Ed Miliband immigration rethink: Labour leader vows to ban foreigners-only jobs

In a speech in London, he vowed to stop ruthless bosses from undercutting the minimum wage by taking on foreign staff



Ed Miliband today pledged to stop companies blacklisting British workers in favour of cheaper foreign staff.

The Labour leader said UK-born jobseekers were being “locked out” of work by recruitment agencies.

And he admitted Labour had got it wrong while in Government by ignoring people’s “legitimate concerns” about immigration.

In a speech in London, he vowed to stop ruthless bosses from undercutting the minimum wage by taking on foreign staff.

He also promised to tackle recruitment agencies that offer jobs only to overseas workers.

And Mr Miliband pledged the stricter enforcement of minimum-wage laws to tackle the “nasty, brutish and short-term” exploitation of cheap labour.

He said the last Labour Government had became “too disconnected from the concerns of working people”.

He added: “It was a mistake not to impose transitional controls on accession from Eastern European countries.

"We severely underestimated the number of people who would come here.

“We too easily assumed those who worried about immigration were stuck in the past, unrealistic about how things could be different, even prejudiced.”

Mr Miliband went on: “By focusing exclusively on immigration’s impact on growth, we lost sight of who was benefiting from that growth – and the people being squeezed in the middle who were losing out.”

He said people who expressed legitimate concerns about immigration should not be dismissed as “bigoted” – a reference to Mr Brown’s encounter with Gillian Duffy during a visit to Rochdale in the 2010 election.

“Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots.

And since this conversation is going on in the houses, streets and neighbourhoods of Britain, it must be one the Labour Party joins too.”

But Immigration Minister Damian Green said: “Until Ed Miliband supports the Government’s measures to cut and control immigration, Labour will have no credibility.

“Under his leadership, Labour have opposed our aim to get annual net migration down to the tens of thousands and they have opposed the cap on economic migration.”

Institute of Directors director general Simon Walker said its members thought work-ethic and skills were twice as important as cost in choosing recruits.

And a recent study found immigrants were 60% less likely than Brit citizens to claim benefits.
My fears over immigration, by Ed Miliband

I know Mirror readers worry about immigration.

This is not because they are bigoted or prejudiced but because they are worried about the pressure­­­­ ­immigration has put on their wages, their public services and their communities.

And this is why we must talk about the issue and not sweep it under the carpet.

At the same time, I believe the public is fed up with politicians making promises on immigration they cannot deliver.

Immigration has had benefits for Britain, bringing people with energy, skills and ideas that have helped our economy.

But it also has costs and they have too often fallen on those who can least afford it.

Governments of both parties haven’t done enough to listen.

We didn’t get it right in government. We should have placed more restrictions on people coming from Poland and ­elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

And we were too slow to hear people’s concerns. Now we need a new approach.

A government I lead will be tougher on borders when new countries join the EU so large numbers of low-skilled people do not suddenly come to Britain.

We will also do something the Tories would never do – stop abuses of the minimum wage and ensure laws are properly enforced.

We won’t allow recruitment agencies to boast they only offer foreign workers, effectively locking out local people.

And we’ll work to improve training and skills in those businesses where working people can’t seem to get a look in because employers are relying on low-cost, ­temporary workers from abroad.

Above all, we will change our economy so that it works for you. Alongside tough controls, that’s the right way to tackle concerns about immigration.

Read more »

U.S. ELECTION Obama, Romney tackle immigration in effort to win over critical Hispanic constituency

President Barack Obama assailed Republicans on Friday as obstacles to fixing the nation’s immigration system and said his opponent would block efforts to let young immigrants stay if they were brought into the United States illegally by their parents.
In what amounted to the general election campaign’s first debate on immigration policy, Mr. Obama appeared before the same Latino audience that heard from his challenger, Mitt Romney, a day earlier.

A poll released on Friday by Latino Decisions and America's Voice found Mr. Obama had a commanding lead over Mr. Romney among Hispanics in election battleground states including Florida, Colorado and Virginia. In the five states combined, Mr. Obama leads Mr. Romney among Hispanics by 63 per cent to 27 per cent.

On Thursday, Mr. Romney struck a more conciliatory tone toward illegal immigrants than he took during the Republican primary season, but he backed only limited steps to address the concerns of many Hispanic voters.

Speaking to the annual conference of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in the heart of the swing state of Florida, Mr. Romney made his most extensive remarks on immigration since Mr. Obama announced his breakthrough directive on illegal immigration last week. Mr. Romney reiterated his support for giving legal status to illegal immigrants who serve in the military and said he would “staple a green card” to the diplomas of immigrants who receive advanced degrees.

