by Moses Apsan

The comprehensive immigration reform may be stalled in Congress, but if the New York Senate has its way over 200,000 domestic workers, many illegal immigrants will be granted basic workplace guarantees that have eluded them for decades.

On June 3rd, the New York Senate passed a bill of rights for domestic workers that would require employers to offer New York's household workers paid holidays, overtime pay and sick days. Under the legislation, employers would have to give two weeks' notice before firing a nanny, a protection most American workers have enjoyed since Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed the  Fair Labor Standards Act in  1937.

If signed, the bill, which is now on Gov. David Paterson’s desk, could become the first law in the nation to provide protection for all domestic workers: legal and illegal residents.

Supporters applaud the bill as it will provide needed relief to thousands of women and men who help raise the children of wealthier New Yorkers, without any legal workplace rights more than the federal minimum wage.

Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, an organization of Caribbean, Latina, and African housekeepers and caregivers called the measure "a huge step forward in reversing the long history of exclusion that domestic workers face." Her organization has been lobbying for the legislation for six years.

"I don't need to see your green card status before I know if I'm going to treat you like a human being," Democratic state Sen. Eric Adams commented to the Associated Press. Adams, whose mother was a domestic worker, called the bill a "landmark piece of legislation."

Republicans opposed the bill unsuccessfully. Republican state Sen. Andrew Lanza voted against the bill. In a statement to the New York Times he said that he worried mothers would be discouraged to report cases of suspected abuse among nannies. "I just think that's wrong when it comes to a parent-child situation in a person's home," he said.

Other advocacy groups are trying to get similar legal protections in states where there are large numbers of nannies, such as Colorado and California.

Assemblyman Keith L.T. Wright of Harlem sponsored a similar measure in Albany last year; which stalled however, the Assembly bill did not require paid vacations, paid holidays or severance pay. It is expected that Gov. Paterson will reconcile the two versions. 

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

Comprehensive Immigration reform proponents are panicking over the Arizona fiasco are now worrying about the 1200 troops Obama is sending to protect the borders. The urgency of overhauling the nation's immigration system has been increased by the recent passage of SB 1070 in Arizona.  This “law” in essence sanctions racial profiling as normal police practice and allows persons to sue law enforcement if they feel that the police has failed to enforce the law.

Some 16 states   are considering legislation comparable to SB 1070. While polls have shown that  that a large number of people support this type of enforcement, many of those same polls show even greater interest for comprehensive immigration reform as the best solution.  To date most Republicans are disinclined to  support a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The largest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States The League of United Latin American Citizens,  opposes President Obama's order to send  1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border and is asking its membership to contest several amendments submitted this week to the supplemental war spending bill which will go beyond   the President's border escalation. Specifically the are asking members to contact their senators to oppose expected amendments by McCain (SA 4214), Kyl (SA 4228) and Cornyn

"As we have seen time and time again, efforts to overhaul our broken immigration system have taken a back seat to dramatic escalations of border enforcement including placing troops on the U.S. border to serve in a function for which they have not been trained," stated LULAC National President Rosa Rosales. "What is shocking is that this escalation is coming at a time when border violence and unauthorized border crossings have declined. If we want to solve the challenge of undocumented immigration, it is clear that enforcement alone will not work."

Meanwhile, the National Council of La Raza also expressed disappointment.  "While we appreciate that the president reiterated his commitment to immigration reform at a meeting with congressional Republicans, taking this step without any concurrent announcement on next steps or even a timeline for a comprehensive fix to our broken immigration system is both inadequate and deeply disappointing," said Janet Murguía, President and CEO of NCLR (National Council of La Raza). "As we have stated time and again, temporary fixes and patchwork initiatives won't solve the problem. Congress and the administration have it within their power to do what the American people need, to solve tough problems. They need to act now."

But in reality these organizations are overacting as  no such illegal immigrant hunting will happen under President Obama’s watch.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, "It's not about immigration."  He explained that what they are doing is  "fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods -- drugs, guns, people."

Crowly said the troops would essentially free up civilians engaged in support functions so that law enforcement personnel can be increased along the 2,000-mile-long (3,200 kilometer) border.  "We have explained the president's announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it," Crowley said.

