LuaLua signs... for immigration department

Published on Saturday 10 December 2011 08:45

While Pool struggled with the weather, Lomana LuaLua didn’t exactly have the best preparation for today’s game either.

The Seasiders frontman had to dash to London to sign immigration papers which allowed his wife to enter the country.

Manager Ian Holloway explained: “He had to go to immigration to sign a form to get his wife back over here from Cyprus.

“I had to give him permission to do that, which isn’t ideal because Thursday is always about preparation.

“But I had to do it, otherwise his wife wouldn’t be here and that wouldn’t have been right.”

LuaLua will make his own way to Southampton – the rest of the squad are due to flew from Manchester yesterday afternoon.

Holloway added: “It took us 10 and a half hours to get to Brighton last time we travelled on a Friday. That was an absolute nightmare, so we decided not to go by coach this time.

“However, I’m now worried about the weather. I hope it calms down. The elastic band on our little plane might struggle to get us off in these winds.”

Stephen Crainey and Kevin Phillips will be more up for today’s game than most – both are former Saints.

Phillips, who spent two seasons with the south coast club, will almost certainly be on the bench, with Holloway admitting the 38-year-old is likely to become more of a super-sub for the remainder of the season.

Crainey is always one of the first names on the teamsheet, which wasn’t the case at Southampton, who let him go after an unhappy few months in 2004.

Holloway said: “Whatever has happened in Stephen’s career is history. He will have taken it on the chin and he will have learned from it. Some things are fair, some things aren’t.

“He hasn’t got a single thing to prove to himself or to me because I know how good he is, and he knows how much he is respected here.

“I have honestly never worked with a better left-back. I haven’t worked with a bloke who trains better than him either or has a better attitude.

“It doesn’t matter how old he is. With the way he trains, that lad can keep going for years.

“He has been absolutely foot-perfect ever since I have been here.

“He is a wonderful fella and I’m so glad he signed a new contract in the summer”.

Read more »

Unions And Immigrants Join Occupy Movements

by David Bacon

Oakland, California - When Occupy Seattle called its tent camp "Planton Seattle," camp organizers were laying a local claim to a set of tactics used for decades by social movements in Mexico, Central America and the Philippines. And when immigrant janitors marched down to the detention center in San Diego and called their effort Occupy ICE (the initials of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency responsible for mass deportations),people from countries with that planton encampment tradition were connecting it to the Occupy movement here.

This shared culture and history offer new possibilities to the Occupy movement for survival and growth at a time when the federal law enforcement establishment, in cooperation with local police departments and municipal governments, has uprooted many tent encampments. Different Occupy groups from Wall Street to San Francisco have begun to explore their relationship with immigrant social movements in the US, and to look more closely at the actions of the 1 percent beyond our borders that produces much of the pressure for migration.

Reacting to the recent evictions, the Coalition for the Political Rights of Mexicans Abroad recently sent a support letter to Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the other camps under attack. "We greet your movement," it declared, "because your struggle against the suppression of human rights and against social and economic injustice has been a fundamental part of our struggle, that of the Mexican people who cross borders, and the millions of Mexican migrants who live in the United States."

Many of those migrants living in the US know the tradition of the planton and how it's used at home. And they know that the 1 percent, whose power is being challenged on Wall Street, also designed the policies that are the very reason why immigrants are living in the US to begin with. Mike Garcia, president of United Service Workers West/SEIU, the union that organized Occupy ICE, described immigrant janitors as "displaced workers of the new global economic order, an order led by the West and the United States in particular."

Criminalizing the act of camping out in a public space is intended, at least in part, to keep a planton tradition from acquiring the same legitimacy in the US that it has in other countries. That right to a planton was not freely conceded by the rulers of Mexico, El Salvador or the Philippines, however - no more than it has been conceded here. The 99 percent of those countries had to fight for it.

Two of the biggest battles of modern Mexican political history were fought in the Tlatelolco Plaza, where hundreds of students were gunned down in 1968, and three years later in Mexico City streets where more were beaten and shot by the paramilitary Halcones. In both El Salvador and the Philippines, strikers have a tradition of living at the gates of the factory or enterprise where they work. But even today, that right must be defended against the police, and (at least until the recent election of the Funes and Aquino governments) even the military.

Plantons or encampments don't stand alone. They are tactics used by unions, students, farmers, indigenous organizations, and other social movements. Each planton is a visible piece of a movement or organization - a much larger base. When the plantons are useful to those movements, they defend them. That connection between planton and movement, between the encampment and its social base, is as important as holding the physical space on which the tents are erected.
Leobardo Benitez Alvarez. a fired SME member, in the union's planton. (Photo: David Bacon)

For the last two years, that relationship has been very clear in the Zocalo, Mexico City's huge central plaza. During that time, fired members of Mexico's independent left-wing electrical workers union, the SME, have lived in a succession of plantons. They've often been elaborate, with kitchens, meeting rooms and communications centers, in addition to the tents where people slept and ate.

At various time, the SME encampment was one of several in the huge square. A year ago, the workers were joined by indigenous Triqui and Mixtec women from Oaxaca, who protested the violence used by their state's previous governor against teachers' strikes and rural organizations. The social movement in Oaxaca, which the women represented in Mexico City, grew strong enough to finally knock the old ruling party, the PRI, from the governorship it had held for almost 80 years.

In the Zocalo plantons, people from different organizations mix it up. Last September's Day of the Indignant brought together people from very diverse movements. Some see electoral politics as a vehicle for change, but many indigenous activists and SME members don't. Even among those who do, there are deep disagreements over how to participate in the electoral process.

But the people in the Zocalo have two things in common. Different plantons may not see every political question eye to eye, but each represents a social movement in the world outside the plaza. And the planton itself has value primarily because it forces public attention to focus on the crisis that has led each group to set up its encampment.

The SME workers used their plantons to dramatize repression by the federal government. When Mexican President Felipe Calderon dissolved the state-run power company for central Mexico and fired its 44,000 employees, he sought to destroy their union and move toward the privatization of the electrical system - to benefit Mexican and foreign 1 percenters. A year ago, several SME members conducted a hunger strike at the planton that generated front-page headlines for weeks, and lasted so long that doctors warned participants they were risking death. At the height of the protest, the union battled police in front of the power stations, as it tried to exercise its legal right to strike and picket.

The planton and the movement outside it were intimately connected. The hunger strikers were few, but spoke for a union of tens of thousands of workers. In the end, the SME negotiated the removal of its last planton in return for government acknowledgement of its right to exist. It organized other unions to resist the government's assault on labor rights, and mobilized electricity consumers to protest rising bills and cuts in service. The planton helped to focus attention on these demands, and to pull the union's allies into action.

Clearly, someone in Seattle knows this tradition of plantons in the Zocalo, perhaps even as a participant. When the painter made the Seattle banner, she or he also included, right next to the word "planton," the anarchists' "A" with the circle around it. This symbol was a reminder of another aspect of cross-border fertilization. Many anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists - members of the Industrial Workers of the World - fought in the Mexican Revolution. Because of that revolutionary upheaval, even today, almost a century later, ordinary Mexicans expect certain rights, including the right to set up a tent in the Zocalo. US workers crossed the border to fight alongside Mexicans in that insurrection long ago, for a government that would acknowledge that right. The planton, therefore, is a common heritage, with a history that makes it as legitimate on Wall Street as it is in Mexico City.

Not long after the OWS camp was set up in Zuccotti Park, the planton/occupy movement crossed the US/Mexico border. In Tijuana, home to a million people, mostly displaced migrants from Mexico's south, activists came together and set up an occupation on the grassy median of the Paseo de los Heroes. Their tents were pitched in the middle of the Zona del Rio, where the city's 1 percent meet in fancy hotels and work in government offices. Then, on October 18, police reacted even earlier than they did in most US cities, arresting two dozen activists at the urging of local businessmen. Occupy Tijuana condemned the detentions, declaring, "We are not assassins, delinquents, tramps or crooks."
In the US, we have our own history of defending public space for protest, and it isn't necessary to reach back a 100 years to find it. In just the last few decades, immigrant workers have popularized the use of the planton here, helping unions recover the militant tactics of their own past. In 1992, immigrants trying to join the United Electrical Workers mounted the first strike among production workers in Silicon Valley, and set up a planton and conducted a hunger strike to pressure their employer. A year later, other Latino immigrants in San Francisco erected their tents on the sidewalk in front of Sprint's headquarters, after their workplace was closed days before they were scheduled to vote in a union election.

A decade ago, anti-globalization activists and unions shut down the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. Young protesters chained their arms together inside metal pipes, and lay down in the intersections of downtown Seattle. Tens of thousands took over the streets. Other anti-globalization protests followed, in which activists battled for their right to use public space to challenge the international policies of the 1 percent.

Working-class support for the battle in Seattle had its roots in the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Workers could see the cost of free trade in the loss of their own jobs, as production moved south. Over the last two decades, many have also discovered that those same agreements and policies didn't make Mexicans better off, but led to their impoverishment as well.

