Immigration Review

Busy Year Ahead for Immigration Activists

2011-01-05T22:42:00.000-08:00

More than 11 states, including Mississippi, Missouri and Nebraska, will take up Arizona-style legislation in this New Year to combat illegal immigration within their borders, according to a Minuteman PAC fundraising piece.

Proposed Arizona-style legislation in these states would ban “sanctuary city” policies by making it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation, and requires police to check the immigration status of people stopped for questioning.

Numerous states are also proposing measures that would limit access to public benefits, such as welfare and Medicaid services, for illegal aliens and punish employers who hire them.

Oklahoma may enact a measure allowing authorities to seize and keep the vehicle of anyone who harbors an illegal immigrant. Georgia’s new governor, Nathan Deal, wants to revoke birthright U.S. citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, which Minuteman says has doubled to 4 million in the last few years, and costs taxpayers billions annually.

Immigration Detention Will Offer Tutoring, Social Services, Recreation, Open Dorms, email and Skype to Illegals

2010-06-14T08:58:00.000-07:00

Houston Chonicle reporter Susan Carroll wrote this article about changes that ICE plans in immigration detention. Some of the amenities seem remarkable, given the austere circumstances in which many working or retired citizens now find themselves.

ICE TO MAKE DETENTION MORE HUMANE
By Susan Carroll, Houston Chronicle

Improving Detention
ICE and the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America have agreed to make more than 24 changes at nine facilities. The changes include:

• Relaxing security: Low-risk detainees will have “freedom of movement” in the facilities and will no longer be subject to lock downs or lights out.

• Access: Detainees will be able to have visitors stay as long as they like within a 12-hour window. The facilities will increase attorney visitation space, add un-monitored phone lines and give detainees email and free, Internet-based calling. A unit manager will be available to take complaints directly from detainees.

• Daily life: Detainees will be allowed to wear regular clothing, will have at least four hours of recreation daily, and will be offered cooking, art and dance classes.

WHERE
Nine locations, including Houston, will implement the changes.

• Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility, New Jersey

• Eloy Detention Center, Arizona

• Florence Service Processing Center, Arizona

• Houston Contract Detention Center, Texas

• Laredo Contract Detention Facility, Texas

• North Georgia Detention Center, Georgia

• Otay Detention Center, California

• Stewart Detention Center, Georgia

• T. Don Hutto Detention Center, Texas

Source: ICE
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are preparing to roll out a series of changes at several privately owned immigration detention centers, including relaxing some security measures for low-risk detainees and offering art classes, bingo and continental breakfast on the weekends.

The changes, detailed in an internal ICE e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, were welcomed by immigrant advocates who have been waiting for the Obama administration to deliver on a promise made in August to overhaul the nation's immigration detention system.

The 28 changes identified in the e-mail range from the superficial to the substantive. In addition to “softening the look of the facility” with hanging plants and offering fresh carrot sticks, ICE will allow for the “free movement” of low-risk detainees, expand visiting hours and provide unmonitored phone lines.

ICE officials said the changes are part of broader efforts to make the immigration detention system less penal and more humane.

But the plans are prompting protests by ICE's union leaders, who say they will jeopardize the safety of agents, guards and detainees and increase the bottom line for taxpayers. Tre Rebstock, president for Local 3332, the ICE union in Houston, likened the changes to creating “an all-inclusive resort” for immigration detainees.

“Our biggest concern is that someone is going to get hurt,” he said, taking particular issue with plans to relax restrictions on the movement of low-risk detainees and efforts to reduce and eliminate pat-down searches.

The changes outlined in the ICE e-mail are planned for nine detention centers owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, including the 900-bed Houston Contract Detention Facility on the city's north side.

Some of the changes will be implemented within 30 days; others may take up to six months, said Beth Gibson, ICE's senior counselor to Assistant Secretary John Morton and a leader of the detention reform effort.

Other major changes include:

• Eliminating lockdowns and lights-out for low-risk detainees.

• Allowing visitors to stay as long as they like in a 12-hour period.

• Providing a unit manger so detainees have someone to report problems to other than the guard.

• Allowing low-risk detainees to wear their own clothing or other non-penal attire.

• Providing e-mail access and Internet-based free phone service.

Not about punishment
Gibson said the improvements are part of ICE's efforts to detain immigrants in the least restrictive manner possible while ensuring they leave the country if ordered to do so.

“When people come to our custody, we're detaining them to effect their removal,” Gibson said. “It's about deportation. It's not about punishing people for a crime they committed.”

ICE officials have faced pressure from immigrant advocates and some members of Congress to improve the detention conditions for the roughly 400,000 immigrants it houses annually. The agency has relied on a hodgepodge of more than 250 government-run detention centers, private prisons and local jails to accommodate its growing population — with roughly one in four detainees held in Texas.

At the CCA facilities that have agreed to ICE's changes, detainees will see more variety in their dining hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh vegetable bars.

CCA also plans to offer movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training, the e-mail states.

Detainees also will be allowed four hours or more of recreation “in a natural setting, allowing for robust aerobic exercise.”

CCA also committed to improving the look of the facilities, such as requiring plants, fresh paint and new bedding in lower-risk units.

Advocates pleased
Some of the improvements offered at the CCA facilities counted as hard-fought victories for immigrant advocates, including plans to improve visitor and attorney access.

“A lot of these measures are what we've been advocating for,” said Lory Rosenberg, policy and advocacy director for Refugee and Migrants' Rights for Amnesty International.

“Many of these points are very important to changing the system from a penal system, which is inappropriate in an immigration context, to a civil detention system.”

Union members said they have concerns about the plans, primarily focusing on safety.

Rebstock said some detainees may be classified as low-risk because they have no serious criminal history but still may be gang members that “haven't been caught doing anything wrong yet.”

He also said eliminating lockdowns will make it more difficult to protect detainees from one another.

He said reducing or eliminating pat-down searches could allow contraband into the facilities, including weapons.

Gibson, with ICE, said the agency is developing a sophisticated classification system and will make sure “that our detainees are still safe and sound.”

“As a general matter, it will be the non-criminals who don't present a danger to anyone else who are benefitting from the lowest level of custody,” Gibson said.

‘On the taxpayers' dime'
Rebstock also questioned the cost to taxpayers for the changes.

“My grandparents would have loved to have bingo night and a dance class at the retirement home they were in when they passed away, but that was something we would have had to pay for,” he said. “And yet these guys are getting it on the taxpayers' dime.”

Gibson said CCA is making the improvements at no additional cost to ICE. The agency's contract with CCA for the Houston detention center requires that ICE pay $99 per bed daily for each detainee, slightly lower than the $102 average daily rate ICE pays nationally .

Rosenberg said some of the changes, like new flower baskets, may seem small, but they will combine with the bigger changes to make a difference in the daily lives of detainees.

“Taken together they will go some way to making this system less penal,” she said.

susan.carroll@chron.com

Immigration Hanky Panky is Cover for Mexican Pederast Priest

2010-04-30T21:16:00.000-07:00

How nauseating, if true, that while Cardinal Mahony pretended to lead an altruistic campaign for mass amnesty to illegal immigrants, he was gaming border enforcement to keep a known pederast unprosecuted and unrevealed.

Mexican Man Says He Was Raped by Priest; Files Suit Naming Mahony, Mexican Cardinal

A Mexican man who says he was repeatedly raped by a priest who was shuttled between southern Mexico and Los Angeles in the late 1980s filed a lawsuit Tuesday, alleging that Cardinal Roger Mahony and his Mexican counterpart conspired to hide the alleged predator's 20-plus years of abuses to protect the church from scandal.

The complaint filed in Los Angeles relies on a more than 200-year-old U.S. law allowing foreign victims of human rights abuses to bring their perpetrators to justice in U.S. courts. The civil suit on behalf of the now 25-year-old victim is the first known to use the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 to demand a jury trial and compensation for offenses committed abroad.

The suit accuses Mahony and Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera of negligence and conspiracy in covering up sexual abuses reported by dozens of young boys against Father Nicolas Aguilar Rivera in Los Angeles and Mexican parishes.

The Mexican-born Aguilar first came to the attention of Mexican police in late 1986, after a brutal beating attributed to punishment for having young boys stay overnight at the rectory in the Diocese of Tehuacan, Mexico. A month later, Cardinal Rivera Carrera wrote to Mahony to offer Aguilar for placement in a Los Angeles ministry with a coded reference to the priest being problematic, the lawsuit alleges.

Mahony appointed Aguilar associate pastor at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in Los Angeles in March 1987, and two months later transferred him to St. Agatha parish.

Within nine months of Aguilar's arrival, Los Angeles police had amassed 26 reports of sexual abuse of minors by the priest, who fled to Mexico the night Mahony was informed of the impending charges, says the suit announced by the victim's attorney, Jeffrey R. Anderson of St. Paul, Minn.
Anderson said Aguilar's escape was believed to have been facilitated by church authorities to evade arrest and an ensuing scandal.

Archdiocese spokesman Tod Tamberg called the lawyer's claims "preposterous and without foundation."

"None of the documents concerning Nicolas Aguilar Rivera are new. The media have reported on them extensively in the past decade. They show that Cardinal Mahony urged Aguilar-Rivera’s return to the U.S. to face justice," Tamberg said in a statement. He said that was all the church planned to say on the subject.

The latest in a string of lawsuits brought by alleged victims of Aguilar, the complaint filed by Juan Doe1 contends that the priest raped him repeatedly in 1997, after both cardinals knew he was a sexual predator.

Aguilar was defrocked in July, more than 20 years after the first credible complaints of sexual abuse were brought by authorities in Mexico and Southern California, Anderson noted. He said Aguilar is suspected of abusing as many as 60 boys in Mexico as well as the 26 reported in Los Angeles.

Aguilar remains a fugitive in Mexico and subject to arrest and extradition warrants. If apprehended, he faces criminal charges in his homeland and the civil charges in U.S. court.

-- Carol J. Williams

You Just THOUGHT You Didn't Need to Take Immigration in Law School

2010-04-05T14:35:00.000-07:00

This decision may impact the curriculum at U.S. law schools, where immigration law is ordinarily viewed as an arcane academic backwater, offered as an elective, and perhaps not available every semester. Now it would behoove every urban criminal defense practitioner to have a working knowledge of immigration law, lest this abstract new development of ineffective assistance of counsel doctrine ripen into more tangible legal malpractice claims.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Weigh in on New Requirements
By Sylvia Hsieh, Staff Writer
LawyersUSA

Criminal defense lawyers are weighing in on Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision, which held that they must inform non-citizen clients about the risk of deportation when taking a plea deal.

Such notification is a constitutional requirement for effective assistance of counsel pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, the Court said.
Many lawyers welcomed the ruling, saying it resolved an issue plaguing many criminal cases.

“It impacts so many of our clients. … Clearly the immigration consequences are enormous, sometimes even more serious than the criminal consequences,” said Tova Indritz, a criminal defense attorney in Albuquerque, N.M. and an expert on the intersection of criminal and immigration law.

“It’s an historic decision, because prior to [it] almost every lower court said the Sixth Amendment doesn’t require competent advice on deportation consequences,” said winning attorney Stephen B. Kinnaird, an appellate litigator and partner at Paul Hastings in Washington, D.C.

(Earlier in the week, an appeals court in Maryland refused to overturn a plea by a Latvian national who was not warned by his lawyer about the risk of deportation.)

Immigration attorneys also applauded the ruling.

“Immigration consequences of a plea are part and parcel of the [criminal] defense. It’s high time it be recognized,” said David W. Leopold, a Cleveland immigration attorney and president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

He predicted that cases where a defendant has already taken a plea and faces deportation because he or she wasn’t warned about the risks may be reopened as a result of this decision, including two recent queries that came through his office involving federal pleas.

“They will have to be re-advised,” Leopold said.

‘Raised stakes’

The case before the justices involved a lawful permanent resident of 40 years and Vietnam War veteran who faced deportation to Hondurus, where he was born, after he pled guilty to a drug charge.

His attorney had told him he “did not have to worry about immigration status because he had been in the country so long.”

The Kentucky Supreme Court denied post conviction relief, finding that the risk of deportation was merely “collateral” to the criminal conviction.

But the Supreme Court said that recent changes in the immigration laws that broaden the class of deportable crimes and take away a judge’s discretion in deportation decisions have “dramatically raised the stakes” of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction and put it “within the ambit” of the Sixth Amendment right to competent counsel.

“The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important. These changes confirm our view that, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part - indeed, sometimes the most important part - of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant - whether a citizen or not - is left to the ‘mercies of incompetent counsel.’ To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” the Court said.

However, the Court noted that while in this case the attorney could have easily looked at the statute and found that nearly all drug crimes require mandatory deportation, in cases where the deportation consequences are “unclear or uncertain,” a criminal defense attorney “need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.”

Some 28 states already have a requirement that a criminal defendant be warned generally of immigration consequences, often by the judge during the plea colloquy, said Indritz.

The ruling now applies to criminal cases in every state, as well as in federal cases, which did not have a rule about warning defendants of immigration consequences, she added.

Kinnaird predicted that federal prosecutors will make it explicit in plea agreements that a plea may carry immigration consequences “so their pleas aren’t at risk.”

‘White, pink or green’

For some lawyers, the new obligations may require a wholesale rethinking from the moment a client walks in the door.

“We have to get over our stereotypes. I don’t care if you’re white, pink or green, right after I ask your name, my next question is, ‘Where were you born?’ said Indritz.

Given the complicated maze of this area of law, experts suggest that criminal defense lawyers get up to speed on immigration law or work with an immigration lawyer.

“This requires that in every case, a criminal defense lawyer ask the client what his citizenship status is, then keep in mind if you’re pleading to something that [makes your client] removable,” said John Wesley Hall, immediate past president of NACDL, who practices in Little Rock, Ark.

In some cases, knowing about the immigration risks and then renegotiating a plea deal can keep your client from being banished. For example, a client could plead to a lesser crime in exchange for actual jail time, or a prosecutor could agree to reduce a sentence from one year to 364 days, thereby taking a crime out of the “aggravated felony” category for purposes of deportation.

But the calculus depends on a dizzying variety of factors, and jurisdictions are split on some definitions of what makes a crime deportable. In addition, a plea can carry a panoply of risks aside from deportation, including the risk of not being allowed back in the U.S. if a defendant travels abroad or the risk of ineligibility for citizenship.

“It’s an absolute minefield. A criminal defense lawyer is well-advised to give a detailed analysis to her client prior to engaging in a decision to take a plea or go to trial,” said Leopold.

Experienced criminal defense attorneys will get advice from an immigration specialist before a client pleads to a crime, said Ira Kurzban, an immigration attorney at Kurzban, Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli in Miami.

More ‘collateral consequences’ to come?

The ruling could lead to a further expansion of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.

“It’s a transformative decision and at least opens the door for further decisions on whether any other collateral consequences are also within the Sixth Amendment,” said Kinnaird, who argued the case for the defendant.

The biggest example would be the consequences for a defendant pleading guilty to a crime requiring registration as a sex offender; lesser examples include losing the right to serve on a jury or the right to carry a firearm as the result of a plea.

“Those are all questions for the future,” Kinnaird said.

Convict Can Stay Because His Criminal Defense Lawyer Failed to Tell Him That Felons Can Be Deported

2010-04-05T14:14:00.000-07:00

If this decision is applicable retroactively, expect a flood of "ineffective assistance of counsel" appeals, perhaps filed by immigration attorneys who otherwise try to stay out of court, not to mention appellate courts. As a practical matter, the USCIS won't contest them all. Somebody will make a phone call or send a memo down, and the deportations of convicted felons will be quietly dropped.

Supreme Court Says Lawyers Must Tell Immigrant Clients of Deportation Risk
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer

Lawyers must advise their immigrant clients facing criminal charges that pleading guilty could lead to deportation, the Supreme Court decided Tuesday.

The court ruled 7 to 2 that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an effective counsel extends to advice about the risk of having to leave the country.

"It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant -- whether a citizen or not -- is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

Stevens said the responsibilities for lawyers are heightened because of congressional crackdowns on immigrants who commit crimes, even relatively minor ones. "These changes confirm our view that, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part -- indeed, sometimes the most important part -- of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes," he wrote.

The case before the court involved California truck driver José Padilla, who was considering whether to plead guilty to trafficking in marijuana. Before agreeing to the plea, he asked his lawyer whether it would affect his status as a legal permanent resident.

Padilla, a native of Honduras, had been in the United States almost 40 years and had served in the Army during the Vietnam War. (He shares a name with, but is not related to, the onetime "enemy combatant" convicted on terrorism charges.) He said his lawyer told him that he did not have to worry about his immigration status because he had been in the country so long.

So Padilla pleaded guilty -- and found out that his lawyer was wrong. Padilla's plea to an aggravated felony left him virtually no defense to deportation once his jail term ended.

On appeal, Padilla argued that his lawyer's bad advice deprived him of the constitutional right to effective counsel and that he should be able to withdraw the plea. The Supreme Court in Kentucky -- where Padilla was arrested -- said a lawyer is required only to advise his or her client about the direct consequences of a guilty plea and not collateral issues, such as how it would affect immigration status.

Tuesday's court majority said that was wrong. "When the deportation consequence is truly clear, as it was in this case, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear," Stevens wrote.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with the outcome of the case but said the majority went too far in extending the Sixth Amendment and what it requires of lawyers. Because immigration law is so complex, Alito said, it is enough for a lawyer to refrain from providing incorrect information and then advise a client to consult an immigration lawyer about the consequences of a guilty plea. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. agreed with Alito.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the opinion was "overkill."

"In the best of all possible worlds, criminal defendants contemplating a guilty plea ought to be advised of all serious collateral consequences of conviction, and surely ought not to be misadvised," Scalia wrote. "The Constitution, however, is not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect world."

Padilla, who has been living in California while awaiting the outcome of his legal challenges, now returns to the Kentucky Supreme Court to argue that his lawyer's bad advice means he should be able to withdraw his plea.

The case is Padilla v. Kentucky.

Importing 85,000 Immigrant College Graduates for U.S. Employment

2010-04-05T13:47:00.000-07:00

The U.S. government will permit employers to import 85,000 foreign workers this Fall, and has begun processing H-1B applications based on U.S. Department of Labor certification that American citizens and resident aliens are unavailable for the jobs, or are otherwise unsatisfactory. Of these jobs, 20,000 are reserved for immigrants with Master's degrees or higher, and 65,000 must have bachelor's degrees or equivalents. The U.S. employment will begin October 1.

On April 1, 2010, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting new H-1B visa applications for employment that will begin on October 1, 2010. The H-1B visa is a popular choice for companies who want to hire a foreign worker to fill a "professional" or "specialty occupation" position requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree or the equivalent.

There are 65,000 H-1B visas available each year plus an additional 20,000 H-1B visas reserved for holders of U.S. master's or higher degrees. Although USCIS reached the quota in the first week of filing in previous years, the quota this past year was not filled until December 2009.

Unlike previous years, there is no longer the possibility of one-day approval from USDOL for Labor Condition Applications – which are required in order to file the H-1B petition with USCIS. The USDOL is generally taking seven days to process Labor Condition Applications and this processing time is expected to increase as employers file more H-1Bs.

Possible candidates for H-1B visas are current employees or potential new hires now working in F-1, J-1, L-1 and TN categories whose employment authorization will expire before October 2011.

Deportation for Misdemeanor Criminal Recidivism Appears to Divide Supreme Court Along Familiar Ideological Faultlines

2010-04-01T22:55:00.000-07:00

Kimberly Atkins' article doesn't mention any comments or questions from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the sole Hispanic on the Court, but I would be surprised if she votes for deportation of the Hispanic criminal. If the typical pattern holds, Alito, Roberts and Thomas will join Scalia and Kennedy to prevail 5-4 over Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens.

