The Border: Exploring the U.S.-Mexican Divide

by David J. Danelo (Author)

Border Field State Park sits on three square miles of protected California real estate tucked south of a score of horse farms. Rusted steel spires slice through the final white obelisk that marks the line between nations and towers against a background of salty, endless blue. Waves crash along an empty beach; surfers and sunbathers are banned from this part of the coastline. A "Danger/Peligro" sign warns that those who-like me- walk down to the ocean should not dive in, lest we risk being infected by industrial waste. A Border Patrol agent sits inside a truck parked on a hilltop,scanning the sea for any migrants willing to take the plunge.

I gazed upon the vastness of the open sea, inhaled the wet, heavy fragrance of flora and fauna, and reflected on my quest to understand this complex 1,952 mile terrain. During the early 1990s before the fence was installed, migrants used to sprint north from the flat floodplain stretching into Tijuana. Back then they would mass in groups and run on highway, dodging La Migra and traffic until reaching a pickup point. Today the beach was quiet.

Rafael Peralta had been one of those illegals. He was twelve when he broke the law and ran accross the border near this stretch of sand. For six years he lived illegally in San Diego. Sowehow, he obtained a green card for one reason: he wanted to join the U.S. Marine Corps.

In November 2004, Sgt. Rafael Peralta, USMC- who had become a dual U.S.-Mexican citizen - was a platoon scout with an infantry company in Iraq assaulting the city of Fallujah. Prior to departing for the attach, Peralta wrote his younger brother Ricardo, telling him not to worry. "Be proud of me, bro," he said, "and be proud of being an American."

On November 15, as the fighting spread from house to house, sargeant Peralta stood at the front of several Marines and threw open the door to a room occuptied by insurgents. As he entered the room, Peralta was shot several times in the torso and face. After Peralta's fellow Marines had flooded in, an insurgent threw and hand grenade. Bleeding and mortally wounded, Sergeant Peralta grabbed the grenade and cradled it, absorbing the blast with his body and saving the lives of four others Marines. Sgt. Peralta has been nominated for the Medal of Honor.

As I stood at the end of the border, less than ten miles south of Sargeant Peralta's final resting place at Fort Rosecrans National Cementry, I wondered if anti-immigration activists would attempt to block the reception of America's highest honor for valor because of his former immigration status. And if they would not, I wondered why they prevent millions of other Mexican men and woman-who would grow up to be heroes like Sergeant Peralta-from being offered a pathway to do so. I knew what thier answer would be, I did not find it satisfactory.

But despite my pessimism, I was unwilling to throw in the towel. To give up hope entirely on a rational solution to stabilizing the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Mexican borders would dishonor Sergeant Peralta's memory. Someday, I thought, perhaps Americans and Mexicans will freely traverse this vast river and land. Perhaps citizens from both nations will have access to honorable work and fair trade, united against economic challengers accross the pacific. Perhaps the people will not fear their differences, because the police on both sides will be trustworty. Perhaps the border will finally make sense.

I closed my eyes and let the ocean breeze embrace me. Accompanied only by Sgt. Rafael Peralta's memory, I welled with emotion as I tried to imagine the impossible: the day when both sides of la frotera would be at peace. That moment felt very away.

Obama to hold bi-partisan meeting on immigration reform

Obama to hold bi-partisan meeting on immigration reform
In April, the Obama White House made huge news when it signaled that it would pursue immigration reform this year.

Mizanur Rahman
Houston Chronicle
Immigration Chronicles

It appears today the administration is taking its first step to that goal.

According to America's Voice, the Obama Administration announced that it plans to hold a bi-partisan meeting with members of Congress on June 8 to discuss moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform this year.

So we'll start taking bets now on the odds of CIR passing this year.

The nonpartisan Reform Institute held a forum in Capitol Hill today to talk about its position that immigration reform is critical to long-term economic growth.

Former U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and demographer Dowell Myers of the University of Southern California attended the forum. According to a Reform Institute statement:

"The United States has long benefited from having the most talented, hardest working labor force; fixing our broken immigration system so that the best and the brightest from around the globe will continue to bring their energy and entrepreneurial spirit to the U.S. will be critical to maintaining our competitive edge as well as our ability to be the land of opportunity and prosperity," stated Secretary Gutierrez.

"The two greatest demographic forces that will shape America's future are the aging of the baby boomers and the settlement and advancement of immigrants; where they intersect must be a key focus for policymakers," according to Dr. Myers.

Not everyone is buying the argument that immigration reform would help the U.S. economy. Here's an excerpt from a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform:

The arguments put forward by amnesty advocates -- such as the Immigration Policy Center -- offer no new research, but rather regurgitate research that lumps together legal and illegal immigrant workers in order to give the false impression that illegal immigration is a benefit to the country and would be even more so if they gained legal status through an amnesty. This ignores findings that demonstrate the very different characteristics of illegal alien workers compared to legal permanent residents.

