on such issues, this is where the administration's hoped-for reforms started to unravel.

Tub-thumping Republicans from deep red states soon latched onto the idea that an amnesty for illegals was not only encouragement for those who had broken the law, and a betrayal of the US's right to control its borders - but also a potential national-security threat.

These political instincts led to a push from a broad spectrum of the Republican Party for new laws to criminalise illegal aliens, crack down even harder at the borders, and force businesses to play a larger part in preventing illegals from gaining a toehold in the US economy.

Legislation to that effect was passed by the House of Representatives, and must now be reconciled with the watered-down version of the administration's proposed reforms that were passed in the Senate. While there is still plenty of time for a compromise, few watchers in Washington DC expect the eventual outcome to meet many of the original aspirations of the administration and the business community.

This is despite the frantic last-minute lobbying over the past week from a broad range of business groups, from the US Chamber of Commerce all the way down to trade associations representing nurseries and produce vendors.

The Republicans have much to lose if the reactionary wing of the party gets its way - not only the support of economic realists in the business community, but also some of the increasingly solid support from Latino voters the Republican party has won over the past decade. While it would be a mistake to assume Latinos, who are the US's fastest-growing minority group, favour lenience for illegal immigrants (in fact the reverse is more often true, according to the pollsters), they have deserted the Republican side in droves before at the first hint that it favoured racially charged policies.

In California, Latino disgust at Republican policies, which seemed to be directed largely against their communities, paved the way for the state's transformation into a Democrat stronghold through the 1990s.

Little wonder that the Governator has come out forcefully in favour of bringing illegal immigrants into the mainstream, and against the more draconian policies advocated by the less tolerant within his party.

The most important fallout from the immigration debate will come from within the political realm. But amid those angry exchanges, also keep an eye on the business reaction, where the way the Republican Party has handled the issue will likely become yet another driver of disappointment with its domestic policy agenda and disgruntlement with the party's social conservatives.

[Soldier4Christ]

Immigration consternation
Employers divided as U.S. Chamber promotes compromise bill, powerful small-business group sits on the sidelines

U.S. Senators will get an earful about immigration reform between now and April 27, when leaders will try to revive a compromise bill that fell apart amid partisan procedural squabbles.

As Latinos hold mass rallies across America and anti-immigrant Minutemen patrol the Mexican border, business groups are lobbying senators to follow through on legislation that would ensure employers continue to have access to a huge pool of unskilled labor.

The lobbying effort is being led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and associations representing construction companies, restaurants and other industries that employ thousands of immigrants.

The most powerful group representing small businesses is sitting on the sidelines, however. Members of the National Federation of Independent Business are divided over immigration reform. While 86% think it should be a high priority, they're evenly split over the key issue of whether illegal immigrants should be given a chance to earn U.S. citizenship.

The Senate compromise would allow illegal immigrants who have been in the United States two years or more to obtain temporary work visas and eventually become U.S. citizens if they meet certain conditions. The bill passed by the House focused only on improved border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws.

Small businesses are more concerned about the cost of illegal immigrants to taxpayers than they are about national security, disrespect for the law or job losses for native-born Americans, according to NFIB's survey.

"Our members do want to see something done," says Patrick Lyden, manager of legislative affairs for NFIB.

But, he adds, small businesses "don't want to be the front lines of enforcement." That's the federal government's job, he says.
'Devil in the details'

Verifying the identification of a job applicant would impose a moderate burden on small businesses, the NFIB survey found, but that burden could be reduced if an electronic system were provided.

The House immigration reform bill requires employers to submit their employees' Social Security numbers to the federal government, which would compare these numbers to government databases. The government would then notify the employer whether the individual is eligible to work. This system is being tested in a voluntary pilot program involving a few thousand businesses.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who authored the House bill, says the NFIB survey shows that small business owners think this system is "workable and not a burden."

Lyden, however, says, "the devil is in the details." The system may be simple, he says, but it may produce inaccurate results, especially when it's expanded to millions of businesses. Business groups think the system's kinks need to be worked out before employers are subjected to stiff fines for violations. They're likely to get what they want from the Senate.
Window may have closed

That's if the Senate passes a bill, however. The Senate spent two weeks on immigration reform before its Easter break, and faces a crowded legislative agenda when it returns.

Some supporters of the Senate bill fear they've lost their window of opportunity this year.

But Laura Reiff, an immigration attorney with Greenberg Traurig who co-chairs the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, says the compromise reached by the Senate is "still there."

"We just have to make it stick over recess ... make sure people don't backtrack on their deal commitments," she says.

EWIC co-chair John Gay, a senior vice president at the National Restaurant Association, hopes "tempers will calm down" by the time senators return to Washington. Republicans and Democrats blamed each other for the impasse that developed over how many amendments could be offered to the bill.

Reiff is optimistic the Senate will pass a bill, but she is less confident the House and Senate will resolve their differences. Negotiations between the two chambers may have to wait until after the November congressional elections, she says.