Even Mexico does not object to U.S. plans to station troops along the border between the two nations as long as the soldiers do not arrest Mexicans trying to get into the United States, President Felipe Calderon said on Thursday.

Calderon opined that Washington had not in earnest addressed the necessity to stop what he called the trafficking of weapons and money into Mexico.  "They have a commitment to uphold the law on the American side and not to use the National Guard for immigration purposes or to deal with immigration issues," Calderon said in a news conference in Ottawa after talks with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  "If the National Guard helps toward a common purpose of having a safer border and if they can do this without detaining Mexican migrants, I think this (planned deployment) could bring about positive results," said Calderon.

The U.S. ambassador to Mexico said on Wednesday that the extra troops would be functioning in back offices serving intelligence officials in processing information, or be posted as lookouts between ports of entry.

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

The recent increase in raids by immigration officers and other law enforcement agents have augmented the urgency for comprehensive immigration reform. The almost daily occurrence of "sweeps" and "roundups" has made clear the underlying problem that America's current immigration system is severely broken.

Anybody living in areas were immigrants live knows that our nation's immigration policies have failed miserably. By not having a reasonable immigration policy in place, we have a system that practically begs people to break the law. As our own labor force grows older and better educated, our economy is looking for younger, less educated workers to replace the growing number of American workers who are pursing other opportunities. Instead of providing legal pathways for the workers our economy needs, and a modern system for ensuring that employers follow the law, current immigration policies our pouring millions of dollars into policies that are meant to send a political message not solve the problem.

Round-ups in small communities won't stop the influx of immigrants from entering our country illegally. And spending $50 billion for a 700 mile fence to nowhere is a colossal waste of time and money. The truth is that we need 21st century solutions to the problems we face at our border, and we need an immigration system that can respond to the economic realities of today.. Our economy relies heavily upon the contributions of these workers, many of whom are willing take jobs Americans are less interested in.

The raids clearly point out that our immigration system is broken, and that America needs comprehensive immigration reform now. We just cannot allow these raids to go on and disrupt not only our economy, but our local communities.

The increases in sweeps have struck fear in immigrant communities everywhere, forcing people back into the shadows and making them more vulnerable to crime and exploitation.

These raids have torn communities apart. It's not just the workers, but their families, the schools, other businesses and agencies in the community that have suffered.

It is true that immigration enforcement is required of federal agents. But ((piecemeal enforcement such as raids and other tactics that give the appearance of "cracking down" on immigration don't address the deep problems plaguing our immigration system)).

What America needs is an immigration policy that allows us to grow our economy with legal workers. A reasonable, orderly, tightly controlled worker program would go far in helping to eliminate the dangerous human smuggling and border crossings that currently plague our system, and would also alleviate such related crimes as the use of false documentation. In addition, such a policy would significantly diminish illegal immigration by creating a legal avenue by which people could enter the U.S.-something that barely exists today. In fact, current U.S. immigration law provides just 5,000 annual permanent visas for low-skilled "essential" workers, versus an estimated annual demand for 500,000 such workers.

The time is ripe for Congress and the Administration to step up and enact real reform legislation that benefits the economy, by providing a legal path to match willing employees with willing workers; that benefits national security, by allowing law enforcement to go after real criminals and leave honest working people alone; that benefits our country, by helping undocumented immigrants come out of the shadows, earn legal status, and continue to contribute to the economic and social wealth of the nation.

AILA Doc. No. 07070574.

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

New York - May 21, 2010 -- With just a few word, Rand Paul, turned the Republican Party upside down and has set them on the road of self destruction.  In an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Rand Paul, the winner of the Kentucky republican primary and a devout member of the Tea Party, threw fifty years of historical social achievement out the window.  With nary a facial expression, he stoically explained his belief that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unacceptable to him because it not only prevented discrimination in public places, but also in private places.  In other words, he made it quite clear, that he believes that a private business owner providing services to the public, such as a coffee shop, can discriminate against another race if he so chooses.  A sign saying that all blacks and Hispanics cannot sit at the counter should be permissible.

As if life has not been miserable enough for republicans following the 2008 massive republican losses, now they are forced to contend with members of their own ranks which have enunciated values that most believed no longer existed.  At the same time Tea Party members seem to be set on the destruction of the Republican Party, as we know them.

