Immigration News

[Soldier4Christ]

Policy makes Houston haven for immigrants

With a 30 percent Hispanic population and residents from all over the world, Houston has long had a live-and-let-live attitude toward immigrants.

But that attitude is being challenged this year with the national debate raging over immigration law and the political season heating up. Anti-immigration billboards have sprouted up, and city leaders considered ending funding for a large day labor site.

Most recently, conservative politicians called for an end to a policy preventing police from asking all people they encounter about their citizenship status. Critics say the policy makes Houston a "sanctuary city," where police can't enforce federal immigration law and illegal immigrants don't worry about arrest.

"One of the problems is that cities through these policies have become magnets for illegal immigration," said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, which has sued Los Angeles over a similar policy. "It's bad enough the federal government isn't doing its job. But even if it wanted to, its job is made much more difficult by the sanctuary policies that cities such as Houston have."

Thirty-two U.S. cities and counties have such policies, including Houston, New York, Austin and Seattle, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

A group called Protect Our Citizens is gathering signatures for a November ballot referendum that would amend Houston's city charter to allow police to verify any suspect's citizenship.

U.S. Rep John Culberson, R-Houston, last month added an amendment to an appropriations bill that would block federal law enforcement money for cities with "sanctuary policies." The spending measure still has to be discussed in the Senate.

Mayor Bill White and police department officials deny Houston is a sanctuary city, saying officers will arrest anybody, including illegal immigrants, as needed. But White added that officers would be diverted from priority calls if they had to check the citizenship status of every person they dealt with.

"People are frustrated about the lack of a federal policy on immigration," he said. "But citizens should not allow their frustration on this issue to handcuff our law enforcement so they cannot respond to the complaints of citizens."

The Houston policy allows officers to inquire about citizenship status if a person is arrested for anything other than a traffic or city ordinance violation.

But Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, who is seeking the nod to be former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's replacement in the race for his congressional seat, said officers should be allowed to check in any situation.

"Many criminals and terrorists are caught because they are also breaking lower-level laws," she said. "Misdemeanors are still laws. That is a tool that has been denied our police officers," she said.

Craig Ferrell, general counsel for the Houston Police Department, said officers can't legally question individuals solely on the suspicion they are in the country illegally. He also noted police need immigrants to feel comfortable talking to authorities and not fear deportation.

"There are lots of people with a questionable immigration status," he said. "They are witnesses to crimes. It's important to have assistance from law abiding people to solve crimes and keep the city safe."

Culberson disagreed.

Police "need every tool at their disposal to identify criminal aliens that are evading federal authorities and hiding behind sanctuary policies," said Culberson, who along with other critics cite examples of illegal immigrants who weren't questioned about their citizenship status and later committed serious crimes.

Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado called anti-immigration efforts an "immoral" result of election-year politics.

Alvarado is helping organize opposition to the referendum movement.

"It's a way of scapegoating one segment of the population to drive up voter participation in another segment," she said. "Our police officers need to be out there chasing real criminals."

[Soldier4Christ]

Immigration: gettng in legally takes a long time

Many have become citizens, while others still wait

Immigrating to the United States couldn't have been smoother for Ali Bahadur.

After a simple interview at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, he was given a sealed packet to take with him to New York, where he went through customs.
      "Within half an hour, I got a (green) card, right there," he said of the identification allowing him to live and work in the United States. "It was so easy."
      That was in 1978, when Bahadur moved to the Salt Lake Valley from his native Pakistan. His brother sponsored his green card. During the next two years, Bahadur was able to bring his wife, Parveen, and their four children to the Salt Lake Valley.
      But Bahadur, now a U.S. citizen, shakes his head when he hears about how difficult it is to immigrate legally today. A nephew had to wait a decade for permanent residency amid a growing waiting list for a limited number of visas. Security checks are stringent, and interviews more complex.
      "It's too long now, it's very hard," he said. "I have two sisters back there, but there's no way for them to get a visa right now."
      There are now so many more applicants than available visas that there is currently an 11-year wait to sponsor a sibling for immigration from most countries, according to the State Department's July Visa Bulletin.
      U.S. State Department officials say there are more petitions being filed today to sponsor immigrants, but there's no comparison to the 1970s because the numbers and types of visas have changed.
      During the early 1970s, there were separate limits for the Eastern and Western hemispheres, which totaled around 290,000 visas. Then, legislative changes did away with the split and reduced the worldwide limit to 270,000.
      Then in 1990 the preference categories were raised to 226,000 for family and 140,000 for employment. Any unused visas can be used the next year.
      There is also a limit of how many visas can be allocated to each country. The Philippines has traditionally had one of the longest waits. In July, 1978, the wait was 10 years. Today, it's nearly 23 years. And pending legislation in Congress would make even more changes, but it is debated whether it will cause a bigger backup or alleviate the wait, observers say.
      Avelina Staker hopes the 11-year wait won't get even longer. She's recently applied for citizenship and hopes to sponsor her sister's immigration from Venezuela after she's naturalized.
      Staker, a student at the LDS Business College, dreams of someday becoming a teacher. Her 4-year-old son is a U.S. citizen. She hopes to be naturalized by the end of the year. It generally takes about six months from the time an application is received to a naturalization service in the Salt Lake region. There are also fees totaling $400.
      If the wait for siblings' visas remains 11 years, her 30-year-old sister, Ana Mercedes, will be 41 years old when her green-card application is processed.
      "It's a lot of time to wait," Staker said wistfully. "It's hard, it's really difficult."

Lost in the cries to clamp down on illegal immigration is the fact that every year thousands of people immigrate to the United States legally. Some 1.12 million people became permanent residents in 2005. More than half — 649,772 — were sponsored by family members.
      Most were in categories that aren't subject to the visa cap: spouses, parents and unmarried minor children. However, other relatives of citizens and permanent residents must generally wait several years. Some categories of employer-sponsored green cards for skilled workers involve a wait of five years, according to the July Visa Bulletin.
      Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonprofit think-tank, said the wait to immigrate is long for a simple reason: There aren't enough green cards to meet the demand, even though more visas were added in the mid-1990s.
      "There's been an increasing demand for skilled labor," he said. "Starting in the 1980s, you started to see backlogs become significant on the family (reunification) side, on the employment side in the 1990s."
      Those who don't have family or employers to sponsor them can participate in the diversity lottery. The lottery hands out up to 55,000 visas each year.
      The lottery is closed to countries with high levels of immigration, including Canada and Mexico. This year, more than 5.5 million people applied for one of the visas for fiscal 2007. No one country can receive more than 7 percent of the visas each year, and up to 5,000 are reserved for the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act.
      Some 3,000 people are naturalized every year in the Salt Lake region, and the top nations of origin for new citizens are Mexico, Bosnia, Vietnam, China and Canada.
      On Thursday, some 204 immigrants, including two soldiers, from 56 countries became Americans.
      Some had fled their homelands as refugees. Others sought freedom. Some broke into tears as they expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to live in the United States, saying "God bless America."
      During the ceremony a woman from Bosnia said she's been waiting for the opportunity to become a citizen for 12 years. A woman from Mexico said U.S. citizenship has been her dream for as long as she can remember. A soldier said, "The freedom I have here is priceless."
      A requirement for family-sponsored immigration is proof you can support an immigrant at 125 percent of the poverty level.
      That's something that has delayed Murad Karabachian's reunification with his mother, Anaid, who lives in Rio de Janeiro.
      Anaid's medical condition requires proof he'll be able to cover her medical bills. It's taking time, he said, to obtain insurance coverage for her and proof of the ability to pay her living and medical expenses.
      Karabachian first applied to sponsor his mother's immigration in 2000, and he hopes to be reunited by next Christmas.
      "She had to go through 30 medical exams," he said. "They MRI you from head to toe. You need to satisfy all the requirements."
      While the lengthy process is sometimes frustrating, Karabachian says there's a "price for everything," and the process hasn't discouraged him.
      "I'm a citizen, I'm proud to be a citizen," he said. "My mom even says that's the way to do it. She always says that we should abide by the law ."
      Anaid said in a telephone interview that she is eager for a green card so she can be reunited with her son and four grandchildren.
      "I miss them, you know," she said. "It is more easy that I come there."