He did not repeat the language he used during the primary season about encouraging illegal immigrants to “self-deport,” and he did not address Arizona’s controversial law, now before the Supreme Court, that requires law-enforcement officers there to demand proof of immigration status when they suspect someone might be in the United States illegally. But he remained vague about whether he would leave in place the temporary measures taken by Mr. Obama to allow young people to remain in the United States.

Mr. Romney’s nearly 20-minute speech was met with tepid applause and moments of pointed silence.

On Friday, Mr. Obama told the same group of Hispanic officials that they should not trust Mr. Romney’s shifting rhetoric.

Mr. Obama touted his own decision last week to stop kicking many young immigrants out of the country, saying he was “lifting the shadow of deportation” from those who deserved to stay in the United States. By contrast, he pointed to Mr. Romney’s opposition to legislation known as the Dream Act intended to offer a path to legal status for many of the same young people.

Mr. Obama’s speech on Friday was framed to capitalize on last week’s decision, bolstering support from a critical constituency that leans strongly in his direction but has been disappointed that he has not taken stronger action to liberalize immigration rules. Mr. Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, while in the face of Republican resistance he has done relatively little to push broader legislation providing a path to legal status for millions more in the country without permission.

Mr. Obama received a warmer response from the audience than Mr. Romney on Thursday, with those in attendance at times standing to give him ovations. But a conservative Hispanic leader said the President’s words rang hollow to him given the lack of progress in forging a bipartisan solution.

“Where is the leadership?” asked Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. He said that former president George W. Bush did a better job of working across the aisle on immigration and argued that Mr. Romney would be more likely to find a solution with a Republican Congress next year.

“We have a better chance of getting something constructive done in immigration with Romney than Obama,” Mr. Aguilar said.

Read more »

Obama Defends Himself On Economy, Immigration

President Delivers Case For Re-Election

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (CNN) -- President Barack Obama delivered an impassioned case for his re-election on Friday while defending his record on the economy and his newly stated immigration policy.

He highlighted the new stance, unveiled last Friday, as "the right thing to do" and took aim at his Republican rival over his previous statements regarding the DREAM Act that would have provided a permanent legal pathway for children of illegal immigrants brought to the United States as young people.

"Giving them a reason to hope, that was the right thing to do," Obama told the crowd at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, about his announcement last Friday.

He said Congress should still pass the DREAM Act, which failed in Congress in 2010, and called out Romney for saying earlier in the primary process that he would veto the bill if it crossed his desk.

"He said he would veto the DREAM Act and we should take him at his word," Obama said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "I'm just saying," he added to laughter.

The president specifically pointed to proposals that have helped those in the Latino community, pointing to the expansion of Pell grants, small business tax cuts and health care reform, and contrasted them with those of Republicans who he said believe in a top down system.

"That's how they plan to do it, and I think they're wrong," Obama said.

Romney spoke before the same group Thursday. He called the president's recently announced policy a "temporary measure that he seems to think will be just enough to get him through the election." As president, he said, he "won't settle for stop-gap measures" and would instead work with those on both sides of the aisle to find a "long-term solution." But he also did not say what he would do regarding the policy if elected.

His immigration policy, as further laid out in the speech, would include lifting caps on skilled worker visas, speeding up the process of applications for temporary agricultural work visas, reallocating green cards to those looking to keep their families together, green cards for those who receive an advance degree and a legal pathway to citizenship for anyone serving in the military.

The president last addressed the conference in 2008 as the Democratic presidential nominee. At the time he called for immigration reform that would "secure the borders" and "punish employers who exploit immigrant labor."

"That is a priority I will pursue from my very first day," Obama said in June of 2008.

However, he has failed to put forward a comprehensive immigration reform plan while in the White House. He backed the DREAM Act - legislation that would provide a legal pathway to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants - but it ultimately failed in Congress in 2010. Critics argue Obama did not make the issue a priority while Democrats controlled both Congressional chambers. Supporters have blamed a gridlocked Washington for failure to fully address the issue and point to successes within the Department of Homeland Security in deporting those in the country who had run-ins with the law.

It is those successes, the Obama administration has said, that led to the president's policy shift toward undocumented young people currently residing in the United States, now that there are more resources available.

The new directive under existing law, unveiled one week ago, will stop deporting young people in the United States illegally if they meet certain criteria. Those who met the requirements could then apply for a work permit for that time period. The applicants must be under the age of 30 and brought to the U.S. before the age of 16, have been in the country for at least five consecutive years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED or served in the military.

On Friday, Obama said he remains ready to pass the DREAM Act and accused Republicans of playing politics.

"My door has been open for three and a half years, they know where to find me," Obama said.

Romney's campaign capitalized on the president's 2008 address to NALEO, saying economic promises he made during that speech have gone unfulfilled.

