It’s way too early to tell whether the United States under President-elect Barack Obama will restore realism, sanity and lawfulness to its immigration system. But it’s never too early to hope, and the stars seem to be lining up, at least among his cabinet nominees.

If Mr. Obama’s team is confirmed, the country will have a homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and a commerce secretary, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who understand the border region and share a well-informed disdain for foolish, inadequate enforcement schemes like the Bush administration’s border fence. And it will have a labor secretary, Hilda Solis of California, who, as a state senator and congresswoman, has built a reputation as a staunch defender of immigrants and workers.

The confluence of immigrants and labor is exactly what this country — particularly, and disastrously, the Bush administration — has not been able to figure out.

In simplest terms, what Ms. Solis and Mr. Obama seem to know in their gut is this: If you uphold workers’ rights, even for those here illegally, you uphold them for all working Americans.

Read Complete Article

Popularity: 11% [?]

By DIANNE SOLÍS / The Dallas Morning News

Federal immigration officials, over the past year, have dramatically curtailed the controversial practice of sedating deportees with powerful anti-psychotic medication.

The move followed court challenges and a public outcry over the practice, which often involved the use of Haldol, a drug used to treat schizophrenia.

Data collected through Freedom of Information Act requests by The Dallas Morning News show that Immigration and Customs Enforcement sedated only 10 people in the past fiscal year. Haldol was used in only three cases.

Over the past six years, through October, federal immigration personnel sedated 384 deportees, an average of 64 a year, the government disclosed. Of those cases, 356 involved the use of Haldol.

U.S. officials defended the sedation policy but declined to discuss it in detail, including the frequency with which sedation has been used, which led The News to request the information through the Freedom of Information Act.

U.S. officials say the procedure is done on the recommendation of medical personnel and now requires a court order – a change made when the American Civil Liberties Union began opposing the procedure and after Julie L. Myers, then assistant homeland security secretary, learned of the cases.

“When we do ask the court to involuntarily sedate, it is both necessary to effectuate removal and medically appropriate,” said Pat Reilly, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security.

Critics said there had been no effective oversight of the process, and some continue to say that the policy violates medical ethics. They praised the use of the court order and sedation restrictions.

“What you are seeing here is that the courts have proven once again that sunshine is the best disinfectant,” said Wade Henderson, a lawyer and the president and chief executive officer of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in Washington, D.C.

Though the agency has dramatically reduced its use of Haldol to sedate deportees, the practice remains controversial.

Haldol is used to treat schizophrenia and such psychotic symptoms as hallucinations, delusions and hostility.

It is sometimes used in hospital emergency rooms to manage acute agitation and psychosis.

Medical authorities say the use of Haldol carries potential complications. The drug can trigger such adverse reactions as muscular spasms and a condition known as neuroleptic malignant syndrome that can result in a coma and even death if left untreated.

Scott Allen, an internist and co-founder of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights in Providence, R.I., said he opposes sedation except for deportees with schizophrenia or other mental illness.

“The medical community needs to assert itself and make clear the medical ethics of involuntary chemical restraint: It is not acceptable,” he said.

As for its decline in use, Dr. Allen said, “That is certainly encouraging, but it enforces the impression they were overusing forced medication in the past.”

New policy

ICE established the policy of requiring a court order for involuntary sedation of detainees during removal with “no exceptions” in January. ICE said it restated a policy from June 2007.

Ms. Myers, who resigned as assistant homeland security secretary last month, said she moved toward a policy of “getting a court order so only in the narrowest of circumstances would we proceed like this.”

She defined the narrow circumstances in which sedation would be used as those in which the agency believes that “based on the advice of medical professional, that this is the only way to have a safe and secure deportation, and a court agrees with that.”

The policy went into effect in June 2007 after the Los Angeles Daily News reported that two detainees had been forcibly drugged in an effort to sedate them for a deportation flight.

Last year, the ACLU sued the U.S. government on behalf of the two immigrants, one from Senegal and another from Indonesia. Attorneys for the men believe both were given Haldol. The case was settled for $55,000 in total for the two, and the government admitted no wrongdoing or liability.

In November 2007, the federal government attempted to get a court order to sedate an Albanian man who resisted deportation and boarding from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, screaming he would be killed if he were sent back to Albania.

The man, a political-asylum seeker, was aided by U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, who wrote a private bill that effectively stalled the Albanian’s deportation until early 2009.