If no immigration reform bill is enacted this year, "we'll be back at it again next year," Gay says.

The demand for unskilled labor will continue to grow, he says, as the American-born work force ages and education levels rise.

"The reality is our demographic trends are demanding a certain type of worker," says Ben Johnson, director of the Immigration Policy Center, a division of the American Immigration Law Foundation. "Immigrants are younger and less educated. They are what we are not."

[Soldier4Christ]

Some provisions of immigration measure seen as unworkable


WASHINGTON - The sweeping immigration bill the Senate will tackle upon its return to Washington next week has been hailed as a compromise that marries tough border enforcement with humane treatment of illegal immigrants.

Yet it contains provisions that immigration experts and even many lawmakers say are highly unrealistic, and that were inserted largely to placate tough-on-immigration senators and win enough support for passage.

Roughly 12 million illegal immigrants would have to pass background checks before receiving immigration papers under the bill. But a government bureaucracy already struggling with its workload would perform the checks, and experts say these new demands would overwhelm the system.

In addition, undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States for two to five years, no matter where they live, would have to travel back to a port-of-entry on the U.S. border, such as El Paso, Texas, and go back across the border to apply for guest worker status. Upon performing this so-called touchback, these several million immigrants could immediately return to their U.S. homes.

To experts who have followed the immigration debate, these examples demonstrate that lawmakers have tossed practical considerations aside to craft a compromise that could pass the Senate. The result is a bill that seems as much an exercise in legislative expediency as an attempt to reform the nation's broken immigration system.

Although the bill stalled shortly before Congress left town on April 7, it will form the basis of talks senators will resume later this month. The background check and touchback provisions stand a good chance of being in any final bill because they are important for winning support from lawmakers opposed to legislation that could be seen as granting blanket amnesty to those in the U.S. illegally.

The touchback measure, especially, has come in for ridicule.

"You create the illusion that you're being tough by saying we're going to do background checks, we're going to make some people go home and come back," said Steve Cammarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank that advocates stronger immigration controls. "It's not meaningful. ... It doesn't pass the straight-face test."

On this, both those who favor stricter immigration controls and those who advocate for immigrant rights agree.

"It's completely optics - it really is," said Jeanne Butterfield, director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, based in Washington. "The Republicans need some way to say this is not an amnesty. And the easiest way they think to say that is to say, `Look, we're requiring people to leave the country.'"

"It's kind of like the act of crossing over the border and going out cleanses them and turning around 2 feet over the border and coming back gives them this new status," she said.

When Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., puzzled aloud through the concept of a touchback at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting two weeks ago, he prompted laughter from the audience when he said: "Then for reasons I cannot explain you have to go touch your toe in the Rio Grande and come back into the U.S. and touch base. I don't quite understand what that move is unless it is for the travel agents of America."

Republican supporters challenged Durbin's comments.

"It is thought that by going back to some place, El Paso illustratively, they'd have to apply like everybody else," as do other would-be immigrants outside the country, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee's chairman, told Durbin.

At the same meeting, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, another touchback supporter, said: "I disagree with Senator Durbin that this is a matter of sticking your toe in the Rio Grande and coming back as fast you can. ... It is designed to be responsive to those people who in my state and elsewhere tell me they would view an absence of a return requirement - a realistic one, not just a trivial one or a wink and a nod - as an amnesty and something they do not support and they are urging me not to support."

But even a fellow Republican, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, who has generally agreed with Cornyn during the immigration debate, disparaged the idea of a touchback, describing it during a news conference as "artificial and meaningless."

While the touchback provision has struck many as bizarre, most people see the requirement of a background check as serious.

But the agency responsible for conducting immigration background checks, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Homeland Security Department, is already dealing with a large backlog of immigration applications requiring background checks.

As of last June, the agency had reduced what had been a backlog of 3.8 million immigration applications to 1.2 million. But the agency is dependent on the FBI for criminal checks.

During the background checks, names and frequently fingerprints are checked against information in criminal and sometimes intelligence databases maintained by U.S. agencies. Background checks of applicants in their home countries are virtually non-existent.

According to a November report by the Government Accountability Office, the FBI can sometimes take months to complete a background check, especially if an immigration applicant's name "matches the name or alias of someone with a criminal history." Adding 12 million applications to the backlog could create a bureaucratic nightmare.

While the checks at times get bogged down, at other times they're too cursory, raising homeland security concerns, said Michael Maxwell, a whistleblower and former director of the Citizenship and Immigration Services' Office of Security and Investigations.

The same week the Senate immigration compromise was announced before it hit a wall, Maxwell testified before a House International Relations subcommittee about his former agency, which sounded dysfunctional.

To meet a goal of eliminating its backlog by the end of September, he said, agency employees often weren't waiting for background checks to be completed before approving immigration applications.