Court considers if two misdemeanors equal a felony
By Kimberly Atkins
Staff writer

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court took up a case Wednesday that considers whether a person who was convicted of two misdemeanors - therefore qualifying for, but never charged with, a felony enhancement - is guilty of an “aggravated felony” under immigration law.

The case, Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, involves Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo, a permanent U.S. resident from Mexico who pleaded guilty to possession of a marijuana joint - a misdemeanor - in 2004. In 2005 he pleaded guilty to illegal possession of one Xanax tablet without a prescription - another misdemeanor.

Although he could have been prosecuted under a recidivism statute that would have elevated the second charge to a felony, the prosecutor chose not to seek an enhancement.

Carachuri-Rosendo then received notice of removal proceedings. At a hearing, an immigration law judge held that he was subject to deportation. The judge reasoned that the second conviction qualified as an “aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act because it could have justified a felony sentence under the Controlled Substances Act. (The INA authorizes deportation for anyone convicted of a crime “punishable” under the CSA.)

Carachuri-Rosendo appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and ultimately to the 5th Circuit, which both affirmed.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case.

What is ‘punishable’?

Sri Srinivasan, a partner in the Washington office of O’Melveny & Myers, argued that the “aggravated felony” trigger should not have come into play absent a court ruling on recidivism.

“At the very least [the defendant] would have had to have been found to be a recidivist under a state provision that attaches sentencing consequences to being found to have been a recidivist,” Srinivasan argued.

“But this was ‘punishable‘ as a felony because it was his second drug offense,” Justice Antonin Scalia said, referring to the language of the INA. “He was a recidivist. And although it was only a misdemeanor under state law, under the Controlled Substances Act he could be prosecuted for a felony.”

“But he has to have been convicted of the felony,” Srinivasan replied. “That is the critical distinction.”

Scalia said a conviction wasn’t necessary under the text of the law.

“The critical language is ‘punishable,’” Scalia said, emphasizing every syllable of the word. “The truth is, he could be punished for a felony.”

“He has to be convicted of a felony,” Srinivasan asserted. “In absence of that finding he hasn’t been convicted of an ‘aggravated felony.’”

Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that five states have no recidivism statutes at all, so there could be uneven results.

“If you have one of those states with no recidivist provisions and you have ten separate possession convictions, [the defendant is] still not a recidivist under the federal rules,” Kennedy observed.

“That doesn’t mean that those prior convictions don’t enter into the picture at all,” Srinivasan said, noting that federal authorities can take those convictions into account when considering removal actions.

Felony to have ‘one Xan-something pill’?

Nicole A. Saharsky, assistant to the solicitor general, argued on the government’s behalf that state court action is not the determinate factor in deciding who is an aggravated felon under federal law.

“Congress’s judgment here was that all aliens who engage in the same serious conduct would be treated the same for immigration purposes,” Saharsky said. “What [the defendant] is saying is: ‘I don’t want my aggravated felony to count because of the difference in state law.’”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered if the punishment fit the crimes.

“If you could just present this scenario to an intelligent person who didn’t go to law school, that you are going to not only remove him from this country, but say never, ever darken our doors again because of one marijuana cigarette and one Xan-something pill - it just seems to me that if there is a way of reading the statute that would not lead to that absurd result, you would want to read the statute” that way, Ginsburg said.

Saharsky said the result is the one Congress intended.

“What controls is Congress’s judgment, and Congress has taken a hard line over the past 20 years on criminal aliens, particularly recidivist criminal aliens,” Saharsky said.

Justice Stephen Breyer, using a hypothetical of a gentle “pussycat burglar” armed only with a pillow, said that the case illustrates the same practical problem present in cases involving other sentence-boosting statutes, such as the Armed Career Criminal Act: people committing relatively minor crimes facing dire consequences based on unclear state and federal laws.

Breyer said he feared a ruling in the government’s favor could “get [a] very mixed up area of the law which we have tried to straighten out [o]nce again totally mixed up. That’s my concern.”

A decision is expected by this summer.

Questions or comments can be directed to the writer at: kimberly.atkins@lawyersusaonline.com
© Copyright 2010 Lawyers USA. All Rights Reserved.

Immigrants Sue to Force Massachusetts Taxpayers to Provide Free Health Care

2010-02-26T16:53:00.000-08:00

Legal immigrants have two extreme and opposite images in America: the opportunity-driven, entrepreneurial, patriotic and hard-working heroic individual, on the one hand, and the clannish, backward-looking, unproductive, stubbornly unassimilated, parasitical ward of the state, on the other.

The kind of immigrant who cheers his native country's sports teams against U.S. teams, who displays a foreign flag in his apartment window, or who sues his hosts to force them to tax themselves for his benefit probably nudges the image toward the latter.

IMMIGRANTS SUE STATE OVER EXCLUSION FROM HEALTH CARE: Massachusetts program faced budget cutback last year
By Kay Lazar
Boston Globe

Massachusetts’ exclusion of thousands of legal immigrants from state-subsidized health coverage is unconstitutional and should be struck down by the courts, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday by several of the affected immigrants.

The lawsuit charges that the state’s Connector Authority and its executive director, Jon Kingsdale, violated the immigrants’ right to equal protection under the state and federal constitutions when the administrators last year cut their health coverage through the Commonwealth Care program because of a tight state budget.

The Connector oversees the state’s 2006 landmark health law that created Commonwealth Care, which provides lower-cost insurance for low-income residents. Dick Powers, a spokesman for the Connector, said the authority had no comment on the lawsuit.

“You can’t violate people’s constitutional rights just because you don’t have the funds,’’ said Matt Selig, executive director of Health Law Advocates, a Boston-based public interest law firm that is assisting the immigrants in the suit.

Last year, about 26,000 immigrants lost their coverage after lawmakers eliminated $130 million in funding to help balance the state’s budget.

The Legislature ultimately restored about a third of the money, and the immigrants were given stripped-down health care plans with significantly higher copayments for medications and other treatments.

Since then, 8,000 more legal immigrants became eligible but have been denied coverage in the plans because the Legislature capped enrollment when it voted last summer.

Among those unable to get coverage is Dorothy Ann Finch of Boston, a 51-year-old immigrant from Zimbabwe with college degrees in psychology and business management, who was a project manager in London before immigrating to the United States in 2006, according to the lawsuit.

Finch was not offered health insurance by her employer here, the suit says, because she worked part time.

So she applied for and was accepted into Commonwealth Care, but the enrollment process was not completed before July 2009, when the Legislature voted to terminate coverage for the immigrants and capped enrollment in the new, stripped-down program.

“This event turned my life upside down,’’ Finch said in an affidavit filed with the lawsuit.

She is a diabetic who suffers from oral health infections, vision loss, and kidney and heart problems, according to the suit, and she has been unable to afford other insurance.

“I cannot hold liquid in my mouth because of my infected jaw,’’ Finch said in her affidavit. “I am afraid to receive medical treatment because I cannot pay the bills.’’

Another plaintiff in the suit, identified as 45-year-old Jane Doe, a licensed architect from the Philippines with a master’s degree in building science, has breast cancer and has been unable to find cancer specialists from the list provided to immigrants in the state’s stripped-down health plan.

“I have searched on the new plan’s website, and I called for assistance,’’ Doe said in her affidavit. “I finally found a GYN in Norwood but with a waiting list. I cannot find a medical oncologist, and I am worried about my health care.’’

The lawsuit estimates that the Commonwealth has saved more than $80 million by cutting the immigrants’ health coverage.

Lawmakers have said they were reluctant to cut immigrants’ coverage, but made the choice because they are more expensive for the state to insure: The federal government does not chip in for their care the way it does for others who are US citizens.

Through a spokesman, Senator Steven Panagiotakos, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, declined to comment on the lawsuit, as did Representative Charles Murphy, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said it was unfortunate that immigrants have to sue the state’s Connector Authority, especially because Governor Deval Patrick and his administration have fought hard to retain coverage for the group.

But she said the immigrants could not legally sue the Legislature.

“These people are their neighbors, they pay taxes, they are part of the fabric,’’ Millona said. “But they are being separated because of their immigration status.’’

Weakened Secretary of Homeland Security is Readying Florida Base to Receive Illegal Immigration from Devastated Haiti

2010-01-18T19:02:00.000-08:00

U.S. officials are talking tough for public consumption, but are quietly making arrangements to accomodate a tidal wave of Haitian migration to South Florida. The AP story here quotes officials saying that any illegal Haitian migrants will be intercepted at sea and repatriated to their native country.

That is obviously intended to dissuade Haitians from staging a mass evacuation across the strait, but Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, already weakened by earlier public relations debacles, can't make it stick. The political pressure will come from several points on the compass, including the Catholic church, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hip-Hop Summit, and the president's own pollsters.

Napolitano obviously understands that she is a paper tiger, as she is already preparing the former Homestead Air Base south of Miami to receive the expected surge of escaping Haitian survivors.

Haitians Seeking U.S. Refuge Will be Returned
By CURT ANDERSON, AP Legal Affairs Writer

MIAMI – U.S. authorities are readying for a potential influx of Haitians seeking to escape their earthquake-wracked nation, even though the policy for migrants remains the same: with few exceptions, they will go back.

So far, fears of a mass migration have yet to materialize. However, conditions in Haiti become more dire each day and U.S. officials don't want to be caught off guard.

Between 250 and 400 immigration detainees are being moved from South Florida's main detention center to clear space for any Haitians who manage to reach U.S. shores, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Navy base at Guantanamo Bay could house migrants temporarily — far from suspected terrorists also being held there — and the Catholic church is working on a plan to accept Haitian orphans.

Homeland Security spokesman Sean Smith said Monday that orphans who have ties to the U.S. — such as a family member already living here — and Haitians evacuated for medical reasons are among those who can gain special permission to remain in the U.S.

The mass migration plan, known as "Operation Vigilant Sentry," was put in place in 2003 because of previous experiences with Caribbean migrations, said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Chris O'Neil, spokesman for the Homeland Security Task Force Southeast that would manage any Haitian influx.

"There is no new incentive for anyone to try to enter the United States illegally by sea," O'Neil said. "The goal is to interdict them at sea and repatriate them."

The message was underscored by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano during a weekend appearance at Homestead Air Reserve Base south of Miami, a key staging area for Haiti relief flights.

"This is a very dangerous crossing. Lives are lost every time people try to make this crossing," Napolitano said, addressing Haitians directly. "Please do not have us divert our necessary rescue and relief efforts that are going into Haiti by trying to leave at this point."

Some immigration advocates say the U.S. should shift away from stopping migrants and ease safe passage. They say those on approved waiting lists should be able to join spouses or relatives in the U.S.

"We should be figuring out an orderly transition for people to come here, instead of being panicked about it," said Ira Kurzban, a leading Miami immigration attorney.

The Obama administration's decision last week to grant temporary protected status to Haitians in the U.S. illegally as of Jan. 12 does not extend to those attempting to enter the U.S. after that date.

So far this year, the Coast Guard has intercepted 17 Haitians at sea, all before the earthquake struck. The 2009 total of 1,782 was higher than any year since 2004, when more than 3,200 Haitians were stopped attempting to reach U.S. shores. That was a year of political upheaval in Haiti following the collapse of the government of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Cuba is responsible for the biggest mass migration from any Caribbean nation: more than 125,000 Cubans streamed to the U.S. in 1980 after former President Fidel Castro opened the port of Mariel to anyone who wanted to leave.

U.S. policy notwithstanding, the Catholic Church in Miami is working on a proposal that would allow thousands of orphan children to come permanently to this country. A similar effort launched in 1960, known as Operation Pedro Pan, brought about 14,000 unaccompanied children from Cuba to the U.S.

Under the plan dubbed "Pierre Pan," Haitian orphans would first be placed in group homes and then paired with foster parents, said Mary Ross Agosta, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Miami.

"We have children who are homeless and possibly without parents and it is the moral and humane thing to do," Agosta said.

Officials said many details would have to be worked out and the Obama administration would have to grant orphans humanitarian parole to enter the U.S.

____

Associated Press writers Matt Sedensky in Miami and Larry Margasak in Washington contributed to this story.

Tough Immigration Enforcement Lands Sheriff Under Investigation by Eric Holder's U.S. Justice Department

2010-01-18T17:07:00.000-08:00

Shortly after President Obama took office, his attorney general placed Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio under investigation for racial discrimination and unconstitutional searches.

Arpaio is legendary for his unsympathetic treatment of jail inmates, and more recently he has been publicized as one of the few major western law enforcement official who actively enforced immigration laws.

Within the Mexican-American constituency, which is large and probably decisive in most of the West, this confrontation with Arpaio is pure re-election gold for Obama. He will sew up solid majorities among Mexican-Americans, including Evangelicals, in 2012.

Although Obama needs no help with Black middle-class voters, Holder's attack on Arpaio may help cement Obama's solidarity with the Black underclass that normally does not vote. It will be interesting to see whether Obama and the new class warriors can finally mobilize the Mexican-American and Black lumpenproletariat that has heretofore be reliably inert.

Thousands protest sheriff's immigration efforts

By JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press

PHOENIX – Thousands of immigrant rights advocates marched in front of a county jail in Phoenix Saturday in a protest that was aimed at Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's immigration efforts and was marked by a clash between a small group of protesters and police officers.

Organizers say the protest was meant to show officials in Washington that Arpaio shouldn't handle immigration enforcement, and that Congress and the Obama administration need to come up with a way for immigrant workers to come to the country legally.

The three-mile walk that started in a west Phoenix park ended by afternoon at the Durango Jail Complex, a collection of five jails, where officials played music, including a record by singer Linda Ronstadt, to drown out noise made by protesters. Ronstadt took part in Saturday's protest.

Protesters chanted "Joe must go" as they approached the jail complex. One person carried a sign that said "We are human" and bore a picture of a lawman with a wolf's face. A family of five wore T-shirts saying "Who would Jesus deport?"

For his part, Arpaio said he wasn't bothered by the protesters and that they should be directing their frustrations at Congress because it has the power to change America's immigration laws.

"They are zeroing in on the wrong guy," Arpaio said. "They ought to be zeroing in on the president."

The demonstration was peaceful until police say protesters near the end of the procession started throwing water bottles at officers. Phoenix Police Lt. Pat Hofmann said officers used pepper spray as they tried to separate protesters from an officer who was trying to take away the bottles.

Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said on-scene supervisors described a group of demonstrators purposefully disrupting the demonstration by assaulting several police officers and a police horse.

He said one demonstrator struck a police sergeant on the head and chest with a flagpole. Two others threw water bottles, possibly containing rocks, at other officers, but missed.

Hill also said a police officer on horseback was assaulted while her horse was mobbed, punched and pushed. The officer used pepper spray to stop the assault.

"Most regrettably, a nearby 2-year-old child was hit by some of the pepper spray," said Hill, adding that the Phoenix Fire Department was called to the scene to treat the girl. "I am told she was released and was expected to be OK."

No one else was seriously injured, he said.

Phoenix police said Saturday night that five people were arrested during the protest and taken to Maricopa County Jail. Four were booked on suspicion of aggravated assault on police. The other faces disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Though the scene of the disturbance was cleared within minutes, the aftermath was chaotic. Protesters yelled obscenities at police officers in riot gear. One officer shook his pepper spray canister as he ordered people to keep moving. One protester wore goggles, and several others wrapped bandanas around their mouths.

Critics have accused deputies working in Arpaio's immigration efforts of racial profiling, which the sheriff denies. He says his deputies approach people when they have probable cause to believe they had committed crimes.

Ten months ago, Arpaio learned he was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for alleged discrimination and unconstitutional searches. He says the investigation was prompted by his immigration efforts, although federal authorities haven't provided details.

Since early 2008, Arpaio has run 13 immigration and crimes sweeps involving officers who flood a section of a city — in some cases heavily Latino areas — to seek out traffic violators and arrest other violators.

Arpaio's power to make federal immigration arrests was stripped away three months ago by officials in Washington, but he continues his immigration efforts through the enforcement of two state laws.

A federal grand jury also is investigating Arpaio and his office on allegations of abusing his powers.

Haitian Catastrophe is Immigration Policy and Enforcement Game-Changer

2010-01-15T20:33:00.000-08:00

The recent catastrophe in Haiti is shaping up as an immigration policy and enforcement game-changer. The Obama regime has already halted deportations of illegal alien Haitians, even those already in detention. Now Haitian activists and their allies are urging relocation of large numbers of orphaned Haitian children to South Florida.

Operation Pierre Pan May Start at Miami Hospitals: Miami advocates are pushing to relocate Haitian children to the U.S.
By Todd Wright
Jan 15, 2010

Some of Haiti's most fragile - its children - have arrived at Miami area hospitals and for a few, Miami may become their new home. So far, 23 patients from the earthquake have been treated at Jackson Memorial Hospital, with countless more likely to be airlifted from the island for treatment. Florida Sen. Bill Nelson has contacted all the children's hospitals in Florida and requested that they receive critically injured Haitian children in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Nelson on Friday said he also plans to introduce a "major Haitian relief bill."

But the injured won't likely be the only children coming to Florida.

"Operation Pierre Pan," as its being called, is an effort to relocate the thousands of children likely orphaned by the natural disaster in Port-au-Prince. Many of the children could already have relatives in Miami and around the U.S.

A similar effort occurred decades ago when "Operation Pedro Pan" was launched to help the children of Cuba during the political upheaval in that island neighbor. Some 14,000 children were relocated to the United States, many of them settling in South Florida.

While advocates mobilize for a push to help find the children new families if not reunite them with stateside relatives, there are several hurdles that need to be overcome.

The movement would need the approval of the U.S. government to at the very least grant the orphans temporary status in the country.

Still, agencies in Miami-Dade and Broward are gearing up for the possible influx of children in need of a home, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

We've already begun to make preparations and are willing to do our part," said Mark Riordan, Broward County spokesman for the state's Department of Children and Families.

Halloween costume hurts feelings, but is it a right?

2009-11-04T04:27:00.005-08:00

Immigration: Halloween costume reigniting immigration debate -- chicagotribune.com

Posted using ShareThis

Good Fences Don't Make Good Neighbors - ABC News

2009-08-21T04:37:00.001-07:00

Good Fences Don't Make Good Neighbors - ABC News

Shared via AddThis

Illegal Aliens Will Have Equal Ration Under Obama's Nationalized Health Care

2009-07-29T13:49:00.000-07:00

Democrats have quietly included millions of illegal aliens under the Obama health coverage, and have prevented any Congressional hearings or floor debate on the issue. Stripped of the altruistic "outer garment," as Friedrich Engels would call it, this has to be seen as a win/win for President Obama and his party, which is buying the multi-generational political devotion of a decisive voting bloc with the taxes, credit and health care ration of Obama's probable future adversaries.

Millions of illegals covered under Obama healthcare
by Chad Groening - OneNewsNow

The ranking Republican on the House Subcommittee on Immigration says Democrats have refused to pass an amendment that would prevent illegal aliens from being covered in the Obama healthcare plan.

Democrats recently defeated a Republican-backed amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nevada) that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving government-subsidized healthcare under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Obama.

Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the House Immigration Subcommittee, finds it outrageous that Democrats want to force hardworking Americans to foot the healthcare bill for those who are in the country illegally.

"The Democrats will not even allow an amendment to be debated on the subject matter. They have shut down the debate process here, and they have pushed any discussion -- however minimal it is -- up to the secret room up in the Rules Committee. They're not going to debate it," he points out. "They are determined to fund health insurance and healthcare for illegals -- and the number turns out to be 5.6 million that would be insured under this bill. [Those are] Congressional Budget Office numbers."