Government data

The government’s FOIA disclosures don’t indicate whether all 384 sedations were forced or voluntary. But government officials and lawyers who have represented deportees said it is clear that a significant number were involuntarily sedated.

“Immigrants are not animals,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, the ACLU attorney involved in the lawsuit against Homeland Security.

A FOIA request for government data for the five fiscal years prior to Oct. 1, 2002, was denied because the federal government said it was unable to locate any records.

The issue of sedations drew further attention in May, when The Washington Post reported its use in more than 250 cases.

The report was based in part on information from the confidential medical logs of deportees.

Even before the policy shift, the practice was used in a relative handful of deportations. In fiscal year 2007, more than 240,000 people went through deportation proceedings.

Race as a factor

The documents show that sedation was used disproportionately against Africans, leading some to suggest that race was a factor.

“The racial dimensions add a particularly troubling dimension to what was already an unacceptable regime of choices,” said Mr. Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

U.S. officials deny that race was a factor.

“Nationality is purely coincidental,” said Ms. Reilly, the ICE spokeswoman.

Over the six years, nearly 40 percent of those sedated with Haldol were Africans. No other continent had that high a percentage. The cases cover a period from October 2002 through October of this year.

According to the federal data, sedations with Haldol were scattered among deportees from all over Africa, but clusters can be found among deportees from Guinea, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Senegal and Uganda.

On their own

Former Dallas resident Stanley Ukeni of Nigeria was deported in October 2007 after overstaying a visitor visa by more than a decade.

Mr. Ukeni pleaded with immigration officials to let him stay in the U.S., saying he had provoked the wrath of high-ranking officials in Nigeria with human-rights work he had done there on behalf of the Ibo tribe. He said he feared he would be tortured if he returned.

According to Mr. Ukeni, immigration officials gave him a choice: He could land in Lagos, Nigeria, sedated and manacled, or he could remain unsedated, fully conscious and better able to protect himself from harm. He chose to go peacefully and avoided sedation.

In a phone conversation from a relative’s home in Nigeria, Mr. Ukeni said he would like to return “home” to Dallas, where he has two small U.S.-born children with his girlfriend. E-mails from Mr. Ukeni and a letter from his Nigerian attorney asserted that Mr. Ukeni had been abducted and severely beaten several times since his return.

ICE officials would not discuss specifics of Mr. Ukeni’s case.

But Ms. Reilly acknowledged that deportees are on their own once they arrive in their home country.

“When we remove a person from the United States,” she said, “our authority over them ends when they leave an aircraft in their country of origin.”

Popularity: 9% [?]

CHICAGO (AFP) — Hispanic leaders urged president-elect Barack Obama to issue a moratorium on immigration raids and deportations at a rally in Chicago Saturday.

“President-elect Barack Obama knows the immigration system is broken and we understand and believe he wants to fix it,” said US Representative Luis Gutierrez.

“We’re ready to create the political support, the grassroots support that (Obama) needs.”

Despite the challenges he faces in dealing with two wars and an economic crisis, it appears as though Obama considers immigration reform a priority, Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez has spoken to Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, four times in the past two weeks and will be meeting with Obama in the coming days to discuss the issue.

“We believe that as we go to the American people and we shatter the myths about our broken immigration system that one of the most powerful symbols we have is the sanctity of marriage … and that government should not be destroying families” separating family members with deportations, Gutierrez said.

The US Congress failed to pass the most recent version of sweeping immigration legislation in 2007, which would have given legal status and a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.

Obama had been involved in negotiations over the text and immigration reform earned broad support from both Obama and Republican rival John McCain on the 2008 campaign trail.

But in the final months before the election, immigration swiftly took a back seat to the deepening and more pressing economic crisis.

Immigration rights activists are planning a major march on Washington on January 21, the day after Obama is sworn in as the 44th US president, to call attention back to the issue.

Faith leaders across the country are also getting involved and are inviting families torn apart by deportations to speak to their congregations.

“It’s time for a revolution,” pastor Freddy Santiago told 1,500 people gathered at Rebano Companerismo Cristiano church in the heart of a mostly Hispanic Chicago neighborhood.

“Enough is enough! We will not allow our families to be separated or oppressed.”

Yaritza Viveros, 13, sobbed as she spoke to the Chicago rally of her fears that she could come home from school to find her parents snatched in an immigration raid.

Viveros was born in the United States to undocumented parents and is a US citizen.