NAFTA and free-market policies forced on developing countries produced opportunities for banks and corporations to reap profits. They drove down wages, forced farmers off their land and destroyed the unions and livelihood of millions of people. This system was designed on Wall Street, by the same bankers Occupiers hold responsible for the current crisis of foreclosures and unemployment in the US. The current economic crisis doesn't stop at the border. In fact, in Mexico, Central America, the Philippines, and elsewhere, it's been a fact of life for a long time. This is the source of forced migration - what Garcia condemned at Occupy ICE.

The 99 percent live in all those countries where free-trade agreements and structural adjustment policies are imposed. They also live in the communities of people who have come here as a result. Who, then, are more natural allies for Occupy protesters than people who've been on the receiving end of these policies for years?

In New York, this connection wasn't lost on Occupy Wall Street. In October, a group called Occupy Wall Street - Español was formed at the first Asemblea en Español. They, in turn, translated the first issue of the Occupied Wall Street Journal. Participants formed a subgroup, Occupy Wall Street Latinoamericano to spread the movement to Spanish-speaking communities, recognizing that the city is home to so many Mexicans from the state of Puebla that its nickname is PueblaYork, as well as much older established communities of Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, and other Spanish-speaking people. The group will soon publish the first issue of its own newspaper, with articles talking about immigration, globalization, and the specific attacks by the 1 percent on Latinos.

Claudia Villegas, a women's rights activist working with the group Occupy Wall Street Latinoamericano, helped organize a demonstration of immigrant women four days after police raided the Zuccotti Park encampment. "We decided to change our original plan for a march because we were afraid they would stop it," she says. "Nevertheless, 23 organizations participated including women's rights groups and above all, those working with immigrant women."

In San Francisco, a joint march of immigrant activists and Occupy participants helped to defend that city's encampment. In the general assembly meeting preceding it, participants talked about the city's offer to move the Occupiers into an abandoned building in the Latino Mission District several miles away. Few wanted to give up the camp on Justin Herman Plaza, and most felt the city was just trying to move them out of sight. But many people also felt that having an Occupy camp in the barrio was a good idea.

"We're still really working in parallel," Villegas says. She draws attention to the potential power of the immigrant rights movement, and what it could mean to OWS. "We have to include the movement that began in 2006, when there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets across this country. People were reacting to the injustice of the system then too." They're separate movements, though, she warns, and "our agenda has to come from immigrants themselves. We need to integrate, and at the same time the Occupy movement has to learn to accept us. But we're all on the same path."

Bringing the immigrant and Occupy movements together means more than setting up an encampment. The San Diego demonstration didn't set up an overnight camp, but it brought thousands of workers and supporters down to the ICE detention center to protest the firings of immigrant janitors.

The Occupy ICE protest was intended to draw public attention to the federal government's immigration enforcement strategy that requires employers to fire undocumented workers. In Southern California, the multinational corporations that clean office buildings are terminating 2,000 union members. Earlier waves of firings have targeted unionized building cleaners in Minneapolis, Seattle and San Francisco; sewing machine operators in Los Angeles; food service workers on university campuses; and thousands of others.

Garcia says ICE and the employers are in collusion. After firing union janitors with high seniority and benefits, using immigration status as a pretext, the companies can then hire new workers at lower wages with fewer benefits.

"To hide their greed the commercial real estate industry has used the tools of government to confuse and divide the 99 percent," he charges. "They first said we were unskilled workers who should be happy to be working. They then weakened worker protections to make organizing virtually impossible. Over the last decade the industry has used immigration as a wedge to intimidate and, if need be, replace our workers. ICE is doing what the 1 percent corporate real estate industry wants: using immigration laws to recycle well paid janitors in the hopes of taking back gains in pay and benefits our union has won." (Ironically the week United Service Workers West organized Occupy ICE its parent union, SEIU, endorsed the re-election of President Obama, who is responsible for the ICE policy of firing workers.)
For Occupy, defending workers under attack is a way to survive, grow roots and develop a strong base. That's not always the direction activists take, however. Near Oakland, over 200 immigrant workers at the largest foundry on the West Coast, Pacific Steel Casting in Berkeley, are being fired in another "silent raid" like that hitting the janitors. Through the summer and fall, foundry workers went to city councils, unions, churches and community organizations, seeking help to pressure ICE not to force them from their jobs. Their campaign held "the migra" off for months, but the firings began nevertheless in November. Now, these immigrant families are trying to survive. Occupy Oakland has yet to respond, however.

Instead, some of its activists are trying to shut down work in Oakland's port a second time, as well as others along the West Coast. An earlier march to close the port after the first eviction of Occupy Oakland drew thousands of people. The proposal for a second coast-wide shutdown, however, is opposed by the longshore union. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union's (ILWU) opposition does not come from conservatism. The union, whose members make a living from international shipping and trade, has been one of the most vocal critics of US free-trade agreements. ILWU members have taken action many times to defend the SME and unions in Mexico, as well as other countries. Its locals and members, however, had no role in the decision to try to close the ports, nor did other port workers.

Real solidarity is a two-way street, based on mutual respect. In most cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, labor has welcomed Occupy and sought to defend the encampments. In New York, Occupy activists have been given resources in many union halls, and unions have mobilized against police raids at Zuccotti Park. An alliance of unions, immigrants and Occupiers has great potential strength, not just in numbers, but also in the exchange of ideas and tactics. Unions in particular might benefit from wider use of the planton or Occupy encampment. Occupy ICE challenges the Occupy movement to take up the firings of immigrant workers, but it's also a challenge to unions themselves, many of whom have watched in silence as longtime members were forced from their jobs.

The vision of Occupy - the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent - has enormous support among immigrants and unions. In place of the tired rhetoric of politicians, shedding crocodile tears for the "middle class" while demonizing the poor, Occupy gives workers a vision of their commonality in the 99 percent. This powerful message blows away illusions that higher-paid workers have more in common with stockbrokers than with immigrants laboring at minimum wage, or unemployed young people on the streets of African-American ghettos or Latino barrios.

The Coalition for the Political Rights of Mexicans Abroad shares the same vision of class-based commonality. "We are outraged," it says, "that US citizens, when they demand justice and expose the inequalities that exist in their society, are treated like criminals. With the same outrage, we condemn the criminalization of migrant Mexicans by the US government, the raids by immigration authorities [and] the militarization of the border ... No human being should be treated as a criminal because they struggle to find better conditions in which to live."

Read more »

USHCC Announces Partnership to Provide Discounted Immigration Legal Services to Its Members

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC) today announced a partnership with Florida-based Como Inmigrar a USA (CIAUSA) that will provide easier and more affordable immigration legal services for Hispanic Business Enterprises (HBEs) across the country.

CIAUSA is a group of experienced professionals in the immigration field that specialize in various legal procedures, including asylum, naturalization and visa processing services for individuals.

Through this partnership, members of the USHCC seeking these services can take advantage of three membership levels that provide up to a 60 percent discount on standard immigration legal fees.

With more than 50 years of combined experience, Como Inmigrar a USA experts are able to assist USHCC members in achieving their goals. Interested members are invited to contact CIAUSA for more information:

Javier del Castillo, CIAUSA(786) 383-4355memberships@comoinmigrarausa.comwww.comoinmigrarausa.com/membresias/

About the United States Hispanic Chamber of CommerceFounded in 1979, the USHCC actively promotes the economic growth and development of Hispanic entrepreneurs and represents the interests of nearly 3 million Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States that combined generate in excess of $420 billion annually. It also serves as the umbrella organization for more than 200 local Hispanic chambers and business associations in the United States and Puerto Rico. For more information, visit www.ushcc.com.

SOURCE United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Read more »

State Dept official : SC immigration law threatens U.S. citizens' safety

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WACH, AP) -- A top-ranking U.S. State Department official says South Carolina's tough new immigration law has not only damaged the country's reputation but could also endanger U.S. citizens abroad.

Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns says in court documents that the law interferes with federal authorities' jurisdiction over immigration and could subject U.S. citizens to retaliation when they travel.

"Act No. 69 undermines the diverse immigration administration and enforcement tools made available to federal authorities and establishes a distinct state-specific immigration policy, driven by an individual state's own policy choices, which clashes with U.S. foreign affairs priorities, risks significant harassment of foreign nationals, and has the potential to harm a wide range of delicate U.S. foreign relations interests," said Burns in a statement.

Burns, who previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia and Jordan, is a career diplomat and foreign service officer who said he is tasked with helping the secretary of state form U.S. foreign policy.

His statement was filed as part of a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against Gov. Nikki Haley over the state's new law, which takes effect Jan. 1. Prosecutors want to halt the law while their lawsuit challenging its constitutionality moves forward.
The measure requires police to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Justice Department officials are challenging similar laws in other states.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has said he is willing to take the fight for South Carolina's immigration law to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Critics, including some law enforcement officials, have argued the law could put a burden on the state's prisons.

