Recently in immigration Category

As a day job, I work with back-end computer support, and every once in a while a systems check is performed to make sure everything is running optimal.  Likewise, I think individuals should engage in a 'self-check' every so often.  More so, those that are involved in social affairs should do this especially as to not become immersed in their own manure.

Read below:

Latino registered voters rank education, the cost of living, jobs and health care as the most important issues in the fall campaign, with crime lagging a bit behind those four and the war in Iraq and immigration still farther behind. On each of these seven issues, Obama is strongly favored over McCain--by lopsided ratios ranging from about three-to-one on education, jobs, health care, the cost of living and immigration, to about two-to-one on Iraq and crime.

I don't know if they are ranked in order (too lazy to look at report), but I would put those as my top four.  So in a nutshell, even though I've been MIA, I feel I'm still in touch with the Latino heart.  After all, the Latino heart is a human heart, and these issues are what all Americans are concerned about.  I'd be curious to what issues some readers and writers of Latino Blogs are deemed most important.

In my book it's a little late, but better late than never.

OK, so you want to bust illegal immigrants entering or residing in the U.S.  We can talk about whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, but you can make a reasonable argument for it.  But busting illegal immigrants who are on the way out to Mexico?

SAN DIEGO -- U.S. border authorities no longer apprehend illegal immigrants only as they enter the country. Now they're catching them on the way out.

At random times near the Tijuana-San Diego border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have been setting up checkpoints, boarding buses destined for Mexico and pulling off people who don't have proper documentation.

That's messed up.

Vincent Bond, an agency spokesman, said departing immigrants are fair targets.

"If our officers come upon people who are here illegally . . . regardless of whether they're leaving the country, we detain them, make a record of the fact they were here illegally and return them to Mexico," Bond said.

A record?  They come to the U.S. and get fake IDs, fake SSNs, and fake documents.  What kind of record do you expect to build based on that?  "Yes, please line up mister . . .  er . . . James McGinnis.  Yeah.  The one who's 5-feet and 4-inches, looks like Pancho Villa's slender brother and says no hablo inglés.  We suspect he may not be who he claims to be"

I mean, it's one thing if they're looking for someone who has broken the law here - and I mean a law other than entering and staying illegally since they are well on their way to cure that when they're arrested.  Of course, there's always a "rationale" behind it:

Rick Oltman, spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, said he hoped that the crackdown on departing illegal immigrants would be expanded to other exit points across the country.

He said apprehended immigrants who returned home to Mexico would become "ambassadors of enforcement" and might help deter illegal immigration.

"Each one of these people will then report increased enforcement to family and friends when they do get home, and that will give them second thoughts about sneaking back into the U.S.," he said.

"Ambassadors of enforcement."  What a crock.  The only thing that's going to do is to have people get off the bus to Mexico and make a dash for it.  Can you just picture the Border Patrol Agents running after illegal immigrants who want to leave the country?

Lets use some common sense on this one: these measures can have no other practical use beyond harassing illegal immigrants.  If you are really concerned about illegal immigration, you dedicate a lane for these people so you can get them out of the U.S. quicker, not waste taxpayer dollars creating a record that won't help anyone with anything.

It turns out Forrest Gump was right: stupid is as stupid does.

Ever since the birth of my daughter, I've been thinking a lot about money...you know, those S's with the double line through it ($$$).  It's been gnawing at me and gnawing at me, just like that little mouse probably has been doing around the apartment that I haven't caught yet! 

Let me tell you, the human mind amazes me, it puts pieces of the 'puzzle' together in ways you just can't understand:  I was watching the old boob tube today after a nice dinner, and for some reason I stopped at channel 66, The US Senate.  Bush and Fox were clipped talking about how great NAFTA has been for trade between the two three countries (US, Mexico and Canada).

Okay, piece one.

I am subscribed to a financial email newsletter, and today I happened to read it instead of deleting it.  What caught my eye was this"  "The New American Currency."  Fired up Google and this is what I get:

CNBC Interview with Stephen Previs about the Amero.

This video highlights a very serious concern which none of our media is looking into. The Amero is being looked at as the defacto currency of the North American Community (or Union).

Steve Previs: One thing the people who are dollar-based need to focus on is the Amero. That’s the one thing nobody’s talking about that’s going to have a big impact on everybody’s life in Canada, the US and Mexico. If you google it you can find out all about it. The Amero is the proposed new currency for the north American community which is being developed right now between Canada the US and Mexico to make a borderless community much like the EU and the dollar, Canadian dollar, us dollar and the Mexican peso being replaced by the Amero.

Interviewer: You really think that will get any leeway?