King suspects the actual number will be double that estimate or more.

Marriage Visa in a Nutshell

2009-07-29T12:41:00.000-07:00

What is a "marriage" visa, exactly? A Sherman, California law firm, Pacifica International Law Group, has posted this brief summary of the K-3 "Marriage" Visa on its website (http://www.visa2america.com/k_3_marriage.html). Compare this description to the description of the "fiance(e)" visa in the previous post.

K-3 MARRIAGE

The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act and its amendments (LIFE Act) established a new nonimmigrant category within the immigration law that allows the spouse of a U.S. citizen to be admitted to the United States in a nonimmigrant category. The admission allows the spouse or child to complete processing for permanent residence while in the United States. It also allows those admitted in the new category to have permission for employment while they await processing of their case to permanent resident status.

The foreign spouse’s unmarried children under the age of twenty-one can be included in the parent’s petition and receive K4 visas with the same privileges as the parents K3 visa. However, if a child is 18 years of age or older at the time of marriage then, although the child can receive a K4 visa and enter the U.S., that child cannot obtain a green card and become a U.S. immigrant. The child’s K4 will simply expire after two years or when the child reaches the age of 21, whichever occurs first.

Fiance(e) Visa in a Nutshell

2009-07-29T12:26:00.000-07:00

What exactly is a "fiance" visa? With the growth of Internet introduction sites, increasing numbers of foreign women are relocating to the U.S. before they actually marry the U.S. men who petition them into America. Their visas cannot be initiated at a U.S. consulate, but must be petitioned stateside by the prospective U.S. spouse. Pacifica International Law Group's website (http://www.visa2america.com/k_1_fianc_e_.html) offers this succinct summary of the K-1 "Fiance" visa.

K-1 FIANCE(e)

The immigration laws provide a nonimmigrant visa classification ("K-1") for persons coming to the United States to marry American citizens and reside here.

To establish K-1 visa classification for an alien fiancé(e), an American citizen must file a petition with the Regional Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) having jurisdiction over the place of the petitioner's residence in the United States. Such petitions may not be adjudicated abroad. The approved petition will be forwarded by USCIS to the American consular office where the alien fiancé(e) will apply for his/her visa. The visa application procedures and policies followed by U.S. consular posts vary depending on the local conditions and requirements.

After an alien fiancé(e) has obtained a K-1 visa and entered the U.S., the alien fiancé(e) must get married to the U.S. citizen who petitioned for him/her within 90 days of admission. After marriage, the alien fiancé(e) becomes the spouse and may file application for permanent residence in the U.S.

The children of K-1 visa holders will be admitted with K-2 visa, for a same time of their parents or until the day before such children's 21st birthday or marriage, whichever is shorter. The child of the K-1 beneficiary may acquire K-2 status even after the beneficiary has married the U.S. citizen petitioner and acquired lawful permanent resident status in the U.S. However, the child must apply for a K-2 visa within 1 year from the date of the issuance of the K-1 visa. After 1 year, the filing of an immigrant visa petition would be required for the child.

9,400 Mexicans Filed Refugee Applications in Canada Last Year; Now Mexican Lesbians Allege Homophobic Persecution

2009-07-28T15:04:00.000-07:00

Two Mexican lesbians filed for refugee status in Canada earlier this month, claiming Mexican officials will persecute them if they return home. So many Mexican and Czech nationals have filed refugee applications upon arrival that Canada has restricted visas granted to applicants from those countries. According to this report in The Ottawa Sun, more than 9,400 Mexicans filed refugee applications in Canada last year.

The Ottawa Sun
Mexican lesbian lovers claim refugee status in Canada
by Tom Godfrey

Two lesbians who slipped into Canada before visas were imposed on Mexicans have claimed refugee status, alleging they'll be raped or killed if sent back home. Norma Angelica Gomez, 33, and Alina Gallegos Lee, 34, say their dream is to get married in Toronto and be happy. The couple fled to Canada a year ago, but claimed asylum last March after going public with their love in Mexico. They claimed they were harassed, followed and beaten by Mexican police for expressing their love. "Canada is a good country and we feel free," Lee said yesterday. "At home, we were constantly persecuted for being lesbians."

The couple claim the attacks against them escalated after they were detained and beaten by police last year in Mexico. According to Amnesty International, gays and lesbians in Mexico are routinely beaten, sexually assaulted, raped or tortured by police and soldiers.

The couple's lawyer, George Kubes, said he's sending the lovers for an assessment at the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture. "They were beaten up by police and called names," Kubes said. "For a long time the Mexican police have been harassing them." He said the couple always dreamed of getting married in Canada and being happy. "They want to live a happy life in Canada," Kubes said. "This couple is genuinely in love."

Last Monday, visas were imposed by Canada to visitors from Mexico and the Czech Republic due to a large number of those nationals staying behind as refugee claimants. Mexico has been Canada's top source of refugees since 2005. Last year, more than 9,400 refugee claims were filed in Canada by Mexican nationals. Of the claims reviewed and finalized last year, only 11% were accepted.

Hidden Impact of Illegal Immigration on Public Health, U.S. Institutions and Budget

2009-07-28T00:47:00.000-07:00

Medical lawyer Madeleine P. Cosner published this 2005 article in a professional journal. She wrote that illegal immigrants are having serious hidden negative impacts on public health, on our institutions, and our budget, and she proposes a program, complete with acronym, to regain control of illegal immigration.

Illegal Aliens and American Medicine
By Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D.
Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons
Volume 10, Number 1 - Spring 2005

The Seen and the Unseen
The influx of illegal aliens has serious hidden medical consequences. We judge reality primarily by what we see. But what we do not see can be more dangerous, more expensive, and more deadly than what is seen.

What is unseen is their free medical care that has degraded and closed some of America's finest emergency medical facilities, and caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing their doors. 'Anchor babies' born to illegal aliens instantly qualify as citizens for welfare benefits and have caused enormous rises in Medicaid costs and stipends under Supplemental Security Income and Disability Income.

By default, we grant health passes to illegal aliens. Yet many illegal aliens harbor fatal diseases that American medicine fought and vanquished long ago, such as drug-resistant tuberculosis, malaria, leprosy, plague, polio, dengue, and Chagas disease.

What is seen is the political statistic that 43 million lives are at risk in America because of lack of medical insurance. What is unseen is that medical insurance does not equal medical care. Uninsured people receive medical care in hospital emergency departments (EDs) under the coercive Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA), which obligates hospitals to treat the uninsured but does not pay for that care. Also unseen is the percentage of the uninsured who are illegal aliens. No one knows how many illegal aliens reside in America. If there are 10 million, they constitute nearly 25 percent of the uninsured. The percentage could be even higher.

EMTALA
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires every ED to treat anyone who enters with an 'emergency' - including cough, headache, hangnail, cardiac arrest, herniated lumbar disc, drug addiction, alcohol overdose, gunshot wound, automobile trauma, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive infection, mental problem, or personality disorder.... Any patient coming to a hospital ED requesting 'emergency' care must be screened and treated until ready for discharge, or stabilized for transfer - whether or not insured, 'documented,' or able to pay. A woman in labor must remain to deliver her child.

EMTALA is an unfunded federal mandate. Government imposes viciously stiff fines and penalties on any physician and any hospital refusing to treat any patient that a zealous prosecutor deems an emergency patient, even though the hospital or physician screened and declared the patient's illness or injury non-emergency.

High-technology EDs have degenerated into free medical offices. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals closed because half their services became unpaid. Another 24 California hospitals verge on closure. Even ambulances from Mexico come to American EDs with indigents because the drivers know that EMTALA requires accepting patients who come.

Los Angeles County Trauma Care Network, built in 1983, was one of America's finest emergency medical response organizations. EMTALA contributed to the Trauma Care Network's loss of focus and loss of money.

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of outstanding homicide warrants are for illegal aliens, as are 66 percent of fugitive felony warrants. The notorious 18 Street Gang has 20,000 members, of whom 60 to 80 percent are illegal aliens, according to the California Department of Justice and the Los Angeles Police Department, respectively.

Illegal aliens move freely in crime sanctuary cities. In Los Angeles, San Diego, Stockton, New York, Chicago, Miami, Austin, and Houston, no hospital, physician, city employee, or police officer is permitted to report immigration violators to the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Los Angeles Police Department prohibits police officers from 'initiating police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of a person.'

As many as 10,000 illegals cross the 1,940-mile-long border with Mexico each day. About 33 percent are caught. Many try again, immediately. Authorities estimate about 3,500 illegal aliens daily become permanent U.S. residents - at least 3 million annually. EMTALA rewards them with extensive, expensive medical services, free of charge, if they claim an emergency need for care.

Anchor Babies
American hospitals welcome 'anchor babies.' Illegal alien women come to the hospital in labor and drop their little anchors, each of whom pulls its illegal alien mother, father, and siblings into permanent residency simply by being born within our borders.

Anchor babies instantly qualify for public welfare aid. Between 300,000 and 350,000 anchor babies annually become citizens because of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.'

In 2003 in Stockton, California, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital's maternity ward were anchor babies, and 45 percent of Stockton children under age six are Latino (up from 30 percent in 1993). In 1994, 74,987 anchor babies in California hospital maternity units cost $215 million and constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal births. Now they account for substantially more than half.

Illegal aliens have translators, advocates, and middlemen supplied by immigrants' civil rights groups or by Medicaid. MediCal in 2003 had 760,000 illegal aliens, up from 2002 when there were 470,000. Supplemental Security Income is a nonmeans- tested federal grant of money and food stamps. People qualify easily. Scams, frauds, and cheats are rampant.

Among the organizations directing illegal aliens into America's medical systems are the Ford Foundation-funded Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the National Immigration Law Center; the American Immigration Lawyers Association; the American Bar Association's Commission on Immigration Policy, Practice, and Pro Bono; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Council of George Soros's Open Society Institute; the Migration Policy Institute; the National Network for Immigration and Refugee Rights; and the Southern Poverty Law Center. And there are more.

Immigrants on SSI, including legal aliens, refugees, and illegals with fraudulent Social Security cards, numbered a mere 127,900 aliens (3.3 percent of recipients) in 1982. By 1992 the numbers expanded to 601,430 entitled (10.9 percent of recipients). In 2003, this figure was several million (about 25 percent of recipients). The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) proudly announced that it obtained expensive cancer treatments, prenatal care, and critical health services for immigrants by means of its litigation.

Many illegals who cross our borders have tuberculosis. That disease had largely disappeared from America, thanks to excellent hygiene and powerful modern drugs such as isoniazid and rifampin.

TB's swift, deadly return now is lethal for about 60 percent of those infected because of new Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDRTB). Until recently MDR-TB was endemic to Mexico.

TB was virtually absent in Virginia until in 2002, when it spiked a 17 percent increase, but Prince William County, just south of Washington, D.C., had a much larger rise of 188 percent. Public health officials blamed immigrants. In 2001 the Indiana School of Medicine studied an outbreak of MDR-TB, and traced it to Mexican illegal aliens. The Queens, New York, health department attributed 81 percent of new TB cases in 2001 to immigrants.

Chagas disease, also called American trypanosomiasis or 'kissing bug' disease is transmitted by the reduviid bug, which prefers to bite the lips and face. The protozoan parasite that it carries, infects 18 million people annually in Latin America and causes 50,000 deaths. This disease also infiltrates America's blood supply.

Leprosy, a scourge in Biblical days and in medieval Europe, so horribly destroys flesh and faces it was called the 'disease of the soul.'... Leprosy, Hansen's disease, was so rare in America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy. Leprosy now is endemic to northeastern states because illegal aliens and other immigrants brought leprosy from India, Brazil, the Caribbean, and Mexico.

Dengue fever is exceptionally rare in America, though common in Ecuador, Peru, Vietnam, Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Mexico. Recently there was a virulent outbreak of dengue fever in Webb County, Texas, which borders Mexico.

Polio was eradicated from America, but now reappears in illegal immigrants, as do intestinal parasites. Malaria was obliterated, but now is re-emerging in Texas. Asians number 4 percent of Americans, but account for more than half of Hepatitis B cases.

CRAG: A Proposal to Prevent Medical Cataclysm

Tough medicine could end the cataclysm in American medicine. I suggest the acronym CRAG for four critical actions to reclaim America's EDs; to restore medicine's proud scientific excellence and profitability; and to protect Americans against bacterial, viral, parasitic, and fungal infectious diseases that illegal aliens carry across our borders.

Close America's borders. Prevent illegal entry with fences, high-tech security devices, and troops re-deployed from Germany and South Korea. Deport illegal aliens. Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement has a division of Detention and Removal dedicated to deportation. It is hobbled by the powerful Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of Justice court system that consists of the U.S. Immigration Court (USIC) plus an appellate court, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Rescind the citizenship of anchor babies. We must overturn the misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." An illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her country. The baby of an illegal alien mother also is subject to that home country's jurisdiction.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, its purpose was to assure rights of freedom and citizenship to newly emancipated Negro citizens. American Indians, however, were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. For citizenship, the person was required to submit to complete, exclusive American jurisdiction, owing allegiance to no other nation.

Long ago the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.'

In Elk, the American Indian claimant was born in America, but considered not An American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.' To obtain citizenship, an American Indian had to separate from his tribe and be accepted by the United States as a citizen. A special act of Congress was needed to grant full citizenship to American Indians.

The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8 USC 1401, provides that: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

Congress by legislation has the right to create uniform rules on naturalization, and to create dual citizenship and similar variations upon 'jurisdiction.' We must be vigilant against congressmen voting to extend the list of those born here to include illegal aliens or other lawbreakers, conferring American citizenship and its generous social and medical benefits on babies born to criminals.

Aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a crime. Punish it. This will anger devotees of illegal aliens who believe that the Constitution guarantees them civil rights that trump American administrative, civil, and criminal laws.

Grant no new amnesties. We must choose either to surrender medicine to illegal aliens, or to fight illegal aliens. Surrender to illegal aliens is surrender to collectivist America: land of moral ambiguity and home of pacifist appeasement. Fighting against illegal aliens is fighting for individualistic America: land of moral strength, and home of responsible liberty.

As we fight to reclaim medicine, so we defend our nation.

Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., is a medical lawyer, who formerly taught medical students at the City University of New York.

Anchor Children: A Critical History of the Constitutional Doctrine

2009-07-27T23:41:00.000-07:00

The practice of the U.S. government is to recognize all children born on U.S. soil as U.S. citizens. Illegal aliens have used this policy to anchor themselves in the U.S. as parents of citizen children. Although there have been proposals to change that policy since 9/11, or at least to deny illegal alien parents the anchoring strategy, the consensus view spanning the Left and Right alike is that the birthright citizenship policy should not be disturbed.

Birthright supporters often rest their position vaguely on the Constitution, or specifically cite to the 14th Amendment. But P.A. Madison posted this criticism of the Constitutional basis of territorial birthright in The Federalist Blog in 2005.

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the mainstream media. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Already, before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause, we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land.

It just gets worse for advocates who want to either believe - or revise history to support their fable - that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural-born citizen.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question. The record of law is full of references to jurisdiction that had nothing to do with physical location. Take for example title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where is states:

[Any] alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States...

Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically put you under US jurisdiction like some pro alien advocates would like to believe. Under the common myth of the meaning -- simply being within the limits of a State automatically places an alien under US jurisdiction for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. It does not as Bingham and Howard plainly makes clear as well as laws regarding the subject at the time also make clear.

So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:

[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

One might wonder why did Jacob Howard use the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" rather than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and 1870? The answer is simple: there was confusion over what a Indian’s allegiance might be and most everyone in Congress at the time did not want to give blanket citizenship to all Indians across the board.

In other words, it was feared by some that an Indian might be considered to owe no allegiance to any foreign power, and therefore, could become a citizen at birth. Since Indians were not under the direct jurisdiction of the United States (they were under the jurisdiction of their respected tribes) the language of the Fourteenth Amendment would disqualify them. This is why the language of the Citizenship Clause ended up different than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and 1870 and made more restrictive as to who could become a citizen by birth.

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro-immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There are other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling, other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review -- and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably led to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

If pro-immigration groups or individuals want to continue in believing the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their allegiance, fine. But to continue to insist the Fourteenth Amendment supports their fable is both feeble and a disrespect to American history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment posted anonymously:

The United States never granted territorial birthright by National Law. Aliens who gave birth to children within the United States were by National Law always alien. This remained true for most of the 19th and 20th century. Federal courts always upheld allegiance to the United States by the child's father in such controversies.

The question of Wong Ark did not involve any question of allegiance and therefore is a imporoper citation to support territorial birthright. National Law always trumped Common Law before the Supreme Court.

It is illegal by both 19th century National Law and under the 14th Amendemnt to bestow citizenship upon aliens under territorial birthright rule.

Blessed Are the (Fertile) Faithful: They Shall Inherit the West

2009-07-27T22:57:00.000-07:00

Phillip Longman is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, where he studies health care policy and demography. A former editor at U. S. News & World Report, Longman is the winner of UCLA's Gerald Loeb Award, the top prize for investigative journalism from Investigative Reporters and Editors. His 2004 book The Empty Cradle (Basic Books) explored the impact of declining fertility rates on the social, economic, and political health of societies across the globe. W. Bradford Wilcox interviewed him in 2007 for Christianity Today.

Fertility, Faith, & the Future of the West
A conversation with Phillip Longman
Interview by W. Bradford Wilcox | Christianity Today

Q: Since the 1960s, many in the West have been deeply concerned about the social and environmental consequences of population growth — witness, for instance, the popularity of Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. In the United States, our population recently passed the 300-million mark. Should we in the West still be concerned about population growth at home and abroad?

A: World population is still increasing by some 77 million annually. That's equivalent to adding a whole new country the size of Egypt every year. Yet here is a curious fact few people know: the number of children under 5 in the world is actually smaller than in 1990.

How can this be? Mostly it is because of the massive global decline in birthrates. Now, in literally every region outside of sub-Saharan Africa, the average woman no longer bears enough children to replace the population. For now, world population continues to grow, though at a slower and slower rate, primarily because of the enormous increase in the numbers of elderly people. But many countries, such as Russia and Japan, are already shrinking in absolute size, and on current trends, global depopulation will occur within the lifetime of today's young adults.

Q: Why should we be worried about falling birthrates in Europe and the United States? What are the social, economic, and political implications of this demographic phenomenon for the West?

A: For nations, as for people, there are many benefits to not having children, at least until you grow old. Many economists believe, for example, that falling birth rates helped make possible the economic boom that occurred first in Japan and then in many other Asian nations, beginning in the 1960s. As the relative number of children declined, so did the burden of their dependency, leaving more resources available for adults to invest and enjoy.

But over time, a falling birthrate means not just fewer children but also fewer workers, even as the population of dependent elders increases. That's the bind that grips more and more of the world today. There are fewer and fewer working-aged people to support each elder. This is true within the formal systems we use to provide support in old age, such as Social Security, Medicare, and private pension plans. And it is also true within the family. When you grow up with few or no siblings, as is now becoming the norm throughout much of the world, there is often no one else available to share in the burden of looking after one's ailing parents.

Ultimately, low fertility means population aging and population decline. This is not all bad. A population dominated by middle-aged and elderly people, for example, is probably less inclined to send its few children off to war. But our economy, particularly large sectors like housing and transportation, has always depended on population growth to sustain economic growth. Similarly, the government programs we use to create security in old age, like Social Security as currently structured, depend on an ever increasing supply of youth.

At best, all the major institutions of our society will have to be fundamentally reformed to deal with a world in which each new generation is smaller than the last. Refusing to face up to this means rising poverty, increased taxes, depleted savings, lower investment, and a very real risk that excessive government borrowing and pension debt will tank the world economy. All this could happen much sooner than most people realize.