"In 2008, Candidate Obama promised NALEO he would create new jobs and end the housing crisis," Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote in a statement. "Four years later, President Obama is back asking for more time. No election-year speech can cover up the President's job-killing policies that have led to 11% Hispanic unemployment and millions of Hispanics living in poverty. On Day One, Mitt Romney will take our country in a new direction and get our economy back on the right track."

Despite the announcement's close proximity to Election Day, members of the current administration have insisted the move was not political and instead the just and correct step for those hoping to excel and contribute to America.

But it is impossible to ignore the implications for November. Obama won 67% of Latino support in 2008 to Sen. John McCain's 31%, in a year when they represented a larger share of the voters than in 2004. The biggest breakthrough was in Florida, where he won 57% of the Latino vote, backed by strong showings among men, women and young people, in a state that historically supported Republican presidential candidates.

The Hispanic population in Florida and nationwide has continued to boom in recent years. They make up 22.5% of the population in the Sunshine State, according to 2010 census data, up from over 16% of the population in 2000. Although the voter registration figures among the demographic have increased, the jump has not matched the population spike.

More than 21 million Latinos will be eligible to vote nationwide this November, but just over 10 million are registered to vote, a disparity the Obama re-election campaign and that of Mitt Romney are hoping to close.

Recent polling shows a majority of likely voters support the president's policy shift on immigration, welcome news no doubt for the campaign that, like Team Romney, has increased voter outreach to Latino voters, particularly in competitive presidential election states with larger concentrations of eligible Hispanic voters, including Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.

Obama campaign officials predicted the Latino population would represent the same percentage of the vote in 2012 that they did in 2008, at 9% of the electorate, but that more in the voting block would turn out to vote.

Both campaigns have released a consistent string of Spanish language television ads and web videos, in large part targeting battleground states.

Invoking familiar campaign themes from 2008, Obama used Friday's address in part to energize influential Latino leaders.

"Whether our ancestors arrived on the Mayflower or brought here on slave ships, whether they signed in at Ellis Island or they crossed the Rio Grande, their diversity has not only enriched this country, it helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known," he said.

Copyright CNN 2012

Read more »

Immigration policy shift creates benefits for K-12 students, schools

Carmen Medrano, community organizer for Together Colorado, left, talks to Yesenia, a 17-year-old undocumented student at Bruce Randolph High School who asked that her last name not be used. ( Heather Rousseau | The Denver Post)



Although Colorado education experts hesitate to predict exactly how a more lenient immigration policy may affect K-12 trends, some anticipate positive impacts on graduation, dropout rates and even student achievement.

But there seems to be agreement on at least one point: schools will need to fine-tune their academic counseling to reflect new opportunities.

The new Obama administration policy, which grants qualifying young people a two-year reprieve from deportation and the possibility of legal employment, already has encouraged many illegal immigrant students who have grown up in the U.S. shadowed by fear and uncertainty.

The timing of the directive, coinciding roughly with Metropolitan State College of Denver's announcement of a new tuition rate for those students, has prompted even higher hopes — despite the fact that the state attorney general has cast legal doubt on the Metro State move.

"This isn't the whole cake, but it's part of it," said 17-year-old Yesenia, who asked that her last name be withheld because her parents entered the U.S. from Mexico illegally when she was 3.

"It's my senior year," she added, noting that the two-year, renewable window allows her to put away more money for college. "And to have those two things lifted off of me takes away a lot of the stress."

School administrators preface any speculation by emphasizing that districts don't attempt to determine the immigration status of their students, and any conclusions they draw are largely anecdotal.

But Sandra Smyser, superintendent of Eagle County schools, said she already has heard from some recent graduates who have renewed hope for finding legal work . And she suspects younger students who have abandoned their education will now reconsider.

"We don't have a big dropout problem related to this issue," she said, "except we do know there are students out there who I believe would re-enroll and work toward graduation now, given that they can also work to support themselves as they do that."

A former principal of a high school serving immigrant students in Eagle County foresees not only an uptick in enrollment — and the accompanying state dollars — but an increased district obligation to make sure families understand the ramifications of the policy shift.

"Now, knowing that there's hope, I see an onslaught of kids coming back to school," said Kathy Brendza, who until recently headed the 62-student New America High School in Gypsum. "But I also think we're going to have to be carriers of that message. We're going to have to be clear on what this means to kids.

"It's the ticket, the golden ticket, for the rest of their lives. Especially for those children who have been in this system since kindergarten."

Latin American Educational Foundation director Jim Chavez, whose organization helps students plan for college and also offers scholarship help, predicted that the new policy will trigger widespread improvement in student achievement at all grade levels — and higher test scores as well.