Since the democrat’s control of Congress, Republicans have set themselves on a course to make it impossible for democrats to move any legislation forward, even legislation, that is intended to better our country, such as health care and Wall Street reform. They have been dubbed “the party of no “ and now they have found their own inner voice of “no”, the tea party; a group of extremist that may very well be the catalyst that will tear apart the Republican Party and relegate it to secondary importance.

Now with Rand Paul’s senate primary win, the tea party fringe is painting the GOP into a party of nowhere to go. They are creating an atmosphere of angry, negative rigidity, and disrespect for non-whites, which is giving Obama, Harry Reid and Pelosi the space they need to avoid the huge midterm election setbacks, which had been predicted.  That is until Rand Paul’s unbelievable anti-civil rights statement.

If Republican leadership felt a little disconcerted about the "tea party" movement and it’s affect on the GOP this November, now it must be in sheer panic. Tea party activists have made it clear that they are ready, able and willing to agitate GOP conventions and Republican primary races.  They seem intent on jeopardizing short-term Republican gains in Congress in favor of a wholesale re-creation of the party.

The tea party is not a political party.  It has no single issue around which members assemble. There is no clear leader, except perhaps Sarah Palin and now Rand Paul, to push the organization's message, motivates followers and fundraises.  There are hundreds of tea party chapters and tens of thousands activists.  Together they cannot agree on the most fundamental tactical goal: whether to sway the current political system or take it apart.

Republican strategists had been hoping that in the November general election tea party groups would align with the GOP.  But now, most every republican is distancing him/ herself from Rand Paul; hoping that his stench does not stick to the Republican Party.  It is doubtful that the Republican Party will clean itself up, when more and more tea party candidates’ fight for seats, once held by party loyalist.

In a recent Quinnipiac University national survey found that having a Tea Party candidate on a general election congressional race ballot could negatively affect the Republican's chance of winning.

"The Tea Party could be a Republican dream – or a GOP nightmare. Members could be a boon to the GOP if they are energized to support Republican candidates. But if the Tea Party were to run its own candidates for office, any votes its candidate received would to a very great extent be coming from the GOP column," said Quinnipiac assistant director Peter A. Brown

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., declared Tuesday that those who associate themselves with the Tea Party movement could actually harm the Republican party.

“I think the Tea Party folks are pushing the Republican party to an even narrower base, which I think ultimately will not be something that the Independents believe is a good thing for our country,” said Hoyer. “I think the Republican party now has the narrowest base that I have ever seen for the Republican party.”

As it the handwriting was not on the wall, Sarah Palin’s presence today at the Qwest Arena to stump for Vaughn Ward, a Marine reservist vying with state Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Eagle, for the GOP nomination to take on Democratic incumbent Walt Minnick in Idaho’s 1st Congressional District will have protesters opposing her visit, The protest won’t be made up of anti-Palin Democrats; it will consist of anti-Palin Republicans angry over her involvement in local politics and her recent political endorsements.

Republicans may have finally met their match; Sarah Palin and Rand Paul’s Tea Party.

For Immediate Release

May 14, 2010 - Washington D.C. -The Immigration Policy Center has compiled research which shows that immigrants are an important part of Arizona's  economy, labor force, and tax base. Immigrants and their children are a growing economic and political force as consumers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs. With the nation working towards economic recovery, Latinos, Asians and immigrants will continue to play a key role in shaping the economic and political future in Arizona.

The Political and Economic Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in Arizona

Immigrants and their children are growing shares of Arizona’s population and electorate.

• The foreign-born share of Arizona’s population rose from 7.6% in 1990, to 12.8% in 2000, to 15.6% in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.  Arizona was home to 991,584 immigrants in 2007, which is more than the population of San Jose, California.

• 29.7% of immigrants (or 294,541 people) in Arizona were naturalized U.S. citizens in 2007—meaning that they are eligible to vote.

• 10.6% (or 252,108) of all registered voters in Arizona were “New Americans”—naturalized citizens or the U.S.-born children of immigrants who were raised during the current era of immigration from Latin America and Asia which began in 1965—according to an analysis of 2006 Census Bureau data by Rob Paral & Associates.