“I am young, and am against the terror from immigration,” she told the crowd. “Many families are separated because of immigration and we have to stop the raids that destroy our families.”

Brian Wilkins, whose family has lived in the United States for generations, also broke down as he spoke of he was forced to move to Buglaria because his wife and her family were being deported.

He said his father and brother in law are being held in a Wisconsin detention center like “criminals” when all they did wrong was pick bad lawyers.

“We as Americans should be able to have the family we love next to us,” he said. “It’s not just Hispanic people, it’s all people who are being affected. Our broken laws should be fixed.”

Popularity: 100% [?]

By Anita Kumar, Washington Post

RICHMOND — Virginia, known for some of the nation’s toughest policies on illegal immigration, appears to be abandoning its hard-line approach as state officials consider proposals to help foreign-born residents assimilate, including increasing the number of English classes.

In the coming weeks, the Virginia Commission on Immigration will send Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) two dozen recommendations, most of which would help immigrants instead of penalizing them.

Those on both sides of the issue say interest in immigration has waned because of the growing economic crisis, a clearer understanding of the state’s limitations on a largely federal issue and backlash at the voting booth.

“I think some reality set in,” said state Sen. John C. Watkins (R-Chesterfield), the group’s chairman.

Recommendations include shortening the Medicaid residency requirements for certain qualified immigrants, offering in-state tuition to immigrants who meet specific criteria and creating an immigration assistance office.

The commission considered but did not adopt proposals to force immigrants to carry special identification cards, allow hospitals to fingerprint patients who do not pay their bills and require proof of legal residence to be eligible for public assistance.

Virginia officials have spent years addressing the issue of immigration, taking whatever actions they could within the confines of state and federal law. More recently, immigration turned out to be a less popular election issue than some lawmakers had hoped. As a result, state officials appear to be shifting their focus from fighting illegal immigration to assimilating the ever-growing population of legal immigrants.

Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), who served on the commission and is staunchly anti-illegal immigration, described the panel’s approach to enforcement as “very much watered-down.”

ad_icon

“I can’t totally disagree that some people are leery of the issue, because maybe it wasn’t the wedge issue that some thought it would be,” Gilbert said.

In recent years, as Congress repeatedly failed to pass immigration legislation, many states considered immigration bills that addressed employment, identification, law enforcement and public benefits.

In Virginia, Republicans and some Democrats in conservative-leaning districts seized on the issue, unveiling proposals to curb illegal immigration and talking up the cause on the campaign trail. Much of the debate was in Northern Virginia, including Prince William County, where officials curtailed government services to illegal immigrants and increased enforcement.

In 2007, a Washington Post poll found that 9 percent of likely voters in Virginia, and 17 percent in Northern Virginia, considered immigration the most important issue facing the state. But this year only 1 percent of likely voters surveyed listed immigration as a top issue.

During the General Assembly’s session this year, the number of immigration bills introduced was the highest in recent years, but most measures died. State and local governments found that they could do little to resolve the issue.

“This is really a federal issue,” Watkins said. “They have . . . pushed it down toward the states, and the time has come for them to deal with it. We have no jurisdiction.”

Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, who represents several immigrant groups, attributed the diminishing interest to the realization that Virginia is ahead of other states in dealing with illegal immigration. “I think that Virginia has long been at the forefront in acting in this area,” she said. “Much of the work was done before the commission ever met.”

Virginia was the first state to tighten security on driver’s licenses in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The state acted after it was discovered that several of the Sept. 11 hijackers had Virginia identification. In 2003, the General Assembly passed legislation requiring applicants to provide proof of citizenship or legal presence in the United States, along with proof of Virginia residency.

Gastanaga said the state now needs to focus on creating a welcoming environment and helping immigrants acclimate to the state.

The Immigration Commission spent more than a year writing recommendations for Kaine after public hearings that included expert testimony and comment from legislators and the Virginia Crime Commission. The proposals would have to be adopted by Kaine, the General Assembly or Congress.

The commission proposed increasing the number of English classes and creating a plan to address the needs of foreign-born residents. It also urged the federal government to compile more complete immigration statistics, increase the number of visas for foreign workers and pass comprehensive immigration legislation.

Of the 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the United States, 250,000 to 300,000 live in Virginia, according to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington. The U.S. Census Bureau says an additional 440,000 people in Virginia are not U.S. citizens but are in the state legally.

The commission was made up of legislators, local government and law enforcement officials, doctors, lawyers and representatives of various immigrant communities. Members were appointed by Kaine and the General Assembly.