Do you think South Carolina's immigration law has damaged the country's reputation or could put U.S. citizens at risk while travelling outside the country?

Read more »

Gay immigrants in U.S. deserve protection

The San Francisco Bay Area is home to thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender immigrants from across the globe. Some have been beaten and jailed in their native countries for daring to hold a loved one's hand in public. Others have hidden who they are for years, fearing that they would be shunned by their families and communities. Many have come to America in search of freedom, equality and acceptance.

This week, President Obama sent an important message to LGBT people here and across the globe. He directed federal agencies to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign aid promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons. In his announcement, he reiterated his belief that "no country should deny people their rights because of who[m] they love." We applaud the goal of these new international initiatives to combat foreign governments' criminalization of LGBT status and to combat discrimination, homophobia and intolerance.

Yet, the U.S. government's expressed commitment to human rights abroad stands in stark contrast with the plight of LGBT immigrants in this country. Under U.S. immigration laws, LGBT individuals are denied basic rights because of whom they love.

For example, immigrants may be deported and permanently separated from their same-sex spouses or partners without legal recourse. It does not matter to the U.S. government how long couples have been together or how the lives that they have built together would be shattered by forced separation. Moreover, LGBT refugees seeking safe haven in the United States often find that our system of justice is not how they imagined it would be.

They may be forced to "prove" their sexual orientation or gender identity to skeptical U.S. Asylum Officers or immigration judges. This is a demeaning experience for many LGBT individuals whose very existences have repeatedly been called into question or denied by their families and communities.

In addition, U.S. courts have become increasingly hostile to LGBT refugees seeking asylum in the country, pointing to purported human rights advancements in other countries. Yet, too often, there is a focus on the narrow question of whether it is technically "legal" to be gay, lesbian or transgender in another country, without acknowledging the genuine peril faced by LGBT persons who live with the omnipresent threat of violence in their homes, in their workplaces or walking on the street.

While we hope that the Obama administration's newly announced foreign initiatives will help bring about much-needed change across the globe, we urge our elected officials to safeguard the human rights of LGBT people here and abroad. Our moral authority on the world stage will only be enhanced if we lead by example and ensure that no country, including the United States, denies people their rights because of whom they love.

Philip Hwang is the director of policy and programs at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Noemi Calonje is the Immigration Project director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Read more »

U.S. Immigrant Business Owners Supported by Chicago Officials

immigrant business owners, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced on December 6, 2011.

Following other cities and states, Chicago has now kicked off its municipal department focusing on immigrant entrepreneurs. The Office of New Americans is headed by former activist Adolfo Hernandez. He's from the Little Village neighborhood, one of the largest Mexican business communities in the U.S. The department coordinates training and workshops for immigrant entrepreneurs in hope of creating jobs in the U.S. and promoting Chicago as a global economic hub. In addition, The Office of New Americans will soon expand its concentration to other issues like English language and U.S. citizenship.

According to the Mayor, the opening of this department is considered a step toward making Chicago "the most immigrant-friendly city in the world". Similarly, Mr. Hernandez said it's a signal that the city wants immigrant business. He also indicated that Chicago's history is closely tied to the U.S. immigration story and it's important to recognize that "immigrants bring a lot".

Statistics revealed that immigrants were more than twice as likely to start businesses as non-immigrants in 2010, and the number of immigrant business owners in the U.S. keeps growing, according to a study by Robert Fairlie, a professor at the University of California in Santa Cruz who has researched the issue for the U.S. Small Business Administration.

If you are interested in Visas to the USA, contact Migration Expert for information and advice on which visa is best suited to you. You can also try our visa eligibility assessment to see if you are eligible to apply for a visa to the United States of America.

Read more »

More boats ahead, Immigration warns

Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe agreed it was "possible" 3600 boatpeople could be intercepted in the next six months. Picture: Ray Strange Source: News Limited
MORE than 3600 asylum-seekers could arrive in Australian waters in the next six months unless there are changes to border protection laws, Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe has warned.

As the 64th boat to arrive this year was intercepted in Australian waters yesterday, Mr Metcalfe told a parliamentary committee the flow of boats would not slow any time soon.

Under questioning from opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, Mr Metcalfe agreed it was "possible" 3600 boatpeople could be intercepted in the next six months.

"I think we should expect a significant number of arrivals," Mr Metcalfe said.

He said the department remained concerned about overcrowding in immigration detention centres and was working on keeping detainee numbers down to prevent more riots.

The evidence came as the seventh boat in nine days was intercepted by Customs, carrying 49 people and three crew.
Subscriber Content

The arrival takes the total number of boatpeople to reach Australian waters this year to 4115.

Mr Metcalfe had previously warned the rejection of the government's Malaysia Solution could lead to 600 asylum-seekers making their way to Australia each month.

He told the committee into Australia's Immigration Detention Network yesterday that the recent High Court overturning of the Malaysia deal and its move to allow asylum-seekers appeal rights in court had "effectively unwound legislation" put in place in 2001.

Under the deal Australia was to send 800 boatpeople to Kuala Lumpur in exchange for 4000 processed refugees.

First assistant secretary Greg Kelly told the hearing the department was working at getting new arrivals off Christmas Island and into mainland detention centres within two weeks of arrival to prevent overcrowding.

"That is our aspirational target," Mr Kelly said.

"Obviously it depends on the weather conditions, the availability of charter flights and any other things dependent on ensuring detainees are safe to travel."

As of last night there were more than 1300 asylum-seekers on Christmas Island, with most of the more than 300 asylum-seekers to arrive this week yet to be on the island.

The latest asylum-seeker boat was picked up yesterday by HMAS Larrakia, northwest of the Ashmore Islands.

Customs said the passengers would be transferred to Christmas Island, where they would undergo initial security, health and identity checks.

Tony Abbott said yesterday Australia's border protection system was in crisis.

"The Prime Minister has effectively given up," he said. "She talks about offshore processing but she practises onshore release. The government's policy is Bob Brown's policy -- let people come, put out the welcome mat to the people-smugglers."

The Opposition Leader said the push to release more asylum-seekers into the community on bridging visas would only encourage more to come. "Handing out bridging visas, they might as well have a bridge between Indonesia and Australia," he said.

Read more »

Stop illegal immigration while we still can

Independence, MO —

I am not a cold hearted racist or bigot, just a caring, responsible American who has great concern for our country and respects those who obey the laws of our country and enter legally according to those laws.Illegal immigration has absolutely nothing to do with racism, but has everything to do with the laws of our nation. Illegal immigrants have always been portrayed as the victims, when in reality the American people, our culture and our country are the real victims.

Illegal immigrants, particularly those from Mexico, have no allegiance to this country and they’re realistically not here to take part in the American dream, but in reality to take advantage of the American dream at our expense. Check out You Tube “Aztlan Rising.”

There are many obvious and necessary reasons why it’s not an easy task to become a legal American citizen. Compromise in any way, shape or form is wrong and no one should ever be rewarded for committing an illegal act and consequently destroying our culture, economy and country. We do not need comprehensive immigration reform; we just need to enforce laws already on the books, and our existing immigration quotes are already very generous. Under no circumstances should citizenship to this country be for sale or barter such as fines, or in exchange for serving in the military. Only true-blooded legal Americans should protect America.

Local and state governments need to quit putting all the blame for lack of enforcement on each other and the federal government and take the task and responsibilities upon themselves and take on the federal government if that’s what it takes, and states need to band together. Our elected representatives want us to believe or feel they have crafted various tough/harsh legislation and have represented that to their constituents, when in reality that same legislation is very ambiguous and full of loopholes. I’ve studied it (Missouri HB1549) and we need to demand that our legislators make needed changes. We don’t want them to tell us why they can’t, we want to hear how they will. That’s why the were elected, and you tell me, has illegal immigration gotten better or worse through the years?

The following are some of the reasons why we need to get laws changed and loopholes closed:

■ Our federal government, state and local budget problems wouldn’t exist to the extent they do if we weren’t spending massive amounts of our tax dollars on illegal immigrants.

■ Our unemployment rate could and would be dissolved if 30 million people weren’t in our country illegally for Americans to compete with. It’s a fallacy that Americans won’t do the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing. Americans were doing those jobs before they were taken over by illegal immigrants.

The statement that American won’t do the jobs has been stated so many times for such a long time that some Americans, including their elected representatives have come to believe it. The truth of the matter is that various businesses and industries have exploited illegal immigrants and at the same time forced legal American citizens to compete for those jobs offering lower and lower wages and less and less in benefits. It’s also a fallacy and insult that we need to grant special visas to non-citizens because we don’t have American citizens with a particular technological experience.

■ Illegal immigrants have taken over a majority of construction related industries, various factories, processing plants, fast food and restaurants and won’t stop there.

■ Illegal immigrants have taken advantage of every social program established even through they’re entitled to none of them.