"It's almost like a positive peer pressure by having more people pursuing and improving their academic abilities," he said. "Like a contagious effect of success."

In the Jefferson County School District, the state's largest, superintendent Cindy Stevenson imagines, at most, modest positive effect in areas like dropout and graduation rates. The most likely result, she adds, is a new sense of motivation for impacted kids — and the need to make sure guidance counselors can help them adapt to the new landscape.

"This has to sharpen our staff as far as counseling kids," Stevenson said. "It wouldn't be a structural change, but a change in how we talk to kids and motivate kids."

Counseling conversations that once took place privately now can be broached in a more straightforward way, said Mike Epke, principal of the 412-student New America charter in the Mapleton Public Schools.

But the most positive aspect of the new policy will be the "intrinsic motivation, the internal drive" for students to press on with their education, he added.

"Schools like New America or other traditional schools are going to benefit when kids get more engaged," Epke said, "and have that light at the end of the tunnel instead of waning engagement."

One Colorado teen said many of her peers would meet the five-point criteria — including those who had given up hope and dropped out of school. Some of them already have vowed to resume their education in order to qualify.

"Before, a lot of them felt: Why graduate or even try in school? " said Cesiah, a 17-year-old senior at Westminster High School who arrived with her parents illegally 11 years ago. "Nothing good would happen afterward.

"This means a future for them."

Read more »

Dalton couple stuck in Mexico over immigration issue

DALTON, GA (WRCB) -- Angie Carranza admits her family brought her here illegally when she was a child. Now she's a working adult, and married, and wants to get on the right path to citizenship, but she could be stuck in Mexico for a decade.

Angie was brought here when she was just five. Every memory she has, is growing up in Dalton. She started the process of getting a visa, but going the legal route seems to have back-fired.

The couple talked to us via Skype from Mexico -- the place immigration officials say is Angie Carranza's home.

"Dalton is my home. I grew up there. That's the home I know," Angie Carranza said.

Angie and husband Ramon Gonzalez went to Mexico two months ago to finally get Angie a visa, so she wouldn't have to worry about being here illegally. It's something that's held her back her whole life.

"On that plane ride to Juarez, I thought to myself, this is the beginning of some great for me," Angie said.

She says her lawyers were confident she'd be approved for a visa since her parents brought her to the U.S. illegally, but she was denied. "I never realized I was committing a crime. I don't blame my parents for what's happening to me. I thank them. I thank them very much because I grew up having a great education. I grew up having freedom," Angie said.

Despite being a good student and having a clean record, she's banned from the U.S. for 10 years. That's because not only did she enter the country illegally once as a 5-year-old, but a second time when she was 13 and returned from a short trip after visiting her dying grandfather.

Two appeals have already been denied, but Ramon is not coming back until Angie can. "I can't leave her here by herself," Ramon said.

Meanwhile, Ramon's mom is back in Dalton left to run the family business alone. "I'm desperate. I'm devastated," Ramon's mom, Martha Gonzalez, said.

She brought him to the U.S. legally for a better life and is heartbroken he's stuck there. "It's hard to see that you fight for something so hard and then you see your children's life is not going that way," Martha said.

As Angie waits to hear from the consulate general. She and Ramon are staying with a family member who was deported for a similar reason.

She hopes her story will bring attention to the issues people in her position face with current immigration laws and that she can inspire politicians to get behind reform.


And showing how difficult the issue is for everyone to deal with, U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. sent the following letter to President Obama on the immigration issue:

Dear President Obama:

We are extremely concerned by your announcement last week that the Department of Homeland Security plans to implement a program that grants deferred action to an untold number of illegal immigrants in the United States, and to allow them to receive work authorization during this time of record unemployment. Not only do we question your legal authority to act unilaterally in this regard, we are frustrated that you have intentionally bypassed Congress and the American people.

As President, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and enforce the laws. Your recently announced directive runs contrary to that responsibility. Not only is your directive an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, but it is an inappropriate use of Executive power.

Your position on whether you have the legal authority to act unilaterally has changed dramatically. Just last year, you personally disputed the notion that the Executive Branch could act on its own and grant benefits to a certain class of illegal immigrants. Specifically, you stated,

"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

- Why has your position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?
- Did you consult with attorneys prior to the announcement about your legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of illegal immigrants?
- Did you obtain a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else in the administration about your legal authority to implement such a program?
- Please provide copies of any documentation, including any and all legal opinions, memoranda, and emails, that discusses any authority you have or do not have to undertake this immigration directive.