Legal vs. illegal
      Immigrants who came here legally have mixed reactions on the debate surrounding illegal immigration. The Senate and the House have each passed bills, but negotiations are stalled for now as the House holds public forums on the Senate bill, which would legalize many of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. More hearings are scheduled for August.
      Staker is among those who wishes the Senate bill would concentrate less on those who came here illegally and more on making it easier to immigrate legally.
      Staker, who migrated from Venezuela, says she's often considered foolish by others in the Latino community who find it very easy to live in the United States illegally.
      The only difference between herself and them, she said, is the ability to enter and leave the country at will.
      However, while much of the attention over the proposed Senate bill has been over provisions to add new temporary and permanent visa categories, it also adds more visas in existing categories.
      It adds 510,000 new employer sponsored green cards each year and raises the number of family-preference visas from 226,000 to 480,000.
      Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the Senate bill would exacerbate long waits by vastly expanding the number of people who would be seeking visas for themselves or for family members.
      "It's going to create another backlog," Rector said. "The more immigrants you bring in, the more pressure for family reunification you're going to have. It's not like you can reduce this backlog by bringing more people in."
      But, Anderson, of the National Foundation for American Policy, disagreed with that assessment, saying the bill is meant to reduce backlogs.
      "It will more than cut in half the wait times," he said.
      Anderson said the way the bill is written, those already in the system would have priority, except perhaps for those who would qualify for a new agricultural worker visa.
      "The regularization of people who have been here for five years (illegally) essentially puts them at the back of the pack," he said. "Eventually as their status became regularized, then there will be more requests for family reunification."

[Soldier4Christ]

 Crossers burying border in garbage
Despite cleanups, trash along smuggling routes piles up faster than ever

After three years of cleanups, the federal government has achieved no better than a 1 percent solution for the problem of trash left in Southern Arizona by illegal border-crossers.
Cleanup crews from various agencies, volunteer groups and the Tohono O'odham Nation hauled about 250,000 pounds of trash from thousands of acres of federal, state and private land across Southern Arizona in 2002 to 2005, says the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
But that's only a fraction of the nearly 25 million pounds of trash thought to be out there.
Authorities estimate the 3.2 million-plus entrants caught by the Border Patrol dropped that much garbage in the Southern Arizona desert from July 1999 through June 2005. The figure assumes that each illegal entrant discards 8 pounds of trash, the weight of some abandoned backpacks found in the desert.
The trash is piling up faster than it can be cleaned up. Considering that the Border Patrol apprehended more than 577,000 entrants in 2004-05 alone, the BLM figures that those people left almost 4 million pounds of trash in that same year.
That's 16 times what was picked up in three years. And that doesn't include the unknown amounts of garbage left by border-crossers who don't get caught.
Diverse trash found all over
"We're keeping up with the trash only in certain locations, in areas that we've hit as many as three times," said Shela McFarlin, BLM's special assistant for international programs.
The trash includes water bottles, sweaters, jeans, razors, soap, medications, food, ropes, batteries, cell phones, radios, homemade weapons and human waste.
It has been found in large quantities as high as Miller Peak, towering more than 9,400 feet in the Huachuca Mountains, as well as in low desert such as Organ Pipe National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.
It's even started turning up in smaller amounts in hiking areas closer to Tucson, such as Josephine Saddle in the Santa Rita Mountains on the route to Mount Wrightson, says the Southern Arizona Hiking Club.
"In the Huachucas, you are almost wading through empty gallon water jugs," said Steve Singkofer, the Hiking Club's president. "There's literally thousands of water jugs, clothes, shoes. You could send 1,000 people out there and they could each pick up a dozen water jugs, and they couldn't get it all."
Cleanup not cheap, easy
While nobody has an exact cost estimate for removing all the garbage, it's clearly not cheap. But McFarlin agrees with several advocacy groups that without a tightening of controls on illegal immigration, a guest-worker program or other reform of federal border policy, the trash will just keep coming regardless of what's spent.
The financial details:
● In 2002, the U.S. estimated that removing all litter from lands just in Southeast Arizona — east of the Tohono Reservation — would cost about $4.5 million over five years. This count didn't include such trash hotbeds as Ironwood Forest National Monument, the Altar Valley, Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta.
● Since then, Congress appropriated about $3.4 million for a wide range of environmental remediation measures in all of Southern Arizona. This includes repairing roads, building fences and removing abandoned cars.
● The five-year tab is $62.9 million for all forms of environmental remediation for immigration-related damage across Southeast Arizona, including $23 million for the first year.
Waste unhealthy, unsightly
Most of the garbage is left at areas where entrants wait to be picked up by smugglers. The accumulation of disintegrating toilet paper, human feces and rotting food is a health and safety issue for residents of these areas and visitors to public lands, a new BLM report says.
"It's particularly serious in areas where there are livestock," said Robin Hoover, pastor of the First Christian Church in Tucson and president of Humane Borders, a group that puts water tanks in the desert for the entrants and coordinates monthly cleanups of Ironwood Monument and other sites.
"I've even found injectable drugs in the desert," he said. "It's rare when we find that kind of stuff, but there's tons of over-the-counter medication out there. If some cow comes along and eats a bunch of pills, that would be a real sick cow."
The trash also isn't good for wildlife, said Arizona Game and Fish spokesman Dana Yost. Birds and mammals can get tangled up in it or eat it, causing digestive problems, Yost said. It's not at all uncommon to find the trash in bears' stomachs, he said. Plastic bags, foil wrappers and certain foods are all problems.
Remote areas need more help
But clear inroads are being made into the trash problem, said BLM's McFarlin. Using the U.S. money, various local and federal agencies, the Tohono O'odham Tribe, the conservationist Malpais Borderlands Group and student youth corps remove trash from the most obvious and accessible areas, she said.
What needs tackling now are more remote areas such as wilderness, mountains and deserts far from major roads, she said. A couple of times, authorities have had to use helicopters or mules to haul stuff out of such areas.
This summer, with Border Patrol apprehensions of entrants down, the Tohono O'odham Tribe is seeing less trash on the ground than usual, said Gary Olson, the tribe's solid-waste administrator.
"I don't know whether they're hiding their trash or whether they are just not coming," Olson said.
But only six weeks ago, No More Deaths, an advocacy group that looks for injured, sick and lost entrants, came across a 10,000-square-foot area five miles west of Arivaca littered with hundreds and hundreds of backpacks.
"I've never seen anything that size. It's unbelievable," said Steve Johnston, who coordinates the group's camp near Arivaca.
Other activists from Derechos Humanos, Defenders of Wildlife and No More Deaths say the trash piles show what happens when the feds deliberately drive the entrants into the desert, by sealing the borders in cities.
"If you were going to cities, you wouldn't need to carry three days' worth of food," said Kat Rodriguez, a coordinator-organizer for Derechos.
But a Cochise County activist who has been photographing garbage and other signs of damage from illegal immigration for five years said she is appalled the federal government is spending tax dollars to pick this garbage up.
Illegal entrants should pick up the trash themselves, said Cindy Kolb, who helped found the group Civil Homeland Defense.
"Our mothers did not pay someone to pick up our trash," Kolb said. "We were taught to pick it up ourselves and to practice civic pride as law-abiding citizens."