Experience with the 1986 amnesty demonstrates the falseness of the assertion that adoption of an amnesty would transform lowskilled, low-educational-attainment, illegal aliens into skilled, educated workers who would be making high wages and paying higher taxes.

Research in fact documents that the result would be the opposite. Adoption of an amnesty would perpetuate competition for low wage jobs, harm to the nation's
most vulnerable workers, extend reliance on social welfare programs by poor Americans, and increase the number of persons eligible for social assistance.Moreover, granting amnesty to illegal aliens would send the
message around the globe that the United States no longer believes in the rule of law and is not willing to punish those who violate it.

Looking Beyond "Deport or Legalize" for Immigration Solutions

Looking Beyond "Deport or Legalize" for Immigration Solutions
by Dave Bennion

category: Immigration Law

Published May 21, 2009 @ 11:12PM PT

Too often when people think about immigration reform, they think about whether or not to legalize the millions of migrants living undocumented in the U.S., or whether a guest worker program will be implemented and what shape it might take. Or the focus might be on whether to scrap the current employment and family preference categories for a Canadian-style point system.

But all of these questions only deal with symptoms of deeper problems. The story of 12 million Mexicans hopping over border fences or swimming the Rio Grande is a story you'll often see on cable news. It's a simple story with simple solutions--you've got a homogenous group of lawbreakers, now deport them or legalize them, then build up the wall and stiffen penalties all around so it doesn't happen again.

But since that simple story fails to accurately assess the current problems, those simple solutions will surely fail to solve them.

The 12 million undocumented come from every country and represent every race. Many entered lawfully with valid visas, and were pushed out of status by unreasonable laws unreasonably interpreted. Some had lived here for decades as permanent residents before becoming "illegal," something that's hard to anticipate when harsh laws have retroactive effect and little flexibility. (This is the best summary I've seen of the perverse and cowardly bipartisan criminalization of immigration policy, much of which occurred on Clinton's watch in the 1990s.) Some did cross the border, but faced impossible choices at home due to forces that short-sighted U.S. policies helped unleash, and had no line to wait in to enter with authorization. Some sought refuge from persecution and instead found prison or a life in the shadows. Others were trafficked or brought as children.

After adding up all the exceptions to a norm that may exist only in the victimhood fantasies of Lou Dobbs, you may find that most of the 12 million don't fit easily into either the simple story or the simple solution. Successful immigration reform, one that won't have to be repeated in 20 years, will not fit the simple "deport or legalize" binary. A reasonable immigration system wasn't destroyed and replaced with a dysfunctional one overnight, it was gradually dismantled, piece by piece, in a coordinated, sustained effort that continues today. Reversing that process won't be easy, but little of value is gained without struggle.

These suggested reforms from AILA's Dagmar Butte represent a good starting point, and delve beneath the shallow cable news analysis and spineless poll-tested slogans that have so far dominated the field. I'll have more to add in the coming days and weeks--I hope you'll mull it over and make contributions of your own.

1. A method for families to be united in the United States without subjecting them to the lengthy or even permanent bars to re-entry that result purely from unlawful presence in the US. To do this, INA 212(a)(9)(B) and INA (a)(9)(C) must be eliminated.

2. A more sane and less arbitrary method for aliens in removal proceedings who have US citizen or LPR spouses, parents or children to remain in the US than the current Cancellation of Deportation process.

3. Restoration of due process protections for all aliens, even those who have committed serious crimes. After all, our constitution does not say every person is guaranteed due process of law “unless he or she is a criminal.” It says everyone gets due process.

4. More resources for Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals so that they have the time to actually decide and review cases in a meaningful manner. This will relieve pressure on the Courts of Appeals and restore integrity to the immigration review system.

5. Restoration of discretion for Immigration Judges particularly in cases involving minor criminal violations where the alien either has fully reformed or the factual circumstances are such that there are substantial mitigating circumstances.

6. Making Immigration Judges truly independent so that there are free to render truly impartial decisions and so that they are not viewed – rightly or wrongly – as simply rubberstamping the policies and decisions of DHS.

7. A restructuring of the current quota system that actually considers the migration patterns of today –both in terms of family and business immigration. For example, today’s quotas were created at a time when no one anticipated large numbers of brilliant engineers coming from India and China and a time when, frankly, we did not need them. Today we do and the current nine year backlog in processing petitions for Indian born engineers who hold Masters’ Degrees (many from the US) is outrageous and stupidly shortsighted.

8. A robust program both for high skilled workers and essential workers in agriculture and other industries that have difficulty attracting a qualified workforce.