We are also concerned that the directive being implemented allows individuals under the age of 30 to obtain a work authorization. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for young adults aged 16-24 has been nearly 17% for the last year. According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32% of 18 to 29 year-olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed. Your directive runs contrary to the premise that American workers must come before foreign nationals. It is astonishing that your administration would grant work authorizations to illegal immigrants during this time of record unemployment. Your directive will only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today's economy. Moreover, under current law, some foreign students and other legal visa holders are prohibited from obtaining work authorizations, giving illegal immigrants an advantage over those who play by the rules.

The implementation of your directive raises several serious questions.

- What will happen if your directive is challenged in court?
- Will individuals who have applied for deferred action be required to leave the U.S. if such a challenge is upheld?
- How will the administration handle family members, specifically the parents who violated federal immigration law?
- Will individuals who entered the U.S. on their own volition – either by crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa – be eligible for deferred action?
- Why does the directive allow individuals up to age 30 to benefit from deferred action if the directive is aimed at helping young people and students?
- How will federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate and how will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or are currently under the age of 30?
- Will evidence submitted in support of deferred action applications be limited to independently verifiable government-issued documents (e.g., school records, W-2s, tax returns)? If not, why not? If affidavits will be accepted, will they be required to be made under penalty of perjury? If not, why not?
- Will illegal immigrants be required to appear in person for an interview by the federal government before deferred action is granted?
- How will the agency implementing the program ensure that fraud and abuse is prevented?
- What will the consequences be for individuals who intentionally defraud the government?
- Which databases will be used and how will background checks be conducted to ensure that individuals do not have a criminal history or pose a threat to public safety?
- What would constitute a "significant" misdemeanor offense, which is one of the criteria for eligibility for deferred status?
- Will individuals with final orders of removal be eligible for deferred action?
- What action will the administration take if an individual is denied deferred action?
- What action will be taken if an individual is granted deferred action, but subsequently abuses that grant, is arrested, is found to be a member of a criminal gang, or does not actually attend school?
- Absent congressional action, what will happen in two years to the individuals who are granted deferred action?
- Will recipients of deferred action be eligible for receipt of advance parole?
- What criteria will be used to decide who gets work authorizations and who does not?
- Which other departments and agencies will be consulted and will work with the Department of Homeland Security on the implementation of this directive?

We also believe that taxpayers deserve to know how this program will be funded.

Can you assure us that the total implementation cost of the program will be paid for by the individuals seeking to benefit, or will U.S. taxpayers subsidize any part of the program?

- How much, if anything, will an illegal immigrant be required to pay in order to obtain deferred action?
- What legal authority does the Executive Branch have to mandate a fee for this service? We understand that the Department has never previously charged a fee for the processing of a request for deferred action.
- Do you plan to reprogram funds at the Department of Homeland Security or any other Executive Branch agency to help fund the implementation of the directive?
- If you plan to use funds that already have been appropriated or other funds from the Department, please explain which programs will be reduced in order to cover the costs associated with the directive.
- If USCIS adjudications staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, what will be the impact on other USCIS programs?

Given that this directive is effective immediately and that many questions remain unanswered, we ask that you immediately make available Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Alejandro Mayorkas to respond to our concerns. We would appreciate responses to our questions, including any relevant documentation related to this directive, no later than July 3, 2012.

Read more »

‘Corrupt’ immigration manager convicted of fraud

Diane Serré leaves the Elgin Street courthouse on Friday after she was convicted of fraud and breach of trust. The former immigration manager accepted cash and gifts in exchange for immigrants receiving preferential treatment.
Photograph by: Mike Carroccetto , The Ottawa Citizen




OTTAWA — Evidence that a former immigration manager accepted cash and gifts in exchange for preferential treatment was “absolutely overwhelming,” a judge concluded Friday, after finding the woman guilty of more than two dozen fraud and breach of trust charges.

“I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Diane Serré acted with the intention to use her public office for a purpose other than the public good; namely, for a purpose that was dishonest, partial and corrupt,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Catherine Aitken wrote in an 86-page written decision that found Serré accepted money from friend Issam Dakik in exchange for her help processing 10 immigration files.

“She used her position to make money by providing information, documentation, advice and/or preferential treatment to Mr. Dakik’s immigration clients in a way that she hoped would never be discovered by anyone else at (Citizenship and Immigration Canada),” wrote Aitken.

Serré, 41, teamed up with Dakik and his wife, who was also Serré’s esthetician, to form what the judge described as a “joint enterprise” to make money helping immigrants with their immigration files between 2003 and 2004. Aitken said Dakik “let it be known in the Lebanese community” that he could make things happen for a price because he had someone on the inside at immigration. That person was Serré, Aitken found.

Dakik met with the clients before bringing their files to the attention of Serré, who used her influence as acting operations supervisor at Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s Catherine Street office to speed up the process.