Gilbert and another commission member, Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), both advocates of a hard-line approach to illegal immigration, said it was obvious from the start that they would represent the minority view on the panel.

“It was pretty clear the fix was in from the beginning,” Gilbert said.

But the Rev. Gerry Creedon, pastor of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Arlington County and a commission member, said that the group was objective and that he was pleased with its “positive direction.”

Creedon said commission members recognized that in the past some immigration proposals were raised for “political purposes” and could not be enforced. “They wanted credit for taking a tough position, but you knew they wouldn’t be implemented,” he said.

Popularity: 12% [?]

By PETER APPLEBOME, The New York Times

Over the years, the immigration issue has been very, very good to Steve Levy, Suffolk County’s suddenly embattled county executive.

Beginning with his support of an English-only proposal two decades ago, to a number of high-profile initiatives he’s pushed since he was elected county executive in 2003, Mr. Levy has become hugely popular locally and a national figure as a proponent of measures meant to crack down on illegal immigration.

Now, in the wake of the killing of an Ecuadorean immigrant, Marcelo Lucero, by what the police said was as a group of seven teenagers intent on finding “a Mexican” to attack, and Mr. Levy’s widely criticized comments after the death, the picture is decidedly more mixed. (In response to a question whether the episode was unique to Suffolk County, Mr. Levy said that that the killing would have been a one-day story elsewhere.)

But when he delivered a televised speech to Suffolk County residents on Tuesday, expressing regret and horror, holding his ground and taking a step or two back at the same time, he did manage to evoke both a local tragedy and a national quandary. Can you crusade against illegal immigration and not be accused of playing to fear and prejudice?

Given the polarized and angry debate in the county, it’s fair to say Mr. Levy hasn’t pulled it off. Whether anyone can do better is no small issue in American life.

“We all stand united, and speak loudly with one voice, when we say that the brutal killing of this innocent, hard-working man for no other reason than he was Hispanic is a dark and reprehensible moment for our county,” he said in his speech.

That stain, he added pointedly, is particularly shameful on Long Island, which, he said, a study has shown to be among the most segregated areas in America.

But he denied there was a link between the heated debates over immigration in the county and the crime. “Opposition to the policy of illegal immigration must never allow individuals to justify acts of violence,” he said. “Likewise, advocates for those here illegally should not disparage those opposed to the illegal immigration policy as being bigoted or intolerant.”

But, in fact, Hispanic officials and advocates for years have depicted Mr. Levy as a bullying figure, making hay out of an issue that’s popular with many white residents even though the county has very little role in enforcing immigration laws.

Phil Ramos, a state assemblyman, and Ricardo Montano, a county legislator, said Mr. Levy’s comments and policies had contributed to an atmosphere in which attacks and harassment of Hispanics are common.

“The constant rhetoric coming from some elected officials has the impact of creating an atmosphere in which a crime like this can occur,” Mr. Ramos said. “We need mature leadership in this county that doesn’t pander to the worst qualities in our residents.”

Michael D. Dawidziak, a political consultant who has worked for Mr. Levy, said he doesn’t agree with Mr. Levy on every issue, but he said it’s very hard to find any statements or policies by Mr. Levy that are beyond the norm for the immigration debate.

And Mr. Levy said that in the end, a horrible crime and his own policy prescriptions have nothing in common. “The reason so few officials will touch this issue is because it’s a lightning rod, and they can get burned and demonized very easily,” he said. “But reasonable people can disagree on the issue of illegal immigration.”

Of course, the lightning rod works both ways, and for a politician who takes pride in discerning the gut of the electorate, the issue has worked for him far more than against him, helping Mr. Levy, a Democrat, win votes in reliably Republican areas.

Critics say if he wants to change the tone, one place to start would be to find a way for victims to report crimes and for the police to aggressively register hate crimes against Hispanics. According to official figures, such crimes decreased to one in 2007 from 15 in 2004.

It takes about five minutes of speaking to immigrant workers to realize there is more than one anti-Hispanic hate crime a year in Suffolk County.

Mr. Levy said his most notorious statement, seeming to complain about the widespread news coverage the killing received, was a comment on the attention given to immigration issues in Suffolk, not an attempt to minimize the crime. In his speech, he said he needed to do better.