Testimony of Sam F. Vale

Testimony of Sam F. Vale
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
May 20, 2009

Mr. Sam F. Vale President Starr-Camargo Bridge Co. Rio Grande City, Texas Hearing Testimony U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship "Securing the Borders and America's Ports of Entry, What Remains to Be Done" Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:00 a.m. 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Good morning Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing focused on security at our nation's borders and ports of entry. My name is Sam Vale and I am the President of the Starr-Camargo Bridge in Rio Grande City, Texas. I am also a founding Board Member of the Border Trade Alliance (BTA), as well as Chair of the Public Policy Committee. The BTA has been around since 1986 and has grown to represent over 2 million border stakeholders who are involved with all aspects of trade, travel, security and commerce in our border communities along the U.S. – Canada and U.S. – Mexico borders.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of today's hearing is a question that those of us at the border have been asking ourselves and of the federal government for a long time and I anticipate that we will continue to do so well into the future. The security of our borders is not something that is static and is dependent on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The very nature of trade, travel and cross-border commerce within the context of the concerns with terrorism require that we stay ever vigilant and prepared. Over the past eight years the federal government has taken many steps to enhance security at our land ports of en¬try and between them. However, not all these steps have been taken in the same direc¬tion. The implementation of multiple layers of security, especially at our land ports of entry, where all legitimate cross-border commerce and trade occurs has not been without its negative impacts on another aspect of border and national security, that of our eco¬nomic security. This is certainly a significant factor in our future economic survival.

Our border communities, along our shared borders with Canada and Mexico, support di-verse international economies that are dependent upon cross-border trade and travel. A large percentage of traffic at our borders is repeat, daily crossers who account for a sig-nificant portion of the sales taxes, property taxes and the commercial revenues generated which are subject to IRS collections. Our border communities are responsible for con-ducting more than $2 billion cross-border trade at our land ports each and every day.

As I mentioned, the policies and procedures designed to facilitate secure trade and travel at our borders have changed dramatically during the past decade. However, the failure to successfully legislate a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Package has created signifi-cant challenges the foundation for all other security programs. The increased federal in-spection changes at our borders have not occurred without reasonable concerns about their impact on legitimate trade and commerce. Similarly, the incredible growth in trade at our borders has not been without its share of growing pains. The infrastructure at our border crossings, for the most part, has not kept up with the increased volume of trade and travel.

U.S. land ports of entry last year conducted a record $830 billion in cross-border trade. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 2008, U.S. land border crossings processed 45.7 million pedestrians, more than 10.7 million trucks and more than 107.5 million personal vehicles.

It has become apparent during the past decade that all too often during the deliberation and development of U.S. border policy, the prevailing mindset in Washington, D.C. is that one-size fits all. While there are shared underlying issues along both the U.S.¬Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders, such as the ongoing need to invest significantly to in¬crease capacity and update infrastructure at our busiest land ports of entry. However, there are many challenges and complex dynamics that are unique to each of our borders with our NAFTA partners. With over 30 years of hands on border operational experi¬ences, I strongly urges this Committee, Congress and the Administration to not neglect our unique bi-lateral relationships with Canada and Mexico, along with the individual needs and concerns of these relations in pursuit of a one-size fits all, national border pol¬icy.

Our land ports of entry do not have the infrastructural capacity to adequately handle out-bound inspections into Canada or Mexico, yet there have been calls for Congress to re-quire DHS to do exactly that. In fact without proper Immigration Reform the data base for all security programs in inadequate and constantly changing.

Congress simply has to do more to address the decades old backlog in our Immigration Codes as well as adequate annual infrastructural investments needed at U.S. land ports of entry. Today the majority of our land ports were designed without anticipation of the vast federal security operations now present at all U.S. border crossings.

The increased security presence at our border crossing in Texas has overwhelmed our existing infrastructure. Our import lots become parking lots for unmanned border patrol units. Most existing port of entry, were designed and built a half century or more ago. Our ability to protect our nation in both terms of physical and economic security while generating more cross-border economic activity with our two largest export markets in Canada and Mexico is limited by our infrastructure and human resources.

Delays and long lines hamper cross-border commerce and trade, causing just-in-time manufacturing to give way to just-in-case; prompting lower crossing numbers for work or pleasure to our neighboring communities in Canada and Mexico, which in turn reduce both tax revenues and toll revenue which results in our lessened ability at the local level to reinvest in infrastructure to support legitimate trade and travel.

The $720 million included for land port infrastructure upgrades as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a very appreciated step forward.

However, with the exception of the Mariposa, Arizona and San Ysidro, California ports of entry, the majority of projects funded by Customs and Border Protection and the Gen-eral Services Administration using these stimulus dollars were for small land ports of en-try with low crossing volumes. A note of interest here is that Secretary Napolitano has noted that the Mariposa port in Arizona was design completed when she was Governor, lacking only the funding. If we are to increase the security of our land ports and enhance our ability to generate more national economic activity through trade, we need to reinvest more in upgrading our land border crossings and focus first on areas with the greatest im-pact. We need to use annual appropriations to fix these items and not one time stimulus dollars which need to be allowed to do their job as advertised.