Some of the people Serré helped were in Canada illegally while others were given work permits they wouldn’t otherwise be eligible to receive. One man had outstanding criminal charges in Halifax.

Serré also fast-tracked permanent resident applications, accomplishing in weeks what immigration employees testified might otherwise typically take months or years to be completed.

Exactly how much Serré received for her help isn’t clear, although Aitken’s decision outlined at least $25,900 in payments received by Dakik.

Serré took precautions to keep her activity secret, Aitken noted, although they weren’t enough.

As part of their investigation, police wiretapped hundreds of phone calls between Serré and Dakik, videotaped interactions between Dakik and an undercover agent, conducted surveillance, planted a video probe in Serré’s office and raided both her and Dakik’s home searching for evidence. Six marked $50 bills that had been paid to Dakik were seized from a safe at Serré’s home.

“I’ve rarely seen a case that has as much evidence as this one,” said Aitken, who noted in her written decision Serré’s lawyer had “virtually nothing” to say regarding the evidence. “I am left without any doubt at all.”

At trial, Serré’s lawyer challenged little of the evidence against her, instead arguing she wasn’t paid much and believed she was helping hard-luck immigrants after being manipulated by a friend.

Aitken rejected those arguments, instead finding that Serré was part of a conspiracy with Dakik.

Dakik already pleaded guilty to his role in the scheme, along with credit card fraud, and was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison in 2006.

Dakik claimed at trial Serré received only small gifts like a barbecue and free esthetic treatments from his wife along with cash payments of $200 or less. Aitken didn’t believe him.

“It is inconceivable that Ms. Serré would have jeopardized her job and her liberty by engaging in the illegal activities in which she was involved unless it was worth her while financially to do so,” wrote Aitken.

“She had no personal connection with the immigrants she was assisting. The only difference between them and the other immigration clients being processed at the Ottawa C.I.C. office was that Mr. Dakik was being paid handsomely to move their files forward,” she wrote.

Serré was found guilty of 15 counts of fraud and 12 counts of breach of trust. She was acquitted of only a single count — bribery — after the Crown conceded that had not made out their case on that charge.

Aitken said Serré’s conduct violated the standard of responsibility of her office.

“One of those responsibilities was to ensure that everyone within her office working on an immigration file did so in compliance with legislation, regulations and department standards and policies,” wrote Aitken. “She did not apply that standard to herself.”

Serré remains free on bail pending a sentencing hearing, which will likely be set for later this year.

Read more »

Rubio Claims Immigration is Politicized Issue for Both Parties

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio said the issue of immigration is being used by both Republicans and Democrats for political purposes in an election year rather than finding a real solution for the complex problem that affects millions of people.

"Why is this issue simplified? I will tell you right now. Because it is powerful politics. It is a powerful political issue," Rubio told the Hispanic crowd of 1,200 meeting at the annual convention for NALEO -- the National Association of Latino and Elected Officials. "How did we ever get to this point? How can immigration be a controversial and divisive issue in a nation of immigrants?"

President Barack Obama last week initiated an executive order that essentially took major parts of a conservative DREAM Act plan Rubio had proposed to ameliorate the process for undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. as children by their parents. The move by the president placed the issue of immigration, and subsequently Latino voters at the forefront of political headlines this week.

"I don't care who gets the credit. I don't,” Rubio said. “But it exposes that this issue is all about politics for some people. Not just Democrats, Republicans too.”

Rubio also chided critics who consider immigration reform proposals as a slight against the Latino community.

“Anyone who disagrees with their ideas on illegal immigration is anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic. That's ridiculous. Ridiculous,” Rubio said. “Everything is about politics. "

Rubio, who released a new book called "American Son", also repeatedly emphasized that both parties needed to find common ground on the divisive issue in order to find a middle ground and a reform policy that works.

“As long as this issue of immigration is a political ping pong that each side uses to win elections and influence votes I'm telling you it won't get solved,” Rubio said.

The Florida senator mostly avoided criticism of President Obama who spoke later in the day. However at point, it seemed like he could not resist.

“The president hasn't been here three years and it's election year, why didn't he make this priority," Rubio said to some laughter in the crowd. “I guess I just did.

Read more »

APNewsBreak: Most Ala. firms miss immigration goal

By Jay Reeves
Associated Press / April 4, 2012

FILE - This 2007 file photo shows Bumper Nets owner Homer Brown, whose business in Hoover, Ala., is among the employers that have complied with a new requirement under Alabama's immigration law, that all business entities in the state register with the federal E-Verify system. Statistics show that thousands of employers failed to meet the April 1 deadline for registering with the system. (AP Photo/The Birrmingham News, Hal Yeager, File)

PELHAM, Ala.—Tens of thousands of Alabama businesses have missed a deadline set by the state's strict immigration law to register with a federal database used to verify the citizenship status of job applicants, according to registration numbers.