Today, for example, the United States has a fairly healthy birthrate compared to the rest of the industrialized world, but it has grown dependent on massive borrowing from rapidly aging nations. Germany, Japan, and China are growing so old that they will soon be drawing down their savings and repatriating their investments in U.S. debt. This implies a complete restructuring of the world economy—one that could well entail a prolonged global recession or depression.

Q: You are a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a progressive think tank. Why should progressives be concerned about fertility declines in the West? How do fertility declines specifically threaten progressive values and public policies?

A: It's fair to say that most self-described "progressives" don't agree with me that low fertility is a problem. Many environmentalists, for example, believe that fewer people means a cleaner environment. Other progressives suppose that a decline in population would increase the amount of food and other resources available to the poor. Many feminists, gays, and "childless by choice" people in general feel threatened by suggestions that society needs more children. And when it's pointed out that the lowest birthrates are generally found among the most "progressive" people, then the conversation gets really heated.

On all these counts, I believe progressives are in denial. Today in the United States, for example, we have far cleaner air and water than we did in the 1940s, when the population was just half its current size. That's no paradox. Population growth is a spur to more efficient and cleaner use of resources, so our cities are no longer choked with smoke from steam engines and our cars get far better mileage and are far less polluting.

Similarly, population growth is what drove us as a society to find far more productive ways to grow food. Thanks to increased crop yields, per capita food production is higher than ever, even as world population surpasses 6 billion. At the same time, there is more forested land in the United States than in the 19th century because so much less acreage is needed for farmland.

Progressives also tend to forget that many of their positions on human reproduction, such as a "woman's right to choose," only won widespread support when fears of overpopulation began to pervade the culture in the 1960s and '70s. Until then, bans on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, for example, were justified in many people's minds by fears of underpopulation, which left questions of human reproduction too important to be settled by individual "choice." They also forget that if progressives themselves "forget to have children" then the future belongs to people who have opposing values. Finally, progressives forget that without a growing population, such "crown jewels" of the welfare state as Social Security lose their financial sustainability.

Q: How might dramatic population declines in Europe, and the severe economic and political challenges they pose to countries like Germany, which may soon see its pension system collapse under the weight of its own demographic decline, affect élite thinking about the family? Many scholars, public policy analysts, and journalists I'm familiar with tend to assume that the family is simply destined to grow ever weaker. Might dramatic demographic developments change élite thinking about the family? Might such developments also change the kinds of family-related public policies Western élites support?

A: During the 19th and especially the 20th century, the state gradually took over many of the functions once performed by the family—notably education and support in old age. Élites have generally cheered this process on. But more and more in the future, individuals will find that they cannot rely on the élites who govern them. They will see health and pension benefits cut, even as taxes rise. They will see funding for education squeezed by the ever growing burden of providing even minimal benefits to the dependent elderly. This implies that more and more people will be forced to rely again on the traditional, extended family. People will need to have children and raise them well if they hope to find security in old age. For the same reason, they will also have to sacrifice on behalf of their aging parents so that their own children grow up to see this as a moral duty.

Today, élites who are uncomfortable with this future are calling for the state to take over still more responsibilities from the family — for example, by offering subsidies for child care, greater family allowances, or even bonuses to parents, all of which are being tried in Europe and much of Asia. I'm not opposed to such measures on ideological grounds, but I'm doubtful about their potential to boost the birthrate for more than a short time unless very serious amounts of money are involved, and that creates huge political problems.

If you are going to pay people to have children, you're going to spend a lot on people who would have had them anyway. And meanwhile, people who currently see no reason to become parents are not going to be persuaded by the offer of even tens of thousands of dollars in benefits. In the United States, the direct cost of raising a middle-class child born this year through age 18, according to government estimates, exceeds $200,000—not including college. Meanwhile, in an age in which most women have the opportunity to join the paid workforce, the cost of motherhood — in lost wages and compromised careers—is often measured in the millions.

The huge bundle of benefits World War II veterans received under the G.I. Bill does seem to have contributed to that era's baby boom. But in those days, we didn't have to pay for Medicare, and Social Security was only a tiny percentage of federal spending. The median age of voters was also much lower then than now, and the feminist and environmental movements were still in the future. For all these reasons, I think élites are going to have a hard time selling pronatalism on a scale that's sufficient to the problem. In the end, I see élites simply losing their legitimacy because they cannot maintain, much less expand the welfare state in an aging society.

Q: If the demographic predictions you make in The Empty Cradle come to pass, how might they affect the relative position of orthodox religions in the West? In other words, what role might Islam, evangelical Protestantism, or traditional Catholicism play in Western countries that have experienced subreplacement fertility for 40 to 50 years? How might their distinctive approaches to family life look to ordinary people? To élites?

A: On current trends, Europe's population just withers away. But I don't expect current trends to continue indefinitely in Europe or the West in general, for a special reason.

In Asian countries such as Japan, nearly everyone eventually marries and eventually has, almost without exception, one child. In Europe, and the West in general, by contrast, there is far more diversity in reproductive behavior. Among American baby boomers, for example, nearly a fifth of us never had children, and another 17 percent had only one.

The high incidence of childless and single-child families in the West has one big implication many overlook. It means a very large proportion of the children that are being born are being produced by a small subset of the current population. And who are the people who are still having large families today?

The stereotypical answer is poor people, or dumb people, or members of minority groups. But birth rates among American racial and ethnic minority groups are plummeting. The more accurate answer is deeply religious people.

To be sure, religious fundamentalists of all varieties are themselves having fewer children than in the past. But whether they be Mormons, Orthodox Jews, or Islamic or Christian fundamentalists, devout member of these Abrahamic religions have on average far larger families than do the secular elements within their society.

In Europe, for example, the fertility differential between believers and nonbelievers has recently been estimated at 15-20 percent. Though children born into religious families often do not become religious themselves, many do, especially if they themselves go on to have children. Meanwhile, of course, the childless stand no chance of passing along their values to their progeny.

The faithful thus begin to inherit society by default. The West's total population may fall or stagnate, perhaps for quite awhile; but those who remain will be disproportionately committed to God and family, whether they be Christians, Muslims, Jews, or members of new pro-natal faiths. Let us just hope that this new age of faith will also be an age of peace.

W. Bradford Wilcox, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, is the author of Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands (Univ. of Chicago Press).

Copyright © 2007 by the author or Christianity Today International/Books & Culture magazine.

Judicial Watch Public Interest Law Firm Tackles Sanctuary Cities, Day Labor Sites

2009-07-15T13:14:00.000-07:00

Judicial Watch, better known for lawsuits against the last two presidents, has taken on the issue of immigration enforcement, suing sanctuary cities from Arizona to Maryland, and shutting down a tax-funded day labor rendezvous in northern Virginia.

Its website, partially reproduced below, outlines the public interest law firm's objections to the current system, and implies its strategy.

Judicial Watch Litigates Against Illegal Immigration

Today, between twelve and twenty million illegal aliens reside in the United States, draining our nation's economy, and presenting a security threat to the people of the United States. Public officials have not only repeatedly failed to protect our borders from this illegal alien invasion, but they have also been complicit in the effort to undermine our nation's immigration laws by implementing so-called "sanctuary policies" for illegal aliens.

These sanctuary policies take many forms, including taxpayer-funded day labor sites, police policies that prohibit police officers from communicating with federal immigration officials and other local or state government policies that are magnets for more illegal aliens to cross the border. Sanctuary policies not only violate our nation's federal immigration laws, but they also worsen an already out-of-control illegal immigration crisis.

Judicial Watch members and supporters have said repeatedly they want Judicial Watch to lead the battle against illegal immigration. For this reason, Judicial Watch has launched a nationwide campaign to enforce our nation's immigration laws.

Scofflaw Criminals Released from U.S. Prisons Because They're Wretched Refuse

2009-02-23T10:51:00.000-08:00

Prosecutor Ames Holbrook has written a book, reviewed on the ANCIR website by immigration activist Michael Cutler, about his frustration in trying to deport violent criminals who are illegal aliens. I hope this won't be mistaken for a slur against all immigrants. In fact, the primary victims of immigrant criminals are their own countrymen, and the first beneficiaries of aggressive deportation would be the hard-working, law-abiding immigrants who would be left in peace.

The Deporter
by Ames Holbrook
reviewed by Michael Cutler

America's immigration system is obviously broken, but to get a sense for just how dysfunctional it really is, scan the pages of Ames Holbrook's “The Deporter." This first-person account of the four years Holbrook spent working to deport criminal aliens from the United States is as hair-raising as it is distressing.

Take Holbrook's description of his encounter with an illegal alien named “Rodolfo," a career criminal “with eight felony convictions, burglary to battery, and a sex assault thrown in." Holbrook walked him out of jail but instead of throwing him out of the country, he had to release him free and clear. Why? Because he falsely claimed he was from Cuba.

There is a short list of countries - in Holbrook's terminology the “Big Four" - that do not take back their criminal citizens: Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. If the country will not issue travel documents for its citizens to return home, there is nothing deportation officers can do to get these criminals out of the United States. Holbrook explains that many criminals know the system well enough to know how not to get deported. Rodolfo, who was most likely a Mexican, knew that if he admitted his true nationality he'd be deported back home. So he claimed to be Cuban and without any document to prove otherwise (which is why illegals are offically known as undocumented aliens), he couldn't be deported.

What makes things even worse is that because of a 2001 Supreme Court decision, the immigration authorities can no longer indefinitely detain criminal aliens from countries that will not take them back. So when a criminal alien is finished serving his jail term, deportation officers like Holbrook are forced to release them back among the rest of us.

In another case, Holbrook had to inform a Vietnamese woman called Jacqueline that the violent felon who attacked her was being released from custody. Since his native country, Laos, wouldn't take him back, and the courts ruled he couldn't be held indefinitely, he had to be let go. Holbrook says he is haunted by her cries of anguish.

As a former immigration agent, I can sympathize with Holbrook's predicament. But some of his descriptions of breaking rules and resorting to deceitful tactics just to get criminal aliens deported - like lying about the crimes for which the alien was convicted so that the foreign country will be forced to accept their citizen - are worrisome to say the least.

This is a story for anyone who is concerned about how the failure to secure this country's borders imperils our safety and our nation's security. But it's only one story. Frighteningly, each of the other components of the immigration system is just as dysfunctional as the deportation branch described here.

Widener Law Professor Says Immigration Waivers Excessive, We Say Such Chaos Must Surely Ripen Into Corruption

2009-01-30T15:11:00.000-08:00

Widener Law Professor Jill E. Family has penned an article on explicit and implicit waivers in our civil immigration adjudication system, and concludes - not surprisingly - that it is out of control.

This cannot come as a shock to anybody who has paid more than five minutes' attention to our immigration system in the past 30 years.

She published her research in the Social Science Research Network online database, whose abstract of her paper is reproduced below.

A Broader View of the Immigration Adjudication Problem
Jill E. Family, Widener University - School of Law

Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-02

Abstract:

Are too many individuals diverted from civil immigration adjudication? Each year, the government completes millions of diversions from civil immigration adjudication through explicit and implicit waivers, the expedited removal program and the increasing criminalization of immigration law.

By uncovering and analyzing this diversion phenomenon, this article exposes an important piece of the immigration adjudication problem that has been largely undiagnosed. While judges, scholars, government officials and practitioners have acknowledged serious problems within the civil immigration adjudication system, this article widens the view to incorporate the issue of whether too many are being sidetracked from the system altogether.

This article concludes that too many are being rerouted from the civil immigration adjudication system because some of the identified diversions are not true to the administrative process design criteria of efficiency, accuracy and acceptability.

The government should reevaluate its efforts to steer foreign nationals away from civil immigration adjudication under the four guiding principles proposed here: (1) not all diversions are bad; (2) government coercion, misinformation or a lack of information should play no role in the diversion process; (3) no-option waivers should not be implemented and (4) open-ended, prospective waivers also should not be used.

Does Anybody Care? ICE Disgraced by Corrupt Scofflaw Woman Atop Boston Port

2008-12-10T21:56:00.000-08:00

It's hard to harbor much optimism for a house-cleaning at the Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) shop when you read stories like this, and when you reflect that Obama needs to woo open-borders Hispanics to cement his re-election in 2012. Meanwhile, two aggressive ICE agents (Ramos & Compean) are spending another Christmas in jail.

Border security official arrested for harboring illegal aliens
by Chad Groening - OneNewsNow

An immigration reform activist says he doesn't know if it was arrogance or ignorance that prompted a high-level border protection official to hire and harbor illegal aliens in her own home.

The Boston Globe recently reported on the arrest of Lorraine Henderson, who formerly served as the director of the Port of Boston, overseeing 190 armed federal officers who patrol major airports and shipping terminals in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. But last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Henderson at her home in Salem, Massachusetts, charging her with repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants to clean her house.

The agents had planted a wire on one such housekeeper during an undercover investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian T. Kelly said, "She's supposed to be deporting aliens, not hiring them." Rick Oltman, the national spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, notes Henderson had been warned not to hire illegal aliens.

"Her co-workers knew that she was hiring illegal aliens and were telling her not to, yet she continued to do it. And then [she] counseled her illegal alien employee as to how to avoid apprehension and detection," he explains. "This is one of those situations where you're just speechless. Is it arrogance? Is it ignorance? What is it that would have a person in this position act like that? This is an absolute violation of the public trust."

Oltman believes Henderson should have been looking out for the interests of the American public rather than trying to beat the system for her favorite illegal alien housekeeper.

Not so fast: Obama will spread wealth around, but not necessarily his.

2008-11-23T15:29:00.000-08:00

This is the kind of lawlessness that makes it hard to negotiate with any confidence that the other side will keep its promises.

Obama’s illegal alien aunt (and campaign donor!) is a deportation fugitive
by Michelle Malkin

Well now.

Turns out Aunti Zeituni Onyango, one of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama’s many relatives made famous in his memoir, is an illegal alien. And not just a run-of-the-mill illegal alien on welfare.

She’s one of the hundreds of thousands of deportation fugitives — absconders – whom I’ve been reporting on for the past six years. After 9/11, the government vowed to crack down on absconders. They’ve failed abysmally.

Aunti’s story:

Barack Obama’s aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.

Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as “Aunti Zeituni” in Obama’s memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango’s case.

Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcment official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.

Just you watch: After sitting silent as Joe The Plumber’s records were rummaged by Ohio government employees, the fairweather privacy rights crowd will wake up and start making noise over this.

QUESTION: Will the Obama campaign return the many donations from this illegal alien?

ANSWER: Not bloody likely.

Federal Election Commission records show that Onyango donated at least five times to her nephew’s campaign in July and September. Three of the donations were for $5 each, and two of the donations were for $25. Records compiled by The Huffington Post show she gave a total of $260 to the campaign.

The law:

It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office; or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national.

2 U.S.C. § 441e.

COMMENTS

QUESTION II, from commenter tony4951: “So let me get this straight. Millionaire Obama doesn’t use his wealth to help his poor illegal alien Aunt get out of public housing, but if I complain about Obama wanting to raise my taxes to ’spread the wealth around’ I’m the selfish one?”

Exactly.

Meanwhile, the AP tries to downplay Aunti’s deportation evasion and defiance of a judicial ruling:

Onyango’s refusal to leave the country would represent an administrative, non-criminal violation of U.S. immigration law, meaning such cases are handled outside the criminal court system.

As I’ve pointed out countless times since 9/11, systemic immigration loopholes and deportation failures that have benefited peaceful illegal aliens have also benefited illegal aliens with nefarious intent.

[...]

Lucky for Aunti, the open-borders Bush administration has just issued a special pre-election directive to slow down any deportation efforts that might get her kicked out of the country:

Onyango’s case — coming to light just days before the presidential election — led to an unusual nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior to Tuesday’s election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors, the U.S. law enforcement official told the AP.

The unusual directive suggests that the Bush administration is sensitive to the political implications of Onyango’s case coming to light so close to the election.

Lucky for Aunti, both presidential candidates support shamnesty in one form or another.

Lucky for Aunti, the deportation abyss has not been repaired.

Lucky for Aunti, the congressional practice of creating “special relief” bills to help individual deportation fugitives escape punishment and get rewarded with citizenship is alive and well.

And lucky for Aunti, anyone who thinks she should face the music and get the boot is considered a “hater” and a “xenophobe” and a RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST.

Lucky for Aunti, she can always take up shelter in a sanctuary-offering, rule-of-law defying church.

And guess where a left-wing church has openly broken the law and taken in illegal aliens?

Yeah. That’s right: Chicago.

***

Via cjburch, this commenter sums it all up: “Obama’s aunt is here ILLEGALLY living in poverty, and is a deportation FUGITIVE. She’s collecting WELFARE and has DONATED to Obama’s campaign, ILLEGALLY! Obama. Family in poverty as he makes millions. Complete lawlessness. Give away your hard earned tax payer money to illegal fugitives. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.”

Good questions:

Did someone from the campaign tell her to keep quiet?

Why was BHO letting her illegally redistribute her wealth to him, when he could have been helping her by getting her an immigration lawyer? If BHO had gotten her a lawyer, could they have appealed? Why then didn’t BHO help her out? When is he going to introduce an emergency private relief bill to give her a green card?

Do Border Enforcement Activists Create Hateful Atmosphere for Immigrants?

2008-11-15T11:12:00.000-08:00

Even the strongest border enforcement advocates were aghast when drunken East Coast teenagers beat an Ecuadorian man to death recently. Here, NumbersUSA founder and indefatiguable border enforcement activist Roy Beck addresses the killing and denounces hateful language directed against immigrants, including illegal immigrants.

The New York Times took the advantage of the outrageous murder to renew attacks on Suffolk County (Long Island) chief executive Steve Levy, a Democrat who has taken aggressive enforcement action against illegal immigration. Beck addresses this as well.

Horrendous Murder of Ecuadorian Man on Long Island Reminds Why We Say NO TO IMMIGRANT-BASHING Language
by Roy Beck

Considerable national media attention is being given to a disgusting murder of an Ecuadorian man in Long Island, New York, allegedly by a group of seven teenagers who in the middle of a drinking binge decided to go "beat up a Mexican."

My guess is that these teenagers are opportunistic thugs who would have found somebody else to beat up if they hadn't had some animus toward Latin Americans.

But it is incumbent on all of us who fight for lower immigration to emphasize the importance of not allowing our language about the problems of immigration policies to stir up hatred, and especially not violence, against immigrants or people who may look like immigrants.

WE SHOULD WATCH OUR LANGUAGE
Perhaps predictably, the open-borders groups have politicized this tragedy and are trying to use it to suggest that those of us who want lower overall immigration should keep our mouths shut -- or be muzzled.

With the New York Times editorial board serving as their most prominent mouthpiece, the pro-illegal-immigration crowd is saying that the blame for this murder lies with people on our side who have stirred up hate toward Latinos.

Their exploitation of this atrocity is distasteful and aggravating. But I feel the first priority for us at NumbersUSA is to make sure that we in the immigration-reduction movement are clear about the issues of language -- and the importance of not inciting inadvertent hostility and even violence against immigrants, illegal aliens or U.S. citizens who appear of foreign origin.

In fact, this has always been a priority for NumbersUSA.

Soon after NumbersUSA started its website in 1996, we ran a prominent link called NO TO IMMIGRANT BASHING. My book published by W.W. Norton & Co. (NY 1996) had a section with the same message.

Earlier that year, I produced a video (now seen by more than 7 million people) that began with an admonition that if immigration makes you angry, don't get angry at immigrants, or even illegal aliens. Rather, the video admonishes people to direct their ire at policy makers who won't protect American workers and families or restore the rule of law in immigration matters.