DHS, in conjunction with its federal agency partners, needs to collaborate to expedite the approval process for the prioritization, selection and funding of land border infrastructure projects that improve the facilitation of cross-border trade and travel. Congress can help by committing more funds toward border port infrastructure while also looking at reduc¬ing the time it takes for any project at our ports to comply with all the regulatory re¬quirements before construction, specifically the process of obtaining presidential permits from the State Department.

Further, we need to take a hard look at all our current layers of security at and between our ports of entry. Congress should urge the Department of Homeland Security to as¬sume the leadership role among federal agencies in conducting a performance and utility assessment of the multiple layers of federal security programs and policies that currently govern legitimate trade and travel along the U.S. shared borders with Canada and Mex¬ico. In short, DHS needs to ask the tough questions: Are these programs effective? Can they be better integrated and harmonized to increase both security and the efficiency of trade and travel? Can they be more effective and efficient with additional resources and improved infrastructure?

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that before Congress mandates any further layers of secu-rity at our borders that we examine thoroughly what we already have in place. Adding yet another requirement for DHS to implement without changing the infrastructure at our ports and committing more resources, more boots on the ground, is unlikely to yield much in return in terms of security, while having a serious impact on the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel.

In short, Congress has to ensure that scarce federal dollars are committed toward pro-grams, policies, and projects that result in the greatest benefit in terms of economic and physical security. Successful border security efforts require the utilization of risk-based assessments based upon real-time intelligence to direct the most efficient allocation of scarce federal resources in order to attain the greatest security benefit.

Finally at the foundation to all security inspections is identifying the people who enter and leave our country. To do that a fundamental need is Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member along with all the Members of this Committee for its focus on the need to achieve adequate Immigration Reform as well as balance between security and facilitation of legitimate travel at our borders. I offer the assistance of all of our colleagues that live and work along the border along with the BTA working identifying solutions to these important border issues.
Again, I am honored to participate in this hearing and it will be my pleasure to address any questions you may have.
Thank you.

Arrests on Southern Border Drop

Arrests on Southern Border Drop
27% Decline Marks Fewest Seizures by Agents Since 1976

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 21, 2009



The number of arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border has dropped 27 percent this year, a decline that could put the figure at its lowest level since the early 1970s, federal officials said yesterday.

The decline accelerates a three-year-old trend that experts attribute to the economic downturn, with stronger U.S. immigration enforcement measures also playing a role.

U.S. Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar released the data to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, refugees and border security, noting that the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled from 9,000 in 2001 to a projected 20,000 by September. The government also has completed 626 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers. It plans 661 miles of barriers on the 2,000-mile frontier.

"By several measures, the border is far more secure than it has ever been and, with our help, will soon be even more secure," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the panel, which held the first of four hearings scheduled to take place before the August recess. Aides said the hearings are meant to build a case for overhauling immigration laws.

President Obama has invited advocates to hammer out a legislative approach and has set a June 8 meeting at the White House for a small, bipartisan group of Senate and House leaders, a spokesman said yesterday, "with the hope of beginning the debate in earnest later this year."

The committee's senior Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), noted that the Border Patrol made 723,000 arrests last fiscal year.

That is "still a lot," he said. "That is not a lawful border. . . . We're not there yet."

Arrest figures only partially measure illegal immigration because authorities do not know how many immigrants evade capture and because one person can be arrested many times.

But the trend is corroborated by declining rates of remittances sent by immigrants to their native countries and by Mexican census data. More than 11 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, and experts do not see evidence that many are leaving.

The Border Patrol reported 354,959 arrests from October 2008 to May, down from 486,735 over that period a year ago. About 97 percent of the arrests were on the southern border.

The figure for fiscal 2008 is less than half the 1.7 million in 2000 -- the peak -- and is the lowest since 1976, the Department of Homeland Security said.

Spending on U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the patrol's parent agency, has climbed 82 percent since 2004, from about $6 billion to about $11 billion.

Douglas S. Massey, a professor at Princeton University, said the crackdown has increased the average cost of border crossings from $600 in the early 1990s to $2,200. But he noted that the cost of each arrest has also risen. The number of fatalities also has climbed as migrants seek more remote areas to avoid capture.

Schumer pushes immigration reform

The Washington Times
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Schumer pushes immigration reform
Stephen Dinan (Contact)

With the nation's top immigration enforcement officers saying they will finish the border fence and continue President George W. Bush's immigration enforcement efforts, the top Democratic senator on immigration said Wednesday that the nation's borders are secure enough to begin working on a legalization bill for current illegal immigrants.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, said that given progress over the past four years - from barriers to more agents to better technology - lawmakers have proved to the nation that they are serious about security. Now, he said, voters should be ready to accept a law that legalizes illegal immigrants and rewrites immigration rules.