[Soldier4Christ]

Judges deny asylum at widely varying rates
Report says success of application may largely depend on who hears the case

U.S. immigration judges grant asylum at vastly different rates -- raising key questions about the uniform application of the law, according to a new report released today.

In San Francisco, Judge Anthony Murry denied asylum in 87 percent of the 430 cases he heard from fiscal 2000 to the beginning of fiscal 2005, while Judge Miriam Hayward denied it in 24 percent of the 662 cases she heard in the same period.

The greatest disparity found by the study -- conducted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research center at Syracuse University that analyzes federal staffing, spending and law enforcement on immigration -- was between a New York judge who grants asylum 97 percent of the time and eight judges who grant it in just 10 percent of cases.

"There is a shocking variability. It looks like a key determination in the outcome is what judge you happen to get," said Susan B. Long, co-director of the clearinghouse.

Antonio Arenas, a case manager at the Central American Resource Center in San Francisco, theorized that the differences stem from the judges' own backgrounds.

"It's very inconsistent," Arenas said. "Depending on the judges' political affiliation and beliefs, they decide very differently."

But spokeswoman Elaine Komis with the federal Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review said immigration judges adjudicate each asylum case individually.

"The immigration judge cannot use discretion to grant asylum simply because the respondent is a good person or because the immigration judge feels sorry for him or her," Komis said. "The respondent must meet the statutory standard for asylum."

The analysis of 297,240 cases heard from fiscal 1994 to the beginning of fiscal 2005, which was funded by the Ford Foundation, the Knight Foundation and other groups, revealed that the typical immigration judge denied 65 percent of the asylum cases he or she heard between late 1999 and early fiscal 2005.

Tens of thousands of people seek asylum in the United States every year. To win asylum, an applicant must establish that he or she is a refugee and show proof of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Conditions in the homelands of asylum applicants must apply specifically to the individuals applying for asylum, Komis said.

The report examined the nationality of asylum seekers, their legal representation and other factors.

Asylum seekers from some countries fared better than others. Starting in fiscal 2000, more than 80 percent from El Salvador, Mexico and Haiti, for example, were denied asylum. By comparison, fewer than 30 percent of asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Burma were denied.

Of the 51,258 asylum seekers with no attorney, 93.4 percent were denied, while 64 percent of applicants with attorneys were denied.

Even when all other factors were taken into account, however, the disparity from judge to judge persisted, the report states.

The role of immigration judges in the asylum process has become more important since 2002, when the process was streamlined and became more difficult, Bay Area immigration lawyers said.

"The Board of Immigration Appeals, the next step for appeal, is basically rubber-stamping the great majority of cases," said Shawn Matloob with the Northern California chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

"Another problem is the temperament of judges. Some judges are hostile to applicants and tend to be biased in favor of the government," Matloob said. "These are the things the Board of Immigration Appeals should try and get corrected."

[Soldier4Christ]

Pence-Hutchison bill creates hope on immigration

A chance encounter at the National Press Club suggests that it's possible - not likely, but possible - that immigration reform could pass this year.

Prospects are grim because House Republicans seem dug in on their plan to fight illegal immigration, period, while the Senate wants to combine border and workplace enforcement with work permits and an opportunity for illegal immigrants to become legal residents and citizens.

The two sides seem to be a chasm apart. House conservatives are convinced that a hard line on immigration is necessary to turn out Republicans in the November elections and keep Congress in the GOP's control. And the Bush White House, GOP moderates and most Democrats - whether on principle or a desire to court the fast-growing Latino vote - insist on "comprehensive" reform that gives qualified illegal immigrants a chance to legalize their status. Conservatives denounce this as "amnesty" for lawbreakers.

Informal talks between the chambers are under way, with major input from the White House, but House conservatives are holding field hearings instead of conferencing with the Senate, and only five weeks remain on the legislative calendar between the end of the August recess and the time in October when members leave town to campaign.

Despite all this, there's a glimmer of hope. Leaving a press club event Tuesday on a nonimmigration matter - his proposal for a shield law for journalists - conservative Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., ran into two leading advocates of comprehensive reform, Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum and Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute.

Trading opinions, they seemed to narrow at least one gap, and Pence indicated that he thinks more convergence is possible.

Earlier in the day, Pence and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, unveiled their new proposal designed to unify House and Senate Republicans. Their idea is to toughen border security and employer sanctions for a two-year period before other measures kick in. Then, illegal immigrant adults from Latin American countries would return home for a brief period, undergo background checks, obtain legal work visas at privately run "Ellis Island Centers" and be eligible to return to the United States for up to six two-year employment periods.

After 12 years, they and family members would be eligible for a new visa but not be eligible for social service benefits. Five years after that, they could stay in the United States on the "X-Change" visa, return home (and collect payroll taxes they'd paid) or apply for permanent residency (a "green card") and be eligible for eventual citizenship.

Sharry and Jacoby, who favor the Bush/Senate approach, were at the National Press Club for their own event, releasing a new poll showing that 71 percent of likely voters support such a measure, including 73 percent of Republicans.

By 55 percent to 33 percent, according to the bipartisan Tarrance Group/Lake Research survey, voters prefer passing a bill this year that includes what critics deride as "amnesty" to passing no legislation at all.

At their event, Sharry and Jacoby declared the Pence-Hutchison proposal "a welcome initiative" and "an important opening gesture" that "could breathe new life into the debate."

But, Sharry added, "We don't think it will work and it won't pass. For us, it's not good policy. It does not provide a path to citizenship for people who are here and those who will be coming."