Steve Previs: You may want to visit a couple of web sites to see how far along it is. The Canadians are pretty upset about it whereas the Americans apart from the Texans are the only people who know anything about it the rest of the public is really with their heads in the sand on this one. Click here for more.

Source.

And your really, REALLY need to read this.  Canadians are upset; WAKE UP AMERICANS, the dollar is going down the tubes!

This is the reason I don't give too much energy into racism, immigration, and the border - they are all side notes and distractions to this bigger back room deal.

??? (Blacks Against Immigrants? Don’t Believe the Conservative Hype)

Today's NY Times has a very interesting and thought-provoking editorial on immigrants and immigration.  Some segments are reproduced below but the whole editorial - and the Social Security report it refers to - are worth looking at:

Immigration is good for the financial health of Social Security because more workers mean more tax revenue. Illegal immigration, it turns out, is even better than legal immigration. In the fine print of the 2008 annual report on Social Security, released last week, the program’s trustees noted that growing numbers of “other than legal” workers are expected to bolster the program over the coming decades.

One reason is that many undocumented workers pay taxes during their work lives but don’t collect benefits later. Another is that undocumented workers are entering the United States at ever younger ages and are expected to have more children while they’re here than if they arrived at later ages. The result is a substantial increase in the number of working-age people paying taxes, but a relatively smaller increase in the number of retirees who receive benefits — a double boon to Social Security’s bottom line.

We’re not talking chump change. According to the report, the taxes paid by other-than-legal immigrants will close 15 percent of the system’s projected long-term deficit. That’s equivalent to raising the payroll tax by 0.3 percentage points, starting today.

That is not to suggest that illegal immigration is a legitimate fix to Social Security’s problems. It is another reminder, however, of the nation’s complex relationship with undocumented workers. Would the people who want to deport all undocumented workers be willing to make up the difference and pay the taxes that the undocumented are currently paying?

Emphasis added.  The report can be accessed here.

On the one hand, unless you're a recalcitrant anti-immigration (or anti-illegal-immigration) advocate, this shouldn't surprise you since it's common sense.  The whole point of the no-match letters that are now being used in some towns, counties, cities, or states to establish whether a person is an illegal immigrant is to inform the person that because there is no match, he or she would not be entitled to benefits - or would receive reduced benefits -if he or she did not correct the error.

On the other hand, you really have to wonder about an editorial that pretty much sings the virtues of a system based on the permanent disenfranchisement of an entire group of workers.  "They" are such a good thing for "us."  While the article raises the issue of whether Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes to make up the difference in revenues, it doesn't discuss the implications of providing a path to citizenship for these workers.  What would the picture look like if these workers could receive Social Security benefits when the time comes?

So, for the NY Times, it seems it's OK to exploit "them" as long as it benefits "us."

One issue any type of immigration reform must address is the inadequate number of persons responsible for implementing immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws.  Fences - real or virtual - won't do.  Paths to citizenship won't do.  Driver licenses won't do.  If you want to encourage legal immigration, you must put forth an immigration system that allows immigrants to enter and stay in the country legally while ensuring that those documented immigrants are not a threat to national security.

This must be done to avoid a mess like this:
 

Exactly one year after federal agents burst into a New Bedford factory and arrested 361 immigrant workers, about half of those arrested are still here, an outcome that is raising concerns on both sides of the heated immigration divide.

The raid whiplashed the city, drew criticism from state and federal authorities, and captured national attention for separating some parents from their children. Now, the plodding aftermath is prompting new questions about the effectiveness of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's raid.

Emphasis added.  How many are still in the U.S.?  About 200.  Why?

Most of those who remain are fighting deportation, but 10 have been allowed to stay for various reasons.

Federal officials said that they had sent 165 people back to their homelands, mainly Guatemala and El Salvador, and that 12 of those went voluntarily.

The nation's top immigration official, Julie Myers, defended the outcome of the raid during a press conference in Boston yesterday, saying it was "perfectly appropriate" for immigrants to fight their cases in court.

Sounds reasonable enough.

"I'm confident that at the end of the day, once the immigration judges make their rulings . . . that those individuals will then be removed," Myers said.

But lawyers for immigrants say they believe dozens of people will qualify for asylum or other relief, some because they fear political violence or gangs in their homeland. Over the past year, lawyers said, they have interviewed the detainees, mostly women, and unearthed chilling stories of assaults, rapes, and killings that occurred during the decades-long conflicts in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Emphasis added.  Now, you know there's something wrong with the immigration system when it cannot even adjudicate cases that appear to warrant consideration for asylum.

Because hearings are being scheduled into next year, many former Bianco workers are struggling to scrape by as they wait. Some are living with friends or relatives.

So these people will be in legal limbo for two to three years.  I'm not advocating immediate residency for immigrants, documented or otherwise, but the system must move faster than this.