"We can pass strong, fair, practical and effective immigration reform this year," the New York Democrat said.

Efforts to pass a broad legalization bill faltered in 2006 and 2007 as voters flooded Congress with calls. Lawmakers concluded that voters didn't believe the bills would actually control the border.

At a hearing before his subcommittee Wednesday, Mr. Schumer pointed to falling apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border - down 27 percent compared with last year - as evidence the borders are more secure. He said that should convince voters who objected in 2006 and 2007 to Senate legalization bills that the government has done its job.

Mr. Schumer did not credit Mr. Bush for the progress, instead praising Congress for passing the Secure Fence Act and other laws to strengthen border security - even though Mr. Schumer initally opposed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. He voted first to block the bill through a filibuster, but that effort failed and he voted for the measure on final passage a day later.

But Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said with 700,000 people still being arrested annually, "that is not a lawful border." He also said his fights to get a vote on fencing and other security measures belies Mr. Schumer's claim that voters can now trust that Congress understands the security issue.

"I don't think the politicians have in any way distinguished themselves, ourselves, in this matter," he said.

He said progress has been made in security, but rather than showing that the job is done, it underscores the prospects for success if the government takes other steps on enforcement.

"We are not there yet," he said.

The Obama administration has changed the focus of interior enforcement from detaining illegal workers to the employers who hire them. On border security, the administration remains committed to expanding the strategies of Mr. Bush. That includes finishing his plans for fencing and vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, said Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar.

"Everybody is in agreement; we will continue to build the fence," he said.

During the campaign, President Obama said he wanted to have a comprehensive immigration bill done in his first year but he has since backed off that and said his schedule is too full. Instead, he wants to begin talks that will lead to a bill later.

Adding to that momentum, Mr. Obama will host a small group of congressional Democrats and Republicans at the White House in June to talk about immigration and where work needs to be done, according to an administration official familiar with the issue who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"The meeting is intended to launch a policy conversation, with the hope of beginning the debate in earnest later this year," the official said.

Testimony of Douglas S. Massey

Testimony of Douglas S. Massey
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
May 20, 2009

Good morning senators. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am a social scientist who has been studying immigration for three decades and co-direct a research project that has been in the field for more than 25 years and generates the largest and most reliable source of data on the behavior of documented and undocumented migrants to the United States.

During the 1970s the United States declared a War on Crime; during the 1980s it declared a War on Drugs; and in the 1990s it declared a War on Immigrants. In my view, these
policies had more to do with domestic politics than with the underlying realities of crime, drugs, or immigration, with negative consequences all around.

In the case of immigration, in 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act launched what proved to be a two decades-long militarization of the Mexico-US Border; and in 1993 the Border Patrol enacted a new strategy of blocking the border at strategic crossing points. From 1980 to 2000, the number of Border Patrol Agents increased 3.7 times, linewatch hours rose by a factor of 6.5, the agency's budget increased by a factor of 12 (see Figure 1).

Paradoxically, this militarization occurred as undocumented migration reached its peak and moving downward. It also unfolded as we were drawing closer to Mexico economically, by treaty agreeing to lower the barriers to cross-border movements of goods, capital, information, services, and certain classes of people. Between 1980 and 2000 total trade increased nine times, business visitors 7.4 times, treaty investors ten times, and intracompany transferees 27 times (see Figure 2). Somehow wished to integrate all factor markets in North America except one, and to build a border that was impermeable to all flows except workers. This fundamental contradiction was not sustainable.

Nonetheless, border enforcement accelerated during the late 1990s despite the fact that the rate of undocumented migration to the United States had been falling for years (see Figure 3). The 1990s War on Immigrants was followed by the post-911 War on Terror, which was quickly conflated with immigration and identified with the Mexico-U.S. border, despite the fact that none of the 911 hijackers entered from Mexico, that country has no Islamic terrorists cells, has no significant Moslem population, and by that point had a declining rate of undocumented migration. Border enforcement nonetheless rose exponentially after September 11, with the Border Patrol Budget increasing 95 times its 1980 level and the number of line watch hours rising 111 times. After 911 deportations also began a marked increase, rising from just 11,000 in 1980 to some 350,000 in 2008, breaking old records last set during the mass deportation era of the 1930s.

As already noted, this massive increase in enforcement came during a time of North American economic integration and falling rates of undocumented migration and did not solve America's immigration problems. Although the probability of initial undocumented migration fell after 1990 and the likelihood of taking an additional trip fell after 2000 (see Figure 4), even more pronounced was the sharp decline in the rate of return migration. Between 1980 and 2005 the likelihood of returning to Mexico within 12 months of an undocumented entry fell by more than half (see Figure 5).