The "deal-breaker" for Jacoby was Pence-Hutchison's failure to increase the number of green cards available at the end of the road. Currently, U.S. law provides for only 1,500 green cards per year for low-skill immigrants, whereas an estimated 700,000 cross the border to work and 500,000 stay in the United States.

But Pence said he favors a green-card expansion and indicated that he thought House GOP leaders and most rank-and-file Republicans would follow their leaders in supporting a phased-in comprehensive bill.

Even though conservative hard-liners have referred to his bill as offering "amnesty," Pence said that "if you leave the country and get right with the law - if you, in effect, reboot - it's not amnesty if, 17 years later, you apply to be here permanently."

He said he thought that, even though Republicans voted 203-17 in December for an enforcement-only immigration bill (one of which made being illegal a felony), only 20 to 30 of his colleagues would resist a properly constructed comprehensive bill.

After listening to Pence, Sharry told me he thinks that Pence is "earnest and gutsy, but perhaps too optimistic," especially in his prediction that hard-line opposition can be held to 20 to 30 Republicans.

"The prevailing consensus among House (Republicans) is that being tough on illegal immigration is a great base-turnout issue for the midterms and might just save them," Sharry said. He also said that such a stance would be "a historic blunder in the long run" by alienating Latinos, a growing demographic group.

Moreover, he said, while "backroom discussions" are under way among Republicans, there are none yet involving Democrats, whose support would be necessary to pass a comprehensive bill, especially in the Senate.

Among Democrats, Sens. Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.) are eager for a deal - though Kennedy said he opposes Pence's bill - but other Democrats may prefer to see Republicans fail to deliver results on an issue they've elevated to the top of the nation's agenda.

"I'd say Pence's move and the White House commitment to a result ups the chances from about 10 percent to maybe 25 percent," Sharry told me. "So, it's a big deal, but a big mountain to climb."

As I said, there's a glimmer.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hazleton’s illegal-immigration law a trendsetter
Nationally and locally – even in tiny Courtdale – towns consider similar rules.


Discussions on adopting an ordinance similar to Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act have been occurring among local officials statewide – in big cities such as Allentown, smaller municipalities such as Wilkes-Barre Township, and even tiny boroughs such as Courtdale.

In fact, copycat legislation is springing up in towns nationwide, said John Garcia, communications director for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York City.

Attorneys from Garcia’s group, the American Civil Liberties Union, Harrisburg-based Community Justice Project and private-practice civil rights attorneys threatened to sue Hazleton if council passed the ordinance, which punishes landlords and employers who rent to, hire, aid or abet illegal immigrants, and says all city documents and signs must be printed only in English.

Mayor Louis Barletta has said he got the idea from similar proposed legislation in San Bernardino, Calif., that might be put to vote on a public ballot. Barletta has said illegal immigrants are straining the resources of city government, schools and hospitals.

He presented his ordinance to council in June after recent violent crimes in the city were attributed to illegal immigrants.

Opponents say the ordinance will lead to discrimination against Latinos seeking jobs and housing. Officials estimate the Latino community in Hazleton has grown from about 1,100 people in 2000 to about 9,000 this year, accounting for about 30 percent of the city’s estimated 30,000 residents.

So far, Garcia said, his organization has learned of similar legislation drafted or being written in four Pennsylvania towns, three California towns, and one Florida town.

Hazle Township supervisors adopted a similar ordinance two days before Hazleton City Council’s final vote on July 13, and city council in Avon Park, Fla., voted down a similar ordinance on Monday, Garcia said.

He is also aware of municipal officials’ interest in towns in Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington state. The media have reported discussions in several other Pennsylvania towns.

Keeping a watchful eye

Garcia said he expected as much.

“This is a very emotional issue. People are looking for solutions to immigration under every rock and in every hole they can find. It’s not surprising given the publicity (Barletta) got.”

Garcia said his organization started the Latino Immigrant Justice Campaign to monitor the effects Hazleton’s adoption of the ordinance is having nationally.

“We’re sort of being the center warehouse for this type of information.”

One local municipality under watch is Wilkes-Barre Township, population 3,088. Council last month asked Solicitor Bruce Phillips to look into creating an ordinance similar to Hazleton’s. Officials there did not immediately return messages left at their homes Sunday.

In Courtdale, population 754, Councilman John Baldovsky said council members heard about Hazleton’s ordinance in the news and the topic came up at a council meeting. “We discussed it, but no action was taken. We just thought we would talk about it.”

Baldovsky said the council has not requested a copy of Hazleton’s ordinance, and he doesn’t know if there’s a need because “we’re just a small town. Hazleton’s a big area. But anything could happen.”

Courtdale Mayor Jim Gaughan said he hopes the borough solicitor will have an ordinance – or at least some ideas for an ordinance – prepared for council’s review at this Thursday’s council meeting.

Gaughan said he has seen the negative effects illegal immigration has had nationally, and he doesn’t want to see it happen in his borough.

“The federal government has an impossible task on their hands. … So I think the small, local governments have to get involved.”

In Shenandoah, population 5,296, Mayor Thomas O’Neill said the solicitor there is “more or less copying pretty much what Hazleton has.”

O’Neill and council are more interested in provisions that fine landlords for failing to register tenants, whether illegal immigrants or not.

“It’s really a quality-of-life issue. Many properties here have been bought up by people living outside the area who are not keeping up with their tenants. We have already penalized property owners for having tenants they didn’t register, and I believe there were a couple of them that were actually illegal,” O’Neill said.

Sunbury takes own approach

Garcia said many towns are wary about adopting an ordinance similar to Hazleton’s, especially after the Associated Press reported that attorneys for the Congressional Research Service concluded that courts could not enforce most measures in the ordinance, if challenged, because they duplicate and are preempted by federal law.

In Sunbury, another town to hit the news recently for its immigration discussion, Mayor Jesse Woodring said he has joined city police on patrols and sees a potential problem with illegal immigrants.

“Through that method, I see where a lot of them are housed in smaller spaces. I don’t know if there’s an avoidance of taxes or overcrowding in apartments, and we need to address that just like we need to address drugs and other kinds of problems.”

Woodring said his code officers find “many people living in a small space who do not speak English” in the town of about 10,000 residents.

“Communications are dead in the water, so they are unable to ascertain any kind of identification or even to communicate,” he said.

“That leads us to suspect there may be something illegal or something wrong here.

“One of the things we talked about was to get facts together and discuss solutions. We’re not going to jump on an ordinance immediately.”

Garcia said Sunbury officials are taking the right approach to their city’s problems, and likened their strategy to that of officials in Avon Park, Fla., where Mayor Thomas Macklin had been pushing to adopt an ordinance similar to Hazleton’s for the past two months.

Last Monday, Avon Park’s council defeated the ordinance 3-2 after a councilwoman changed her stance.

Riverside, N.J., is the latest municipality to adopt an illegal-immigration ordinance.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported last week that Riverside council on Wednesday voted 5-0 to adopt the ordinance, with the crowd of 300 who attended the meeting about evenly split.