■ Illegal immigrants have overwhelmed, decimated and compromised our health care system. Illegal immigration is the primary cause in the rise of polio, head lice, measles and mumps, several of which were once eradicated in this country.

■ Illegal immigrant children have overwhelmed, decimated and compromised our public school system and bilingual classes have become disruptive and costly.

■ Illegal immigrants have overwhelmed our judicial system and overwhelmed our prison system.

We shouldn’t condone parents who knowingly illegally sneak their children into our country or give birth in our country and consequently use them like winning lottery tickets with the intent and consequence of taking advantage of legal American citizens and their children. Why should our children suffer the consequences? La Raza (The Race) in essence is a self-proclaimed racist organization that has permeated itself in various levels of our government for the sole purpose of trying to give credibility to millions of people who are in our country illegally and have no true allegiance to our country.

People who have entered our country illegally are guilty of breaking one of our most sacred laws and have absolutely no right to be here and are consequently due nothing. The Obama administration has refused to enforce our key immigration laws. Some Republicans seem to favor illegal immigration to provide a cheap labor source for various businesses and also seem to lack the nerve and the guts to actually solve our illegal immigration problems. Democrats seem to be for the acceptance for illegal immigration so they can increase their voter base and further their liberal agenda. Both parties seem to be more concerned about their political careers than the well-being of their country or constituents.

The state needs to mandate that all municipalities need to verify that all business license holders do not employ illegal immigrants and that E-Verify needs to be mandatory for all businesses and workers with no exceptions regardless of the number of employees and all employees must be reported, no excuses. All forms of businesses need to be discouraged from catering and pandering to illegal immigrants. We need to discourage various organizations from allowing/accepting illegal immigration within the business community.

It needs to be unlawful for schools/learning institutions, car lots, banks/loan institutions, public housing and rental property owners from doing business with someone unless they can prove lawful presence in this country. The existence of the “turning a blind eye” sanctuary cities must be eliminated. It needs to be unlawful to register/license in Missouri any motor vehicle without a valid Missouri driver’s license.

Yes, the Hispanic population has exponentially increased in our country; however if you took illegal immigrants and their anchor babies out of the equation, that definitely wouldn’t be the case. Our country has literally been invaded while lawmakers looked on and continued to kick the can down the road. Elected representatives need to face and start reporting the facts. In reality it has been documented and reported that there are upwards of 30 million people in our country illegally and not the federal government numbers of 12 million.

Elected representatives have to, in a manner of speaking, take off the gloves and hit back twice as hard as the pro-illegal immigration groups. Past federal, state and local legislators/lawmakers are primarily responsible for the illegal invasion of our country. A typical elected representative’s scapegoat statement is that we’ve got to secure our borders first. However, the correct answer is we need to simultaneously deport those in our country illegally.

Another common statement is that we can’t deport large numbers of illegal immigrants, when the facts are we’ve never tried, and we will never control our borders unless our elected representatives become truly serious to resolve the issue. All law enforcement agencies and government entities need to have the authority to determine if someone is in our state or country illegally, and that’s not racial profiling.

All elected representatives have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and protect and defend our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, which is paramount to their public service. Elected representatives can’t be intimated by the federal government, liberal groups, ACLU or La Raza and must remember they were sent to office to do the right thing for their legitimate constituents, community, state and nation, not to win a popularity contest or pander to people who are in our country illegally.

If we don’t solve this illegal immigration issue, any and all past, present or future legislative accomplishments will be for nothing because we will have lost our country. We are truly in the fight of our lives and for the survival of our great nation and there can be no excuses for not doing the right thing and what needs to be done. It’s not too late to do what we must to save our country. Do something, contact your elected representative now!
Copyright 2011 The Examiner. Some rights reserved

Read more »

Illegal immigration, water transfer

In response to “Fewer migrants caught crossing border” (Dec. 7): It’s terrific news that apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the border are at their lowest level in 42 years. But if your editorial board thinks that’s a reason to ease up on border enforcement and consider some form of immigration amnesty, it’s mistaken. There are still 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., and 8 percent of births in the U.S. are to illegal-immigrant parents.
Letters policy

The Union-Tribune encourages community dialogue on important public matters and welcomes letters to the editor. To enable us to publish as many letters as possible, please be aware that lengthy letters might reduce the chances for publication. All letters are subject to editing for accuracy, space, grammar, clarity or other reasons. It is our policy to publish letters supporting or opposing a particular issue in a ratio reflecting the number received on each side. Letters must include a full name, community of residence and a daytime telephone number, though the phone number will not be published.

A 2004 study by the Urban Institute found that while illegal immigrants constitute 3 percent of the nation’s population, they account for 17 percent of its inmate population. And a study by the Center for Immigration Studies projected that legalization would cost taxpayers $29 billion for public benefits such as the earned-income tax credit, Medicaid, food stamps and housing – services already available to illegal immigrants with U.S.-born children.

So, when planning holiday season gift-giving, please cross immigration amnesty off the list. – Doug Bell, Rancho Peñasquitos
Up in the air

In response to “Court supports S.D. water transfer” (Dec. 8): I was astounded to see Imperial County argue air quality as a basis to block the agreement to transfer water from the Colorado River to San Diego. Yes, increasing the exposure of the Salton Sea’s bed to air will create more desert surface to blow in the wind. However, the pollutants from the decrepit New River and Alamo River are still there, and still arriving, and so pollution is a problem in the Imperial Valley, whether of the air, water or ground and whether or not the agreement is changed or canceled.

I have had family continuously living in Imperial Valley for almost 94 years and I studied the air quality there when I attended Imperial Valley College during the mid-1970s. What Imperial County probably concealed from the Court and your paper is (a) that historically (when I lived there 35 to 38 years ago) the particulate levels were over twice those in downtown Los Angeles, and (b) that there could not be any substantial degradation of the already dismal air quality there from more exposed seabeds given the air pollution already caused by windblown desert sands, tilled fields, feedlot feed, bedding and manure, primitive field burnings and aerial spraying of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides by corporatized agribusiness interests dominating agriculture there. I conducted my study because I spent five continuous months there with debilitating respiratory illness that has had no parallel before or after in my life.

My decided opinion is that Steve Peace’s plan should be fervently pursued; it would provide for a swap of San Diego County effluent and Colorado River water, which would remove the city of San Diego’s despicable dumping of the effluent into the Pacific Ocean, provide a source of potable water for San Diego -- avoiding full reclamation of effluent or ocean water -- and deliver to Imperial Valley agricultural interests the water it needs with limited reclamation. – Robert Burns, Ocean Beach

Read more »

Immigration Authorities Release Alabama Woman After Appeal To Janet Napolitano

WASHINGTON -- Immigration officials released an undocumented Alabama woman from custody on Thursday, about four hours after a Democratic congressman told Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano about her case.

The woman, a 19-year-old named Martha, was stopped on Dec. 3 for driving without lights, and then arrested because she did not have a driver's license. Although police planned to release her, she remained in jail at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents -- even though she has a clean criminal record, is married to a U.S. citizen and has an American-born daughter.

Her case caught the attention of Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who traveled to Alabama in November to talk to residents about the impact of the state's HB 56 immigration law. He brought up Martha's situation and a recently announced "prosecutorial discretion" policy by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to drop deportation cases against some undocumented immigrants deemed low priority. Gutierrez requested that Martha's last name be left out to protect her identity.

Martha should fit into that category, he said, but was instead being held in jail because of her immigration status.

A few hours after Napolitano's meeting with members of Congress ended, Martha was released and returned to her husband and children. On Friday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement dropped all proceedings against the woman.

"It upsets us that it took so long," Gutierrez told HuffPost of Martha's release. "On the positive side, she's with her husband. ... She's back with her child and with her husband, and for the immediate future she's not deportable."

He declined to comment on what he heard from Napolitano on Thursday, saying it was a private meeting. But Gutierrez said he believes Napolitano is committed to implementing the prosecutorial discretion policy, even though it is not yet implemented in every case.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesman did not respond to an inquiry about whether the woman's release was connected to the secretary's meeting with members of Congress.

Gutierrez is pushing immigration officials to release other immigrants who have long-standing ties to the United States. He is also working with a man in South Carolina, another state with a recently-passed immigration law, who was released after the congressman helped prove that the man entered the United States as a child and had citizen family members.

Of course, not all detained undocumented immigrants can receive help from advocacy groups or members of Congress. Gutierrez said he wants to pressure immigration officials to ensure the prosecutorial discretion policy is implemented nationwide and encourage undocumented immigrants to carry papers that show their ties to the United States.

"The complaint is it's just not working on its own," he said. "Lots of things don't work on their own. Every day you have to be an activist to ensure that government is being fair and equitable with people."

Read more »

State Dept official: SC immigration law is wrong

COLUMBIA -- South Carolina's tough new immigration law has not only already damaged the country's reputation with other nations but could also endanger U.S. citizens as they travel abroad, according to a top-ranking U.S. State Department official.