Our point has always been that immigration NUMBERS are too high and create economic injustice, loss of individual liberty and make environmental sustainability impossible. It is the NUMBERS, not the character or characteristic of the foreign citizens who move here that causes problems.

Of course, no legitimate member of our movement wishes physical harm on illegal aliens or immigrants. But it is easy for people to make unguarded comments in the heat of frustration that reflect badly on all people of a certain ethnic origin. It is these unguarded comments that draw the attention of pro-illegal-immigration groups who claim that they fan hate and violence.

My sense is that this concern about language is blown out of proportion, but language DOES matter. The majority of Americans follow Jesus who radically taught that expressing hateful words is tantamount to murder. My own interpretation is that Jesus didn't mean that hateful words are just as bad as murder, but that the origins of murder lie in first having hateful thoughts and expressing hateful words. And we never know how our words might influence somebody else of less stable mind, emotion and character.

We at NumbersUSA have always gone overboard on this, and we have often been harshly criticized for our unwillingness to deal with problems from immigration that rise from significant differences in the culture of the immigrants.

While we are not saying that all characteristics concerns are illegitimate, we have tended to avoid even mentioning ethnicity and national origin. To whatever degree cultural and origin issues may be real, we believe they will be resolved if we get the NUMBERS down to where they no longer contribute to economic injustice and environmental/quality-of-life deterioration.

A great benefit of this kind of carefulness in language is that we can be assured that we never contribute to a climate that could possibly breed the immoral cesspool in which the murderers of Marcelo Lucero apparently swam.

I know that every one of us who reads the story of what happened on Saturday night, Nov. 8, can put ourselves into his shoes and imagine the horror and indignity of his last minutes. This was truly a breakdown of a civil society, an orderly society and the rule of law.

NY TIMES FALSELY BLAMES COUNTY CHIEF STEVE LEVY
Words have consequences. Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, is learning that the hard way during a horrible week. ... Mr. Levy's past harsh words and actions against undocumented workers have now left him cornered with a tragically limited ability to lead the county in confronting a brutal act that surely pains him as much as anyone.

For years, the New York Times editorial board has conducted a vendetta against Steve Levy. I have always suspected that the level of vehemence against him by the Times, many other journalists and pro-illegal-immigration groups is rooted in the fact that Mr. Levy is a Democrat.

Because so many of his critics are Democrats, they are outraged that he continues to show what it is like for a Democratic official to be true to some of the best principles of the Democratic Party, such as real concern for vulnerable American workers -- in their jobs, their communities and their schools.

Immigrant advocates assailed him for having poisoned the atmosphere. Some called for his resignation.

To these critics, Suffolk Executive Levy has created a climate of hostility against all Latinos in his county because he has worked for Attrition Through Enforcement -- not against Latinos but against illegal aliens (who happen to come from every country on the planet).

The Times and others continue to slur Latino Americans by equating Latinos and illegal aliens. But Levy knows that most Latinos in his county are NOT illegal. He knows that they probably benefit more from his anti-illegal efforts than anybody.

But the New York Times sees only horribly sinister motives and outcomes to Levy's assertive efforts:

Local lawmakers often complain about immigration, but Mr. Levy went much farther than most. He founded a national organization to lobby for crackdowns. He went on "Lou Dobbs." He tried to deputize county police to make immigration arrests and to rid the county work force of employees without papers. He sought to drive day laborers from local streets, yet rigidly opposed efforts to create hiring sites.

Oh, my gosh, Levy committed the unpardonable sin of actually DOING something and not just mouthing platitudes.

Everything the Times cites as fanatical is a perfectly legal and common tool available to protect American workers and communities from out-of-control immigration. With the official unemployment rate of perfectly legal Hispanic Americans much higher than other Americans, Levy's efforts to keep Suffolk County employers from having an illegal workforce stand to be of most benefit to the Hispanic Americans under his jurisdiction.

ABC News called me this afternoon for comments about Levy.

I said I thought he had probably done more than anybody else on Long Island to reduce bad feelings toward Latinos.

We see in every continent that when citizens feel that immigration numbers are overwhelming them, some develop very negative feelings toward the immigrants. When their government understands this and takes action through lawful channels and trained personnel to reduce the flow and the tensions, the legal immigrants and ethnic minorities are protected.

That is what Steve Levy has been trying to do, although his state's U.S. Senators and the federal Administration has done litte to support him.

Repeatedly in Europe, we have seen what happens when those in power refuse to protect their citizens from out-of-control immigration. The backlash often is ugly and violent. The foreign-born victims never deserve what happens to them. But the villains -- other than the direct perpetrators -- are not those who have tried to restore immigration sanity (like Steve Levy) but those who have allowed the rule of law to disintegrate so that the weakest and lowest-character citizens, in their dark-soul ways of thinking, come to believe they have justification for their foul deeds.

If the New York Times wants to point fingers at politicians who contributed to a killing climate, they might want to point at the Members of Congress in their state who get the F's and D's on our grade cards for refusing to hold accountable the illegal cheap-labor importation industries.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA.

Viet Dinh Addresses National Security Symposium at Regent University

2008-09-27T20:46:00.000-07:00

Georgetown professor Viet Dinh delivered a scathing review of the Supreme Court's truculent recent jurisprudence regarding rights of enemy combatants detained by U.S. military forces outside the U.S., whether in Iraq or Guantanamo.

Dinh said the Court's recent decisions have gone beyond judicial supremacy, beyond even judicial triumphalism, to something worse - judicial exclusivism, in which the legislative and executive roles have been reduced to the decision whether or not to suspend the right of habeas corpus.

Dinh notes that the current state of the law, which Chief Justice Roberts has described as "Constitutional bait-and-switch," grants more rights to enemy combatants than to Haitian refugee applicants and, indeed, to U.S. military personnel.

He says it is a result of Constitutional brinksmanship in which a majority of the Court has shown disdain for the Constitutional roles of Congress and the Executive roles in the War on Terror.

Tancredo Proposes Legal Firewall Against British-style Sharia

2008-09-22T20:25:00.000-07:00

One wonders how long it would take the 9th Circuit, the federal appeals court that prevented the deportation of a Jamaican homosexual criminal child seducer, to invalidate the law proposed by Rep. Tancredo here. If Congress wants to enact a measure that will withstand the opposition of adversaries with lifetime appointments, it must be accompanied by a very clear statutory exclusion of federal judiciary jurisdiction.
Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Measure in Wake of U.K. Certification of Islamic Courts

“Jihad Prevention Act” would deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Sharia’ law, expel Islamists already here

WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.

According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”

Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.

“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty,” said Tancredo. “The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.

Tancredo pointed to the results of a recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion as evidence that the U.S. should act to prevent the situation in Great Britain from replicating itself here in the United States. The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide.

“We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives,” concluded Tancredo. “If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.”

9th Circuit Halts Deportation of Homosexual Criminal Who Fears Persecution in His Native Jamaica

2008-09-22T16:58:00.000-07:00

A federal appeals court has overturned a Board of Immigration Appeals order to deport a 30-year old Jamaican homosexual man after he was convicted of sexual abuse and contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor.

The three-judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel held that the U.S. is not entitled to deport Damion Nathanial Bromfield to his native Jamaica, despite his criminal convictions, because of the risk that he might be persecuted.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued that the Ninth Circuit has no jurisdiction over Bromfield's case because he was found removable on the basis of his conviction for an aggravated felony. But the panel cited the Ninth Circuit's own Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), to justify its intervention on behalf of the foreign man.

The appellate panel's order "will require the (Immigration Judge) to consider the Jamaican law criminalizing homosexual conduct and the frequency with which that law is enforced," in adjudicating his removal, and the removal of any future homosexual criminal who expresses a similar fear of persecution in his homeland.

Circuit Judge Betty B. Fletcher wrote the opinion. Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez also sat on the panel, along with a federal district judge for the Northern District of California, William W. Schwarzer, sitting "by designation."

The full text of the opinion is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0575844p.pdf.

What happens when illegal aliens get arrested?

2008-09-22T07:15:00.000-07:00

by Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com

A public-interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption has presented oral arguments in two separate California appellate cases dealing with illegal immigration.

In the first case, Judicial Watch has filed an appeal on behalf of a San Francisco resident, challenging the sanctuary policy of that city's police department. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton says San Francisco police are prohibited from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest a suspected illegal immigrant for a narcotics offense.

"The appellate court heard arguments as to whether or not San Francisco's sanctuary policy should leave it immune from having to follow California state law that requires it to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement anyone they suspect who's been arrested for narcotics offenses who is not an American citizen," Fitton explains.

The other appeal, according to Fitton, deals with an illegal alien day-labor site in Laguna Beach.

"We filed a lawsuit on behalf of taxpayers who object to tax dollars going to help illegal aliens get illegal jobs in violation of federal law," Fitton adds. "A lower court, unfortunately, didn't really want to address the issue in a way that we found appropriate, so we appealed, and the appellate court heard arguments there, too."

Fitton says California law requires the courts to publish their rulings within 90 days, so they should know something by Christmas.

Immigrant Immortalized in Rosenthal Photo, Iwo Jima Sculpture, Now Naturalized

2008-08-04T12:28:00.000-07:00

Fred Edwards wrote Aug. 1 in Military Matters in Review that Czech immigrant Michael Strank, killed in action at Iwo Jima, has been posthumously awarded U.S. citizenship. Strank himself apparently never applied for citizenship before his death at age 25 leading a Marine Corps fire team against the Japanese.

But a fellow Marine serving in the security unit at the U.S. Embassy in the Slovak Republic filed on Strank's behalf last year, and an immigration official presented a certificate of citizenship to Strank's younger sister late last month.

Iwo Jima Flag-raising Hero Becomes an Official American
by Fred Edwards, Military Matters in Review

On July 29, Marine Sgt. Michael Strank was posthumously awarded a certificate of U.S. citizenship. Jonathan Scharfen, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, presented the certificate to Mary Pero, 75, Strank's younger sister.

The ceremony took place in front of the U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial, often called the Iwo Jima Memorial. Sculptor Felix de Weldon crafted it from the famous photograph snapped by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal Feb. 23,1945.

De Weldon's work reproduced Strank -- and the other five men who raised the flag -- so meticulously that you can see their grime and smell their sweat. Strank, or Sergeant Mike, as his men called him, was the third from the left in the photo, and was barely visible.

Two of the six men would live to walk off the island. A third man would be carried off with shrapnel wounds. The other three would be buried in the sands of Iwo. This reflects the same casualty rate of the invading forces: during 36 days of fighting, the United States suffered almost 26,000 casualties, nearly 7,000 of them killed. Only one of every three who hit the beach left the island unscathed.

Until this year, the Marines listed Strank's birthplace as Pennsylvania. According to Scharfen, a Marine security guard at the American Embassy in the Slovak Republic was researching Strank's background and found no record that he was a U.S. citizen. So he filed an application for posthumous naturalization.

So who was Michael Strank? In "Flags of Our Fathers," James Bradley fills in details from interviews of Strank's family, friends, and fellow Marines.

He was born Michal Strenk on the Marine Corps birthday, Nov. 10, 1919, in Jarabenia, Czechoslovakia. His father, Vasil, emigrated to the United States in 1920 and changed his name to Strank. Vasil worked in the Pennsylvania mines for three years, and saved enough money to bring his wife and 3-year-old son to America.

In 1935, he became a naturalized American citizen, but son Mike never received a certificate. When Mike sailed for Iwo Jima, he was a 25-year-old sergeant and combat veteran of the Pavuvu and Bougainville island campaigns. He shunned the sergeants' mess and ate with his troops, who he called "his boys."

His company commander had recommended him for platoon sergeant, but he refused, saying, "I promised my boys I'd be there for them."

Indeed he had promised. Often he would tell his squad, "Follow me, and I'll try to bring all of you back safely to your mothers."

Joe Rodriguez, a member of one of the three fire teams Mike led as squad leader, said "Everybody idolized Mike. He was a born leader, a natural leader, and a leader by example."

After Bougainville, Mike was exhausted from combat and couldn't shake a case of malaria, so he was sent home on leave to recover. He also couldn't shake the feeling that he had used up his share of survivability. One evening when he was out to say goodbye to friends Mike and Eva Slazich, he told them, "I doubt if I'll ever see you again. I don't think I'll be coming back."

He let slip his premonition to his family, and his father pleaded with him to seek a stateside assignment. Mike replied, "Dad, there's a war going on out there. Young boys are fighting that war. And Dad . . . they need my help." So he went to Iwo Jima with his boys.

Bradley describes the aftermath of the flag-raising as follows: Mike and a group of Marines had come under Japanese sniper fire, and he pulled them into an outcropping that was protected from all sides except the sea. He was drawing a diagram in the sand of the tactics they would use to break out when a shell "tore a hole in his chest and ripped out his heart."

Many accounts describe it simply as an artillery shell, and some describe it as an "enemy" shell. Bradley, on the other hand, states: "Almost certainly,the round had come from a U.S. destroyer offshore; it sliced through the only unprotected side of the outcropping. The Czech immigrant to America, born on the Marine Corps birthday, serving his third tour of duty for his adopted country, the sergeant who was a friend to his boys, was cut down by friendly fire."

No matter the source of the shell, Sergeant Mike died as a combat leader. He was a Marine's Marine. Now he's an official American. Semper Fidelis.

Fred Edwards is a journalist and a military columnist. To see his bio and archived columns, visit http://www.milmat.net

Universal Health Insurance Triage: Americans Will Queu Behind Illegals

2008-07-26T13:51:00.000-07:00

Former Clinton political strategist Dick Morris is urging John McCain to make an issue of Barack Obama's intention to cover illegal aliens free under his universal health insurance plan. However, McCain is unlikely to do so, as he is ardently pursuing the Hispanic voting bloc.

O'S HEALTH RX: COVER ILLEGALS
By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, New York Post

Democrats' single most important domestic proposal - universal health insurance - may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants - who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up - mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)

The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?

Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.

Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.

Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions - as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)

But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.

These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.

John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.

McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance - and hit it hard.

Invasion Protest at Denver Planned, Budgeted by Sovereignty Activists

2008-07-25T17:34:00.000-07:00

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) has announced plans for a "massive pro-American, pro-sovereignty, pro-border security, anti-illegal immigration rally" at the Democrat National Convention next month.

They hope to get their anti-illegal immigration message across to 15,000 reporters there, in addition to an estimated 20,000 others, including delegates, alternates and elected officials.

The Convention will be held August 25-28 in Denver, Colorado.

"This will be one of the biggest meetings of pro-amnesty, pro-illegal alien politicians in a long, long time," write the Minutemen, "all eager to push their agenda against American sovereignty in front of fifteen thousand reporters and their television cameras from across the country."

The sovereignty activists predict that the politicians will pander "to the open borders special interest groups, like La Raza and MALDEF, for a whole week."

The national Minuteman organization is "teaming up with local activists on the ground in Denver to stage this huge rally," it reported in a fundraising letter, "which will feature dozens of prominent speakers and leaders in the fight for border security. We've secured a location at a large park near the Pepsi Center where 35,000 people will be attending the convention.

"Our allies on the ground in Denver are putting the final details in place for a rally on the first day of the convention, plus more protests, pickets, counter-protests, media blitzes, and more the rest of the week."

The Minutemen have committed five thousand dollars to initial expenses, and expect the overall event to come in under $15,000, according to the fundraising letter.

"That's amazing, especially with having to cover application fees, the park fee, damage deposits to the city, off-duty police security, portable stages, power generators, property insurance, port-a-potties, waste bins, sound systems, and even shuttle buses that will travel between the park and a designated commuter lot to prevent traffic and parking problems."

DOJ Collaborates with ACLU on Trafficking Policy

2008-07-24T15:14:00.000-07:00

Human trafficking is probably the most troubling aspect of mass, uncontrolled immigration, whether illegal or fully documented. Yet the anti-trafficking constituency is feeble, underfunded, and preoccupied with other issues.

Opposing human trafficking is almost entirely an altruistic project. There's no financial windfall involved, and there are no fat cats willing to underwrite it like California Agriculture does for Mexican labor.

In the end, even public servants in the Department of Justice have no stomach for defending the defenseless, as Paul Weyrich writes below in a TownHall.com column. The young women and children forced into prostitution on the fruited plain are dismissed as collateral damage.

They are, arguably, analogous to unborn children: they can't protest, they can't organize, they can't litigate, they can't vote; therefore they don't matter. And the American Civil Liberties Union is their deadliest adversary.

The Fight to Abolish Human Trafficking Within the United States
by Paul Weyrich

Without doubt the Federal appointee who was most effective dealing with sex-trafficking was former Representative John R. Miller (R-WA). President George W. Bush has sought to end sex slavery within the United States and provide international leadership on the issue. Miller was appointed Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons for the U.S. State Department and became an Ambassador-at-large on the issue of modern slavery. Miller elevated the fight to a high priority in the Bush Administration.

Recently, Miller wrote an op-ed in The New York Times which suggested that the effort to oppose sex slavery has met opposition in the Department of Justice (DOJ). Miller also made a presentation to a group with which I am involved. Upon hearing Miller's presentation I realized that the situation is worse than he described in The New York Times.

After nurturing the 21st-Century abolitionist movement from 2002 to 2006, Miller believed that President Bush supported him despite objection to his efforts from numerous Ambassadors who did not want their host countries criticized. Miller stated that the President made it clear that his work was important. While he did not win every battle, he prevailed, often thanks to White House support.

One could imagine Miller's surprise when he learned that DOJ initiated a campaign to oppose a new Congressional bill which would strengthen the Federal Government's anti-trafficking efforts. In a 13-page letter, DOJ blasted nearly every aspect of the proposed legislation. In its annual report which rates how well countries are combating sex slavery, DOJ does not want to consider whether governments put traffickers in jail, nor does it want the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services to streamline their efforts to help the victims of sex-trafficking acquire visas and assistance. DOJ does not want to pool data with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services on sex-trafficking and to devise prevention strategies.

DOJ opposes the creation of Presidential awards for groups leading the struggle against this modern-day slavery. It is against a citizens' task force to develop a pamphlet for victims. It does not want the State Department to give the telephone numbers of American anti-trafficking organizations to visa applicants at American Consulates worldwide.

Miller believes the vehement opposition by DOJ to this proposed legislation goes far beyond the usual turf battle which usually rears its ugly head in Washington, D.C. Miller states that DOJ opposes changes which would expand its own authority to combat trafficking. For example: Should they prosecute American tourists who create the demand for sex-trafficking in foreign countries? Should Congress provide increased penalties for Americans who sexually abuse children abroad? Should American jurisdiction extend to Americans who traffic human beings aboard? Should the Attorney General include information in his annual report on his department's efforts to enforce anti-trafficking laws against federal contractors and employees? No, it should not do any of these.

Miller believes this letter is the product of the mostly male DOJ staff working with the Erotic Service Providers Union and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He does not believe the President saw or approved the 13-page letter. In the House of Representatives there is a Caucus on Human Trafficking, co-chaired by Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Debbie Price (R-OH). They have been trying to coordinate a meeting with the President but have been unsuccessful. Regardless of one's opinion of President Bush, it is impossible to dismiss his sincerity and determination on such issues. I am willing to wager that this letter went to Capitol Hill without his approval. There is time for President Bush to reverse this injustice.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.

Daughter of Immigrants Denounces National Council of La Raza

2008-07-10T02:40:00.000-07:00

Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin has called the National Council of La Raza out in this recent column published on the Town Hall site. Malkin is, herself, the daughter of Filipino immigrants. Like Michelle Obama, she is an Ivy Leaguer.

15 Things You Should Know About "The Race"
By Michelle Malkin

Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."