Some companies said they didn't know about the requirement that they use E-Verify to check on new employees, or didn't think it applied to them. Others rushed to fill out the Internet-based registration in the days before the April 1 deadline.

Failing to register doesn't result by itself in charges or fines, but using the system affords employers legal protection in certain cases if they are found to employ illegal immigrants. State officials and industry groups are urging more employers to complete the free registration.

"Right now we're not penalizing businesses. We're trying to help them, to be a safe harbor," said Katheryn Kennedy, a spokeswoman for the Alabama Department of Homeland Security.

The immigration crackdown signed into law last year gave every Alabama employer or business entity until the start of this month to enroll in E-Verify, which is run by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Businesses also are required to begin using the system to check immigration status.

Companies that hire illegal immigrants face penalties including the loss of their business license. To encourage registration, businesses have legal protection if they screened a worker with E-Verify and the person checked out OK but was later determined to be living in the country illegally.

Citizenship and Immigration Services said only 18,137 companies had enrolled in the E-Verify system by Monday, a fraction of the total of employers in the state. There was a late surge of about 4,000 registrations last week, said Bill Wright, a spokesman for the agency in Washington.

The Alabama Department of Revenue said last year's tax returns showed there were 368,613 companies doing business in the state, and that doesn't include public employers like city or county governments. Gov. Robert Bentley's office said the state Department of Industrial Relations counts only 85,000 companies with employees in the state. Some of the discrepancy could be explained by companies doing business in the state with employees who are based elsewhere.

But it's unclear exactly how many businesses are required to register, a sign of continuing confusion over the law. Legislators are also tweaking the law after courts blocked some provisions in response to lawsuits by the Obama administration and others.

While the law says "every business entity or employer in this state shall enroll in E-Verify," Bentley spokesman Jeremy King wasn't able to say Tuesday which employers must register.

"That's for the lawyers to figure out," he said.

The state, like others with similar laws, promoted the requirement through news releases, seminars and websites; and some local governments sent notices to vendors and business license holders. Registration only takes a few minutes and the state has a telephone hotline to assist small companies with registration.
At Carpet Outlet, a family-run business in suburban Birmingham, Cathy McKay had a stack of paperwork on her desk that she received from county government and the local school system about the illegal immigration law, but she has yet to fill them out and hadn't registered with E-Verify.

"We haven't been hiring; we've been firing. So it's not much of an issue with hiring new people," she said. "I hope they don't come get me."

A few miles up U.S. 31 at Johnson Motors South, a small car lot, Randy Pendley said he was enrolling in E-Verify a day late after getting an email about the requirement from a trade group, the Alabama Independent Automobile Dealers Association.

"We have four owners and we've never had any employees, but we still have to do it," said Pendley. "I went to the website this morning to look at it."

The 4,000-member Alabama Retail Association was among the industry organizations that spent months holding seminars, sending emails and staging conference calls to inform businesses of the requirement, but it was still hit with a flurry of late questions.

"Even last week I was surprised by the number of people who were saying, `What are you talking about?'" said Nancy Dennis, a spokeswoman with association.

Other businesses are having have difficulty complying with the law because they lack Internet access, Dennis said.

Still, thousands of Alabama businesses have registered. Those include a catfish processor, public libraries, a women's clinics, churches, construction companies, truck-driving schools, law firms and auto supply stores.

The owner of a store with 10 workers that sells pool tables and other games said registering wasn't difficult even though he's not a "computer person." Homer Brown said he previously verified citizenship using documents for the Hoover-based store called Bumper Nets, and that seemed to work fine.

"I'd rather handle it the way I had before, but I guess they wanted to be able to check it a little closer," he said.

Nine states require all or most employers to register with E-Verify, according to LawLogix, a Phoenix, Ariz.-based company that sells immigration-related software. LawLogix attorney Ann Cun said larger employers may have an easier time tracking laws than smaller ones, but companies have a duty to keep up with government requirements.

"At the end of the day, the onus is really on the employer," said Cun.

In Arizona, supporters of that state's law say an E-Verify provision has helped reduce the number of people who work in the state without proper legal documents. Opponents say the requirement has only driven an underground economy even deeper, with employers making more handshake deals with workers rather than going through proper legal channels. Arizona's law predates Alabama's.

A provision similar to Alabama's took effect in South Carolina on Jan. 1, but officials say employers are not required to join E-Verify until they are ready to hire new workers. Georgia's law on illegal immigration also requires employers to register for E-Verify, but employers with fewer than 11 workers are exempt.