Nearly One-Third of Arizonans are Latino or Asian.

• The Latino share of Arizona’s population grew from 18.8% in 1990, to 25.3% in 2000, to 29.7% (or 1,882,610 people) in 2007.  The Asian share of the population grew from 1.4%  in 1990, to 1.8% in 2000, to 2.4% (or 152,130 people) in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

• Latinos comprised 11.7% (or 291,000) of Arizona voters in the 2008 elections, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 
• In Arizona, four-in-five (or 80% of) children in immigrant families were U.S. citizens in 2007, according to the Center for Social and Demographic Analysis at the University of Albany.

Immigrant, Latino, and Asian entrepreneurs and consumers add billions of dollars and tens-of-thousands of jobs to Arizona’s economy.

• The 2004 consumer spending power of immigrant-headed households in Arizona totaled $10.5 billion, according to a 2008 study by the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona.  This spending:

■  Supported approximately 66,500 full-time jobs.

■  Accounted for $10.2 billion in state economic output.

■  Generated tax revenues of roughly $776 million, consisting of $362 million in sales taxes, $328 million in business taxes, and $85 million in personal taxes.

• The 2009 purchasing power of Arizona’s Latinos totaled $30.9 billion—an increase of 465.3% since 1990.  Asian buying power totaled $5.7 billion—an increase of 657.9% since 1990, according to the Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Arizona.

• Arizona’s 35,104 Latino-owned businesses had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002, the last year for which data is available.  The state’s 10,215 Asian-owned businesses had sales and receipts of $2.4 billion and employed 24,405 people in 2002, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Business Owners.

Immigrants are integral to Arizona’s economy as workers.

• Immigrants comprised 19.3% of the state’s workforce in 2007 (or 586,663 workers), according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

• Unauthorized immigrants comprised 9.8% of the state’s workforce (or 300,000 workers) in 2008, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center.

• The total economic output attributable to Arizona’s immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs, according to a 2008 study by the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy.

• Immigrant workers contributed $2.4 billion in state tax revenue in 2004, consisting of $1 billion in sales taxes, $967 million in business taxes, and $367 million in personal taxes, according to the same study.

• If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group.

Immigrants are integral to Arizona’s economy as students.

• Arizona’s 10,787 foreign students contributed $228 million to the state’s economy in tuition, fees, and living expenses for the 2008-2009 academic year, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Naturalized citizens excel educationally.

• In Arizona, 24.5% of foreign-born persons who were naturalized U.S. citizens in 2007 had a bachelor’s or higher degree, compared to 13.1% of noncitizens.  At the same time, only 26.5% of naturalized citizens lacked a high-school diploma, compared to 50.7% of noncitizens.

•  The number of immigrants in Arizona with a college degree increased by 79.0% between 2000 and 2007, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute.

• In Arizona, 71.2% of all children between the ages of 5 and 17 in families that spoke a language other than English at home also spoke English “very well” as of 2007.

immigrationpolicy.org   via  Jornal.us

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

May 15, 2010 – New York -- Since the passage of the anti-immigrant Arizonan law (SB 1070) ,  comprehensive immigration reform has moved from the  back-burner to the front of today’s political issues.   Soon enough comes the November elections  and the candidates will be talking about immigration. As the campaign season rolls onward and the intensity of the rhetoric escalates, get the facts on five recurring myths, and clear the way for an honest immigration debate.

Myth #1: A deportation-only policy will fix our immigration problems. Deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants from the United States would cost an estimated $230 billion and result in a shortage of 2.5 million workers, according to a 2005 study from the Center for American Progress. And, in addition to damaging families and industries, a deportation-only policy does not address the fundamental dysfunction of our immigration system.

Myth #2: Immigrant workers suppress American wages. An overwhelming majority of economists agree that immigrants actually increase economic productivity and the wages of American workers. Additionally, the White House Council of Economic Advisers concluded in a 2007 report that roughly 90 percent of native born workers experience wage gains due to immigration, which total between $30 billion and $80 billion per year.

Myth #3: The United States spends billions on welfare for undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive welfare benefits – ever. Even legal, permanent residents are severely limited when it comes to the benefits they can receive. They must pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems for about 10 years before they are eligible to receive retirement benefits. Furthermore, the percentage of U.S.- born children of immigrants – documented and undocumented – who are eligible for federal assistance is declining.