Some of those who were deported have slipped back into the United States illegally to rejoin their families. . . Some immigrants caught at Bianco have simply gone back to work elsewhere.

Hardly a "happily ever after" ending.

We're way past due on having comprehensive immigration reform.  Otherwise, we'll keep throwing good money after bad relying on a useless system to enforce our immigration laws.

While, on the one hand, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy is hamming it up with Governor Spitzer to get some property tax relief . . .

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy said: “I'm pleased that the Governor has incorporated in his budget many of the tax-trimming measures I've stressed, including capping the local share of the pre-school handicapped program, allowing schools to save through a health benefits consortium and expanding joint purchasing ventures.”

. . . it seems there are better ways in which he could be spending the County's monies.

To great fanfare in October 2006, Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, signed a new law requiring 6,000 contractors working for the county to affirm that their employees were not illegal immigrants, prompting fear of impromptu inspections and roundups of Hispanic men.

Since then, county officials have found exactly one worker without proper immigration documents, after conducting two sweeps of a total of 33 contractors last summer and fall. A second worker at the same construction company, North Star Concrete, was initially suspected, but the $9,500 fine regarding his status was dismissed when the company produced proper documentation.

Suffolk County is one of several municipalities nationwide to have experimented with such laws after seeing sharp increases in their Hispanic populations, which are often blamed for spikes in crime and overtaxed social services, schools, hospitals and jails.

So you pretty much waste the money it takes to enforce this law, the money it takes businesses to comply with this law, and all you have to show for is one worker without proper documents.  That's what happens when the Federal government is stuck in political limbo when it comes to immigration reform and the States - or counties - decide they "are mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore!!!"

Yee-haw!!!  Haul your lazy behinds over to ManEege's Pro-Migrant Blog Roundup.  You won't be sorry, C@wboy!

Very Funny!

The Urban Institute published a well-sourced list of "six myths and realities" regarding undocumented immigrants.  It speaks for itself.  However, the emphasis is provided:

Myth #1: Undocumented immigrants come to the United States to get welfare.

Undocumented men come to the United States almost exclusively to work. In 2003, over 90 percent of undocumented men worked—a rate higher than that for U.S. citizens or legal immigrants [ ]. Undocumented men are younger, less likely to be in school, and less likely to be retired than other men [ ]. Moreover, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits [ ].

Myth #2: Undocumented immigrants all crossed the Mexican border.

Between 60 and 75 percent of the more than 10 million undocumented immigrants entered illegally and without inspection—mostly across the Mexican border. The other 25 to 40 percent entered legally and subsequently overstayed visas or otherwise violated the terms of their admission [ ].

Myth #3: Undocumented immigrants are all single men.

Over 40 percent of undocumented adults are women, and the majority (54 percent) of undocumented men live in married couples or other families [ ]. Fewer than half of undocumented men are single and unattached.

Myth #4: Most children of the undocumented are unauthorized.

In fact, two-thirds of all children with undocumented parents (about 3 million) are U.S.-born citizens who live in mixed-status families.

Myth #5: A large share of schoolchildren are undocumented.

Nationally in 2000, only 1.5 percent of elementary schoolchildren (enrolled in kindergarten through 5th grade) and 3 percent of secondary children (grades 6-12) were undocumented. Slightly higher shares—5 percent in elementary and 4 percent in secondary schools—had undocumented parents.

Myth #6: Undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes.

Undocumented immigrants pay the same real estate taxes—whether they own homes or taxes are passed through to rents—and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The majority of state and local costs of schooling and other services are funded by these taxes. Additionally, the U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute $6-7 billion in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim  [ ].

Just a little food for thought . . .

First, I'd like to thank Mr. L.P himself for allowing me to collaborate with him on his website.  I may - or may not - cross-post to my home base at Telling Stories, but if I do, I'll let you know.

I read at another website - that I didn't bookmark and I cannot find for the life of me - an entry on how similar all the Democratic presidential candidates are when it really comes down to issues.  That got me thinking about what that could mean for one of Latino's top concerns, if not the top concern, immigration.  Are they real differences in what the five remaining Democrats?

The answer is, disappointingly, a resounding "not really."

Secure our borders? Four out of five say "Yes."

Clinton: "Hillary strongly believes we need to do more to know who is in our country by securing our borders. . . She supports deploying new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country."

Edwards: "The first step in overhauling the immigration system is to secure our borders and stop illegal trafficking. Edwards supports doubling the number of border patrol agents and investing in surveillance technology to police the borders."

Richardson:  "Secure the border by hiring and training enough patrol guards to cover the entire border.  We must more than double the number of guards, and provide them with the best surveillance technology available."

Obama: "Barack Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence."