This shift in behavior occurred because our militarization of the border increased the costs of crossing it from $600 to $2,200 in constant dollars (see Figure 6) while also increasing the risk of death (see Figure 7) while having no effect on the probability of apprehension (see Figure 8). Given the higher costs and risks of border crossing, fewer migrants left; but those who did still got across because the odds of apprehension did not rise. Once inside the US they hunkered down and stayed longer and in larger numbers to avoid experiencing the costs and risks again. In sum, it was because of a decline in return migration and not an increase in entry from Mexico that the undocumented population ballooned during the 1990s and made Hispanics the nation's largest minority a decade before demographers had predicted. If return migration to Mexico had remained at it's pre 1986 levels, we would have had nearly 2 million fewer undocumented Mexicans settling between 1980 and 2005 (see Figure 9). This is the reason Mexico dwarfs all other countries in the unauthorized population (see Figure 10).

In three years, estimates suggest the undocumented
population has peaked and begun to trend downward. This development is no doubt partly because of the remarkable acceleration in border enforcement in the wake of 911 and the rise of mass internal deportations; but it also
reflects the evaporation of labor demand. Nonetheless rising enforcement and growing joblessness have not prompted a significant return of already settled migrants. Indeed, as we have seen, rates of departure have fallen to record low levels. At the same time, a quiet but massive increase in the availability of guest worker visas has provided a legal alternative to undocumented entry. According to official data, the number temporary legal workers entering from Mexico rose from 3,300 in 1980 to 361,000 in 2008, rivaling numbers last seen during the Bracero Program of the late 1960s.

These data clearly indicate that Mexican immigration is not and has never been out of control. It rises and falls with labor demand and if legitimate avenues for entry are available, migrants enter legally. The massive militarization of the border and resumption of mass
deportations occurred despite the fact that rates of undocumented migration were falling and the perverse consequence was that these actions lowered the rate of return migration among those already here.

To solve our serious immigration problems, we need to undertake a program of legalization for those already resident in the country, and especially for the more than three million people who entered the country as minors and are guilty of no sin except obeying their parents. We also need to provide for the legal entry of Mexicans by increasing the number of permanent resident visas and guest worker permits to levels consistent with the needs of an
integrated North American economy. Unfortunately the current immigration crisis is very much one of our own making, reflecting bad policy choices in the past; but fortunately this means that with better policy choices we have the power resolve the dilemma moving forward. Thank you
for your time and attention.

Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More

The New York Times
May 14, 2009
Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
IMPERIAL, Calif. — Ten minutes into arrant mayhem in this town near the Mexican border, and the gunman, a disgruntled Iraq war veteran, has already taken out two people, one slumped in his desk, the other covered in blood on the floor.

The responding officers — eight teenage boys and girls, the youngest 14 — face tripwire, a thin cloud of poisonous gas and loud shots — BAM! BAM! — fired from behind a flimsy wall. They move quickly, pellet guns drawn and masks affixed.

“United States Border Patrol! Put your hands up!” screams one in a voice cracking with adolescent determination as the suspect is subdued.

It is all quite a step up from the square knot.

The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters.

“This is about being a true-blooded American guy and girl,” said A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy here in Imperial County, whose life clock, he says, is set around the Explorers events he helps run. “It fits right in with the honor and bravery of the Boy Scouts.”

The training, which leaders say is not intended to be applied outside the simulated Explorer setting, can involve chasing down illegal border crossers as well as more dangerous situations that include facing down terrorists and taking out “active shooters,” like those who bring gunfire and death to college campuses. In a simulation here of a raid on a marijuana field, several Explorers were instructed on how to quiet an obstreperous lookout.

“Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” a Border Patrol agent explained. “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”

One participant, Felix Arce, 16, said he liked “the discipline of the program,” which was something he said his life was lacking. “I want to be a lawyer, and this teaches you about how crimes are committed,” he said.

Cathy Noriega, also 16, said she was attracted by the guns. The group uses compressed-air guns — known as airsoft guns, which fire tiny plastic pellets — in the training exercises, and sometimes they shoot real guns on a closed range.

“I like shooting them,” Cathy said. “I like the sound they make. It gets me excited.”

If there are critics of the content or purpose of the law enforcement training, they have not made themselves known to the Explorers’ national organization in Irving, Tex., or to the volunteers here on the ground, national officials and local leaders said. That said, the Explorers have faced problems over the years. There have been numerous cases over the last three decades in which police officers supervising Explorers have been charged, in civil and criminal cases, with sexually abusing them.

Several years ago, two University of Nebraska criminal justice professors published a study that found at least a dozen cases of sexual abuse involving police officers over the last decade. Adult Explorer leaders are now required to take an online training program on sexual misconduct.

Many law enforcement officials, particularly those who work for the rapidly growing Border Patrol, part of the Homeland Security Department, have helped shape the program’s focus and see it as preparing the Explorers as potential employees. The Explorer posts are attached to various agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police and fire departments, that sponsor them much the way churches sponsor Boy Scout troops.

“Our end goal is to create more agents,” said April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent and mentor at the session here.