“Hopefully, Marcelo Lucero’s death will not be in vain. Perhaps it can be the spark for all of us — yours truly included — to admit our faults, to work more closely with one another, to pay more attention to what our children are doing, and to pay more attention to what we say,” he said. “Words do matter, and I will do all I can to help ensure that my words are as sensitive as possible toward meeting our goal to heal and to unite.”

Critics say that’s a start, but just a start.

“I’ve known Mr. Levy for many years, and I judge him on his actions, not just his words in one speech,” Mr. Montano said. “I welcome his comments, but he’ll be judged on his future words, deeds and actions, not on one speech.”

Popularity: 9% [?]

Before a huge crowd in San Diego last summer, Barack Obama vowed to make fixing illegal immigration a top priority as president, and Latinos nationwide responded with massive support for him on Election Day. Now, they are pressing him to keep his promise.

“We voted in large numbers for Obama,” said Juan Salgado, board president of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a nonprofit based in Chicago, Obama’s training ground for immigration issues when he was a senator. “If we’re sitting here two and a half years from now and absolutely nothing’s been done, people are going to start asking questions.”

From Cape Cod to California, activists on both sides of the volatile issue are girding for battle. Supporters of the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants - most of whom are Latino - want Obama to press for a path to legal residency for them. Opponents say reform is impossible at a time when unemployment is soaring, and instead want tougher border security and less immigration to preserve Americans’ jobs.

Many analysts are skeptical that Oba ma can navigate the political minefield of illegal immigration in his first year

Read Complete Story

Popularity: 11% [?]

by Randy Shaw, BeyondCron

Among the most overlooked stories this political season was the major impact of Latino voters in Barack Obama’s red state victories. While Latinos’ 67% support for Obama has gotten some attention, the media has largely overlooked the fact that Latino immigrants backed Obama by a 78% margin, and their support was critical in the Democrat’s narrow victories in Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. The Immigrant Policy Center has released a new analysis of Latino immigrant voting, which deserves the widest possible attention for revealing the importance of the immigration issue in key swing states. The Center’s analysis confirms that comprehensive immigration reform must be a priority for President Obama’s first year in office, and that Latino immigrants are ready to push the issue.

The Immigrant Policy Center released the following analysis this week:

Latinos weren’t the only group that flexed its muscles this past Election Day. New Americans — naturalized citizens and the U.S.-born children of immigrants who were born during the current era of immigration that began in 1965—make up another important demographic group that demonstrated its ability to swing an election. While complete data on New Americans is not yet available, exit polling among Latinos and Latino immigrants tell two important stories.

First, Latino immigrants voted for Obama at a higher margin than native-born Latinos. While Obama made an impressive gain among native-born Latino voters, capturing 67% of the Latino vote compared to Kerry’s 56% in 2004, the records were smashed with Latino immigrant support coming in at a whopping 78%. What charged the immigrant vote? Immigration.

Meanwhile, these New American Latino voters made a difference in districts we’ve never detected their presence in before. In unprecedented fashion, they provided the critical, extra push for Obama in North Carolina and Indiana, without which victory would have been impossible in those states; and played a significant role in winning Virginia. These findings suggest that immigrants are having a tsunami impact beyond the Sunshine and Rocky Mountain states and throughout the country.

A preliminary analysis conducted for the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) by Rob Paral and Associates explores the electoral power that was exhibited on Election Day by Latino New Americans and shows:

Indiana and North Carolina Latino New American Voters Helped Push Obama to Victory.

* In North Carolina, Obama won by approximately 14,000 votes and received the votes of nearly 26,000 more Latino New Americans than McCain—nearly double the margin of victory.

* In Indiana, Obama won by roughly 26,000 votes, and received the votes of nearly 24,000 more Latino New Americans than John McCain. The additional votes that Obama received from Latino New Americans who chose him over McCain equals more than 90% of his margin of victory.

Virginia’s Latino New American Voters Amounted to a Fifth of Obama’s Margin of Victory.

* In Virginia, Obama won by roughly 156,000 votes, and received the votes of approximately 35,000 more Latino New Americans than McCain. The number of additional votes that Obama received from Latino New Americans who chose him over McCain was equal to one-fifth (more than 20%) of his margin of victory.

Immigrants Voted for Obama Largely Due to Their Concerns About Immigration.

Interviews conducted by Bendixen & Associates among Latino immigrant voters just before the election found that “a rise in discrimination against Hispanics because of the tone of the immigration debate contributed to the rejection of the Republican nominee for President.”