“Act No. 69 undermines the diverse immigration administration and enforcement tools made available to federal authorities and establishes a distinct state-specific immigration policy, driven by an individual state's own policy choices, which clashes with U.S. foreign affairs priorities, risks significant harassment of foreign nationals, and has the potential to harm a wide range of delicate U.S. foreign relations interests,” according to a statement by Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns.

Burns, who previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia and Jordan, is a career diplomat and foreign service officer who said he is tasked with helping the secretary of state form U.S. foreign policy.
His statement was filed as part of a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against Gov. Nikki Haley over the state's new law, which takes effect Jan. 1. Prosecutors want to halt the law while their lawsuit challenging its constitutionality moves forward.

The measure requires law enforcement officers to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Justice officials are challenging similar laws in other states.

Burns wrote in court documents the law interferes with federal authorities' jurisdiction over immigration and could subject U.S. citizens to retaliation when they travel.

“U.S. immigration laws must always be adopted and administered with sensitivity to the potential for reciprocal or retaliatory treatment of U.S. nationals by foreign governments,” Burns wrote, warning that the law's severity risks antagonizing governments into not wanting to help the U.S. with various foreign policy issues, collaborate on trade agreements or cooperate in counterterrorism activity.

The law also undermines the U.S. standing in multilateral bodies, Burns wrote, and can confuse other countries that see it as evidence of the country's inconsistency on immigration policies.

“By creating a patchwork of immigration regimes, states such as South Carolina make it substantially more difficult for foreign nationals to understand their rights and obligations, rendering them more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment,” he wrote. “

Some of those other countries have already weighed in against South Carolina's new law. Sixteen Latin American and Caribbean nations have filed “friend of the court” briefs in the lawsuit, voicing fears the new law would lead to their citizens facing state-sanctioned discrimination.

A hearing in the case is set Dec. 19. In their own court filings, South Carolina officials have said that the federal government “lacks statutory authorization to bring this action” and criticized the U.S. Justice Department for waiting so long to bring its lawsuit.

Read more »

Ala. GOP leaders have 2nd thoughts on immigration

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama Republicans who pushed through the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants are having second thoughts amid a backlash from big business, fueled by the embarrassing traffic stops of two foreign employees tied to the state's prized Honda and Mercedes plants.

The Republican attorney general is calling for some of the strictest parts of it to be repealed.

Some Republican lawmakers say they now want to make changes in the law that was pushed quickly through the legislature.

Gov. Robert Bentley, who signed the law, said he's contacting foreign executives to tell them they and their companies are still welcome in Alabama.

"We are not anti-foreign companies. We are very pro-foreign companies," he said.

Luther Strange, the attorney general who's defending the law in court, this week recommended repealing sections that make it a crime for an illegal immigrant to fail to carry registration documents and that require public schools to collect information on the immigration status of students. Both sections have been put on hold temporarily by a federal court.

Two foreign workers for Honda and Mercedes were recently stopped by police for failing to carry proof of legal residency. The cases were quickly dropped, but not without lots of international attention that Alabama officials didn't want.

One of the groups challenging the law in court said the auto workers' cases turned public opinion.

"Suddenly the reality of what the state has done hit people in the face," said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Before 2011, Republicans tried repeatedly to pass an immigration law but were always stopped by the dominant Democrats. That changed when Alabama voters elected a Republican legislative super majority — the first since Reconstruction. The result was a law described by critics and supporters as the toughest and most comprehensive in the nation.

It requires a check of legal residency when conducting everyday transactions such as buying a car license, enrolling a child in school, getting a job or renewing a business license. After the U.S. Justice Department and other groups challenged the law, the federal courts put some portions on hold, but major provisions took effect in late September.

Alabama suddenly found itself at the center of the nation's immigration debate, ahead of other states with tough laws, including Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina.

Within Alabama, much of the debate is within the business community that helped fund Republicans' new strength.

The Birmingham Business Alliance this week called for revisions in the law, expressing worry that it's tainting Alabama's image around the world. The group also said complying with the law is a burden for businesses and local governments, but did not offer specific changes.

James T. McManus, chairman of the Alliance and CEO of one of the state's largest businesses, the Energen Corp., said revisions "are needed to ensure that momentum remains strong in our competitive economic development efforts."

In Thomasville, a town of 4,700 about 80 miles southwest of Montgomery, Mayor Sheldon Day worries about recruiting industries.

He said about 25 foreign companies have visited the town to consider possible plant sites since Thomasville recruited a Canadian steel company in July 2010.

"Up until a few months ago, nobody raised the immigration issue," he said. But in the last few months, it's been brought up regularly. Day suspects competing states are portraying Alabama as hostile to foreigners even though he says that is not the truth. Based on the questions he gets from industrial prospects, he also believes competing states are recounting stories from Alabama's civil rights past.

"It's bringing back old images from 40 or 50 year ago," he said.

The governor says he's declined many national TV interviews about the law because he doesn't want to fuel comparisons with what he sees as Alabama's long gone past. "It's going to take us a long time to outlive those stereotypes that are out there among people that Alabama is living in the '50s and '60s," Bentley said.

The Republican sponsors of the immigration legislation promoted it as a jobs bill that would run off illegal immigrants and open up employment for legal residents. That was an easy political sale in a state suffering from nearly 10 percent unemployment. Even some Democrats voted for the law.

Since the law took effect, Alabama's unemployment rate has dropped a half percentage point. Economists and state officials who compile the statistics say it's too early to say whether to credit the immigration law.

But one of the sponsors, Republican Sen. Scott Beason of Gardendale, said neighboring states without a similar law haven't seen the same drop. "There is nothing else to attribute it to," he said.

If there has been any damage, he said it's the fault of inaccurate portrayals in the news media. He said the media ought to be reporting: "This law establishes a safer, more secure environment for people to come here and invest their money."

Republican House Speaker Mike Hubbard of Auburn said no industrial recruiters have complained to him about the law, and he will only support "tweaks" that make it more effective without weakening it.

Some Democratic Party leaders have called for repeal, but the party is now so weak in Alabama that the real debate is among Republicans.

The governor says the law is "very complicated" and needs to be simplified. He hasn't recommended any specifics, but he says Alabama won't abandon its goal of ensuring that only legal residents get jobs.

Strange, the attorney general, says his recommended changes "don't weaken the law, they just make it easier to defend."

Beason, however, said Strange's proposals would weaken the law by repealing two sections that allow private citizens to sue state and local officials to enforce it. Beason said that's needed because some officials are already saying they won't follow the law.

Other Republicans say the law is causing unnecessary problems for legal residents. Senate Republican Whip Gerald Dial of Lineville said legislators hear complaints from people about digging out documents to prove their legal residency when renewing professional licenses and buying car tags.

"I made some mistakes in voting for this bill, and I want to step up and fix them," he said.

Read more »

Alabama GOP Rethinks Immigration Law

Phillip Rawls of the Associated Press is reporting that Alabama Republicans, who pushed through the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants, are having second thoughts amid a backlash from big business. The backlash is being fueled by the embarrassing traffic stops of two foreign employees tied to the state's prized Honda and Mercedes plants.

Luther Strange, the Republican attorney general, is calling for some of the strictest parts of the law to be repealed, namely the sections that make it a crime for an illegal immigrant to fail to carry registration documents and that require public schools to collect information on the immigration status of students. Both sections have been put on hold temporarily by a federal court.

Rawls writes:

Gov. Robert Bentley, who signed the law, said he's contacting foreign executives to tell them they and their companies are still welcome in Alabama.

"We are not anti-foreign companies. We are very pro-foreign companies," he said.

Is that funk band Cameo we hear playing in the background? Strange, pun intended, and Bentley are talking out of the sides of their necks. Let's revisit this quagmire: When hardworking American citizens argue against the strict law, the Alabama GOP moves forward with enacting it. When foreign companies with foreign interests argue against the controversial law, the Alabama GOP rethinks the law and decides to repeal some of the more heinous parts of it.

We're not rocket scientists, but that logic doesn't quite add up. What does add up? The Alabama GOP disposing of laws that they claimed were necessary in order to continue doing business with foreigners, who they don't really want in this country unless there is money to be had. On another note, just where were these foreign executives when the GOP was pushing this xenophobic law through at lightning speed?

Read more »

Gingrich defends state's immigration law, Perry seeks momentum during Upstate visits

Newt Gingrich brought his rapidly ascending campaign to Greenville on Thursday, declaring that as president he would end the government’s legal action against South Carolina’s immigration law.

Rick Perry also brought his hopes to town, declaring his campaign still was on the march.

The 2012 Iowa caucuses are less than four weeks away — South Carolina’s primary is six weeks out — and the two Republicans reached out to local voters, one in the unaccustomed role as frontrunner and the other looking for a comeback.

