by Moses Apsan, Esq.
In the midst of endless calamities, oils spills, economic doom and unemployment, when all hope seems to have been dissipated, President Obama today, will make a renewed effort for comprehensive immigration reform and keep the promise he made as a candidate to make it a priority in his first year. Perhaps it’s just in time, when following November’s election, there will be a lame duck session where anything is possible.
This Tuesday Obama met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room of the White House and talked about an approach for passing a bill that had seemed lifeless all this year. Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL-4), the chief proponent of comprehensive immigration reform was an integral part of that meeting.
Today, the president will explain to the American public why he believes a comprehensive approach is the only way to fix a broken immigration system. In a speech at American University in Washington DC , he expects to make the case for creating a path to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who live in the U.S. while simultaneously strengthening border enforcement.
Obama has stated that a comprehensive solution implies "accountability for everybody.” This would include the U.S. government in securing the border, to enforcing “employer sanctions” for knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring that to those who enter the country illegally admit their actions before they can begin the long process of becoming citizens.
White House officials said that recent developments on immigration influenced his decision to give a speech, most particularly Arizona's endorsement of a tough anti-immigrant law and the numerous and growing protests across the American landscape.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, will be among invited guests. He has been a supporter in the fight to revise federal immigration statutes. Bloomberg will also be launching a coalition of mayors and business leaders to advocate for a revamp of the nation's immigration policy, including legalizing undocumented immigrants and less tolerance to businesses that hire illegal workers.
"Our immigration policy is national suicide," Mr. Bloomberg said at a forum in Midtown Manhattan Wednesday. "We educate the best and the brightest and then we don't give them a green card.”
The mayor has been increasingly verbal in what he has repeatedly describes as a broken immigration system. “Our immigration policy is national suicide,” he said last week when he announced the formation of the coalition of pro immigration mayors and business leaders.
No matter how you look at it, the outlooks for getting a bill to Obama’s desk before lawmakers start their November campaign looks bleak. The political reality is that Obama needs Republican support in order to get the bill moving in the right direction. His most notable obstacle is the Senate, where Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP filibuster strategy.
"I've got to have some support from Republicans," he said at a May news conference during a visit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
Obama approved a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., which would require illegal immigrants, among other things to pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to ultimately obtain legal status. But Graham has since has backed away and no other Senate Republican has succeeded him. Republican support has been fleeting.
In the House, a parallel bill championed by Rep. Gutierrez called the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act (CIR-ASAP/H.R. 4321) is ready for prime time. The bill, is sponsored by Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and co-sponsored primarily by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Most Republicans insist on measures to tighten security along the U.S.-Mexico border before they consider comprehensive immigration reform, but Obama is in disagreement with that approach. Since he took office, his administration worked diligently to improve border security, including increasing personnel and equipment along the border.
Obama recently directed 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to increase security and requested Congress for an additional $600 million to use in support personnel and improve technology.
Time seems to be ripe for a major overhaul in the U.S. immigration laws. Today millions of people including illegal immigrants, legal residents, American citizens and U.S. businesses are being held in a type of limbo because of a law that is so convoluted and draconian that it cries out to be changed.
by Moses Apsan
Just two weeks ago President Obama in a meeting with Gov. Brewer promised her that he would get back to her (or his staff would) within 2 weeks of their White House Oval Office meeting to discuss Arizona's immigration law SB 1070.
To Brewers surprise and consternation , Obama responded through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton appeared in an Ecuadorian TV show and said: "He [Obama] thinks the federal government should be determining immigration policy and the Justice Department under his direction will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.” She further went on to say, that what is more important is President Obama's commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform. That is what is needed.
Governor Jan Brewer quickly reacted when she heard about the potential lawsuit by saying: "This is no way to treat the people of Arizona. To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the Secretary of State is just outrageous. If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement. The least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation," said Brewer.
Brewer also threatened the administration: “It's outrageous! It's just -- it's just bizarre! It's just bizarre! But I will tell you... we are not going to back away from this issue. We are going to pursue it. We're going to be very aggressive. And we'll meet them in court! We will meet them in court. And we will win. I truly believe that we will win. And the population of America, again, agrees with Arizona..
Gov. Brewer's response is endemic of the problem our country is facing today. With a growing number of right wing extremist, including white supremacist and neo-Nazi’s, many arising out of Arizona coupled with the Tea Baggers support by Fox news and other right wing entities, America is becoming a nation on the verge division.
In almost a Déjà vu of the civil war, when brothers were fighting against brothers; one side fighting for civil justice and freedom from slavery while the other side wanting to continue their laconic life pampered by their slaves who lived in misery.