Membership in the Explorers has been overseen since 1998 by an affiliate of the Boy Scouts called Learning for Life, which offers 12 career-related programs, including those focused on aviation, medicine and the sciences.

But the more than 2,000 law enforcement posts across the country are the Explorers’ most popular, accounting for 35,000 of the group’s 145,000 members, said John Anthony, national director of Learning for Life. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many posts have taken on an emphasis of fighting terrorism and other less conventional threats.

“Before it was more about the basics,” said Johnny Longoria, a Border Patrol agent here. “But now our emphasis is on terrorism, illegal entry, drugs and human smuggling.”

The law enforcement posts are restricted to those ages 14 to 21 who have a C average, but there seems to be some wiggle room. “I will take them at 13 and a half,” Deputy Lowenthal said. “I would rather take a kid than possibly lose a kid.”

The law enforcement programs are highly decentralized, and each post is run in a way that reflects the culture of its sponsoring agency and region. Most have weekly meetings in which the children work on their law-enforcement techniques in preparing for competitions. Weekends are often spent on service projects.

Just as there are soccer moms, there are Explorers dads, who attend the competitions, man the hamburger grill and donate their land for the simulated marijuana field raids. In their training, the would-be law-enforcement officers do not mess around, as revealed at a recent competition on the state fairgrounds here, where a Ferris wheel sat next to the police cars set up for a felony investigation.

Their hearts pounding, Explorers moved down alleys where there were hidden paper targets of people pointing guns, and made split-second decisions about when to shoot. In rescuing hostages from a bus taken over by terrorists, a baby-faced young girl screamed, “Separate your feet!” as she moved to handcuff her suspect.

In a competition in Arizona that he did not oversee, Deputy Lowenthal said, one role-player wore traditional Arab dress. “If we’re looking at 9/11 and what a Middle Eastern terrorist would be like,” he said, “then maybe your role-player would look like that. I don’t know, would you call that politically incorrect?”

Authenticity seems to be the goal. Imperial County, in Southern California, is the poorest in the state, and the local economy revolves largely around the criminal justice system. In addition to the sheriff and local police departments, there are two state prisons and a large Border Patrol and immigration enforcement presence.

“My uncle was a sheriff’s deputy,” said Alexandra Sanchez, 17, who joined the Explorers when she was 13. Alexandra’s police uniform was baggy on her lithe frame, her airsoft gun slung carefully to the side. She wants to be a coroner.

“I like the idea of having law enforcement work with medicine,” she said. “This is a great program for me.”

And then she was off to another bus hijacking.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 18, 2009
An article on Thursday about Explorer scouts who train to confront terrorism and illegal immigration, and a picture caption with the continuation of the article, misspelled the surname of a scout who said she was attracted to the program because of the use of pellet guns. She is Cathy Noriega, not Noriego.

U.S. to Expand Immigration Checks to All Local Jails

Correction to This Article
Earlier versions of this article, including in the print edition of today's Washington Post, incorrectly said a program that checks the immigration status of local jail inmates was already underway in Los Angeles. The program will be launched in that city later this year.

U.S. to Expand Immigration Checks to All Local Jails
Obama Administration's Enforcement Push Could Lead to Sharp Increase in Deportation Cases

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009


The Obama administration is expanding a program initiated by President George W. Bush aimed at checking the immigration status of virtually every person booked into local jails. In four years, the measure could result in a tenfold increase in illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and identified for deportation, current and former U.S. officials said.

By matching inmates' fingerprints to federal immigration databases, authorities hope to pinpoint deportable illegal immigrants before they are released from custody. Inmates in federal and state prisons already are screened. But authorities generally lack the time and staff to do the same at local jails, which house up to twice as many illegal immigrants at any time and where inmates come and go more quickly.

The effort is likely to significantly reshape immigration enforcement, current and former executive branch officials said. It comes as the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress vow to crack down on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, rather than those who otherwise abide by the law.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has made it "very clear" that her top priority is deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, said David J. Venturella, program director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"We mean this, we're serious about it, and we believe we need to put in an all-out effort to get this done," said Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee for homeland security. He has led calls to remove illegal immigrants convicted of crimes after their sentences are served.

The program began as a pilot effort in October and operates in 48 counties across the country, including Fairfax County. This year, fingerprints from 1 million local jail bookings will be screened under the program. It also operates Dallas, Houston, Miami, Boston and Phoenix, according to ICE, and will expand to Los Angeles this year and nearly all local jails by the end of 2012.

The effort differs from programs in several Northern Virginia counties where local law enforcement officers have been deputized to question suspects about whether they are in the country legally. In Montgomery County, police provide immigration authorities the names of those arrested on charges of violent crimes and handgun violations.

Under the new program, the immigration checks will be automatic: Fingerprints currently being run through the FBI's criminal history database also will be matched against immigration databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. The effort would not catch people who have never been fingerprinted by U.S. authorities.