Gingrich told a gathering of business and community leaders that on the day he’s inaugurated, he will sign an executive order dropping lawsuits against South Carolina, Alabama and Arizona “because I think the federal government should be stopping illegal immigration, not stopping the states from enforcing the laws.”

Gingrich also said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from Seneca, will introduce a measure, possibly as a constitutional amendment, to address “birth tourism,” referring to people who come to the U.S. on a tourist visa to have children, who then can be considered Americans.

“That’s clearly not what the 14th Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution) implied, and I think it’s inaccurate to interpret that way,” Gingrich said, referring to the provision that persons born or naturalized in the United States are U.S. citizens.

A spokesman confirmed Graham is examining two approaches, including a constitutional amendment. The other would seek a new Supreme Court interpretation of a century-old case.

“We’re still working on the i’s and t’s of it, but we are going to be introducing something,” said Kevin Bishop, Graham’s spokesman.

Last year, in an interview on Fox News, Graham said he might introduce an amendment to address birthright citizenship. It brought a barrage of criticism from supporters and detractors alike who interpreted it as a reversal of his stated positions on immigration reform.

South Carolina’s immigration law, which takes effect Jan. 1 and borrowed some portions from Arizona’s measure, would require that law enforcement officers, upon “reasonable suspicion” that a person might be in the country illegally, check his or her immigration status.
However, officers couldn’t stop or arrest a person merely on that suspicion.

The U.S. Justice Department sued the state in federal court in Charleston, contending certain provisions of South Carolina’s immigration law are unconstitutional and interfere with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy.

Federal officials argue that the Constitution and the federal immigration laws “do not permit the development of a patchwork of disparate state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups also have filed a federal lawsuit against South Carolina’s law, charging that it is unconstitutional, that it invites racial profiling and that it interferes with federal law.

At the Global Trade Park in Greenville, Gingrich said his immigration policy centers on controlling the U.S. border, creating a new visa program, establishing “earned legality” for the millions of people who are in the U.S. outside the law and quick deportation of criminals and gang members.

He also would ensure that every new citizen and every young American learn American history, Gingrich said.

“I have a very aggressive position on immigration,” he said. “I think that we should have absolute control of the border by Jan. 1, 2014, and I’m prepared to put in the resources and I’m prepared to change the law to enable us to get the whole thing completed.”

Perry has defended a law he signed allowing children of illegal immigrants in Texas to pay in-state tuition rates for state colleges. As a border-state governor, he also opposes a border fence to block illegal immigration.

Until now, Perry had stressed his state’s record in job creation. His pivot to social issues — including a sharp critique on gay rights — shows he is looking to his party’s most conservative base to find new momentum.

“There’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school,” Perry says in his new TV ad.
Gingrich, long consigned to the fringes of South Carolina conservatives’ hunt for a change agent, is riding a wave of support that includes tea party factions six weeks before South Carolina’s primary that Gingrich says he must win.

A new Winthrop University poll pegged Gingrich’s support at 38 percent among likely voters, well ahead of Mitt Romney’s 21 percent and 9 percent for Perry.

Campaigning in Greenville, Perry greeted diners at an Orchard Park restaurant to press forward with his campaign.

He said he isn’t going down without a fight.

With a huge new television ad campaign targeting social conservatives, the presidential hopeful signaled Wednesday he intends to try to resuscitate his faltering candidacy in Iowa, which holds kickoff caucuses in less than four weeks. It’s a tall order for Perry, who entered the race to great fanfare in August only to see his popularity plummet throughout the fall.

“We’re sitting in a good place at this particular point in time,” Perry told CNN. “Obviously, we’re going to be in South Carolina a good bit over the course of the next two weeks. But Iowa is the real focus.”

Illustrating that, Perry’s campaign has launched a $1.2 million ad buy in the caucus state leading up to the Jan. 3 contest. The campaign plans to spend more than $650,000 this week alone on a commercial showcasing his Christian faith.

Gingrich’s popularity is flourishing, despite political baggage and questions about his conservatism, in part because of how he talks in packed venues across the state, say some conservative activists and political experts.

“Our country’s in real trouble and we need change,” said John Symons, former executive vice president of the Mauldin-based Bi-Lo grocery chain and now a local businessman.

“We need a very intelligent leader. We need an experienced leader. We need someone who can change the direction of the United States of America. I think we have that candidate in Newt Gingrich.”

Greenville Mayor Knox White welcomed Gingrich at the trade park but stopped short of a direct endorsement, telling the crowd, “Like you, I’m here to hear him and to assess what he has to say.”

White called the former U.S. House speaker “one of the transformative leaders of the latter part of the 20th century and the 21st century now.”

Gingrich’s leadership on hallmark legislation reforming welfare and to balance the federal budget proves he’s “not afraid of big ideas and doing big things,” White said.

“It’s big ideas that have transformed Greenville and made it is what it is today,” White said.

In August, Perry campaigned with White at his side along Main Street.

For 55 minutes Thursday, in a speech and question-and-answer period, Gingrich extolled the virtues of shrinking the government and bolstering the economy.

Not everyone seemed convinced of his approach.

Vivian Wong, the trade park’s founder, accompanied Gingrich and told GreenvilleOnline.com that she hoped “to give everybody a chance to hear him.”

Asked if she was endorsing Gingrich or supporting his candidacy, Wong said, “I will let you know later.”

Read more »

Kenney’s Anti-Immigrant Mean Streak Continues As He Targets 6500 Immigrants For Citizenship Fraud

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s anti-immigrant mean streak isn’t just directed at immigrants who became citizens but his department has also been working on cases of those who are not yet citizens. Kenney claims nearly 4,400 people with permanent resident status who are known to be implicated in residence fraud have been flagged for additional scrutiny should they attempt to enter Canada or obtain citizenship. There is nothing wrong with cracking down on immigration and citizenship fraud but the Conservatives as usual go gung-ho in targeting immigrants and this comes across as actions of a government bent on attacking and vilifying immigrants. This seems like overzealousness given that since 1867, Canada has only revoked the citizenship status of 66 people but under the Stephen Harper Conservatives thousands of immigrants are on the chopping block.

By R. Paul Dhillon

SURREY — Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s anti-immigrant mean streak continues as he targets an additonal 6500 people for citizenship after already stripping 1800 of citizenship earlier.

On Friday, Kenney announced that the Conservative government is now investigating 6,500 people from more than 100 countries for fraudulently attempting to gain citizenship or maintain permanent resident status.

“Canadian citizenship is not for sale,” the always boastful Kenney boasted. “Canadians are generous people, but have no tolerance or patience for people who don’t play by the rules and who lie or cheat to become a Canadian citizen. The Government will apply the full strength of Canadian law to those who have obtained citizenship fraudulently.”

In July, Kenney announced that Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) was beginning the process to revoke the citizenship of up to 1,800 citizens who he claimed obtained it fraudulently; that number has now risen to more than 2,100.

Kenney’s mean streak isn’t just directed at immigrants who became citizens but his department has also been working on cases of those who are not yet citizens. Nearly 4,400 people with permanent resident status who are known to be implicated in residence fraud have been flagged for additional scrutiny should they attempt to enter Canada or obtain citizenship. The majority of these individuals are outside the country.

There is nothing wrong with cracking down on immigration and citizenship fraud but the Conservatives as usual go gung-ho in targeting immigrants and this comes across as actions of a government bent on attacking and vilifying immigrants. This seems like overzealousness given that since 1867, Canada has only revoked the citizenship status of 66 people but under the Stephen Harper Conservatives thousands of immigrants are on the chopping block.

According to Kenney, in typical cases, permanent residents will use the services of an unscrupulous immigration consultant to establish evidence of residence in Canada while living abroad most, if not all, of the time. This fraud is perpetrated so that individuals can maintain their permanent residence status and later apply for citizenship. A family of five may pay upwards of $25,000 over four or more years to create the illusion of residence in Canada.

“My department is working closely with the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Canadian offices abroad to prevent people who are suspected of non-compliance with the permanent residence requirement from being admitted to Canada without proving they meet the requirements and take enforcement action when necessary,” Kenney added.

Critics say Kenney as usual being high handed in this witch hunt given that under the Conservatives immigration reforms it’s taking a long time for people to become citizens

Immigration lawyers say even a simple citizenship application can take a year to process and suggested the crackdown needed to be supplemented with pragmatism.

To date, of the 4,400 permanent residents who have been flagged, nearly 1,400 people have withdrawn or abandoned their citizenship application because of new scrutiny.

Permanent residents must acquire three years of residence out of four years to apply for Canadian citizenship. To retain their status as permanent residents, they must be physically present in Canada for two years out of five.

“I encourage anyone who has information regarding citizenship fraud to call our tip line to report it,” Kenney urged.

He’s asking Canadians to spy on their immigrant neighbours and report cases involving false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances in the citizenship process – for example, pretending to be present in Canada to meet the residence requirements for obtaining citizenship. They can report by calling the citizenship fraud tip line at CIC’s Call Centre at 1-888-242-2100 (in Canada only, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday). Tips may also be reported by e-mail at Citizenship-fraud-tips@cic.gc.ca. Those overseas can contact the nearest Canadian visa office.