Based on this voter analysis, the Immigrant Policy Center concludes “President-elect Barack Obama and the 111th Congress cannot afford to disregard the needs and future of the fastest growing part of the American electorate without facing a backlash in 2012. These stunning election results represent a clear mandate to work towards enacting reform that restores the rule of law, renews confidence in America’s immigration system and realistically tackles illegal immigration.”

In assessing the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform, two points are increasingly clear.
First, it will be far easier for Congress to enact a reform measure in 2009 than in 2010. Legalization advocates recognize that the economic crisis, health care reform, and the drive for a new energy policy will take precedence, but there is a place for immigration reform by next fall.

Second, success requires the entire immigrant rights movement to mobilize its base. Not all House and Senate Democrats support legalization. I think Nancy Pelosi will make sure that the measure passes the House, but winning majority support in the Senate (and avoiding a filibuster) will require pressure campaigns targeting swing politicians.

Popularity: 14% [?]

By ADAM LIPTAK, The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors pursuing illegal immigrants have a favorite tool: a 2004 law that imposes a mandatory two-year prison sentence on some people who commit identity fraud. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide just how blunt that instrument is.

The question in the case, one that has divided the federal appeals courts, is whether workers who use false Social Security and alien registration numbers must know that they belong to a real person to be subject to a two-year sentence extension for “aggravated identity theft.” Put another way: Is it identity theft to pick nine random numbers out of the air and submit them as a Social Security number if that number turns out to belong to a real person?

In the case the court agreed to hear on Monday, Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican citizen, used a counterfeit Social Security card bearing his real name and a false Social Security number to get work at a steel plant in East Moline, Ill. Though he did not know it, the number belonged to a real person, a minor.

The 2004 law makes it a crime to use knowingly, “without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person” in connection with a variety of other offenses. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, affirmed Mr. Flores-Figueroa’s conviction, saying that the government needed to prove only a knowing use of false information and not that the defendant knew the fake number belonged to a real person.

Two federal appeals courts — in Richmond, Va., and Atlanta — have agreed with the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation. Three — in Boston, San Francisco and Washington — have disagreed. They said prosecutors must prove the defendant knew the fake number belonged to someone else.

Knowledge requirements often give rise to difficult issues in interpreting criminal statutes. In a 1985 case, quoting a treatise on criminal law, the Supreme Court summed up the problem this way: “It is not at all clear how far down the sentence the word ‘knowingly’ is intended to travel.”

Kevin R. Johnson, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Davis, and an authority on immigration law, said the Supreme Court’s decision in the case, Flores-Figueroa v. United States, No. 08-108, is likely to have a big impact.

“This is the tool that the federal government has been using in the recent raid cases,” Professor Johnson said. Many of the illegal immigrants swept up in a raid at a meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, for instance, were offered a choice between pleading guilty to a lesser charge, resulting in five months in prison, followed by deportation without appearing before an immigration judge, or the possibility of a two-year mandatory sentence under the 2004 law.

“It’s given the federal government a huge lever,” Professor Johnson said of the law.

Also on Monday, the court turned down an appeal in a capital case, Walker v. Georgia, No. 08-5385. In the process, it prompted a debate between Justices John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas.

Though Justice Stevens agreed that the court should not have heard the case, he wrote that it pointed to an important issue. State courts, he said, have an obligation to review capital cases to make sure that death sentences are not being imposed arbitrarily.

To do this, he said, courts must compare the murders that gave rise to death sentences with how similar murders were treated. Lawyers call this “proportionality review.”

Justice Stevens criticized the Georgia Supreme Court for conducting “an utterly perfunctory review” in the case of Artemus R. Walker, who had been convicted of luring a man from his home, killing him for money and then trying to break into the home, where the man’s wife and daughter were. The court, he said, had considered only other cases in which the death penalty had been imposed to satisfy itself that the death sentence was warranted.

Justice Stevens said United States Supreme Court precedents required a broader comparison, one that includes cases in which juries had imposed life sentences and cases in which prosecutors had not sought death in the first place.

Justice Thomas, who also voted to deny the appeal, said Justice Stevens had misread the court’s own cases. “Proportionality review is not constitutionally required in any form,” he wrote. Indeed, he said, the Georgia court had applied the United States Supreme Court’s decisions “faithfully and without error.”

Popularity: 23% [?]

Immigration, once a hot button issue for U.S. lawmakers, has now taken a back seat to the economy amidst the current global economic turmoil. But as the Presidential hopefuls arrive in a city of many immigrants for their final debate tonight, will the issue make it somehow into the line-up of questions?