Myth #4: Undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. A 2007 study by the University of California, Irvine, found that, among men ages 18- 39 (who comprise the majority of the U.S. prison population), the incarceration rate for native-born citizens was 3.5 percent, five times higher than the rate for immigrants in 2000.

Myth #5: Immigrants don’t assimilate into U.S. society. In states with a long tradition of immigration, such as California, it has been found that immigrants do learn English and climb the socio- economic ladder over time, with each successive generation closing the income and education gap between themselves and white, native-born Americans.

This article incorporated with permission an article published by AILA  (American Immigration Lawyers Association) AILA Doc. No. 08031241.

For more information on immigration policies, visit www.aila.org.

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

May 13, 2010 --  - In today’s immigration debate, many Americans repeatedly ask, “Why don’t immigrants come legally? Why don’t they get in line?” For the majority of the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., there is no line. Given restrictions on family-based immigration and the low number of employment-based green cards available, coupled with outdated immigration laws, the number of green cards available is extremely low. Those fortunate enough to achieve legal status face years of waiting before they naturalize because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is severely backlogged due to the increase in applications and the lack of personnel to process them. There are four routes by which an immigrant can enter legally into the U.S.:

- Employment: Employers can petition for qualified workers in certain professions if they cannot find a qualified American. These immigrants must prove a high level of education and experience. The number of green cards for low-skilled workers is limited to 5,000 annually for the entire U.S., a grossly insufficient number given that the demand for these workers has surged while the supply of U.S. workers has decreased as more Americans become better educated.

- Family: U.S. citizen family members can petition for green cards for spouses, parents, children and siblings. Legal permanent residents can only petition for their spouses and unmarried children, provided they meet certain other requirements. There are limited green cards available within most family categories, but the high demand has created a major backlog.

- Refugees: Immigrants who can prove a “well-founded fear of persecution” may be granted refugee status or asylum. They must prove that any harm done to them is based on “race, religion, membership in a social group, political opinion, or national origin.” Even if they satisfy this requirement, they are subject to quotas. Immigrants cannot qualify for refugee status because of severe economic conditions in their home country.

- Lottery: The annual diversity visa program makes 55,000 green cards available to persons from countries with low immigration rates to the U.S., so people from nations like Mexico, Brazil, China and India are excluded. Applicants must have a high-school education and two years of work experience. The U.S. immigration system is considered outdated and is overwhelmed by green card applicants, making it virtually impossible to “come legally.” As a nation of immigrants, the U.S. must transform the broken immigration system into one that works for everyone.

It becomes readily apparent; that “ getting in line” will never resolve the dilemma our country faces with 12 million illegal immigrants living within our borders.  A great percentage of them have been here for many years and have developed family, businesses and other social ties.  There is only one solution to the “immigration problem”; comprehensive immigration reform.

This article incorporated with permission an article published by AILA  (American Immigration Lawyers Association) AILA Doc. No. 08031243.

For more information on immigration policies, visit www.aila.org.

By Moses Apsan

Newark -May 12, 2010--Incumbent councilman Augusto Amador of the East Ward of Newark won his fourth term re-election in a landslide victory against challenger Peter Pantoliano, Sixty Five (65%) percent of the total 4161 votes went to Amador.

Mr. Pantoliano, has been  a prominent leader and respected businessman  in the Ironbound community for years.  He is currently serving as a representative for the 19th district in the city of Newark. An optometrist by profession he started his first optometry office on Ferry Street nearly 30 years ago, and moved to the East Ward about 10 years ago.

Using his own money to support his candidacy, Pantoliano effectively put together a coalition of Brazilians, Portuguese and African- Americans and local  business people.

All this effort, however, would prove  futile, as Amador, with 12 years experience as councilman and significant roots in the community,  ran as member of the Mayor  Booker Team, who was also re-elected for a second term,

((Augusto Amador has dedicated a major portion of his life to public service)). In 1981 he was appointed Newark Parking Commission. In 1993 Amador successfully ran for the Newark Board of Education and became the first Portuguese-American from Newark to win this elected position. Soon, the mayor recognized Amador’s exemplary service to the people of Newark and appointed him Deputy Mayor in 1997.