“The comments drew jeers, screams, shouting matches, and, for some in the audience, a police escort out of the Riverside High School auditorium, where the meeting had been moved from the Town Hall as scores of people showed up,” Inquirer staff writer Toni Callas reported.
WHERE THE IDEA IS CATCHING ON

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund has been tracking copycat legislation that has emerged nationwide after Hazleton City Council’s adoption of the Illegal-Immigration Relief Act. Here are towns that have considered or are considering some form of an illegal-immigration relief act.

Legislation has been adopted in:

Hazleton, Hazle Township, Riverside Township, N.J.

Legislation has been rejected in:

Avon Park, Fla.

Written legislation is under consideration in:

Allentown, Mount Pocono, Shenandoah; the California cities of San Bernardino, Escondido and Vista; and Palm Bay, Fla.

Possible legislation is being discussed in:

Courtdale, Wilkes-Barre Township, Frackville, Sunbury; Gadsden, Ala.; Cape Cod, Mass.; and Kennewick, Wash.

Media outlets have also reported discussions about immigration ordinances in:

Ashland, Lancaster, Lansford, McAdoo, Nesquehoning, and West Mahanoy Township, all in Pennsylvania; and Huntsville, Ala.

[Soldier4Christ]

 WEST CHESTER - Several municipal officials from throughout Chester County said they have not considered following the lead of Pennsylvania towns like Hazleton and Riverside, which have enacted bans on renting to or hiring illegal immigrants.

"I, myself, would find it embarrassing," said Jeff Darmon, president of Kennett Square Borough Council, of the ordinance. "I think it is ‘feel good’ legislation. A lot of people have strong feelings about this issue, and opportunistic politicians are coming up with easy solutions to frustrating problems. This stuff will have zero impact."

Darman, a Democrat, emphasized that he was not speaking on behalf of council.

In a controversial move, Riverside Township Council voted unanimously last week to ban renting to or hiring illegal immigrants.

Employers and landlords face a fine of $1,000 for each violation in the Burlingtown County town.

But in southern Chester County, home to thousands who work in the mushroom, service and landscape industries, few local officials seems to think such legislation would be necessary, let alone effective.

"We are aware of what other people are doing, but it hasn’t come up here," Kennett Square Borough Manager Marge Wolf said Friday.

Wolf added that it was too early to see how the ordinance would play out in the courts.

She said it will be interesting to see "if local folks can do that because immigration laws are federally mandated."

West Chester Borough Manager Ernie McNeely said such ordinances had not been raised here and would likely face long legal battles.

"I think that there are some real questions about whether it is legal," he said.

Other municipal officials said the residents of Riverside and Hazelton might change their tune when the legal fees from lengthy court battles hit their pocketbooks.

Recently, local and state officials have weighed in on the immigration debate in an attempt to pressure Congress to address the problem of the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants with comprehensive reform.

In May, the U.S. Senate approved a version that combines border security provisions with a guest-worker program and a plan to give undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements a chance at legalization.

A competing bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives focuses on enforcement through border security and employee sanctions.

In July, the City of Hazleton in Luzerne County passed an "Illegal Immigration Relief" ordinance that enacts similar fines, provides for barring businesses that employee illegals from municipal permits and declares English the city’s official language.

Mayor Louis Barletta, a Republican and vocal supporter of the ordinance, has said the measure seeks to "stem the flow of illegal immigration into Hazleton."

According to the Hazleton ordinance, which was passed by a 4-to-1 margin by council, "Illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates, contributes to overcrowded classrooms and failing schools, subjects our hospitals to fiscal hardship and legal residents to substandard quality of care, contributes to other burdens on public services, increasing their cost and diminishing their availability to lawful residents, and destroys our neighborhoods and diminishes our overall quality of life."

But in Pennsbury, Township Manager Kathleen Howley said illegal aliens have not been a concern.

"No, it hasn’t been discussed. It really is not a problem in our township," she said.

And in West Chester, Borough Council President H. Paul Fitzpatrick, a Democrat, said it was "not really an issue," though he personally was in favor of some sort of reform that involved amnesty.

He added that he thought it would be difficult to enforce.

Darman agreed.

He said borough council has been able to solve complaints and problems related to illegal aliens, such as noise, overcrowding and quality-of-life issues, through existing ordinances and codes.

"And a lot of the people you are targeting are going to be children," Darman said. "These people have come across the border to get here. You’re not going to frighten them. They are just going to go deeper underground."

[Soldier4Christ]

Immigration plan will benefit wrongdoers
   
The new but unnumbered immigration bill gaining momentum in Congress will spell trouble for the American worker. This new bill is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. This proposal would allow unlimited immigration of eligible workers into America for the first three years, and enable these "guest workers" to remain permanently. Now in my 43 years on this earth a guest always leaves, but our elected officials must have a different dictionary than mine. Under this crazy proposal most of our estimated 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants would have to leave the country for three days. Ellis Island centers set up outside America is where these people would report.

Now for the scary parts. This proposal would outsource the administration of U.S. immigration policy to private for-profit job placement agencies.
These agencies will have no regard for America or its people only for their profit. With only three days to process each person's application, this guest worker program will turn into a rubber stamp visa mill. This program also allows employers who have already broken our immigration laws to determine the number of workers that will be allowed to enter the U.S. as a guest worker.
All this proposal achieves is to allow business cheap labor and give the American people the bill for all the social services and free medical care our new guest workers will require.
The only hope of maintaining a middle-income America is to secure our borders and cut back our immigration levels to an acceptable level of 500,000 people per year.

[Soldier4Christ]

Immigration, meth trade fuel ID thefts

In seven months, Jacob Dissmore racked up more than $20,000 in debt, took out a credit line at Wal-Mart, opened multiple cell phone accounts at Cingular and Verizon, and funded a startup T-shirt business on the West Coast.

 The problem was, the 21-year-old lance corporal and helicopter crew chief was deployed overseas, traveling through Hawaii, Australia and Egypt before a two-and-a-half month tour in Iraq, where he learned his identity had been stolen. He found out after checking his credit report online -- something he's done regularly since he was 18.

By the time he returned to his San Diego home in February, his credit score had dropped 250 points.

Dissmore is one of 58 million Americans to have their identities compromised (stolen or fallen into the wrong hands) through the first six months of this year, already outpacing the number of lost identities reported in 2005, according to a new report from Chandler-based identity theft prevention firm LifeLock.

The issue is a major problem in Arizona, where illegal immigration and rampant methamphetamine use exacerbate the situation. LifeLock Chief Executive Todd Davis said these factors are the driving force behind Arizona's status as the worst state in the nation for identity theft.

For the past three years, the Grand Canyon State has trumped the rest of the nation in identity theft complaints per capita. In 2005, Arizona registered 9,320 identity theft complaints, according to figures released by the Federal Trade Commission. Phoenix fared just as badly in the 2005 rankings, registering the most complaints among 50 metropolitan areas and the fourth-highest total of fraud complaints.