Both Barack Obama and John McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish for, yes, "The Race." Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The presidential candidates and the media have legitimized "The Race" as a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant bigots. The unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty.

Here are 15 things you should know about "The Race":

15. "The Race" supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

14."The Race" demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. "The Race" vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state and federal authorities.

12. "The Race" opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

11. "The Race" joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database -- and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.

10. "The Race" opposed the state of Oklahoma's tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. "The Race" joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California's bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. "The Race" bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an "absolute disgrace."

7. "The Race" has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former "Race" president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: "U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was referring to U.S. English, the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. "The Race" also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."

5. "The Race" gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as "a radical racist group … one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."

4. "The Race" is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves -- in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current "Race" president Janet Murguia believes "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."

3. "The Race" sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: "We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain … ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."

2. "The Race" has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal "mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. "The Race" thrives on ethnic supremacy -- and the elite sheeple's unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: "[The] organization's very nomenclature 'The National Council of La Raza' is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of 'race' in Spanish, not 'the people' -- and that's precisely why we don't hear of something like 'The National Council of the People,' which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism."

The fringe is the center. The center is the fringe. Viva La Raza.

Minutemen Say "We're Not Gonna Stop"!

2008-06-26T16:19:00.000-07:00

The government has abdicated its responsibility to enforce U.S. sovereignty at its borders for some decades now. This is a violation of Article IV, Section 4 of our Constitution, and in any case, nature abhors a vacuum. Illegal immigrants have rushed into the physical vacuum and then continued into settled North American communities where further, incremental abdication has created civic vacuums.

In this civic vacuum, the Mexican diplomatic corps has moved to occupy the field. Mexican consuls negotiate directly with municipal governments and local law enforcement, in defiance of Article I, Section 10, and in some cases these Mexican government officials assert direct physical authority over U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

It was just a matter of time, under these circumstances, until patriotic U.S. individuals would take matters into their own hands. I do not use the term vigilante to describe the Minutemen because their activities, so far as I know, have been entirely lawful, and they have not interfered with any judicial or law enforcement processes. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has so found.

There is an intriguing alliance between environmentalists and open-borders advocates. Environmentalists were, a generation ago, some of the strongest anti-immigration constituents, simply due to their concerns about overpopulation. Now, the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife have emerged as important allies of the Open Borders Lobby.

This suggests there is truth in the analysis of conservative talk show hosts Neil Boortz and Rush Limbaugh that North American leftists have migrated en masse into the environmental movement since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, and that these recent converts are not honestly concerned with the environment, but find it convenient to employ environmental issues to impose totalitarian collectivist policies on Western democracies.

Below, a somewhat self-serving Minuteman press release celebrates a recent Supreme Court ruling that U.S. environmental laws do not preclude the construction of a security fence at the border.

We Will Keep the Heat on the Feds and Keep Building Fence!

The Supreme Court spoke loud and clear confirming two years of Minuteman efforts and donations by clearing the way for Border Fencing on the U.S. Mexico. Justices declined without comment to hear a petition from 14 Democrats with the open border lobby in Congress and a group of law professors hiding behind environmental issues submitted by Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club. The ruling allows the Department of Homeland Security to continue border fence construction.

The fences built by the Minutemen have been a driving force compelling the federal government to act, and the ranchers along the border in Arizona say it well: "The government wasn't doing anything until the Minutemen showed up."

Minutemen must continue to keep the pressure on and make the federal government actually BUILD IT — talk is cheap, and a complete fence along the entire border is needed.

Al Garza, MCDC Executive Director says it all: "We're Not Gonna Stop" … "Anywhere We Can Drive a Post In, Is Where We're Gonna Stop Them."

The Minutemen are pleased with the Supreme Court's action confirming our efforts to make border security and border fencing a national priority. Now we must push the Congress to continue to the government's plan to build the first 670-miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico. The court's action clears the way to press ahead with the project with little worry that judges will be able to stop it.

Minutemen will continue working to stop activist federal judges that reject that claim as the open border lobby will continue to push for the justices to reconsider the issue at hand.

The Federal project still faces legal challenges from landowners and tribal groups.

But the government is not doing anywhere near all that it can do — it is long on talk and short on performance, selling the American people short as it has for decades.

The Feds are stalling, wasting time at vast expense on delayed timelines—all in the hopes that the people of this country will be won over by their political grandstanding and public relations. But if one thing is true about Americans, it is that we know how to work, we stay until the work is done, and we give it 110%.

Minutemen have revitalized fence building efforts. Against endless waves of open-border lobbying, and a constant barrage of nay-saying, criticism and media distortions, the Minutemen simply continue on their mission — to secure the border of these United States. We will not be distracted, and we will not be dissuaded.

While the alliance of critics devote all their time and resources seeking to destroy U.S. security and erase our border, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps volunteers stand strong in the gap to fortify, build, increase and improve border security for our country.

Much has been done and much more is left to do.

Minutemen have been hard at work grading, excavating, digging holes — sometimes in rock — and putting 9,504 linear feet of fence posts into the ground. There are (528) eighteen foot long posts cemented four feet deep into the ground, secured with 35,367 yards of concrete all of which is designed to support a cost effective and lasting fence that is a testament to the strength and resolve of the American Minutemen who say BUILD IT.

254 galvanized steel mesh panels are already installed according to our fence engineering and manufacture specifications, with anchor bolts that are shot into the steel and work the same as a weld. These panels form an anti-climb wall of security fence that is a substantial barrier forcing illegal aliens to go around the entire fence structure. Using anything short of a tank will not suffice to tear down these posts.

There is still much work to do. The fight has been long and hard, but the Minutemen are still gaining ground. Quietly and confidently our volunteers have trudged forward, through heat and monsoon season—and the mud that their opposition is throwing at them. What lies ahead is hope. Already the efforts of the Minutemen have paved the way, forcing our feckless federal government to begin giving the American people what they want and need, a border fence.

Stand up against the left, and against Quisling sell-out political agendas, and help the Minutemen get the job done. Help them Build the Fence. Show the world that the America that we love does not care for empty words, we care for action!

Finish the Hodges Minuteman Border Fence Now!

There is hope on the horizon to demonstrate to the nation and the Feds WHAT WORKS, but it will take the same stalwart dedication you have already shown. With your support we will be able to construct a barrier that will set the Fence standard for the Feds of ACTUAL, affordable impenetrability—thwarting the attempts of illegal aliens to invade this country.

It will cost about $400,000 to finish the Hodges Ranch span and install full security FOMGuard technology in the ground at $250 per foot of fence.

I know it's a lot of money. But we cannot secure America on the cheap. And this is vastly less expensive and vastly more effective than the federal government costs for what little physical fencing they are actually getting into the ground.

We are asking everyone who has already generously sacrificed to immediately send a $50 Donation Today. Doing so will complete our current project in Bisbee, AZ, and greatly empower our allies in Congress who want to show Washington a working model of actual, affordable fence!

Your country needs you now! The Minutemen and women need you now! If you are one of the thousands who have already contributed to building the Minuteman Fence, we thank you for your sacrifice—but we need you if possible to redouble your efforts and donate again. If you have never donated we ask you to join us by making a generous financial contribution and by becoming a Minuteman Volunteer.

Go www.MinutemanHQ.com/hq and join with us TODAY.

For the love of our country,

Carmen Mercer
Vice President and Director of Government Relations
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

Historical Overview of U.S. Immigration

2008-06-20T11:45:00.000-07:00

This is a November 2006 blog post by Rubina, a.k.a. nevadaspirit1, entitled The U.S. Immigration System from the Beginning to the Present Day. Rubina says the US has always been a difficult country to get into, and that our immigration system is largely geared toward family reunification (for relatives already here) rather than overseas skills acquisition, because we are relatively self-sufficient in producing our own skilled workers and college graduates.

Americans encouraged relatively free and open immigration during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and did not question that policy until the late 1800's. After certain states passed immigration laws following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in 1875 declared that regulation of immigration is a Federal responsibility. Thus, as the number of immigrants rose in the 1880's and economic conditions in some areas worsened, Congress began to issue immigration legislation. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Alien Contract Labour laws of 1885 and 1887 prohibited certain labourers from immigrating to the United States. The more general Immigration Act of 1882 levied a head tax of fifty cents on each immigrant and blocked (or excluded) the entry of idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become a public charge. These national immigration laws created the need for a Federal enforcement agency.

In the 1880's, state boards or commissions enforced immigration law with direction from U.S. Treasury Department officials. At the Federal level, U.S. Customs Collectors at each port of entry collected the head tax from immigrants while "Chinese Inspectors" enforced the Chinese Exclusion Act. Congress soon expanded the list of excludable classes, and in doing so made regulation of immigration more complex. As a result, when the Immigration Act of 1891 barred polygamists, persons convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, and those suffering loathsome or contagious diseases from immigrating, it also created the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration. Located within the Treasury Department, the Superintendent oversaw a new corps of U.S. Immigrant Inspectors stationed at the United States' principal ports of entry.

Under the 1891 law, the Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the United States. The Immigration Service's first task was to collect arrival manifests (passenger lists) from each incoming ship, a responsibility of the Customs Service since 1820. Enforcing immigration law was a new Federal function, and the 1890's witnessed the Immigration Service's first attempts to implement national immigration policy.

Operations began in New York Harbour at a new Federal immigration station on Ellis Island, which opened January 2, 1892. The largest and busiest station for decades, Ellis Island housed inspection facilities, hearing and detention rooms, hospitals, cafeterias, administrative offices, railroad ticket offices, and representatives of many immigrant aidsocieties. Ellis Island station also employed 119 of the Immigration Service's entire staff of 180 in 1893. The Service continued building additional immigrant stations at other principal ports of entry through the early twentieth century. At New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and other traditional ports of entry, the Immigration Service hired many Immigrant Inspectors who previously worked for state agencies. At other ports, both old and new, the Service built an Inspector corps by hiring former Customs Inspectors and Chinese Inspectors, and training recruits. An "immigrant fund" created from collection of immigrants' head tax financed the Immigration Service until 1909, when Congress replaced the fund with an annual appropriation.

During its first decade at Ellis Island and other ports, the Immigration Service formalized basic immigration procedures. Inspectors questioned arrivals about their admissibility and noted their admission or rejection on manifest records. Detention Guards and Matrons cared for those people detained pending decisions in their cases or, if the decision was negative, awaiting deportation. Inspectors also served on Boards of Special Inquiry that closely reviewed each exclusion case. Often, aliens were excluded because they lacked funds or had no friends or relatives nearby. In these cases the Board of Special Inquiry usually admitted the person if someone could post bond or one of the immigrant aid societies would take responsibility for the alien. Those denied admission by the Board were deported at the expense of the transportation company that brought the alien to the port.

Congress continued to exert Federal control over immigration with the Act of March 2, 1895, which upgraded the Office of Immigration to the Bureau of Immigration and changed the agency head's title from Superintendent to Commissioner-General of Immigration. The Act of June 6, 1900, further consolidated immigration enforcement by assigning both Alien Contract Labour law and Chinese Exclusion responsibilities to the Commissioner-General. Because most immigration laws of the time sought to protect American workers and wages, an Act of February 14, 1903, transferred the Bureau of Immigration from the Treasury Department to the newly created Department of Commerce and Labour.

Attention then turned to naturalization, a duty assigned to Congress by the Constitution but carried out by "any court of record" since 1802. A commission charged with investigating naturalization practice and procedure reported in 1905 that there was little or no uniformity among the nation's more than 5,000 naturalization courts. Congress responded with the Basic Naturalization Act of 1906, which framed the rules for naturalization in effect today. The 1906 law also proscribed standard naturalization forms, encouraged state and local courts to relinquish their naturalization jurisdiction to Federal courts, and expanded the Bureau of Immigration into the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.

To standardize naturalization procedures nationwide, the new Naturalization Service collected copies of every naturalization record issued by every naturalization court. To prevent fraud, Bureau officials checked immigration records to verify that each applicant for citizenship had been legally admitted into the United States. When the Department of Commerce and Labour divided into separate cabinet departments in 1913, the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization divided into the Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of Naturalization. The two bureaus existed separately within the Department of Labour until 1933.

The Immigration Service took form during an unprecedented rise in immigration to the United States. While Congress continued to strengthen national immigration law with acts such as the Immigration Act of 1907, a Presidential Commission investigated the causes of massive emigration out of Southern and Eastern Europe and a Congressional Commission studied conditions among immigrants in the United States. These commission reports influenced the writing and passage of the Immigration Act of 1917, which, among other provisions, required that immigrants be able to read and write in their native language. The Immigration Service then began administering literacy tests.

The outbreak of World War I reduced immigration from Europe, but also imposed new responsibilities on the agency. Internment of enemy aliens (primarily seamen who worked on captured enemy ships) became a Service function. Passport requirements imposed by a 1918 Presidential Proclamation increased agency paperwork during immigrant inspection and deportation activities. The passport requirement also disrupted routine traffic across United States land borders with Canada and Mexico, and the Immigration Service consequently began to issue Border Crossing Cards.

Mass immigration resumed after the war, and Congress responded with a new immigration policy, the national origins quota system. Established by Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924, the system limited immigration by assigning each nationality a quota based on its representation in past United States census figures. The State Department distributed a limited number of visas each year through United States Embassies abroad, and the Immigration Service only admitted immigrants who arrived with a valid visa.

The corollary to severely restricted immigration is increased illegal immigration. In response to rising illegal entries and alien smuggling, especially along land borders, Congress in 1924 created the U.S. Border Patrol within the Immigration Service. The strict new immigration policy coupled with Border Patrol successes shifted more agency staff and resources to deportation activity. Rigorous enforcement of immigration law at the ports of entry also swelled appeals under the law and led to creation of the Immigration Board of Review within the Immigration Bureau in the mid-1920's. (The Board of Review became the Board of Immigration Appeals after moving to the Justice Department in the 1940's, and since 1983 has been known as the Executive Office of Immigration Review.)

A grassroots Americanisation movement popular before World War I influenced developments in the Naturalization Bureau during the 1920's. The Bureau published the first Federal Textbook on Citizenship in 1918 to prepare naturalization applicants, and its Education for Citizenship program distributed textbooks to public schools offering citizenship education classes and notified eligible aliens of available education opportunities. Legislation of 1926 introduced the designated examiner system that assigned a Naturalization Examiner to each naturalization court to monitor proceedings, interview applicants, and promote uniform implementation of Federal naturalization policy.

Executive Order 6166 of June 10, 1933, reunited the two bureaus into one agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Consolidation resulted in significant reduction of the agency's workforce achieved through merit testing and application of Civil Service examination procedures. During the 1930's, immigration volume dropped significantly. Deportation constituted a larger share of INS operations, as did certain repatriation programs later in the decade.

The threat of war in Europe, and a growing perception of immigration as a national security rather than an economic issue, affected the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1940. The President's Reorganization Plan Number V of that year moved the INS from the Department of Labour to the Department of Justice. United States entry into World War II brought additional change when many Service personnel enlisted in the Armed Forces and left INS short of experienced staff. At the same time, INS Headquarters moved to Philadelphia to sit out the war.

New responsibilities led to the agency's rapid growth during World War II. The INS' war-related duties included: Recording and fingerprinting every alien in the United States through the Alien Registration Program; organization and operation of internment camps and detention facilities for enemy aliens; constant guard of national borders by the Border Patrol; record checks related to security clearances for immigrant defence workers; and administration of a program to import agricultural labourers to harvest the crops left behind by Americans who went to war. The only agency responsibility to end during the war was enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which Congress repealed in 1943. Other war-time changes were conversion to a new record-keeping system, implementation of the Nationality Act of 1940, and doubling of the agency workforce from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 employees.

Immigration remained relatively low following World War II, because the 1920's national origins system remained in place after Congress re-codified and combined all previous immigration and naturalisation law into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. American agriculture continued to import seasonal labour from Mexico, as they had during the war, under a 1951 formal agreement between the United States and Mexico that made the Bra cero Programme permanent. Other INS programmes of the late 1940's and 1950's addressed conditions in post-war Europe. The War Brides Act of 1945 facilitated admission of the spouses and families of returning American soldiers. The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 and Refugee Relief Act of 1953 allowed for admission of many refugees displaced by the war and unable to come to the United States under regular immigration procedures. With the onset of the Cold War, the Hungarian Refugee Act of 1956, Refugee-Escapee Act of 1957, and Cuban Adjustment Program of the 1960's served the same purpose.

By the mid-1950's, INS enforcement activities focused on two areas of national concern. Public alarm over illegal aliens resident and working in the United States caused the Service to strengthen border controls and launch targeted deportation programs, most notably "Operation Wetback." Additional worry over criminal aliens within the country prompted INS investigation and deportation of communists, subversives, and organized crime figures.

In 1965 amendments to the 1952 immigration law, Congress replaced the national origins system with a preference system designed to reunited immigrant families and attract skilled immigrants to the United States. This change to national policy responded to changes in the sources of immigration since 1924. The majority of applicants for immigration visas now came from Asia and Central and South America rather than Europe. The preference system continued to limit the number of immigration visas available each year, however, and Congress still responded to refugees with special legislation, as it did for Indochinese refugees in the 1970's. Not until the Refugee Act of 1980 did the United States have a general policy governing the admission of refugees.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service's functional responsibilities expanded again under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The Act charged the INS with enforcing sanctions against United States employers who hired undocumented aliens. Carrying out employer sanction duties involved investigating, prosecuting, and levying fines against corporate and individual employers, as well as deportation of those found to be working illegally. The 1986 law also allowed certain aliens illegally in the U.S. to legalize their residence here, and INS administered that legalization program.

Changes in world migration patterns, the modern ease of international travel for business or pleasure, and a growing emphasis on controlling illegal immigration all fostered growth of the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the late twentieth century. The INS workforce, which numbered approximately 8,000 from World War II through the late 1970's, today includes more than 30,000 employees in thirty-six INS districts at home and abroad. The original force of Immigrant Inspectors is now a corps of officers specializing in inspection, examination, adjudication, legalization, investigation, patrol, and refugee and asylum issues. As it enters a second century, the Immigration and Naturalization Service continues to enforce laws providing for selective immigration and controlled entry of tourists, business travellers, and other temporary visitors. It does so by inspecting and admitting arrivals at land, sea, and air ports of entry, administering benefits such as naturalization and permanent resident status, and apprehending and removing aliens who enter illegally or violate the requirements of their stay.

House of Representatives Discharge Petition Could Rescue SAVE Act From Oblivion

2008-03-13T21:25:00.000-07:00

Since Tuesday, 168 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a discharge petition to outflank House leadership and force a vote on H.R. 4088, the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act.

According to supporters, who summarize the SAVE Act as "attrition through enforcement," it would, within 4 years, remove nearly all illegal aliens from the U.S. job market, and greatly increase funding for the border fences and for personnel to patrol the borders. The Act would, supporters say, "turn off the job magnet for illegal immigration."

According to the Numbers USA website, the Democratic leadership has not threatened Democratic Congressmen who sign the discharge petition.

"They have made it clear they oppose bringing the SAVE Act to a vote. But they haven't said they will punish Democrats who sign the discharge petition. Democrats are free to follow their conscience and the will of the voters in their district."

The leadership had asked Democrats to wait on signing the discharge petition so it could bring the SAVE Act to a vote through other channels. But negotiations between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Heath Shuler broke off after the Speaker insisted on some form of amnesty in the bill. As a result, there will be no vote on SAVE unless the discharge petition succeeds.

The Americans for Better Immigration website suggests that several House members are trying to have it both ways - they have signed on as co-sponsors in order to have bragging rights back in their home districts, but they haven't signed the discharge petition that would actually bring their bill to a vote.