"I was told as recently as three weeks ago," Maxwell said in written testimony, "that district offices and service centers are holding competitions and offering a variety of rewards, including cash bonuses, time off, movie tickets and gift certificates, to employees ... with the fastest processing times. The quality of processing is not a factor; only the quantity of closed applications matters."

The concern is that the agency may already be permitting individuals into the United States who are threats to commit crimes or terrorism. Giving the agency another 12 million applications to process would just make matters worse, critics say.

Caroline Espinosa, a spokeswoman for NumbersUSA, an immigration-control group based in the Washington suburbs, said, "No matter where you stand on this issue, (Citizenship and Immigration Services) is just incapable of processing what they have now, much less the tens of millions that would be thrown at them should any of the Senate bills pass and become law."

[Soldier4Christ]

GOP releases immigration ad

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Republicans Monday mounted a new offensive over immigration reform, releasing a Spanish-language ad lambasting U.S. congressional Democrats.

The ad accuses Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of obstructionism and accuses House Democrats of attempting to turn illegal immigrants into felons.

The ad is airing on Hispanic stations in Reno, Nev., Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson.

The 60-second ad says terrorists and drug smugglers are crossing U.S. borders and though Republicans are working to plug the holes, Democrats are sitting by idly or actively blocking efforts.

'Democrat Leader Harry Reid let us down. Harry Reid played politics and blocked our leaders from working together,' the announcer intones.

It urges: 'Call Harry Reid at (702) 388-5020. Tell him to stop playing with our futures.'

[Soldier4Christ]

Ga. governor signs strict immigration bill

By SHANNON MCCAFFREY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

ATLANTA -- Georgia's governor signed a sweeping immigration bill Monday that supporters and critics say gives the state some of the toughest measures against illegal immigrants in the nation.

"I want to make this clear: we are not, Georgia's government is not, and this bill is not, anti-immigrant," Gov. Sunny Perdue said at the signing.

"We simply believe that everyone who lives in our state needs to abide by our laws."

The law requires verification that adults seeking many state-administered benefits are in the country legally. It sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and mandates that companies with state contracts check the immigration status of employees.

The law also requires police to check the immigration status of people they arrest.

The measure is believed to be the first comprehensive immigration package to make it through a statehouse this session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Many of the new law's provisions will not take effect until July 1, 2007.

The bill drew protests at Georgia's state Capitol and prompted a daylong work stoppage by thousands of immigrants.

Tisha Tallman, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said she was studying potential legal challenges to the bill.

The new law will not affect emergency medical care and educational benefits for those in kindergarten through 12th grade, which federal courts have said must be provided regardless of immigration status.

Exemptions were also added for some other services like prenatal care and the treatment of communicable diseases.

The move to tighten rules in Georgia comes as lawmakers in Washington wrestle with competing proposals to shore up controls at the border, create a guest worker program and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Outside the Capitol on Monday, a few hundred supporters of the legislation applauded loudly when word came that Perdue was signing the proposal.

The crowd waved American flags and cheered as state Rep. Melvin Everson, one of the Georgia House's two black Republicans, denounced illegal immigration as a cancer and proclaimed: "The last time I checked, America was the land of English - not Spanish."

And they hollered as Republican state Sen. Chip Rogers, the bill's author, called it "the strongest single bill in America dealing with illegal immigration - bar none."

At the bill signing, Rogers said he has been approached by lawmakers from South Carolina and Colorado who were interested in crafting similar proposals for their states.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mexican police kill man in illegals raid
Officer apparently mistook victim for Central American

Mexican police killed a man near Mexico City in a raid on illegal immigrants from Central America, sparking the anger of local residents, who overturned and smashed two immigration service trucks.

The man fatally shot in the town Tultitlan on the outskirts of Mexico City apparently was mistaken for a Central American, the Associated Press reported.

Local residents said the victim, Robert Lugo, was a construction worker whose dark skin and work clothes likely made him appear to be an illegal immigrant. Witnesses said Lugo was shot at close range and was not running from police or trying to confront them.

Tultitlan is a frequent stopping point for Central Americans who enter Mexico illegal and try to make their way north to the United States by train.

Mexican police, who regularly conduct raids in the town, often abuse the illegals before releasing them without charges, local residents told the Associated Press.

"If you're carrying any money, they take it from you; federal, local police, all of them," said Carlos Lopez, 28, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala City.

Jose Ramos, 18, of El Salvador, agreed, saying, "If you're on a bus, they pull you off and search your pockets and if you have any money, they keep it and say 'Get out of here.'"

As WorldNetDaily columnist Larry Elder pointed out, a United Nations human rights commissioner recently said Mexico "is one of the countries where illegal immigrants are highly vulnerable to human rights violations and become victims of degrading sexual exploitation and slavery-like practices, and are denied access to education and health care."

When Mexican authorities catch illegal aliens, they typically place them overnight in a detention center, then bus or fly them back to their country of origin.

Elder said that although Mexico militarized its border and deported 203,128 illegal immigrants in 2004, many illegals get through by bribing corrupt military and police.