In 1998, Amador was elected as councilman in the Municipal Council for the East Ward of the City of Newark. He would successfully defend his title every four years.

In the community Amador is very well respected and has received many honors and accolades. He is the recipient of both the PSE&G Spirit of Leading Award and Challenge of Caring Award. He is on the Advisory Board of the Ironbound’s Boys’ and Girl’s Club, a member of Ironbound Citizens United, Congress of Portuguese-American Educators, and member of the Portuguese-American Congress. Among the many other social and religious organizations, he is president of LISA, a local soccer league that provides recreation for over 450 young people.

For the 11th consecutive year, Councilman Amador has coordinated "Best of the Best" awards. 270 students between 5 and 18 years old are selected for this honor by their principals and teachers who qualify the students on their academic accomplishments.

"This is one of the highlights for me each year," said Councilman Amador. "To be able to not only recognize the outstanding achievements of these students, but to also see the pride and happiness on their faces as they receive their awards is so gratifying to me. I always look forward to this event with great pride and admiration for the students and their families."

Over the years, Amador has become an icon  to the resident of the east ward.  Some consider him “a member of the family.”

The East Ward of Newark is populated substantially with Brazilian and Portuguese residents.  Their primary language is Portuguese and unlike Pantoliano, Amador is a native Portuguese speaker. Amador born in 1949, in a small town called Murtosa, Portugal began his elementary education in that small town and graduated from high school Colégio de São João de Brito. In 1966, he immigrated to the United States and in Newark continued his higher education at Rutgers University.

Pantoliano had the deck stacked against him and his fight for the councilman's position was an upward hill battle from it’s inception.  Even before the voting began, Amador, according to observers, had already garnered 50% of the votes and when you consider the roots he has established in the community, his unfailing concern for his  constituents’ welfare, Amador was going to win. 

Now Augusto Amador will serve his fourth term as Councilman for the East Ward and Newark and its residents will reap the benefit.

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

It was just a few week ago when on Air Force One Obama went from being a lighthouse in the night for the cause of comprehensive immigration reform to practically destroying the tenuous hopes of millions of people when he declared that congress did not have “the appetite” for immigration reform this year. His statement spread like wildfire throughout the pro-reform community.  Thinking quickly on his feet Obama, took the opportunity of the annual White House "Cinco de Mayo" celebration to say, although sheepishly, that he was still hopefulness that Congress would "start work" on immigration this year. Whatever did he mean by that statement?

The November elections are around the corner and many Democrats need Latinos and other ethnic based groups to come out in large numbers if they hope to triumph against Republicans this November and safeguard democratic control of Congress.

According to political pundits, in approximately 35 congressional election contests in the West, a solid Latin voter turn out could well make the difference between winning and loosing. In Florida, everything is up for grabs, as many foresee Marco Rubio, a Latin GOP candidate, as the possible winner of a three-way Senate race in which former GOP Gov. Charlie Crist runs as an independent.

The GOP is also in a quandary this November, How can they pacify their base, which is composed of primarily anti-immigrant voters and at the same time not cause potential long-term damage to the party by looking as if they are hostile to the Latin community?  It is a known fact that the Arizona GOP was to blame for the SB 1070, the Arizona anti immigrant law. As most Republicans have declined to criticize the law, they will not foster new Hispanic allies in the territories they lost in 2008.

Congress will break on May 28, and upon it’s returns, the candidates will focus on the November election, making the possibility of passage of a comprehensive immigration reform unlikely until perhaps, next year.

What the president does not seem to get, is that the fault for Arizona’s law and the growing dissent among his Latin constituents is directly related to the manner in which the federal government has been handling the illegal immigrant population for the past many years.

It was the federal government, not Arizona that took the lead in encouraging the participation of local police in the enforcement of the immigration laws.

Looking back at the government’s involvement with state participation in immigration enforcement, we come to a 2006 CIS publication entitled "Attrition through Enforcement: A Cost-Effective Strategy to Shrink the Illegal Population."