On top of those fraud cases, there have been 100 cases of lost information through the first six months of this year. Each of those cases involved corporations, government agencies and educational institutions losing customer or employee information that put them at risk for identity theft. If that pace continues, more than 117 million identities will be breached by the end of 2006, doubling the 2005 figure, according to LifeLock's second monthly Lost Identity File Estimate Report, which gathers national data from Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Davis said once a Social Security number is acquired, as many as 30 immigrants will use it to gain employment. In addition, meth dealers will accept an identity as payment for the highly addictive drug.

"Until we curb their ability to monetize identities, the crime is going to keep growing," said Davis, adding the problem could be stopped at a grassroots level.

He suggested consumers place fraud alerts through the three credit agencies: Equifax, TransUnion and Experian, which have to be updated every 90 days. For $10 a month, LifeLock offers fraud-alert protection and stops preapproved credit card offers and junk mail -- two prime sources of theft.

The most important thing organizations and businesses can do is take reasonable measures to protect themselves and be "extremely progressive in responding to thecompromise," according to TriWest Healthcare Alliance Chief Executive David McIntyre, whose company has been nationally recognized for its quick and efficient response to a December 2002 information breach.

The data breach at the Phoenix firm affected 550,000 clients -- the largest such incident in U.S. history at the time.

McIntyre testified in late June before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs to help the federal government respond to a May breach at the Department of Veterans Affairs that potentially impacted 17.5 million veterans after a laptop was stolen from a VA analyst's home.

Veterans Affairs has caught heat over the debacle and the way it handled public relations following the incident.

McIntyre said businesses should review how they store and secure information, and where they allow data to be retrieved and taken.

Identity theft victim Dissmore thinks the military should do the same.

"The military is the easiest target," said Dissmore from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego. "The military puts our Social Security numbers on everything."

Dissmore said he's spent more than 100 hours trying to resolve the problem with credit card firms, costing him more than $1,000 in cell phone bills over the past four months.

He signed on at LifeLock about a month ago and is still trying to re-establish his credit. Get connected

[Soldier4Christ]

Boa vinda a (Good coming to ) Framingham!

DOWNTOWN Framingham, once a ghost town, is now a Little Brazil. Street-level reading material consists of storefront and church signs written in Portuguese. Want lunch? Get some Brazilian pizza. There's also an Asian grocery store and summertime concerts featuring rock 'n' roll music.

Framingham is a slice of multicultural America. And it's a battleground over illegal immigration that shows the need for sweeping reform.

Two sides of dispute
On one side of the fight are angry residents who want federal law enforced.

``This is all so corrupt, it's beyond human comprehension," Jim Rizoli says of the way undocumented immigrants have become part of the town's fabric. A candidate for state representative, Rizoli and others have been pressing city officials to crack down, pointing to overburdened schools and hospitals, and saying the city has become a ``slave work camp" that employs and underpays undocumented workers. He points to a study from Harvard's David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies that says ``most" Brazilians living in the United States are undocumented. Others put the estimate at more than 70 percent.

Rizoli is part of a small, controversial group that opposes illegal immigration. They are frequently in the local news. They have a website . They have been accused of creating an air of intimidation. But for Rizoli, it's simple: No one says illegal immigration is wrong; no one says not to come, so he's going to speak up.

Many people oppose Rizoli. In 2003, town selectmen passed a proclamation that declared the town's respect for people of all backgrounds; its stand against bigotry, prejudice, intimidation, and hatred; and the civic intention to ``welcome the values and contributions of all who become a part of our community." But perhaps the most fascinating, if silent, opposition comes from the streets. In the 1990s, downtown Framingham lost businesses, leaving a dreary economic emptiness of boarded-up stores. Today, Brazilian businesses pump life into downtown. Brazilians buy homes and support the community. Framingham, like the rest of Massachusetts, needs immigrants to help fuel the economy.

One immigrant's experience
``Growing up was great. I loved it," says an 18-year-old undocumented immigrant who has lived in the town since she was 5. She says her parents brought her here from Brazil for a cousin's wedding, and the family stayed. In the fall, she'll go to one of the state's public colleges, where she will pay out-of-state tuition, because undocumented residents are ineligible for in-state tuition rates. She is bright and articulate --and in a few years she's going to hit a wall. Once she graduates, her lack of papers will make it difficult for her to get a job. Or if she were to do something as simple as driving, she would be doing so illegally and without insurance. She says she hopes she can get an internship and prove that she's indispensable to motivate her employer to help her legalize her status.

One immigration strategy being considered by Congress would simply deport her. Or, Framingham and other towns can wield local laws in ways that discourage undocumented people from moving in.

A better solution: The federal government could pass long and desperately needed federal immigration reform. Any bill that makes it out of Congress will be an imperfect compromise. But any progress would be welcome if it helps untangle the decades-old, messy contradictions of damning illegal immigrants while enjoying the fruits of their labor.

Rizoli is right on one point: It is unfair and unacceptable to skimp on the salaries of undocumented workers. Federal reform could pave the way toward paying them a decent, legal wage. That would be a human rights victory and a source of tax revenues. And there should be easier ways for children brought here by parents years ago to legalize their status. Massachusetts needs the additional workers.

Comprehensive federal reform would leave towns, cities, and states free to concentrate on being productive places to live.

``We have to break the wall between the Brazilian community and the rest of the community," says Ilma Paixao, president of the Brazilian American Association, which is located downtown. Paixao would like to see longtime Brazilian residents help newcomers engage in civic affairs .

``Learn English!" is a phrase that gets tossed at immigrants like a slur. Ironically, many immigrants concur. They want to learn English. They want more American-born English speakers to patronize their businesses. But the waiting list for English classes has hundreds of names on it. A small increase in public funding for these classes could help break down barriers.

A newcomers center
How can we all get along? This is what State Representative Deborah Blumer asks. She's working with the Framingham Public Library to set up a newcomers and neighbors center, a place for immigrants to meet people and get information about schools, healthcare, housing, and local banking services. Immigration status would not be checked. It would be a place that helps ``human beings deal with human needs," Blumer says.

Still, she says the challenge of cultural integration is ``bigger than the Brazilians," noting that social isolation is common, because many locally born people don't circulate far beyond their own religious, ethnic, and other social groups. That could change: With some 67,000 people, Framingham is small enough to do a better job of mixing its Unitarians, Jews, Pakistanis, African-Americans, Protestants, Elks, and Brazilians.

It's old news that this is a nation of immigrants. In fact, this is a whole world of immigrants, from the Brazilian who comes to Framingham to the American who works in Vietnam. United States law has to catch up to that fact, so its society can thrive

[Soldier4Christ]

Soldiers leave home to combat illegal immigration

Dozens of Grand Island soldiers are heading to the U.S./Mexico border Sunday, just south of Arizona to help crackdown on illegal immigration in the country.

There was an emotional farewell when the troops took to the skies in their helicopters.

Saying goodbye is not easy for Heather and Matt McClure as they spend their last few minutes with their dad, Major Steve McClure, before he leaves on a six month mission.

“It makes me sad,” said Heather McClure.

Though it makes Heather feel sad, she and her brother are very proud of their dad.