The New York Immigration Coalition certainly hopes so, as does several immigrant journalists, whose views will be aired prior to the debate on CUNY TV. Among them is CWNN founder and immigration columnist for the Amsterdam News, Felicia Persaud, who is among the guests on `Independent Sources,` to be aired at 8:30 p.m tonight on Time Warner Channel 75.

Persaud along with Veena Merchant of India Abroad, and Marisa Cespedes of Televisa NY, a channel dedicated to Mexican immigrants, argue that the candidates are taking the votes of immigrants for granted and playing politics with the issue of immigration to soothe conservative voters.

The NYIC is also hoping the trend of ignoring the issue, which has occurred in the last two debates and at both the Republican and Democratic conventions, ends tonight, in the Big Apple, a haven for immigrants.

Advocates yesterday issued a call on both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, to end their silence on immigration and lay out their plans on how to fix the nation’s broken immigration system during the debate at Hofstra University tonight.

`We’ve had two Presidential debates and a vice presidential debate, and there hasn’t been a single word spoken about immigration reform. Immigrant communities throughout the nation are asking, `What’s your plan on immigration?“ said Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, an immigrant advocacy group based in New York City.

`Neither candidate will be able put forward a bold plan on immigration if they don’t build support for it during the campaign,` said Patrick Young, an attorney with Central American Refugee Center and board member of the Long Island Immigrant Alliance.  `We know that the American people want immigration reform that’s good for families, security, and the economy. Both candidates need to discuss their plans.`

Ana Maria Archila, co-director of Make the Road New York, a community group with offices in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, pointed to the growing number of immigrant voters who are registering to vote.

`Immigrant voters are growing in number and growing in power, and this year, they could make the difference in places where the margin of victory may be very small,` said Archila.

This year, the New York Immigration Coalition and its partners have registered 275,000 new immigrant voters in New York State, and are reaching out to more than 40,000 immigrant voters in a large-scale get-out-the-vote operation.

Advocates are urging for earned legalization for the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., a plan Senator Obama claims he supports. But both McCain and Obama are also promoting tighter border control, with McCain, once a major proponent of immigration reform, now saying he is for border enforcement first.

But while the candidates maintain their silence on the issue, raids continue across the country, forcing many hard working immigrants out even as others battle to survive amidst tough economic times.

Young immigrant voters are now eyeing the debates closely to see where the candidates stand on the issue close to their parents hearts. `This will be my first opportunity to vote in a Presidential election,` said Silvia Gonzales, a 20-year-old college student who immigrated from Peru ten years ago. `As an immigrant voter, this election is very important to me. It’s important to be able to have a say, because I know those who would want to vote, but cannot. I will be watching the debate closely to see who is best able to address immigrant concerns.`

Popularity: 17% [?]

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Staff Writer

In the six months since the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office began working closely with federal immigration authorities, 183 illegal immigrants have been identified, detained and put on track for deportation, a crackdown that has spooked the area’s Latino community and provoked accusations by rights groups of ethnic profiling.

Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, the first law enforcement official in Maryland to sign a cooperative agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said that since April, about 9 percent of all people arrested and taken to the county detention center have proven to be illegal immigrants. He called those results a success and said he has been flooded with calls from officials in other counties and states who want to follow suit.

“The word is out on the street: If you are in this country illegally and you plan to commit a crime, don’t do it in Frederick County,” Jenkins said last week. “We’re at the forefront of things. We are finding gang members and people with criminal histories. I’m very pleased, and I believe 90 percent of the people in this county support this.”

Jenkins’s opponents, however, said the crackdown has done little but panic the local immigrant population. Hispanic and civil rights groups in Frederick said that county officers have used questionable pretexts to stop cars driven by Latinos and check their identities and that most of those arrested have been working people whose only serious crime was to have entered the United States without permission.

“Is the sheriff’s mandate to catch illegal immigrants or to make sure the community is safe?” asked Guy Djoken, who heads the county’s NAACP chapter. “The problem of illegal immigration has to be addressed at a national level. We are all against crime, but we cannot stand by while the police are profiling and arresting people who have done nothing.”

Under the program, local law enforcement agencies can sign a formal agreement with ICE, which provides training for police and correctional officers in enforcing immigration laws. ICE agents are placed in local detention centers to question and process detained immigrants for deportation. Before April, the county detention center did not have the resources to verify the identities of detained immigrants.