Immigration reform activists are anxious to keep the momentum by adding more signatures to the discharge petition, and have mounted a grass-roots campaign in the Congressional districts to urge House members to sign it before they leave Washington for a two-week recess.

Internet Polemics About Illegal Immigration

2008-03-12T15:50:00.000-07:00

This letter may well be contrived, but it is nevertheless an example of the Internet polemics that tap into working-class American frustration about legislative proposals to extend amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Becoming Illegal

(From an actual letter from an Iowa resident that was sent to his senator)

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC , 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington , IA

ABC News on 9/11 Redux: "Thousands of Aliens" in U.S. Flight Schools Illegally

2008-03-01T10:22:00.000-08:00

Former FAA Inspector: TSA's Enforcement "Basically Nonexistent"
By BRIAN ROSS, VIC WALTER and ERIC LONGABARDI

Thousands of foreign student pilots have been able to enroll and obtain pilot licenses from U.S. flight schools, despite tough laws passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, according to internal government documents obtained by ABC News.

The new laws were passed after it was learned that all of the 9/11 hijackers (including ringleader Mohammed Atta) who were involved in flight operations had trained at U.S. flight schools with improper visas.

"Some of the very same conditions that allowed the 9-11 tragedy to happen in the first place are still very much in existence today," wrote one regional security
official to his boss at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

"Thousands of aliens, some of whom may very well pose a threat to this country, are taking flight lessons, being granted FAA certifications and are flying planes," wrote the TSA official, Richard A. Horn, in 2005, complaining that the students did not have the proper visas.

Under the new laws, American flight schools are only supposed to provide pilot training to foreign students who have been given a background check by the TSA and have a specific type of visa.

But in thousands of cases that has not happened, according to the documents and current and former government officials involved in the program.

"TSA's enforcement is basically nonexistent," said former FAA inspector Bill McNease, in an interview for ABC News' World News With Charles Gibson.

McNease, who retired last year, says in one year alone, 2005, he found some 8,000 foreign students in the FAA database who got their pilot licenses without ever being approved by the TSA.

"And a flight school wants the money to teach 'em. And they are gonna teach 'em how to fly and get their ratings, and then they just slip through the cracks," McNease said.

In another internal e-mail obtained by ABC News, Monty Thompson, an official in the TSA Flight School Inspections section, complained in 2005 to his bosses in Washington, "I fear we are "dangerously close" to losing sight of the mission and the intent of the Flight School Security provisions."

Spousal Abuse Accusation: Ticket to Preferential ICE Treatment?

2008-02-29T10:39:00.000-08:00

Domestic violence against immigrant brides presents a difficult policy question. Do we oblige the woman to prove her claim by competent evidence, in order to protect men from false accusations? Or, to prevent any further abuse, do we presume the truthfulness of her charges, and just write off any falsely accused men as collateral damage?

Writer Carey Roberts suggests the dilemma is intensified by the incentive for disloyal wives to falsely accuse their husbands in order to receive preferential treatment from Immigration & Customs Enforcement, and passes along the first-person account of a man who says he was victimized by his foreign wife and the presumption of guilt.

MY WIFE BECAME LEGAL AND I BECAME ILLEGAL
By Carey Roberts, NewsWithViews.com

Each year the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and similar federal laws funnel $1 billion to help abused and battered women – or so we are led to believe. A good part of that money goes to immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic violence.

Last Fall I wrote a three-part exposé that revealed how an immigrant woman’s restraining order becomes a “gold-plated meal ticket that entitles her to preferential treatment by immigration authorities, free legal services, and a generous helping of welfare services.”

One woman whose father had been falsely accused of abuse and forced from his home wrote me, “I believe the Violence Against Women Act should be called the ‘Women Get What They Want Act.’”

Following those columns I received an unending stream of horror stories from persons falsely accused of domestic violence. One came from Sean Moffett of St. Paul, Minn. whose wife is from Guatemala. Soon after the wedding he discovered to his dismay that her real aim was different from what she had pledged in her wedding vows.

This is his story:

My wife’s family came to visit for a few months and they repeatedly attempted to provoke confrontations between my wife and me. Ultimately, my wife assaulted me by punching me in the neck. I did not hit my wife back or abuse her in any way.

I was arrested for 5th Degree Domestic Assault and spent three days in jail for a crime I did not commit and for not leaving my home under duress. While I was behind bars, my wife cleaned out the joint bank account.

I later learned that a legal aid group called Civil Society Helps had assisted with my wife’s abuse claims to expedite her immigration application. This outfit helps many immigrant women to file false abuse claims under the Violence Against Women Act.

Shortly after my release from jail, my wife asked me to write a letter to immigration stating I was an abusive husband. She promised if I wrote the letter she would help me get my home back.

Instead of allowing myself to be blackmailed, I wrote the Citizenship and Immigration Service to withdraw the petition for my wife’s U.S. residency. I used my last credit card to retain a lawyer to petition for divorce. At that point I was broke, homeless, and sleeping in my car and under my desk at the office.

The courts later granted my wife all of the marital property and ordered that I surrender to her a car that was titled in my name. To add insult to injury, the judge granted her a one year Order for Protection.

She then telephoned me several times, calling me an “abuser” real slow and sarcastically. Knowing how groups like the Civil Society work, I can only imagine how they coached my wife.

Several times my wife has been confronted by the Eagan, Minn. police for driving without a license. She was repeatedly given a warning, yet continued to drive the vehicle.

Later, I spoke with one of the officers and reminded him it is against the law for anyone to drive a motor vehicle without a license or insurance. His partner threatened to arrest me for allegedly creating a public disturbance. But I had done nothing wrong and they backed off when I informed them I had a witness looking on.

Last year I earned a very high salary, lived in a house by a lake, and enjoyed life as much as I could with a wife who didn’t love me. At age 36 I had no previous criminal history and had honorably completed four years of U.S. military service.

In three days, I was reduced to living in poverty and was homeless for weeks. I am no longer employable in my field due to my “criminal” history -- 5th degree domestic assault with no conviction. My house was recently foreclosed and I have lost everything.

Thanks to our VAWA laws and a series of outright lies by an immigrant residency-seeker, a law-abiding American citizen can be left penniless. All of your assets can be seized and given to the immigrant even if you are innocent of the charges.

The courts have violated my rights as an American citizen and I am alienated in my own country.

© 2008 Carey Roberts - All Rights Reserved

Documents for Travel to the United States

2008-02-28T15:48:00.000-08:00

What is the WHTI?

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) is a U.S. law that requires all travelers, including U.S. and Canadian citizens, to present a valid passport or other approved secure document when traveling to, or through, the United States from within the western hemisphere. The new document requirements were implemented for air travelers to the United States in January 2007. Final document requirements for those seeking to enter the United States at land or sea ports of entry have yet to be finalized and implemented.

What is the Government of Canada doing?

For the past two years, the Government of Canada has strongly encouraged the United States to ensure that the WHTI is implemented with minimal impact on travel and trade at the border and without compromising local communities and our integrated economies.

The Government of Canada has urged the U.S. administration to take advantage of the time granted by the U.S. Congress to get the WHTI implementation right. This will allow the two governments to continue to collaborate closely on a strategy for implementing the WHTI for land and water travel in a way that will address security needs, while facilitating the flow of legitimate travellers and goods across our shared border.

A shared commitment to security and prosperity

A working group headed by senior officials of the Canada Border Services Agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is directing the work of government representatives.

Canada is concerned about the economic and community impacts of the WHTI if it is implemented before travelers on both sides of the border have obtained approved, secure documents.

Identifying secure documents

Government of Canada officials are working closely with their U.S. counterparts to determine which alternative documents would be accepted at land and water ports of entry by the time the WHTI is fully implemented, at the earliest, on June 1, 2009.

Canada is working with the United States to ensure that the WHTI implementation increases security at the border without compromising the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

As part of this effort, the Government of Canada’s negotiations have led to recognition that enhanced driver’s licences (EDLs) and the Certificate of Indian Status card could potentially serve as acceptable alternatives to passports at the Canada-U.S. land and water borders.

The Government of Canada’s efforts have also resulted in Canadians aged 18 and under being allowed to present only a birth certificate to enter the United States by land and water.

2d Circuit: Ineffective Assistance Can Constitute "Exceptional Circumstances"

2008-02-27T17:08:00.000-08:00

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has blasted the immigration bar in Garfield Aris v. Michael Mukasey, a recent case alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, decided Feb. 20.

With disturbing frequency, this Court encounters evidence of ineffective representation by attorneys retained by immigrants seeking legal status in this country. We have previously indicated that ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute an “exceptional circumstance” warranting the reopening of a deportation order entered in absentia. See Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 59 n.4 (2d Cir. 2005).

We write today to establish what we would have thought self-evident: A lawyer who misadvises his client concerning the date of an immigration hearing and then fails to inform the client of the deportation order entered in absentia (or the ramifications thereof) has provided ineffective assistance. We further clarify that such misadvice may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel even where it is supplied by a paralegal providing scheduling information on behalf of a lawyer.

Under the (Immigration & Naturalization Act), an alien ordered deported in absentia may reopen the case by filing a motion within 180 days after the order of deportation if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.

(The Act) defines exceptional circumstances as “circumstances such as serious illness of the alien or death of an immediate relative of the alien, but not including less compelling circumstances) beyond the control of the alien.”

We now join our sister circuits in concluding that, under BIA precedent applicable to the pre-1996 version of the INA as well as its current iteration, a lawyer’s inaccurate advice to his client concerning an immigration hearing date can constitute “exceptional circumstances” excusing the alien’s failure to appear at a deportation hearing...and meriting the reopening of an in absentia deportation order.

The importance of quality representation is especially acute to immigrants, a vulnerable population who come to this country searching for a better life, and who often arrive unfamiliar with our language and culture, in economic deprivation and in fear. In immigration matters, so much is at stake -- the right to remain in this country, to reunite a family, or to work. While binding Second Circuit precedent holds that aliens in deportation proceedings have “no specific right to counsel,” the Fifth Amendment does require that such proceedings comport with due process of the law.

...given the disturbing pattern of ineffectiveness evidenced in the record in this case(and, with alarming frequency, in other immigration cases before us), we reiterate that due process concerns may arise when retained counsel provides representation in an immigration proceeding that falls so far short of professional duties as to “impinge upon the fundamental fairness of the hearing.”

The Court goes on to lecture immigration attorneys on the fundamentals of their obligation to provide competent services, and to make prompt disclosure of lapses.

Members of the bar enjoy a monopoly on legal practice, a professionalized system designed in large part around [their] needs. And for that reason, among others, lawyers have a duty to render competent services to their clients.

When lawyers representing immigrants fail to live up to their professional obligations, it is all too often the immigrants they represent who suffer the consequences.

We appreciate that, unfortunately, calendar mishaps will from time to time occur. But the failure to communicate such mistakes, once discovered, to the client, and to take all necessary steps to correct them is more than regrettable -- it is unacceptable. It is nondisclosure that turns the ineffective assistance of a mere scheduling error into more serious malpractice.

(This deportee's) prior attorneys failed spectacularly to honor their professional obligation to him and to the legal system they were duty-bound to serve. Governmental authorities, whatever their roles, must be attentive to such lapses that so grievously undermine the administration of justice.

Obama, Clinton Unite Against Border Fence

2008-02-23T12:00:00.000-08:00

Obama, Clinton Back Off Border-Fence Law
By Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com

(CNSNews.com) - In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

"I think when (Obama and I) voted for this, we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense, it would be considered," said Clinton.

Stressing her desire to be deferential to the views of people who live along the border in Texas -- which on March 4 will hold a primary that is widely viewed as a must-win event for the New York senator -- Clinton said of a border fence, "there may be limited places where it would work. But let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier."

"This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree," said Obama. "I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier."

Both Clinton and Obama argued that the Bush administration was being too aggressive in pushing to build the border fence mandated by the 2006 law.

The agreement among the senators came in response to a question asked by CNN's John King, one of the moderators of the debate.

On September 29, 2006, the Senate voted 80-19 for passage of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (It passed the House on September 14, 2006, by a vote of 283-138). Clinton and Obama both voted for the act.

The law mandated that the secretary of Homeland Security build more than 700 miles of double fencing along specific segments of the U.S.-Mexico. Then House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R.-N.Y.), the principal sponsor of the law, explained its purpose in a floor speech on the day of the 2006 House vote. "It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing," King said, according to the Congressional Record.

An October 1, 2006 story in the Washington Post, which reported that the bill had passed in the Senate, carried this headline: "Border Fence is Approved; Congress Sets Aside Immigration Overhaul in Favor of 700-Mile Barrier."

"The Senate gave final approval Friday night to legislation authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, shelving President Bush's vision of a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in favor of a vast barrier," said the lead in the Post story.

All 435 members of the House of Representatives and one third of U.S. senators faced reelection contests just one month after passage of the Secure Fence Act.

The actual text of the law -- enacted with Clinton's and Obama's votes -- is unambiguous.

"[T]he Secretary of Homeland Security," the law says, "shall provide for at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry; (iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas; (iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and (v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry."

Early in Thursday night's debate, moderator John King asked about the legally mandated fence, noting that many people in southern Texas oppose it.

/ldblquote Senator, back in 2006, you voted for the construction of that fence. As you know, progress has been slow," said King. "As president of the United States, would you commit tonight that you would finish the fence and speed up the construction, or do you think it's time for a president of the United States to raise his or her hand and say, 'You know what? Wait a minute. Let's think about this again. Do we really want to do this?'"

Clinton's full answer, including some back and forth with King, runs more than 500 words in the transcript of the debate posted by CNN on it website.

"Well, I think both Senator Obama and I voted for that as part of the immigration debate," she started. "And having been along the border for the last week or so--in fact, last night I was at the University of Texas at Brownsville -- and this is how absurd this has become under the Bush administration. Because, you know, there is a smart way to protect our borders, and there is a dumb way to protect our borders. And what I learned last night when I was there with Congressman [Solomon] Ortiz [D.-Texas] is that the University of Texas at Brownsville would have part of its campus cut off.

"This is the kind of absurdity that we're getting from this administration," Clinton continued. "I know it because I've been fighting with them about the northern border. Their imposition of passports and other kinds of burdens are separating people from families, interfering with business and commerce, the movement of goods and people. So what I've said is that I would say, wait a minute, we need to review this. There may be places where a physical barrier is appropriate.

"I think when both of us voted for this, we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense, it would be considered," said Clinton. "But as with so much, the Bush administration has gone off the deep end, and they are unfortunately coming up with a plan that I think is counterproductive.

"So I would have a review," she said. "I would listen to the people who live along the border, who understand what it is we need to be doing to protect our country."

When King then asked her whether she now thought her vote for the border fence was wrong, she did not give a yes-no answer. Instead, she suggested using more manpower and technology, instead of fencing, to secure the border.

"But, you know, John," she said, "there's a lot we've learned about technology and smart fencing. You know, there is technology that can be used instead of a physical barrier. It requires us having enough personnel along the border so that people can be supervising a certain limited amount of space and will be able to be responsive in the event of people attempting to cross illegally."

She then suggested President Bush was being too aggressive in trying to build the fence. "I think that the way that the Bush administration is going about this, filing eminent domain actions against landowners and municipalities, makes no sense," she said.

"So what I have said is, yes, there are places when after a careful review, again listening to the people who live along the border, there may be limited places where it would work," she said. "But let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier.

"I frankly think that will work better and it will give us an opportunity to secure our borders without interfering with family relations, business relations, recreation and so much else that makes living along the border, you know, wonderful," she said. "And the people who live there need to have a president who understands it, will listen to them and be responsive."

Obama indicated that he agreed with Clinton in this area. "Well, this is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree," he said. "I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier. And the Bush administration is not real good at listening. That's not what they do well.

"And so I will reverse that policy," Obama said. "As Senator Clinton indicated, there may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach."

John Birch Society's Surprisingly Moderate Immigration Views

2008-02-23T10:53:00.000-08:00

The New American, which is the John Birch Society's official publication, has published some surprisingly moderate positions on immigration, including illegal immigration.

Immigration Report: Is catering to those in favor of illegal immigration coming to an end?

According to national polls, at least 80 percent of the American people now favor cutbacks in immigration quotas.... More than 90 percent support an all-out-effort to curb the massive illegal immigration. That was in 1982. After decades, are we any closer to a solution to the problem?

John F. McManus, publisher of The New American, reports in his cover story, The Battle Against Illegal Immigration, on the progress of immigration control over the last 20+ years, highlighting what has and has not been accomplished.

Larry Greenley, contributor to The New American, offers real solutions including a model state resolution in his article, How to Fix Illegal Immigration. Both articles are published at TheNewAmerican.com.

The print magazine discusses avoiding extreme solutions in the illegal immigration situation, and three influential black leaders give a candid look at what life is like for America’s black population living at "ground zero" of the illegal immigration crisis. Warren Mass offers a historical perspective with his Immigration as a Win-win Affair, and once again our publisher has the last word in his Unasked Questions Deserve Answers article covering the presidential election.

There is also a link to a .pdf file of the magazine's Merger in the Making issue, which can be downloaded and shared with others at no cost, about the North American Union.

New York Times denounces "creaky, corrosively inept" ICE priorities

2008-02-17T10:27:00.000-08:00

A New York Times editorial denounces the U.S. immigration regime today, or at least its perceived emphasis on excluding illegal aliens rather than speeding the process for legal immigration.

You can tell a country’s priorities from what works and where the money goes. With billions for border and workplace enforcement, the government has been rushing to impose ever more sophisticated and intrusive means to keep immigrants out. Yet it continues to tolerate a creaky, corrosively inept system for welcoming immigrants in — an underperforming bureaucracy that takes their money and makes them wait, with a chronic indolence that is just another form of hostility.

The denunciation is well deserved as to our system for accomodating lawful, welcome immigration, but you have to wonder what planet they're living on if they think current U.S. measures to prevent illegal immigration "work."

Phoenix Tweaks Police Policy on Illegal Aliens

2008-02-16T15:08:00.000-08:00

The New York Times carried this article about the new policy in Phoenix as to when police may and may not inquire about immigration status. There will be no inquiry of crime victims or witnesses, and civil traffic violations won't trigger an inquiry. But all criminal arrestees will be questioned whether they are in the U.S. legally.

Phoenix Police to Check Arrestees’ Immigrant Status
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
February 16, 2008

PHOENIX — The police in this city at the center of the immigration debate will soon ask all people arrested whether they are in the United States legally and will in certain cases report the information to the federal authorities, Mayor Phil Gordon announced on Friday.

People stopped for civil traffic violations like speeding will not be questioned, nor will crime victims or witnesses.

All those arrested on criminal charges like drunken driving and murder will be asked by officers whether they are in the United States legally.

The police may decide to recommend checking by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The change includes having the police notify the immigration agency about people who are detained but not arrested who officers have “reasonable basis” to believe are illegal immigrants.

A conservative legal group said the policy did not go far enough.

Civil rights advocates suggested that people who appeared to be Latino or spoke with accents would be more likely to be checked than others.

Hispanics make up 34 percent of Phoenix, the nation’s fifth-largest city, with 1.5 million residents.

At a news conference on Friday, Mr. Gordon and the four lawyers on a commission that recommended the changes tried to emphasize that the program would be closely monitored. Police officers, they said, would not become immigration agents and would not stop people at random and ask their legal status.

“We are doing what every city in this country should be doing but doesn’t,” Mr. Gordon said.

He added that the policy drew “a bright line between what should and should not be the role of the Phoenix Police Department.”

The program departs from a policy that is more than 10 years old that bars officers from asking people about their legal status in most cases. It also sets Phoenix apart from most other big cities with large immigrant populations, including New York and Los Angeles. The police in those cities generally avoid such questions over fears that they would lead to racial profiling and discourage immigrants from cooperating with the police.