“He has had to set aside family for a while and that is okay,” said Matt McClure. “I think he, is doing a great thing here.”

Thirty members of the Nebraska Army National Guard Company A 1st– 134th aviation are going to Arizona to fly Arial reconnaissance missions in OH58 helicopters.

“We show up ready to perform our mission and provide outstanding support to the customs boarder protection,” said Major Steve McClure. “They have shown a need for the assistance of the National Guard and we are gonna be ready to support them when we get there.”

For many of the soldiers, it is a challenge they are looking forward to.

“It is exciting to do a mission,” said Randy Schlensig. “We are trained for - we will be flying night vision, Google Mission in support of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.”

To add to the excitement of the mission, family members will be able to visit the troops at certain times during their mission, since they will be based in Tucson Arizona.

“The family members will be able to come down and that is something we are looking forward to,” said Major McClure.

“Very unique mission deployed state side for a homeland defense mission which is what we are trained for,” said Schlensig.
And now they can put that training into action In Grand Island.

[Soldier4Christ]

Gifted Illegal Immigrant Student from Senegal Will Be Allowed to Stay in U.S.


U.S. immigration officials have granted a student visa to an academically talented 18-year-old illegal immigrant from Senegal and will halt deportation proceedings that could have sent him back to Africa.
 
The decision to let Amadou Heinz Ly, of East Harlem, N.Y., stay in the United States comes as the nation hotly debates what to do about its immigration policy.
 
The visa clears the way for Ly to attend the New York City College of Technology this fall and puts him on a path towards obtaining permanent residency in the U.S. if he chooses to do so once his studies are complete.

"It's like a dream come true," Ly told The New York Times. "Everyday in this country is like a gift. To tell you the truth, all the people who really helped me, I won't be able to thank them all -- but I'll do my best to make them proud."

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials issued the visa after being heavily lobbied by a bipartisan group of lawmakers that included Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., New York City Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.
 
“I am very happy for Amadou and have every expectation that he will make all the people who supported him very proud,” Rangel said in a written statement. “He is an example of the talent that resides in our immigrant communities and the need in reforming the immigration laws to ensure that those talents are not thrown away.”
 
Ly gained national attention earlier this year as part of a team of East Harlem high school students who competed against 8,000 other bright students in a national robotics competition in Atlanta.
 
He drew the unwanted attention of Pennsylvania State Troopers in November 2004 when a car in which he was a passenger got into an accident in the Keystone State. Troopers running a check on the occupants of the car discovered Ly was an illegal immigrant. They forwarded the information to federal immigration authorities, who initiated deportation proceedings.
 
Ly entered the U.S. legally from Senegal with his mother in 2001. He was 13 at the time. But his mother left after her visitor’s visa expired two years later, leaving her son to fend for himself and hoping he could get a quality American education.
 
Ly held down odd jobs while attending school. His academic prowess earned him admission into the City College of Technology, but the prospect of being kicked out of the United States hung over his head.
 
That cloud was lifted Friday when Ly’s attorney received a phone call from the Citizenship and Immigration Service’s New York office.
 
“They said Amadou has a stamp in his passport,” Ilona Cohen, one of Ly’s attorneys, told BlackAmericaWeb.com. “It will be good for the time he studies in the United States now, and he will be able to apply for something else later. He’ll determine what he wants to do after he gets his college degree. He’s lawful now, and that’s what he wanted."
 
In addition, immigration officials will drop the deportation proceedings against Ly on Tuesday, Cohen said.
 
It took a small village of pro bono lawyers working his case, including WilmerHale -- Cohen’s firm -- Latham & Watkins and Legal Aid, to work Ly’s case.
 
The lawyers enlisted the help of the lawmakers, who mounted the pressure on immigration officials, Cohen said.
 
“We reached out to a wide range of administration officials, members of Congress, the Senegalese ambassador and the New York City mayor,” Cohen said. “The elected officials had the foresight to see the people of this country need the Amadou Lys. These elected officials really stood up for a fine young man.”
 
The outcome of Ly’s case will likely add more fuel to the fiery immigration debate. Proponents of strict enforcement of immigration laws say illegal immigrants are a drain on the nation’s social service system -- including public education and health care -- to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars a year.
 
But supporters of revising immigration laws, including President George W. Bush, say illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans don’t want and contribute to the economic vitality of the nation. Bush supports legislation that would create a guest worker provision and would allow illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. a sustained period of time, played by the rules, and haven’t committed any crimes, to eventually become citizens.
 
Ly’s case is nearly done, but lawyers and lawmakers are still feverishly working to try to resolve the status of Dan-el Padilla Peralta, a brilliant 21-year-old illegal immigrant from the Dominican Republic. Padilla, who grew up homeless in the rough-and-tumble Bronx section of New York City, graduated second in his class at Princeton University in June and has been awarded a scholarship to prestigious Oxford University in England for graduate studies.
 
But if Padilla leaves the U.S. for Oxford, he risks being unable to re-enter the country for 10 years because of his illegal status, according to lawmakers. Rangel, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Rep. Rush Holt, R-N.J., and others are pressuring the Department of Homeland Security to help Padilla.

[Soldier4Christ]

NO BORDER, NO ORDER, NO NATION

By Frosty Wooldridge

Thousands of readers of this column chastise me for not addressing what’s really happening to America. They accuse me of dancing around the elephant in the kitchen. They want me to spell it out, to expose it, to say it like it really is. Okay, here is what is happening to our country.

We’re being flooded with millions of Third World immigrants both legal and illegal. How many? Since 1965, 106 million people added to our nation, mostly by immigration from overloaded countries like China, India, Mexico and Africa. In effect, we’re paying for their mistakes. Worse, we did it to ourselves. Or, should I say, men like Teddy Kennedy with his 1965 Immigration Reform Act and other lawmakers doomed our country. We aided and abetted the destruction of our country by standing quietly on the sidelines doing nothing.

Today, we add millions from countries like Mexico and the Middle East with incoming immigrants that don’t like us. Why? Because the capitalistic engine requires unending growth, production of goods, endless markets and massive consumption! For what? Profits! Today, corporations led by money-men like former Ken Lay, now deceased, of Enron require riches beyond yours and my imagination. Did Lay show any regard for his employees? He screwed thousands of them out of millions. He and thousands of CEOs and company presidents crave money, which gives them power, which gives them prestige. Someone always guns for the crown of richest man in the world. How does he get there? He needs millions of consumers to spend their money on his products! Population growth creates wealth for a few at the top.

Back to basics: if not for Senator Teddy Kennedy and if we had kept our borders secure and immigration to a stable 175,000 annually, we would have leveled out at a reasonable 255 million people today, but instead, we’ll exceed 300 million this year. By 2040, at current immigration rates, we’ll exceed 400 million. By 2065, 550 million on our way to a billion! All the while, the Third World grows by 80 million annually, so no matter how many we immigrate to save their lives, we end up destroying our own country.