The Confederate States seceded from the Union because they could not put up with a powerful central government controlling the actions of independent states. A similar problem is growing in the U.S. Right wing fanatics, touting guns and hinting at overthrow of the government. Tea Baggers, organized by republican media moguls, and libertarians wanting to strip away civil rights that were so hard to obtain.
Dissatisfaction is familiar to all democracies. But in 2010 we are are seeing is a hostility and aggression way beyond a highly-spirited debate. Three dangerous movements foreshadows critical perils for immigrants and America itself: the rapid rise of the militia hate groups, the emergence of a fanatical political group called “The Tea Party working together with Libertarians,” and a call to action fueled by Talk Radio hosts such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh provides ample support for white supremacist and anti-immigrant hate groups such as the Immigration Reform Law Institute which is the legal arm of the chameleon organization named Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. As Rachel Maddow revealed in a recent program, the founder of FAIR is a well-known racist. The seed money he used to start FAIR came from an infamous Eugenics (the same thing the Nazi’s did outfit.
FAIR is just one piece of a vast and powerful anti-immigrant organization, created over the last 30 years, and orchestrated by John Tanton. His organization has been able to insinuate itself into many of the social and political debates of our time.
Tanton developed many different entities so that it appears that there are numerous advocates for what he sees and the ideal society.
Another of his group, the Center for Immigration Studies, acts as so-called "think tank" to the anti-immigrant movement. Some other entities he is invalid with are the Coalition for the Future American Worker, Progressives for Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, Immigration Reform Law Institute, United to Secure America Coalition. These are just a few of his many groups that work in unison trying in earnest to modify America's thinking on immigration.
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League have connected these groups with racists, white supremacists, and political extremists.
((Anti-immigrant groups, according to Heidi Beirich of the SPLC, have “nearly doubled” in 2009)). The “nativists,” as they are called, are aligning with the “The Patriot Coalition,” which is an “anti-government outfit battling ‘globalism,’ ‘socialism,’ and the loss of ‘National Identity and Culture.’”
Hate groups are not new a new development. Since the 1880’s the KKK has been considered a founding father of the modern hate groups and they still exist. What has changed lately is the speed in which these hate groups have grown since Barack Obama took office. Today there is a coordinated and concerted effort with various people such as Sara Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rand Paul vying for supreme leadership of this anti-government movement.
But no matter how hard they try; no matter what lies they make up, they will never succeed in keeping America lily white and christian as projected population trends indicates that whites are expected to become a minority in the United States by 2050. This fact is an unacceptable reality to these anti-American radical right-wingers, and it has sent them into sheer panic.
by Moses Apsan
The Arizona Congress is at it again. In what appears as a blunderbuss approach to anti-immigrant legislation, they have now decided to target U.S. citizen children; which they call “anchor babies.” These children have at times been useful weapons in keeping their illegal parents from being deported.
If the Arizona Republicans get their way, any child born in the U.S, to illegal immigrants would not automatically be an American Citizen. In fact they would most probably be deportable.
If you had to guess, which State Senator proposed this bill, you would be 100% correct when you name Senator Russell Pierce as the prime proponent of the bill. Remember him; the infamous force behind Senate Bill 1070, the “papers please” law, which obliges police officers to ask about someone’s immigration status during any traffic stop or with reasonable suspicion that the person is not a legal alien.
While SB1070 requires adult immigrants to have documentation of legal residency, the “anchor baby” bill will prevent the next generation from ever being able to become legal in the U.S. According to a Time.com article the plan is to make the process of obtaining citizenship so difficult that illegal immigrants will take “the anchor” and leave.
((Arizona will have a slippery slope to conquer if this law is passed as it is diametrically opposed to our Constitution)). The 14th Amendment of the Constitution grants citizenship to ""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The purpose of the amendment was to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final clarification of the Dred Scott case. In essence it reinforced the federal government's jurisdiction over citizenship.
Pierce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants….” This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce tells reporters that he is aware of the constitutional issues raised by the bill and promises to “…write it right." He points to prevalent sympathy for the law. Some 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen believe children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. should not automatically be considered an American Citizen. Interesting that 76% of Republicans believe the same.
Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican would most like support this bill. Recently she said in an interview with ABC Tucson "[i]t is illegal to trespass into our country….The bill won't tear families apart. They can take their children back with them."