“They keep saying this is about crime prevention, but we suspect it is really about ridding the community of undocumented immigrants,” said Kerry O’Brien, a CASA lawyer. “If they are locking up people and separating families for driving without a license, what is the point of all this?”

Jenkins insisted that his officers stop cars only if they suspect that the driver has committed a crime, such as driving while intoxicated or speeding, and that if an immigrant shows valid identification, the person is given a ticket and let go. Otherwise, the person is arrested and checked for immigration status.

“We are not pulling people over because they look Latino,” said the sheriff, a native of Frederick who has become a crusader against illegal immigration since he was elected in late 2006. “We need probable cause to make a traffic stop or an arrest, and we have gotten no complaints. If people are here legally, they have nothing to fear.”

In the city of Frederick, the county seat, Police Chief Kim C. Dine has a different approach. Although most recent arrests of illegal immigrants have been carried out by his officers, Dine said it is crucial to build trust with the immigrant community as a way to combat crime. “When the pot is stirred, it can lead to animosity and hate,” he said. “Over the long run, this can have a chilling effect on community relations with the government.”

Dennis Rodriguez, 23, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, was arrested in Frederick three months ago. He said he had just started his car when he saw police lights flashing. An officer approached and said he had been stopped for not wearing a seat belt and not having his infant son in a car seat. Unable to produce a driver’s license or ID, Rodriguez was handcuffed and taken away while his wife, a U.S. citizen, fumed in the passenger seat.

“I did not have any criminal record, but they took me prisoner,” said Rodriguez, a construction worker who was in custody for about three months and then unexpectedly released on personal recognizance three weeks ago. He is now home, awaiting a court hearing. “I am free, but we still don’t know if I will get deported and our family will be broken up,” he said.

The aggressive effort to remove people like Rodriguez from Frederick has left the area’s smaller established community of legal immigrants in an uncomfortable position. Although they sympathize with the newer, struggling Latinos in their midst, they also fear being unfairly cast in the same light.

Carlos Delgado, 36, a Salvadoran immigrant who co-owns a stylish restaurant in the city’s historic district, said he was troubled both by the recent surge of impoverished, sometimes illegal immigrants and by the law enforcement program to pursue them.

“I have always believed that wherever you go, you need to learn the rules and culture and language,” Delgado said. “Everyone deserves a second chance, but too many people want to do things the easy way, and some on the other side are going to extremes. The American dream is for everyone, but it comes with duties and responsibilities, too.”

Residents of Frederick, a diverse and fast-growing area that includes dairy farmers and high-tech professionals, rifle clubs and artsy boutiques, expressed a mixture of approval and unease about the program. Several complained that the influx of poor Latino immigrants, whose number has tripled to 15,000 since 1990, has led to unkempt, overcrowded neighborhoods and burdens on public schools.

Others said they viewed illegal immigration as a pressing national problem but did not see it as harming their area. Steve Coffin, 52, a medical assistant, said that the Hispanics in his neighborhood “seem like nice people and hard workers” but that illegal immigration must be stopped. “There has to be some equity,” he said. “If we give the illegals amnesty, it will just encourage others to come.”

In several Latino enclaves along Route 40, residents said this summer’s arrests have spawned a variety of related problems. Hispanic leaders said immigrants have reported being afraid to drive, have been threatened with eviction or robbed of earnings they were reluctant to put in the bank, or been afraid to call police after traffic accidents.

Also, rumors have been circulating that public schools may identify and expel children whose families are in the country illegally. The reports stem from the revival of a proposal to count the number of illegal-immigrant schoolchildren as a way to measure their education costs. That proposal was voted down by the county commissioners in June, but its original sponsors, backed by Jenkins, are seeking to have it introduced in the state legislature.

“We hear they want to do a census of illegal children. That is unfair, and it makes people very worried,” said Iris Sanabria, 35, who manages a Latino food store. “They don’t know if the police will stop them on the street or take their children out of school. A lot of Latinos came here because no one bothered them, but now that has changed.”

An especially contentious issue is whether police are engaging in ethnic profiling, such as by singling out Latino drivers for minor infractions and then asking for identification. Lawyers at CASA of Maryland, an advocacy group, said they had spoken with 49 illegal immigrants detained in Frederick since April and a majority reported being stopped by police for such offenses as not properly displaying their license plates.

Popularity: 16% [?]