Kucinich: He's the only candidate who stands out  because he does not believe in securing our borders as an immigration goal. "I oppose giving the Department of Defense control over border security. In our
democracy, it is critical that we preserve the distinction between our armed forces and
domestic law enforcement. Also, I am concerned about the threat of vigilantes
intimidating or attacking individuals at the border. Border security is a job for state and
local authorities, not soldiers or vigilantes."

Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants?  Again, four out of five say "Yes."

Clinton: "Hillary strongly believes [in] ensuring that employers comply with the law against hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. She supports . . . an employer verification system that is universal, accurate, timely, and does not lead to discrimination and abuse by employers."

Edwards: "We also need to crack down on employers that hire undocumented immigrants. Edwards supports more vigorous workplace enforcement and increased fines for businesses that knowingly break the rules."

Richardson: "We must crack down on employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants and enforce the laws already on the books.  After establishing a national ID system, employers will have no excuses."

Obama: "To remove incentives to enter the country illegally, we need to crack down on employers that hire undocumented immigrants. Barack Obama has championed a proposal with Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT) to create a new employment eligibility verification system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S."

Kucinich: Again, a different take.  "Sanctions on employers of undocumented workers have failed. Our immigration laws have allowed employers to exploit immigrant workers and thus have denied labor rights to all who work. As the saying goes, an injury to one is an injury to all. I welcome the AFL-CIO's call to end employer penalties and I have joined with advocates for immigrants and people of color in urging that they be eliminated."

See a theme developing here?

Next up, how about a path to citizenship?  Here we have unanimity.

Clinton: "Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law. She believes comprehensive reform must have as [one] essential ingredient . . . a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar."

Edwards: "Edwards believes people who are already here should have the opportunity to earn American citizenship by avoiding a criminal record, paying a fine in recognition that they came here illegally, and learning English – the surest path to success in this country."

Richardson: "Most of the illegal workers in the country are hard-working, law abiding people simply pursuing the American Dream. Those who pass a background check, learn English, pay back taxes and fines for being here illegally get the opportunity for legal status. Those that don't must leave."

Obama: "Barack Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, not violate the law, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens."

Kucinich: "I am a strong supporter of the USA Family Act (HR 440). It offers immigrants a clear road map to legal status in the United States. Among other changes, it grants legal permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for five or more years. It offers conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding immigrants living in the United States for less than five years. And it revokes current laws that bar certain people who live abroad from re-entering the U.S. for a period of three to 10 years."

I could go on, but you get my point.  With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, whose position in this issue is about as close to the other candidates as it ever gets, they are all saying  the same thing.  My mom, who was a music teacher for a while, would call it "a theme with variations" not much more substantive than "you say tomato, I say tomatoe."

Which brings me to the key issue here: what to make of this?  Well, either the candidates are, remarkably and surprisingly, all thinking about the same issue in pretty much the same way - kind of like the HD of politics - or, as I fear, we're not being told the differences that really matter.  Like, what are the priorities?  Enforcement first, then citizenship?  Employers first, then illegals?  The manufacturing sector first, then agriculture?  Enforcement in union shops first, then non-union shops?

The sad thing about this debate is that the candidates - except for Kucinich - are telling us what we want to hear.  They are silent about the difficult choices that inevitably follow such shallow talk.  That's no recipe for making informed decisions

I've said this until I was blue in the face:

German immigrants who helped settle Iowa in the late 1800s did come legally. There was no way to come illegally until the 1920s. And yet it made little difference. They were still mistreated. That's because the issue was never legality. It was the same thing that fuels the discussion today: fear of change.

Ruben Navarrette Jr, may start feeling blue too.

is broken in American:

“The time to fix our broken immigration system is now… We need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace… But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America… Where we can reunite families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should”

— Barack Obama, Statement on U.S. Senate Floor, May 23, 2007

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, blogging over at DMI the recent couple of bikers picketing against illegal immigration in Arizona, and the news coverage that stated "Americans are sick of illegals."  Which.  Is.  Still.  Not.  True.

We have a tiny group of radical and misinformed racists (some of them in chaps, God help us all), rallied together by a tiny group of corporate media leaders with a vested interest in the status quo, declaring war on an enormous population of (mostly) productive undocumented workers, leading to an almost certainly unenforceable law being passed by cowardly and ill-informed politicians, and that law being trumpeted now by the same tiny groups who started the whole ball rolling, as “success”, even though there is no proof to back up the claim...

Meanwhile, the paper this week had another story, about the “important” protests another group of nativists have been waging in town. A quick read of the story revealed that the important protest was attended by…twelve souls. In a city of 4 million. 

And that’s news.

At least, that’s all the news that someone, somewhere, deems fit to print. Question is: Who?