Critics of the bill that Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce’s bill would fly in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. Many opposing the bill believe that it would lead to more prejudice and segregate the community. Phoenix resident and U.S. citizen Susan Vie is heading a citizen group that’s supporting an opposing ballot initiative. An Argentinean who moved to the U.S. more than 30 years ago she has taken a stance against what many consider one of the most draconian immigration law in our country’s history. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create — and it's creating it now — a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's proposal would forbid SB1070 from taking effect and place a three-year moratorium on all related laws, including the anchor-baby bill, with the ultimate goal f comprehensive immigration reform.She and the members of her group is racing to accumulate 153,365 signatures by July 1 to be eligible for the Nov. 2 general election.
It is expect the anchor-baby bill, if made into law, will eventually to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court and struck down, before it can go into effect.
Prior attempts to get around the citizenship provisions in the amendment, going back to the late 19th century challenging the citizenship of the children of Chinese immigrants, have been unsuccessful.
by Moses Apsan, Esq.
New York - June 13, 2010 - Can an Executive Order provide immediate relief to certain Draconian provisions of the current immigration laws even while waiting for a comprehensive immigration reform? Let's take a close look at an Executive Order and it's power.
This January, President Barrack Obama addressing action taken by the Senate, stated that he would proceed with plans to create a commission to reduce the federal budget deficit. “Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”
On 3 July 2002, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,269. The EO expedited the naturalization of soldiers in active duty by making them immediately eligible to apply for naturalization. For those soldiers were recently married it also extended their spouses conditional status (Green Card) for one year, and in six-month increments thereafter, until their spouses return from abroad.
What is an Executive Order?
"EO’s have been used to manipulate federal agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent"
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Generally EO’s are used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of Congressional established laws or policies. However, there have been many instances that EO’s have been used to manipulate federal agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Executive Orders are very powerful. They do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II goes further and directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
A Brief History and Examples
Since the time of George Washington, Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive s. Most of these Orders were not published and were only seen by the specific agencies involved. It was not until the early 1900s, that the State Department began numbering them. Now there are over 13,000 numbered orders. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible at Executive Order Disposition Table.
Through out history, these EO’s have been used to make important policy changes. In 1942, during WWII, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an EO that provided transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations to children displaced by the Nazi war machine. In 1948, President Harry S Truman signed an Executive Order 998, which eliminated Segregation and racial discrimination in the military services and in federal employment. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office. In 2003, our current president, George Bush signed an executive order that delayed release of millions of government documents making it easier for presidents and their administrations to keep historical records secret.
It is very clear, from history, that the President of the United States may issue executive orders concerning immigration. Even local executives can issue an EO.
On September 17th, 2003 Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed an executive order prohibiting New York City agencies-including the New York City Police Department [NYPD]-from inquiring into the immigration status of individuals and from sharing such information with federal agencies. This EO replaced a previous law that gave the NYPD the right to ask any person, including witnesses and victims of crimes, their immigration status, and it also had the right to divulge the information to the federal authorities.
The process can be quick and it does not need any involvement with Congress or the Judicial branch of the government. You will not see a public debate before the signing of an EO. When the President signs an Executive order, it is sent to the Office of the Federal Register. Executive orders and other presidential documents first appear in the Federal Register. Executive orders of the current President are also posted on the White House web page.
The Executive Order Controversy
Executive Order enables the President to create a law even law, without the consent of Congress. This power appears to runs against the basic constitutional concept of “separation of Powers.” However, historically, Congress has given the President considerable space to implement and administer federal law and programs. There are times that, Congress is unable to agree on how to implement a law or program and leaves the decisions with the agencies involved. These agencies are controlled by the President. Whenever Congress does not make itself clear on how a law is to be implemented, it leaves an opening for the President to take over, in the form of an Executive Order.
What Congress Can Do If It Disagrees
If Congress is not pleased with what the President is doing it has the option to re-write the law and detail how the Executive branch must act. However, the President may veto the bill, leaving Congress only the option of a 2/3 majority vote to override an Executive Order.
It is not usual for Congress to attack an EOs dealing with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution.
Executive Orders can be challenged in court. These challenges to the EO are that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers.
The fundamental criticism of Executive Orders is that a President could make major policy decisions without any congressional by exercising his authority to create EO.
"(enough relief would be given to the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country until a Comprehensive Immigration bill is finally made into law"
((If Congress is unable or unwilling to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform this year, the President could issue sections of its content as a series of Executive Orders)). Thereby providing immediate relief form the sections of the immigration laws that are creating the most problems. The Senate conservatives would find difficulty in blocking these orders as 2/3 majority would have to vote against it; which is unlikely. The Executive Orders could be challenged in court, but that would take a very long time, and in the meantime, (enough relief would be given to the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country until a Comprehensive Immigration bill is finally made into law).
by Moses Apsan, Esq.