All other fraud types related to immigration should be reported to the CBSA’s Border Watch Tip Line at 1 888-502-9060. Tips accepted by the Border Watch Tip Line include, but are not limited to, suspicious cross-border activity, marriages of convenience, misrepresentation in any temporary or permanent immigration application, or the whereabouts of any person wanted on an immigration warrant.

Kenney’s department has been cracking down on the actions of crooked consultants – consultants are calling it a witch hunt and so are many immigrants – during the immigration process. Bill C-35, originally introduced as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, came into force on June 30, 2011. The Act imposes penalties on unauthorized representatives who provide, or offer to provide, advice or representation for a fee at any stage of an immigration application or proceeding.

Read more »

Immigrant Activist Group Says “Jason Kenney Hates Your Grandparents”

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

The People v. Kenney Campaign sent out this notice where they criticize the always boastful immigration minister of telling lies that Canada is accepting a record number of immigrants.

Minister Jason Kenney is yet again falsely saying that Canada is accepting a record number of migrants. He made a recent announcement about increasing the number of parents and grandparents visas to 25,000 in 2012.

What Kenney failed to mention was that it was actually under the Conservative government that immigration quotas were drastically dropping in the first place. According to a Toronto Star report, family class immigration has dropped by 10,000 people – which is 15% – under the Conservatives. This past year Jason Kenney made the backlog crisis of over 165,000 people worse by slashing sponsorship visas by 25%, while collecting millions of dollars in profit in sponsorship fees.

As of November 2011, Ottawa has also completely stopped accepting applications for immigration sponsorships of parents and grandparents until 2014. Instead parents and grandparents can apply for the “Parent and Grandparent (of the Rich 1%) Super Visa” which requires a minimum income and sets the dangerous two-tier precedent of requiring family members to provide private Canadian health-care insurance. Kenney also announced that the quota for spouses and children will be reduced by 4,000 per year. Our lives and our family’s well-being is just a numbers game for him.

Kenney is known as the ‘Minister of Censorship and Deportation’ because he is one of the most unjust immigration ministers. Deportations have increased, the number of skilled worker visas has decreased by about 20%, and the quota allotted for live-in caregivers to become permanent residents has been slashed by half. Instead, Kenney has increased the number of temporary workers who have no rights of residency and are constantly exploited for their labour. By shutting the door to refugees, family sponsorships, and skilled workers, Canada is ensuring that migrants are being recruited primarily as indentured labour for big business.

Without any value for the dignity of migrants or community kinship, Kenney’s model is Permanent Temporariness: of migrant worker programs and now a temporary family reunification program. The reality is that Canada depends on the stolen labour of migrants – as dangerous and low-wage labour in the formal economy and unpaid labour in the domestic sphere. We cannot allow divisive, racist, and false ideas of migrants ‘stealing our jobs and resources’ to let the Harper government off the hook for prioritizing the slashing of critical public services, bailing out banks and subsidizing corporations, destroying Indigenous lands and the environment, and sinking billions into prisons and the military. Join with people across the country rejecting Kenney and Harper’s agenda!

Read more »

Gov. defends immigration law

MONTGOMERY, AL (WSFA) -

Governor Robert Bentley reiterated his support for the immigration law today.

In a brief public appearance outside the Alabama Capitol, Governor Bentley declared, "We are not repealing it."

Earlier in the day, the governor had released a statement with the Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate Del Marsh saying the law will not be repealed but that they were open to changes that wouldn't weaken it.

However when the governor was pressed by a reporter about possible changes to the law, Governor Bentley said, "There were unintended consequences."

The governor did not say what specifically in the law had led to the unintended consequences but said the immigration law, as with any piece of legislation, from time to time requires additional examination and possibly even revision.

"You know you just need to go back and look at it and you just say you know, if things are not working the way that we want it to, we need to change it" Gov. Bentley said.

Governor Bentley was explicit and said Friday's statement wasn't related to proposed changes made by Attorney Luther Strange on Dec.1 in a memo to lawmakers.

Attorney General Strange had proposed changing and deleting language from the law as well as even repealing certain sections. In particular Strange recommended repealing the section that required local law enforcement to hold someone who is in the country illegally until federal authorities arrive. Strange argued in his memo that the provision didn't align with Alabama law.

He also recommended repealing the sections requiring public schools to check the citizenship status of newly enrolled students and the one requiring that everyone carry registration papers or documents that can prove citizenship.

Federal judges have blocked those two sections from going into effect.

Gov. Bentley said "Many of the things that he has talked about really overlap with some of the things that we had already discussed and we had been working on this really for months ever since we started to enforce this law."

The governor said he will consider the changes Strange has proposed. He also remarked that Strange has a stake in the immigration debate since he will be the one defending the law in court.
Posted: Dec 10, 2011 5:49 AM PST

Bentley said he understood that Strange made his suggestions in order to make the law more defensible in court.

The governor also used Friday's announcement as another opportunity to attempt to reassure international companies in Alabama, as well as those considering Alabama as a location, that the state is open for business.

"We want companies especially international companies to understand that things have not changed" Gov. Bentley said. "We're going to still continue to recruit industry from other countries and we want them to know that they are going to continue to be welcome."

The governor said he has not heard from any company that they have decided against locating in Alabama because of its immigration law.

Read more »

City of Gatineau publishes 'statement of values' for immigrants

By Arthur Weinreb
Dec 6, 2011

Gatineau - Although the Quebec city published the guide in October, a controversy is now brewing over some of what newcomers to Quebec are being told. To some, it is reminiscent of what happened in Herouxville in 2007.
The guide lists 16 points that newly arrived immigrants to Canada who settle in Gatineau should adhere to. By following these guidelines, the city hopes the newcomers will be better able to adapt to their new home. The statement of values is supported by Quebec's Ministry of Immigration and Cultural Communities on the basis it is necessary for recent immigrants to understand Quebec's core values.
Gatineau, located just across the river from Ottawa, is the fourth largest city in Quebec. According to its website, the population in 2006 was 242,124. As a percentage of the population, immigrants comprised 8.7% of the population in 2006, compared to just 5.6% in 1991.
Some of the points are far from controversial. Immigrants are told they must learn French even though they live in close proximity to Ontario. The newcomers are also told that men and women have equal rights in La Belle Province.
Some points are less neutral. New immigrants are informed that bribing public officials is unacceptable. They are also told that punctuality is important and they should arrive at appointments a few minutes early. And as Quebec is a secular province, newcomers are told it is better not to display their religion in public.
Other points in the document have really raised the ire of critics. One of the points that is controversial is contained in the point that outlines how violence against women and children is unacceptable in the province. Besides indicating that physical and sexual violence is wrong, newcomers are also warned not to "willfully starve" their children.
Recent immigrants are also warned about using certain spices that cause body odour and strong cooking smells emanating from their homes. These smells, they are told, can prevent them from adapting to their new home. Statements such as these have been described as "infantile" and "paternalistic' by critics.
Regarding advising immigrants to feed their children and not starve them, Daniel Weinstock, a professor of ethics at the Universite de Montreal, was quoted as saying,

Imagine a Quebecker going abroad and being told, 'By the way, you might not know this, but if your team loses a hockey game, it's not okay to burn peoples' cars.'

Comparisons are being made between Gatineau's statement of values and the code of conduct that was released by the Quebec village of Herouxville in 2007. Aimed primarily at Muslims, newcomers to the tiny village were told it was not acceptable to stone women in public, female circumcision was wrong, and that faces should not be covered in public, except on Halloween. Some of these statements were removed after complaints were received.
But the statement of values does have supporters in Quebec. Carmelo Marchese, who works with Quebec newcomers and is an immigrant himself, said that immigrants need to learn these values in order to adjust. If some paragraphs are seen as offensive it is because they are being taken out of context.

Read more »

It's Time to Protect Women and Children in Immigration Detention From Rape

Posted: 12/ 6/11 04:25 PM ET

"The doors were locked, there were no cars on the road, and there was nothing I could do. I just shut up. I was crying, and he talked to me as if I were nothing. I thought he was going to kill me."

These haunting words are how Kimberly, a domestic violence victim from South America, described how she was sexually assaulted by a security guard while in the custody of immigration officials at the Don T. Hutto detention facility in Texas. Ironically, she faced this violence on the day she had been released from the detention center, having won her petition to seek asylum in the U.S. based on fear of persecution in her home country.

On the car ride to the airport for her flight out of Texas, Kimberly was repeatedly groped and then mocked by the guard, her driver. For months afterwards she couldn't sleep and lay awake, afraid that the man would find her.

Despite Department of Homeland Security officials' statements that sexual abuse is not a serious issue in their facilities and that they have sufficient standards in place to protect detainees from abuse, data recently obtained by the ACLU makes it undeniably clear that Kimberly's case was not an isolated incident, and that the guard who abused her -- and several other women at Hutto -- is not a lone bad apple.