The United States of America, after 230 successful years is being methodically dismantled by men creating a New World Order. The Middle Class of America must be brought down to the level of the poor classes around the world to make it possible. This plan downgrades every American’s standard of living and ability to work a job with a living wage. While we suffer 14 million unemployed Americans, we’re being flooded by massive, unrelenting immigration. All the while, those immigrants do not understand nor do they have any comprehension of what it takes to maintain the most delicate form of government: a constitutional republic.

George W. Bush, not a student of history and a poor student to boot, but a man of the wealthy class--lacks the education and intellect to understand the consequences of his globalist agenda for the United States. Since he’s not the victim of what he perpetrates on us, he charges ahead with his Security and Prosperity Partnership. This agreement cannot succeed unless he diminishes our Middle Class by overwhelming America with Mexico’s poorest, most dependent, most illiterate and least able to stand for their rights. That’s exactly what happened in Mexico. President Fox kept his poorest even poorer, and desperate. Then, he sent them to colonize America.

As Bush degrades our Middle Class, he enlarges a new American poor class. His SPP depends on degrading our borders to allow even more millions of Mexicans, Central and South Americans to cross unimpeded. As the flood of poor descends on America to do the jobs that Americans won’t do, these ‘workers’ rev the consumption engine by sheer human numbers. As you can see, there is no end to the numbers of people Bush will allow across our borders. Therefore, no border; no order!

In the end, we will all be equally poor, very uneducated and fighting among ourselves as Mexicans do not and will not assimilate into becoming Americans. They create an antagonistic subclass that soon will outnumber Americans in the four Border States. But, they’re not stopping there as they expand into every state. Thus, they create the same kind of violence and tension experienced in the Paris, France riots. Remember, France’s violence occurred from legal immigrants. If you don’t think we’re headed for the same consequences, check out that, with 10 million illegal alien Mexicans in our country, a full 29 percent, or 630,000 convicted illegal aliens reside in our state and federal prisons. In addition, over 11,000 MS-13 gang members from El Salvador operate in our country where they distribute $100 billion in drugs annually. Corruption becomes a mechanism by which Third World societies operate. That means their people bring that kind of corruption into our country as they grow in numbers.

Mind you, this snapshot of our dilemma doesn’t address the loss our language, our hospitals, schools, overpopulation, air pollution and illegal alien ethnic tension growing in our communities.

Has the United Nations solved the world’s problems or stopped wars and world starvation? Will a One World Order solve humanities propensities for conflict? One look at Darfur, Lebanon, Paris, France and dozens of wars around the world suggest not.

The United States Constitution proves this nation’s success for 230 years, but Bush drives us toward no border, no order, no nation.

You’re watching a dramatic human social experiment, and for the most part, the majority of Americans sit on their couches watching the destruction of their own country by their own leaders. They flip channels while their leaders flippantly disregard the U.S. Constitution. They whine like a dog chained in the backyard, but lick their frustrations without taking action. Americans watch this New World Order spread like California wildfires, but won’t step outside their doors to vote to throw out the politicians pushing it onto this country. As a nation, we’ve become fat, lazy, uninvolved and take everything we enjoy for granted. As we do nothing, we lose everything that defines America. We become a cog in the New World Order. We lose our borders. We lose order. We lose America. George Bush drives our nation to its end and he enjoys 30 more months to finish America.

If you’ll notice the 62 senators that voted for Senate Bill 2611 that floods us with 100 million more people in 34 years, you notice he’s got plenty of help in destroying the United States of America.

No border, no order, no nation.

[Soldier4Christ]

Immigrant ID law


COLORADO’S NEW immigration reform law goes into effect Tuesday, requiring state and local agencies to check the legal status of anyone applying for public benefits.

The measure, passed during a special session earlier this month, recognizes any one of the following for establishing proof of legal residency: Valid Colorado driver’s license, state-issued photo identification card, U.S. military or military dependent’s ID card, Merchant Marine’s ID and Native-American tribal document.

In addition to any one of the half-dozen forms of picture ID, the new law requires the applicant for public benefits to sign an affidavit stating he or she is a United States citizen or lawfully in this country as defined by federal law.

The penalty - a misdemeanor carrying a maximum of 18 months in jail and $5,000 fine - is the enforcement mechanism in the law, HB1023. Gov. Bill Owens and Democratic legislative leaders, who crafted the measure, have touted HB1023 as the toughest state illegal immigration law in the country.

Their claim seems exaggerated, that is, unless the other 49 states simply are demonstrably more lenient toward illegal immigration.

First of all, HB1023 doesn’t even apply to anyone under the age of 18 - a number that can be a big percentage of the estimated 250,000 illegal aliens thought to be in the state. And we’re not counting so-called “anchor babies” who have been born here and automatically are U.S. citizens.

That said, verification of legal residency is not - repeat not - required for federally mandated public education, emergency health care, prenatal care, immunization and treatment for communicable disease, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health treatment, short-term housing, crisis counseling, disaster relief and soup kitchens for the poor.

That’s a long list of taxpayer-funded services not closed to illegal immigrants on top of the blanket exemption for those among them who are 17 or younger. Judge for yourself if HB1023 merits a description of being tough, let alone the toughest in a nation now confronted by an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

A dozen other bills passed during the special session on illegal immigration. Most of the rest are not considered of much importance in the ongoing controversy over illegal immigration.

One bill that ranked as the session’s second significant bill - HB1017 - requires Colorado employers to attest that they have checked the legal status of employees. Gov. Owens expressed disappointment that a stronger version did not pass that also would have required photo ID proof of citizenship.

Officials in state agencies charged with implementing the law have warned there will be problems enforcing the photo ID mandate. The taxpayers who foot the bill for public assistance expect no less than a professional effort to make this modest immigration reform as effective as it can be.

[Soldier4Christ]

Colo. governor signs immigration bill

Colorado Gov. Bill Owens signed a tough package of immigration laws Monday that could force 1 million people receiving state and federal benefits to prove they are legal U.S. residents.

To handle an expected avalanche of people seeking waivers so they can keep getting government benefits while they line up the documents they need, Owens designated 32 driver's license bureaus as places to apply and opened an office at the Capitol to process their requests.

A waiver would extend the deadline for producing the required identification until March 1. The law requires government agencies to verify that adults older than 18 are entitled to the benefits.

Other bills included measures passed during a special session this month requiring employers to verify that they do not employ illegal immigrants before they can receive grants from the state Economic Development Commission.

"This legislation will make a positive difference in the future of Colorado," Owens said.

Under emergency rules adopted Monday, the state will grant temporary waivers to an estimated 4,000 people in nursing homes or people with chronic health problems and accept some other forms of ID.

The federal government has barred the state from imposing stricter limits on food stamps and Medicaid, Owens said, adding that he believes the state should be allowed to make its own rules for those programs.

Flora Archuleta, executive director of the Immigrant Resource Center, said the law will do little to end illegal immigration in Colorado. Many legal immigrants are going without state services to which they are entitled for fear of harassment, she said, and illegal immigrants will find a way to get the phony documents they need to keep receiving services.

"It will just put them into hiding. It won't drive them out of Colorado," she said.