New York - June 7, 2010 -- When Senator Harry Reid (D_Nevada) changed his focus to energy reform instead of immigration, he created a specter of doom for comprehensive immigration reform in 2010. This news heralds a major disappointment for millions of people who have been pursuing immigration reform for 2010. Reid, still not giving up on immigration reform, has reportedly changed his strategy, and instead of attempting to have a comprehensive reform this year, he is focusing on a number of proposals that have been floating around which may be easier for him to garner bipartisan support. Although there are many different proposals regarding immigration reform, none of them cry out more for immediate resolution than the Dream Act.
More than three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year and each year 70,000 of these graduates are undocumented students with basically no hope of pursuing their dreams to be a legitimate part of American society. These young people unfortunately, begin their life "behind the 8 ball." They do not get the opportunities most kids have as an inherent part of being a U.S. citizen. Attached to them is the notorious title of, an illegal immigrant. Most of these youths have lived in the United States for a majority of their lives and, now upon graduation from High School, they find that they cannot go to college, get decent work or even drive a car. They live in fear that their status will be discovered and they will be deported. In essence they are relegated to a sub-class, similar to the untouchables in India's past. Those living in Arizona must, by now be in a panic state.
Illegal students can only obtain permanent status through their parents; there is no independent method to accomplish legal residency for them. And if the parents are illegal, they have absolutely no way to "stand in line" and wait for legal documentation, as repeatedly and incorrectly suggested by those anti-immigration reform proponents . If they return to their country of birth, it would not guarantee a path to documented status. On the contrary, they probably could never be able to legally return.
Even so, these children are innocent and not to blame. They came along with their parents, most of them between 2 to 10 years of age. ((These children studied in the U.S., made American friends, and evolved into Americans)). Some did not even have the knowledge about their legal status until they attempted to enter college and found out the hard way that they are illegal and have no future in the U.S.
Brought you by Vejatv.com
To the rescue came the Dream Act. A bill, that could resolve their dilemma, but has languished in Congress for nearly a decade, despite lobbying by the students, churches and immigrant advocacy organizations. The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL] that can solve this injustice in our society. Under the though provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youths would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service. Conditional Permanent Residency is similar to Legal Permanent Residency in that you would be able to live legally in the U.S. , go to college, work, drive and travel. But it lasts for only 6 years. Students would be eligible for student loans and federal work-study programs, but will not be eligible for federal financial aid such as Pell Grants.
Who would Qualify?
The following is a list of specific requirements one would need in order to qualify for the current version of the DREAM Act.
• Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16.
• Have proof of residence in the United States for a least five consecutive years since their date of arrival,
compliance with Selective Service.
• Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment.
• Have graduated from an American high school or obtained a GED.
• Be of "good moral character"
How it works.
• "conditional" status would be granted during the first six years.
• the youth would be required to graduate from a two-year community college or complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree, or serve two years in the U.S. military.
• After the six year period, an youth who met at least one of these three conditions would be eligible to apply for legal permanent resident status.
• During this six year conditional period, these students would not be eligible for federal higher education grants such as Pell grants, but they would be able to apply for student loans and work study.
• If the youth did not meet the educational or military service requirement within the six year time period, their temporary residence would be revoked and they would be removable (deportable).
• They must not commit any crimes other than those considered non-drug related misdemeanors. Being convicted of a felony or drug-related infraction would automatically remove the six year temporary residence status and they would be subject to deportation.
• If the youth met all of these requirements at the completion of the 6-year conditional period, they would be granted permanent residency, and eventually will be eligible for U.S. citizenship.
There comes a time that we, as American, must do what is just and right under God and our Constitution. If Comprehensive Immigration Reform cannot be approved quickly, then we must become practical and take smaller steps to accomplish our ultimate goal of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. There are many smaller bills that could help ito stop the hemorrhaging felt by our immigrant society; their friends and famiies. Not only should the Dream Act be passed quickly, but so to should AgJobs, which is intended for legalization of farm workers, something desperately needed by our country, as well as some form of national ID card that would permit undocumented person to obtain a drivers licenses, which is patenely needed for the overall safety and security of our country. Let's hope that congress can get its head out of the sand and see the problems delay in resolving the immigration dilemma is causing to our country, the economy and all Americans.
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.
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
Brought you by Vejatv.com
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.
Nearly One-Third of Arizonans are Latino or Asian.
Immigrant, Latino, and Asian entrepreneurs and consumers add billions of dollars and tens-of-thousands of jobs to Arizona’s economy.
■ 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.
Immigrants are integral to Arizona’s economy as workers.
Immigrants are integral to Arizona’s economy as students.
Naturalized citizens excel educationally.
immigrationpolicy.org via Jornal.us