In this report, CIS analyst Jessica Vaughn delineates a six-part plan to methodically reduce the number of illegal immigrants inhabiting the U.S.  Vaugh goes beyond the government’s plan, such as the 2005 Secure Border Initiative and with Secretary Janet Napolitano's commitment to "border security" by arguing that even with greater border security, there would still be an "illegal alien" population of over 11.5 million.

As mass deportation would be both politicall suicide and prohibitively expensive she described a more "realistic" and less costly method to intensify immigration enforcement efforts.

In her “strategy” the government would make life for the illegal immigrant so miserable  that they in essence would self deport. Some of her suggestions are as follows:

•    A strategy of attrition through enforcement could reduce the illegal population by as many as 1.5 million illegal aliens each year. Currently, only about 183,000 illegal aliens per year depart without the intervention of immigration officials, according to DHS statistics.
•    Requiring employers to verify the status of workers could deny jobs to about three million illegal workers in three years, affecting at least one-third of the illegal population
•    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) knows the name, address, and place of employment of millions of illegal aliens, and issues hundreds of millions of dollars in tax refunds and tax credits to illegal aliens. Changing the laws to provide for information sharing would help boost immigration law enforcement at minimal cost.
•    Less than 10 percent of ICE investigative resources are devoted to fraud, workplace violations, and overstayers. DHS could double non-criminal removals at a cost of roughly $120 million per year, balancing a "broken windows" approach with its current triage approach to interior enforcement.
•    Laws enacted by the state governments of Florida and New York to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses have induced more illegal aliens to leave than have federal enforcement efforts against certain illegal populations in those states, and have come at virtually no cost to the federal government.

It seems that that is what the federal government has been doing; making the lives of illegal immigrants so miserable that they hopefully will, on their own, leave America and their U.S. family behind. Interesting, but it will never happen.

President Obama, whom we have all come to believe is pro immigration reform, has been outwardly placating the immigrant masses while simultaneously establishing his administration as zealous advocates of increased federal-local collaboration in immigration enforcement. Among the various laws that have increased enforcement activity it has encouraged the infamous 287(g) program, which grants local police and sheriff deputies the right to enforce the immigration laws.  287 (g) is the precursor of the current Arizona law and has been widely criticized as providing a weapon for the anti-immigrant faction of our country’s police force.

Obama slammed Arizona’s new “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill” as “misguided" yet, even before the passage of SB1070, Arizona’s Maricopa County sheriff "Joe" Arpaio who promotes himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff" became well know as an abuser of the privilege granted by 287(g).

Unless Obama and his administration take an affirmative and active participation in moving towards compressive immigration reform, he will eventually loose the significant support of the Hispanic community. Without them he probably would never have been president today and may not be re-elected in 2012.

Arizona does not bear the full responsibility for the damage that follows the enactment of SB 1070.  It shares this notorious fame with the federal government,

Whatever happened to the Obama we met during the presidential debate?  He seemed sincere when he said:

 “If we are going to solve the challenges we face, you need a President who will pursue genuine solutions day in and day out. And that is my commitment to you. We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That is a priority I will pursue from my very first day. “

Is it all just political maneuvering?

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

May 8, 2010 – New York -- Not to be fooled by rumors and articles written without factual foundations and an undeniable agenda, an overwhelming amount of Americans in many polls for many years have made is clear that they want comprehensive immigration reform this year.

In 2010 as in prior years, voters want the President and Congress to move forward with a solution that legalizes the undocumented workforce, obliges them to pay taxes, protects our borders and restores the rule of law.

Following is an outline of recent opinion polls on immigration reform.

A 2010 Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll

Do you favor or oppose Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform?

Favor 78 %   and Oppose 15 % Question: One version of immigration reform that people have discussed would do the following if passed into law; it would secure the border, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, require illegal immigrants to register for legal immigration status, pay back taxes, and learn English in order to be eligible for U.S. citizenship. Do you favor or oppose Congress passing this version of immigration reform?  

December 2009 – America’s Voice National Poll (Benenson Strategy Group)

Benenson Strategy Group conducted a national poll from December 19 to 21, 2009 for America’s Voice, following up on questions asked in May 2009.

The December poll surveyed 800 likely voters and had a Sixty-Five Percent of Respondents Supported Congressional Action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2010. According to the December poll, 65% of voters prefer for Congress to take up the immigration issue this year rather than wait until later. Sixty-six percent of respondents supported comprehensive immigration reform before even hearing details of the plan.