Mr. Gordon had faced criticism that the current policy was in effect helping make Phoenix a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The city is 200 miles from Mexico and is the largest in a state with the heaviest influx of illegal immigrants.

An illegal immigrant killed a police officer last fall, and the police union and others stepped up calls to change the policy. Judicial Watch, a conservative-leaning legal group in Washington, began preparing a suit and looked into a recall of Mr. Gordon.

Police Chief Jack F. Harris, who has been outspoken in warning of the dangers of major police involvement in immigration enforcement, said he endorsed the policy, would write regulations for it and put it into place within three months.

Christopher J. Farrell, director of investigations with Judicial Watch, called the change a “public relations feel-good piece” that “split the baby.” The main problem, Mr. Farrell said, is that it continues to restrict officers from contacting the immigration agency, which Judicial Watch believes violates federal law.

Antonio D. Bustamante, a member of Los Abogados, a Hispanic legal group in Phoenix, said the policy changed “only because of xenophobia” and people “who hate the undocumented without understanding the huge contribution they make to the city and the economy.”

Open Letter from U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo to Visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderon

2008-02-15T21:17:00.000-08:00

President Calderon:

I was disappointed by misguided comments you recently made regarding U.S.-Mexico relations and U.S. immigration laws. Purveying misinformation and absurd allegations is hardly a positive step to building a constructive partnership.

According to the Associated Press you recently said, “You have two economies. One economy is intensive in capital, which is the American economy. One economy is intensive in labor, which is the Mexican economy. We are two complementary economies, and that phenomenon is impossible to stop.” Yes, both countries benefit by the 85% of Mexico’s manufacturing exports that come to the U.S., but people are not commodities. While I appreciate your concern for our joint prosperity, the economic and social ills that plague your country cannot be resolved by simply exporting your citizens to the United States.

It is undeniable that Mexico faces major challenges. Endemic corruption and the power of violent drug cartels still dominate everyday life across Mexico. Beyond the headlines, Mexico has deep institutional maladies. Mexico’s absurdly antiquated Napoleonic-inquisition styled legal system and the squandering of robust energy-industry opportunity by a poorly managed, state-run Pemex monopoly are just two examples of the kind of self-inflicted wounds that hobble your troubled nation.

I understand that you are attempting to resolve some of these problems and applaud your leadership in trying to do so. But what would contribute more to the long term stability of your economy and your country would be to focus more energy on addressing your domestic challenges and less on lobbying the U.S. to provide amnesty for Mexicans who have illegally entered this country with the blessing of your government. In doing so, you might be able to keep Mexico’s “best and brightest young men” in Mexico – where they can contribute more to Mexico’s economy than remittance payments. Unfortunately, your recent comments indicate that Mexico will continue its policy of encouraging illegal immigration and treating the United States as little more than a dumping ground for your social and economic problems.

In your speech yesterday to the California State legislature, you lectured the American people on how to improve our immigration policies. Why did you not propose that we model our policies on Mexico’s own policies toward illegal entry across your own southern border? Mexico expends enormous resources to prevent Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans from entering the country illegally, but you castigate the United States for wanting secure borders. Mr. President, in my neighborhood that is called hypocrisy.

You proposed in your Sacramento speech that “migration” be made “legal, safe and organized.” Mr. President, we already have such a program and it is called legal immigration. Over one million legal immigrants come through our ports of entry each year, not across our border fences. The American people set limits on the number of legal immigrants through our immigration laws, and it is not the job of the Mexican government to revise or expand those limits.

President Calderon, you are insulting the American people when you tell us that fifteen to twenty million illegal aliens in our country bring only benefits and no costs. I challenge you to give one concrete example of how the enforcement of our existing immigration laws violates anyone’s human rights. The people of Oklahoma are not anti-Mexican for passing laws to require verification of employment eligibility. The people of Indiana are not anti-immigrant for passing laws to require photo identification for voting. The people of California are not anti-Mexican for denying driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The people of Arizona are not anti-immigrant for passing laws that deny welfare benefits to people who are in that state unlawfully.

It is no secret that the purpose of your visit is to influence the American election, and in fact your trip has been billed as a high-stakes effort to shape the immigration debate underway in the U.S. presidential race. What is perhaps more disappointing, however, is your attempt to insinuate that anti-amnesty sentiment here in the U.S. is the same as anti-Mexican sentiment. I am referring to your statement, “I need to change in the perception that the Americans are the enemy, and it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy.”

It is both disingenuous and dangerous for you to inject this kind of xenophobia into this debate. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the enforcement of our immigration laws and take issue with the notion that we should reward illegal behavior, hardly qualifies as ethnic animosity or international enmity. What you must understand is that a treasured aspect of our national foundation is a respect for the rule of law. Perhaps if corruption were not so widespread and commonplace in Mexico, it would be easier for you to understand this.

President Calderon, in many ways your trip thus far has been a long series of mixed messages. You accuse the United States of recent protectionist trends, yet you heavily restrict foreign entry into Mexico’s energy sector through a massive, state-run Pemex monopoly. You assure American politicians that an open flow of cheap Mexican labor is not only benign but vitally necessary, but you take great care in securing your own southern border with Guatemala. You come to the United States purportedly to promote better political and economic ties with the U.S., but then issue a thinly veiled threat that Mexicans will regard the U.S. as an enemy if we refuse to provide millions of illegal aliens with unconditional amnesty.

President Calderon, I respectfully suggest that the next time you visit our country, rather than trying to influence U.S. policymakers or our election process, you take time to listen to Americans rather than lecture them. If you want to make changes in government policies, apply your energies to Mexico’s laundry list of problems rather than meddling in domestic American politics.

Politicians Renege on Promise to Secure the U.S.-Mexico Border

2008-02-11T00:11:00.000-08:00

President Bush's proposed budget will reduce border security funding by 33 percent, according to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

The Minutemen have organized a letter-writing campaign to tell Congress to fund the completion of a fence along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border, "using $3 billion (Bush) promised in October."

Open Borders advocates are dismissive of the idea of a fence at the border.

"Show me a 50-foot fence," Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is said to have quipped, "and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder."

Even the Minutemen advocate stationing 20,000 National Guardsmen along the fenceline to enforce the border.

2008-02-09T13:20:00.000-08:00

Here is a recent article from the Australian Immigration News suggesting that the grass is greener Down Under, where the government admits 200,000 migrants per year. Medical professionals are especially welcome. The News is a promotional piece by MigrationExpert.com, a commercial immigration consultant in Australia.

AUSTRALIAN IMMIGRATION NEWS
Australian immigration: Happy migrants express no regret
Thursday, 24 January 2008

Afraid your immigration decision to Australia could be of ill judgement? Maybe you're in for a rather pleasant surprise.

"...if migration is something you are contemplating, you could find no more attractive proposition," said the Australian ambassador to the Philippines, Tony Hely.

His statement is strongly supported by an article recently published in a major Filipino newspaper highlighting Australia’s migrant experience. It dealt with the overwhelming satisfaction of migrants to Australia about the decision they had made to start a new life “Down Under.”

Based on a recent survey commissioned by the Australian government, the article noted that 30% of respondents felt that the thing they liked most about Australia was, in fact, its people. This comes as no surprise, as last year, Australia's been voted the country with the world's friendliest people. Lifestyle, weather and environment also rated highly.

They were also asked which part of their immigration experience they enjoyed the least. Understandably, 10% responded “missing the family back home”, while 30% simply answered “nothing.”

This immigration survey's findings dramatically showed why Australia is increasingly becoming a favoured destination for prospective migrants.

A separate immigration survey, conducted in 2006 in 20 countries worldwide, found that Australia was one of the top three most attractive destinations for migrants, along with Canada and the United States.

Statistics show that today, almost one in four of Australia’s population of around 21 million was born overseas. Half the nation was either born abroad or has a parent born overseas. Filipinos represent the fourth largest non-European immigrant population in Australia, and have been very successful and adaptable to the Australian way of life.

It also shows that some of the top seven most commonly spoken languages in Australia are Cantonese, Arabic, Vietnamese and Mandarin.

"The Lucky Country" applies a completely non-discriminatory immigration policy, taking close to 200,000 migrants per year.

On Monday, 26 January, Australians from all races, religions and countries of origin will come together to celebrate Australia Day. At first, it used to be a day solely marking the arrival of European settlers in Australia. But today it unites those who trace their ancestry back to that day with the indigenous Australians and those who have come across the seas, albeit under different circumstances, to settle in the great Down Under.

More and more migrants are advocating that Australia is a fantastic place to live, study, work and raise a family. If you would like to follow in their footsteps, why not fill in our free visa eligibility assessment form to see for which visa you qualify?

Joining thousands of others in starting a brand new life in the country everyone's talking about, could be one of the best decisions you've ever made.

Specifics of Philippine Repatriation

2008-01-29T01:02:00.000-08:00

Here is a more detailed treatment of the legal situation of a former Philippine citizen who has renounced Philippine citizenship, then returned to re-acquire it. It's taken from the Philippine e-Legal Forum site.

Retention and Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship

Former natural-born Filipinos who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (”Citizen Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003“) shall enjoy full rights enjoyed by any Filipino, subject to certain conditions enumerated below. Please note that the law covers only “natural-born” Filipinos (born of one or both parents who are Filipino citizens at the time of birth) who acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization.

R.A. 9225 amends Commonwealth Act No. 63, which provides that a Filipino citizen may lose his Philippine citizenship:

1. By naturalization in a foreign country;
2. By express renunciation of citizenship;
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more;
4. By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country;
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted: and
7. In case of a woman, upon her marriage, to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s country, she acquires his nationality.

Former Filipinos who comply with the requirements under R.A. 9225 (click here for the Implementing Rules and Regulations) can now own land just like any Filipino. This means that they are no longer subject to the limitations under Batas Pambansa 185 (land for residential purposes up to 1,000 sq.m.) or under R.A. 8179, which amends R.A. 7042 (for investment purposes, a maximum of 5,000 for urban land or 3 hectares for rural land).

They can also run for public office, provided that at the time of filing their certificates of candidacy, they renounce all foreign citizenship (as also provided in prevailing jurisprudence).

As mentioned above, the conditions are as follows:

* Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as “The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003” and other existing laws;

* Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;

* Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;

* Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and

* The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who: (a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or (b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.

Re-acquiring Your Philippine Citizenship

2008-01-28T23:08:00.000-08:00

If you renounced your Philippine citizenship in order to become an American citizen, and have since experienced some buyers' remorse, it's not irreversible. You can go back and reclaim your original citizenship, according to "Balik-Pinoy: How to Re-Acquire Your Philippine Citizenship" on The Legal Inclined Blog. (Just don't gripe when a Philippine Revenue Service agent gets in touch for an audit.)

Balik-Pinoy (How to re-acquire your Philippine citizenship)
By Siesta-friendly

Lost your Philippine citizenship yet you want to avail of its benefits eh? Well, the government thought you might feel that way and so enacted the “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003” (R.A. 9225).

Take note that if you are already a dual citizen (with Philippine citizenship and foreign citizenship), then you need not apply for dual citizenship. Naturally. But, how do you know you’re already a dual citizen? You first have to know 2 basic doctrines in determining nationality: 1) the jus soli (right of soil) doctrine which states that the place of birth determines one’s nationality and 2) the jus sanguinis (right of birth) doctrine which states that the nationality of one’s parent/s determines one’s nationality.

It is important to know that the Philippines follows the right of birth (jus sanguinis) doctrine to determine its citizen’s nationality. Therefore, wherever you may have been born, as long as at least 1 of your parents was a Philippine citizen at the time of your birth, you are a Philippine citizen at birth. You may also be a citizen of the country where you were born in case such country follows the jus soli doctrine to determine its citizen’s nationality.

Thus, if at least 1 of your parents was a Philippine citizen at the time of your birth and you were born in the U.S. - which follows the jus soli doctrine - then you are a U.S and a Philippine citizen at birth. Under U.S. law, you are a U.S citizen since you were born there and under Philippine law you are a Philippine citizen because at least 1 of your parents was a Philippine citizen at the time of your birth. So it’s not necessary for you to apply for dual citizenship. And you can apply for both U.S. and Philippine passports. Sweet.

You must remember that if your Filipino parent/s lost his/her/their Philippine citizenship at the time of your birth, then you are not a Philippine citizen at birth even if you were born in the Philippines.

Clear? Then on we go to the procedural aspect. There are 4 different application procedures depending on your status:

a) Former natural-born Philippine citizen already in the Philippines and BI (Bureau of Immigration)-registered alien - file a petition under oath (the “Petition for Dual Citizenship and Issuance of Identification Certificate”) with the BI for the cancellation of the ACR (Alien Certificate of Registration) and issuance of an Identification Certificate (IC).

b) Former natural-born Philippine citizen who is abroad but a BI-registered alien - file a petition under oath with the nearest Philippine Foreign Post for evaluation. Thereafter, the entire records shall be forwarded to the BI for the cancellation of the ACR and issuance of an IC;

c) Former natural-born Philippine citizen already in the Philippines
and not a BI-registered alien - within 60 days from date of arrival, file a petition under oath with the BI for the issuance of an IC;

d) Former natural-born Philippine citizen who is abroad and not a BI-registered alien - file a petition under oath with the nearest Philippine Foreign Post for the issuance of an IC.

The following shall be attached to the petition, which should all be contained in a legal size folder (according to the BI):

1. 2 recent 2 x 2 colored pictures over white background;

2. Proof of being a natural-born Filipino – at least 1 of the following originals with photocopy:

a) Philippine birth certificate certified by the National Statistics Office (NSO);

b) old Philippine passport;

c) voter’s affidavit or voter’s identification card;

d) marriage contract indicating applicant’s Philippine citizenship;

e) such other document/s that would indicate that the applicant is a natural-born Philippine citizen as may be acceptable to the BI (for example, a former Philippine citizen born abroad shall present a copy of the Report of Birth issued by the Philippine Embassy or Consulate and, in applicable cases, the original copy of the Birth Certificate by competent foreign authorities).

3. foreign passport;

4. Certificate of Naturalization or an original affidavit stating how foreign citizenship was acquired;

5. if the applicant’s name in the birth certificate or other documents is different from that in the foreign passport and other documents, applicant shall execute an affidavit explaining such difference and attach at least 2 documents showing applicant’s correct name;

6. 2 legal size self-addressed stamped envelopes; and

7. proof of payment of application fee - Original Receipt/s (USD50.00 or Php2,500.00)

If the applicant is a BI-registered alien, the following must also be attached:

1. Original ACR, and
2. Original Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) or Certificate of Residence for Temporary Visitor (CRTV).

For each of the applicant’s unmarried children below 18 years, the following additional documents are required original and photocopy):

1. 2 recent 2 x 2 colored pictures over white background;
2. birth certificate;
3. foreign passport; and
4. proof of payment of application fee - Original Receipt/s (USD25.00 or Php1,250.00).

And what do you get in return? For starters, the right to vote and the opportunity to be voted for a public office (provided you renounce foreign citizenship). Practice professions limited only to citizens (doctors, lawyers, etc.). Own real estate without limit. Travel in and out of the country without obtaining entry visas or paying immigration fees.

Of course, apart from your rights as Philippine citizen, you will also assume the responsibilities and obligations of one. Like the payment of taxes. Gotcha. As well as the responsibility of shouldering the luxurious lives of politicians and government officials and enduring the reality that you can’t do much about it, except gripe. But I digress. Below is the Oath of Allegiance which is the final act that confers Philippine citizenship and which should give you a general idea of what you could be getting yourself into –

“I,___________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and local orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, and I hereby declare that I recognise and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto, and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”

Before anything else though, it is strongly suggested that you first consult with your local embassy as regards the effects of your obtaining Philippine citizenship on your current foreign citizenship.

My Inaugural Post

2008-01-27T16:48:00.000-08:00

This is probably a blog that's going to get me into some trouble, and maybe lose some friends. Immigration is a touchy subject, and I don't intend to steer clear of the controversies, or even the polemics. Yet few subjects cry out with more urgency for clear-sighted policy analysis and stubborn integrity. So we're probably going to rip loose a scab or two.

In my inaugural post, I want to refer you to The Hightower Lowdown, a populist newsletter edited by Phillip Frazier and the ever-quotable Jim Hightower, that attempts in its January 2008 issue (vol.10, no.1) to synthesize a middle-of-the-road position on illegal immigration.

Hightower is of course a ferocious partisan, so he prefaces his serious propositions with the standard accusations of xenophobia, racism and demagoguery that are de rigueur among Open Borders activists. But Lowdown goes on to cite polls that show "deep and genuine alarm about (illegal immigration) among the nonxenophobic, nonracist American majority."

"In particular, workaday families are fearful about what an endless flow of low-wage workers portends for their economic future - and they're not getting good answers from Republicans, Democrats, corporate leaders or the media."

Hightower broadens the discussion beyond mere enforcement of immigration laws. The title of his article, "Immigrants Come Here Because Globalization Took Their Jobs Back There," bears the subtitle "Stop Blaming Workers - the Bosses Made This Mess."

Even if there were no illegal workers in our country, Hightower writes, our economy would remain fragile. It was powerful, well-connected corporate interests, not powerless immigrants, who downsized and offshored our middle-class jobs, rewrote bankruptcy laws to let corporations break their union contracts, turned the National Labor Relations Board into a partisan of employers against workers, reclassified millions of employees as independent contractors to deprive them of labor rights and fringe benefits, and turned a blind eye to the re-emergence of sweatshops and child labor.

"Immigration reform cannot be separated from labor and trade reform," Hightower writes. He coins a new term, "NAFTAfication," to describe what he thinks is causing the rush of illegal immigration, mostly from Mexico.

"We must stop the exploitative NAFTAfication of such aspiring economies as Mexico and instead devolop genuine grassroots investment policies that give people there an ability to remain in their homeland. Then we must enforce our own labor laws - from wage and hour rules to the NLRB."

The Lowdown says if we would "go right at the corporate kleptocracy that now owns Washington and controls the debate," we could eliminate the need to migrate from Mexico and revive the American middle class. This, Hightower writes, is "an immigration policy that will work."

I use the Hightower letter as the starting point for this blog, not because I believe it sets out a realistic program, but because I think it assembles all the elements of the illegal immigration debate. The idea that we can eliminate unskilled Mexican and Central American workers' economic motive to escape their homelands is sheer pie in the sky. Mexico is a sovereign country, and its ruling elites will never consent to the sort of intervencion that that would require.

On the contrary, they seem to feel entitled to intervene in our country, negotiating immigration policy with municipal governments and police organizations, contrary to Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, objecting - despite Article IV, Section 4 - to our construction of fences on our sovereign territory, issuing identification documents from their consulates in U.S. cities, and supervising the labor laws and enforcement of criminal laws against their citizens residing here. We are confronted with an extraterritorialism that no self-respecting republic can accept.

And so we must learn to respect one another again, beginning with one another's sovereignty. In the words of the poet's stolid Vermonter neighbor, "good fences make good neighbors."

I let my neighbour know beyond the hill
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again
We keep the wall between us as we go
To each the boulders that have fallen to each
Mending Wall, Robert Frost

Yet Hightower's class consciousness should not be dismissed. It's true, as he writes, that powerless Mexican immigrants did not engineer our government's disloyalty to the middle class or its indifference to upward mobility.

It is urgent that we fix the illegal immigration problem, but Hightower is right that even if we fix it, it's still going to be a tough, often unfair labor system. U.S. workers shouldn't delude themselves that their future is secure once they put the illegal aliens to flight. If they don't follow up by holding North American elites' feet to the fire on labor reform and trade reform, making the illegals go home will just be an exercise in cruelty.