After filing a Freedom of Information Act request related to Kimberly's court case, the ACLU found that almost 200 incidents of sexual abuse of detained immigrants have been reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since 2007. Alleged sexual abuse of immigration detainees has occurred at jails, ICE processing centers and private detention facilities across the country. Perpetrators have included local police and ICE employees, as well as contract guards and fellow detainees.

As the ACLU has emphasized, these reported cases are most likely just "the tip of the iceberg." Many immigrants are traumatized by what has happened to them, and are afraid to report abuse by the same authority that has the power to deport them. Others are deported before they get the chance to report the abuse. And other still, don't know who to go to or how to file a complaint when they have been raped in detention.

The Women's Refugee Commission has long advocated for government reform around this issue, and our visits to detention facilities over the years have confirmed that sexual abuse of immigration detainees is a problem U.S. officials desperately need to address. Victims have told me they had no idea how to report abuse and so it went unreported until they were transferred or released. Staff at some ICE detention facilities have told us that if penetration is not confirmed by a doctor, they do not consider the case sexual assault. ICE officials often tell us that they comply with federal prison standards; but when pressed on what this means in practice, they do not know.

In 2003, Congress unanimously passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), setting a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault in prisons and specifically citing the vulnerability of immigrant detainees. But recent action by the Department of Justice (DOJ) puts this policy at risk. A February 2011 DOJ document stated that, "Protection from sexual abuse should not depend on where an individual is incarcerated: It must be universal." But their definition of "universal" is in fact limited. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims that the PREA standards do not apply to them. Draft regulations issued by the DOJ specifically exclude detained immigrants in DHS custody from the protection afforded to other prison inmates, including those convicted of violent crimes. By exempting immigration facilities from the same standards that are enforced at criminal facilities, the Justice Department is effectively saying that those serving criminal sentences should be protected from sexual assault, but immigrants held in civil custody don't have to be.

PREA should be extended to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) facilities that house immigrant children as well. Unaccompanied minors who arrive in the U.S. after fleeing trafficking, domestic violence, conflict or poverty need special protection, as they are the most vulnerable group of all -- but they are also excluded from the current draft regulations. At the privately run Texas Shelter Care Facility in Nixon, Texas, a staff member was convicted of sexual assault after repeatedly abusing several children. The facility was eventually closed and the company's federal contract was terminated, but only after the abuse was ignored for over a year. My colleagues and I documented this incident and other cases of abuse of unaccompanied minors in our 2009 report, Halfway Home: Unnaccompanied Children in Immigration Custody. Yet, DHHS lacks a clear, universal policy specifically addressing sexual assault of unaccompanied children in immigration custody.

ICE has issued its own set of standards for the treatment of immigration detainees at its facilities, but these are not legally binding and lack many of the protections in the PREA standards. ICE's standards simply state that sexual abuse will not be tolerated, without making provisions for reporting and addressing abuse, ensuring coordination and oversight across detention facilities or mandating preventative requirements such as staff training and extensive background checks. Our research and monitoring, and the nearly 200 reported cases of abuse, make it clear that the ICE standards are ineffective. Without a way to implement and enforce these standards, the abuse is bound to continue.
The Women's Refugee Commission has long argued that the standards mandated by PREA were intended to apply to everyone who is in detention in the United States. These standards declare that the tolerance of rape and sexual abuse in prison settings is "incompatible with American values." It is time that we apply these values to our treatment of immigrants as well.

Take action now by telling President Obama and other U.S. officials to protect immigration detainees in U.S. custody from sexual abuse.

Read more »

Most undocumented immigrants have lived in U.S. over 10 years: study

Immigration dropping to levels not seen in decades

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Tuesday, December 6 2011, 8:03 AM
Almost two-thirds of the estimated 10.2 million adult undocumented immigrants in the U.S. have lived here for at least 10 years, according to a study released this week by the Pew Hispanic Center.

About half of them have children under 18 years old.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's proposal to regularize the status of some undocumented immigrants drew fire from rivals Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, who said the plan would provide incentive for illegal immigration.

But the Pew study provides the latest evidence of an unprecedented drop in illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico, which seems to have more to do with changing economic conditions than government policy.

"The rising share of unauthorized immigrants who have been in the U.S. for a long duration reflects the fact that the sharpest growth in this population occurred during the late 1990s and early 2000s — and that the inflow has slowed down significantly in recent years, as the U.S. economy has sputtered and border enforcement has tightened," the study states.

Arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border — another key measure of illegal immigration flows — dropped this year to levels not seen since the 1970s, even as the number of Border Patrol officers there has doubled since 2004.

The Border Patrol arrested 327,577 people illegally crossing into the U.S. from Mexico in fiscal year 2011, a 25% drop from the previous year, The Washington Post reports.

"We have reached the point where the balance between Mexicans moving to the United States and those returning to Mexico is essentially zero," Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center told The Washington Post.

The New York Times reported in July that Mexican immigration to the U.S. has slowed due for a variety of reasons, including more economic opportunity for potential migrants at home, rising violence along the border and the prolonged U.S. economic slump.

Read more »

Illegal Immigration: Gaps Between and Within Parties

Public Split Over In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

Overview

The public continues to support tough measures to crack down on illegal immigration, but also a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally. A plurality (43%) says the priority should be better border security and enforcement, as well as creating a way for illegal immigrants to become citizens if they meet certain requirements. Fewer say the priority should only be better security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws (29%), or only creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the U.S. (24%). These opinions have not changed substantially over the past year.

Americans are evenly split over whether illegal immigrants who graduate from high school in their state should be eligible for in-state college tuition: 48% say they should be eligible for the in-state tuition rate, while 46% say they should not.

The national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Nov. 9-14 among 2,001 adults finds continuing partisan differences over immigration policy. More than twice as many Republicans as Democrats say the priority for dealing with illegal immigration should only be better border security and stricter law enforcement (47% vs. 22%).

Yet there also are divisions within both parties’ coalitions over the overall priority for U.S. immigration policy and whether illegal immigrants should be eligible for in-state tuition.

There is a substantial age gap over immigration policies in opinions among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. A majority (57%) of Republicans and GOP leaners 65 and older say border security and stricter enforcement alone should be the priority for immigration policy, while 24% favor a dual approach that would include a path to citizenship.

Among Republicans and GOP leaners younger than 30, 42% say the focus should be on tougher border security and enforcement along with a path to citizenship, while 30% say the priority should only be on better border security and stricter enforcement.

Republicans and Republican leaners who agree with the Tea Party are more likely than those who do not to say that better border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws should be the priority (52% vs. 36%).

There also are differences among Democrats and independents who lean Democratic. About half of Hispanic Democrats and Democratic leaners (52%) say the priority should be to create a way for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. to become citizens if they meet certain requirements. Only about a quarter of non-Hispanic whites (27%) and African Americans (24%) agree.

Liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners favor a path to citizenship over stronger enforcement by more than two-to-one (37% vs. 15%) while conservative Democrats are divided (30% prioritize security and enforcement, 28% path to citizenship).
Public Split Over In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

Nearly half of the public (48%) thinks an illegal immigrant who went to high school in their state and is accepted to a public college should be eligible for the in-state tuition rate, while 46% disagree.

About three-quarters of Hispanics (77%) say illegal immigrants should be eligible for in-state tuition, compared with 66% of non-Hispanic blacks and just 40% of non-Hispanic whites .

Most Republicans (63%) say illegal immigrants should not be eligible for in-state college tuition. By contrast, 56% of Democrats say they should be eligible. About half of independents (51%) favor in-state tuition for illegal immigrants while 44% are opposed.

About six-in-ten of those younger than 30 (61%) favor allowing illegal immigrants to be eligible for in-state tuition, compared with 38% of those 65 and older. And while there are no significant educational differences in these views, 58% of those with family incomes of less than $30,000 support this proposal, compared with 45% of those in households earning at least $75,000 a year.
 
The internal divisions in both parties over immigration policy priorities are generally reflected in opinions about in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

Republicans and Republican leaners are divided by age and income. Two-thirds (68%) of Republicans 65 and older say illegal immigrants should not be eligible for in-state college tuition; just 24% say they should be eligible. Republicans under 30 are divided (48% say they should be eligible, 48% say they should not). Republicans with higher family incomes are more opposed to this proposal than are those with family incomes of less than $30,000.

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans who agree with the Tea Party (74%) say illegal immigrants should not be eligible for in-state tuition. Among Republicans who do not agree with the Tea Party movement, fewer (52%) oppose in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, fully 82% of Hispanics think an illegal immigrant should be eligible for in-state tuition. Smaller majorities of non-Hispanic blacks (65%) and whites (51%) agree. Two-thirds (66%) of Democrats younger than 30 favor in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, compared with 54% of those 50 and older.

Read more »