Support for reform continued to cut across party lines, with 69% of Democrats, 67% of independents, and 62% of Republicans supporting comprehensive reform. When given details, support for comprehensive reform climbed. Requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government and meet certain conditions, including working, paying taxes and learning English in order to apply for citizenship, was supported by 87% in December. These findings show continued support for reform following similar polls in November 2008 and May 2009, even during the country’s harshest economic crisis in decades. [America’s Voice, Benenson Strategy Group Poll, December 2009]

A Majority of Voters Said the Issue Was Crucial Due to the Poor Economy and Preferred that Undocumented Immigrants Become Legal Taxpayers over a Deportation Approach. The sense of urgency has been bolstered by the poor economy. Fifty-five percent of respondents said that the poor economy makes it more crucial that Congress address immigration reform, as opposed to the 42% who believed it was not the right time. An overwhelming margin of voters, 67% to 28%, prefer that undocumented immigrants take steps to become legal taxpayers over an option to deport them because they are “taking jobs.” [America’s Voice, Benenson Strategy Group Poll, December 2009]

Sixty-Six Percent Support Requiring Undocumented Immigrants to Register and Work Towards Citizenship. When given details about what is included in comprehensive immigration reform, including access to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who register and meet state criteria, support remains strong and consistent. Roughly the same percentage of voters in May and December 2009, 66%, support a program that requires undocumented immigrants to register, meet certain requirements, and become legal taxpayers on their way to becoming full U.S. citizens. Only 22% of voters believed that those immigrants should be required to leave and 11% believe that they should be allowed to stay temporarily. [America’s Voice, Benenson Strategy Group Polls, December and May 2009]

On behalf of America’s Voice and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Benenson Strategy Group conducted a poll of three battleground Congressional districts between May 27 and June 1, 2009.

The poll surveyed 500 likely voters each in Idaho’s 1st Congressional District,nAlabama’s 2nd Congressional District, and California’s 3rd Congressional District. The margin of error was ± 4.38% in each district.

((A majority of voters in these districts supported comprehensive immigration reform and candidates who support reform)). Nearly two-thirds of respondents in these districts supported comprehensive immigration reform when asked generically (65% in ID-1, 65% in AL-2 and 67% in CA-3), while support climbed to nearly 90% after the details of comprehensive reform were explained (88% in ID-1, 87% in AL-2, and 83% in CA-3). Respondents were also more likely to support Congressional candidates who championed comprehensive reform rather than those who opposed it (85% in ID-1, 83% in AL-2, 79% in CA-3). [America’s Voice, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Benenson Strategy Group Poll, June2009]  

A majority of voters in these districts supported a pathway to citizenship over deportation. Two thirds of respondents preferred a comprehensive approach to the status quo of continued enforcement and forced departure (65% over 34% in ID-1, 63% over 35% in AL-2, 63% over 34% in CA-3). A vast majority chose legalization of undocumented workers that included a pathway to citizenship, over deportation or temporary status (65% in ID-1, 62% in AL-2, 63% in CA-3). [America’s Voice, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Benenson Strategy Group Poll, June 2009]­­

These voters believed that comprehensive reform is good for taxpayers and the economyA majority of voters believed that comprehensive reform would be helpful and fair to taxpayers by making the undocumented into legal taxpayers. By a 3 to 1 margin, voters would rather turn undocumented immigrants into legal taxpayers than force th­em to leave because they are taking jobs (68% to 28% in ID-1, 65% to 31 in AL-2, 73% to 23%). [America’s Voice, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Benenson Strategy Group Poll, June 2009] ­

A majority of voters in these districts also believed the time for enacting comprehensive immigration reform is now. Seven in ten of these voters want Congress to act now on immigration. They said that the recession makes it more important that we address immigration and rejected the argument that the President and Congress should focus solely on other issues. [America’s Voice, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Benenson Strategy Group Poll, June 2009]

As it turns out, the racist anti-immigrant Arizonan law that was written and proposed by white supremacist may have done it’s duty by making it quite clear to America that unless comprehensive immigration reform is passed, this country may eventually fall into the arms of fascist groups that are growing in power even as I write.