Even those businesses that have registered with the system could face difficulties. A study by the General Accounting Office in 2010 found that E-Verify employment checks can result in erroneous answers if the same name is entered into the system in more than one way, which sometimes happens when employers check someone from an unfamiliar cultural background.

At the car dealership, Pendley said the first step in joining E-Verify was gathering the paperwork he needed to fill out forms.

"It's really not a lot to do, but you have to identify the company and have a federal tax ID number," he said. "It will probably take about five minutes."
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Read more »

Scarborough: Nobody thinks Romney is going to win in general election

By Drew Katchen
-
Wed Apr 4, 2012 6:26 AM EDT

Mitt Romney took home some pretty serious wins last night in Washington D.C., Maryland and Wisconsin.

And this morning, Joe Scarborough and Time's Mark Halperin had a quick exchange about Romney's odds at winning the general election later this year.

Scarborough said no one is expecting Romney to pull out a win.

Joe Scarborough: Nobody thinks Romney is going to win. Can we just say this for everybody at home? I have yet to meet a person in the Republican establishment that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election this year. They won’t say it on TV because they’ve got to go on TV, and they don’t want people writing them nasty emails. I obviously don’t care. I have yet to meet anybody in the Republican establishment that worked for George W. Bush, that works in the Republican Congress, that worked for Ronald Reagan that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election.

Mark Halperin: I don’t totally agree with that, but even if you think Mitt Romney is going to lose. Still, in 2016 there are so many strong candidates out there.

Scarborough: Who?

Halperin: Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush.

Read more »

Google money going to law enforcement agencies

By Laura Crimaldi, Associated Press
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Rhode Island law enforcement agencies that participated in an investigation that resulted in Google forfeiting $500 million last year will receive $230 million of that money, federal officials said Monday.
Google forfeited the money last August to settle a U.S. government investigation into its distribution of online ads from Canadian pharmacies illegally selling prescription drugs to American consumers. The investigation found that Google allowed Canadian pharmacies that illegally imported drugs into the United States to advertise on its AdWords platform.

The $500 million sum represents the gross revenues Google collected in ad buys from hundreds of Canadian pharmacies, plus the earnings generated from the illegal drug sales to American consumers from 2003 to 2009, federal officials have said.

U.S. Attorney Peter F. Neronha said it may be the largest sum ever distributed among law enforcement groups under a program that allows forfeited funds to be shared with agencies that participate in federal probes.

"I am extremely pleased that of that $500 million dollars forfeited by Google, $230 million will be distributed to five state and local agencies that contributed investigators to the legal team headed by my office," Neronha said. "It is truly my hope and my expectation that these monies will be used for the benefit of all Rhode Islanders, by enhancing our overall ability to fight crime and keeping all Rhode Islanders safe."

East Providence police, North Providence police and the attorney general's office will each receive $60 million, Neronha said. State police will receive $45 million and the Rhode Island National Guard will receive $5 million. The shares are based on the time and resources each agency provided to the investigation, Neronha said.

And $100 million will be shared by four federal agencies that participated in the probe, officials said. The U.S. Postal Service is receiving $40 million and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is getting $35 million. The U.S. Secret Service is receiving $15 million and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is getting $10 million.

The remaining $170 million is being deposited into the Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund, a national account used to pay expenses from forfeiture operations, including seizing property. The fund can also be used to pay for some general investigatory expenses.

The funds will be distributed to the local and state agencies after they submit spending plans, officials said. There are rules in place governing how the money can be used. Law enforcement investigations, training and equipment are among the items that can be paid for with the funds.

The money can't be used to replace funds that have already been set aside for law enforcement purposes, meaning a community can't draw from the forfeited money to cover the annual budget for its police force, Neronha said. For the most part, the funds also cannot be used to pay salaries, although there are exceptions, according to a government guide on the program. The funds are subject to auditing and other monitoring, officials said.

Representatives from the local and state agencies receiving the money declined to detail how they plan to spend it, but they vowed to use it responsibly. The amounts coming into North Providence and East Providence represent windfalls. The annual police budget is $12 million in East Providence and $6 million in North Providence, according to their representatives.

Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin said he wants to use the money to make it easier for his staffers to do their jobs. He gave the example of time cards, which Kilmartin said are still done on paper.

"Needless to say, the amount of money is absolutely staggering," he said.

In a statement, Google said: "We take responsibility for our actions. With hindsight, we shouldn't have allowed these ads on Google in the first place."

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company has said it is no longer letting Canadian online pharmacies advertise to U.S. consumers. Google has also said it has taken steps to prevent shady operators from advertising on the Internet search engine, including suing advertisers who were running scams and suing rogue pharmacies that were trying to circumvent company policies and verification procedures.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more »