Based on the pilot program, the agency estimates that if fingerprints from all 14 million bookings in local jails each year were screened, about 1.4 million "criminal aliens" would be found, Venturella said. That would be about 10 times the 117,000 criminal illegal immigrants ICE deported last year. There are more than 3,100 local jails nationwide, compared with about 1,200 federal and state prisons.

The program, known as Secure Communities, "presents an historic opportunity to transform immigration enforcement," said Julie Myers Wood, who launched it last year while head of ICE.

In his proposed 2010 budget, President Obama asked Congress last week for $200 million for the program, a 30 percent increase that puts it on track to receive $1.1 billion by 2013.

The program could help answer for the first time a question that has been intertwined with debates over immigration policy: How many illegal immigrants in the United States are convicted of non-immigration crimes?

But even some supporters of the program wonder whether it can be implemented smoothly and whether there will be sufficient funding. A surge in deportation cases, noted Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of homeland security for policy, would require more prosecutors, immigration judges, detention beds and other resources.

Venturella also acknowledged that integrating federal, state and local databases is complex and that the capabilities of local jurisdictions vary. Some counties may take several years to be linked in.

"It's a good program. It's a very expensive program," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that advocates tighter immigration controls. "I don't know if it's feasible or sensible for all state and local governments."

Venturella said ICE will give priority to deporting the most dangerous offenders: national security risks or those convicted of violent crimes. Based on initial projections, the agency estimates that 100,000 of these are "Level 1 offenders" and that deporting them would cost $1.1 billion over four years. Removing all criminal illegal immigrants would cost $3 billion, ICE estimated last year.

Critics say that deporting the worst criminal illegal immigrants, by itself, does not go far enough because it would not fully address the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States or deter further illegal immigration.

"If the Obama administration abandons immigration enforcement in all but the most serious criminal cases, then they will create a de facto amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants and will encourage even more illegal immigration," said Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

He said the Obama administration should complete construction of a border fence, enforce laws against hiring illegal workers and deport illegal immigrants before they commit crimes.

Amnesty International and immigrant advocates warn that the change could lead to immigration checks in other arenas and the "criminalization" of illegal immigration.

Tom Barry, an analyst for the Center for International Policy, a nonprofit research and policy institute in Washington, said the initiative could sweep up foreign-born U.S. residents who have served time for offenses but were not deported.

"Many, many legal immigrants are going to be pulled into this net even for minor violations that they're booked for -- traffic violations, drunk driving, whatever -- and after they've lived here 10 or 20 years, they're going to be deported," Barry said.

By checking all people who are booked, supporters say, the program avoids racial profiling. It also could stem what some see as overzealous efforts by some local authorities who, through a $60 million-a-year ICE training program, have stepped up their pursuit of illegal immigrants through measures such as neighborhood sweeps and traffic stops.

"The administration should reassert the primacy of the federal government's role in enforcing immigration law," said Donald Kerwin, vice president for programs at the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington. He said, however, that such action should be coupled with efforts to find lawyers for immigrants in deportation proceedings. Unlike in criminal courts, the immigration court system does not provide public defenders.

Immigration Amid a Recession

Business Week
Public Policy May 8, 2009, 5:54PM EST text size: TT
Immigration Amid a Recession
As the economy deteriorates, the debate over the economic impact of immigrants rises. What this means for policy
By Moira Herbst

Editor's Note: This story is the first in an occasional series examining the role of immigration amid economic recession.

As unemployment rises and the economy sinks further into recession, an old debate has become new again: the question of immigrants' impact on the U.S. economy. On one hand, the chorus of calls to restrict immigration is getting louder. Many U.S. workers are fearful of losing their jobs and want to ensure that the domestic workforce gets priority for new positions, especially for those created by the taxpayer-funded economic stimulus plan. On the other hand, tech, health-care, and other companies warn that tightening restrictions on immigrants will hinder, not help, the economic recovery.

Enter President Barack Obama. Despite his long to-do list, he says he wants to act on comprehensive immigration reform this year, and is expected to address the issue publicly this month. Like the 2007 bill that ultimately failed in the Senate, a new proposal is expected to include a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. But Obama Administration officials say the plan would not add new workers to the American workforce.

H-1B Quotas Are Unlikely to Increase
That would disappoint employers in sectors such as health care, farming, and technology, who say they're in need of workers despite rising unemployment. Hospitals and other health groups say there's a critical shortage of nurses in the U.S., while farmers say they can't find enough workers to help milk cows, pick fruit, and harvest vegetables. In technology, companies like Microsoft (MSFT), Google (GOOG), and Oracle (ORCL) say they need more workers from overseas for jobs in software design and engineering. They have lobbied to increase the number of temporary visas for skilled workers, called H-1Bs, from its current annual limit of 85,000.

Worker groups counter that if employers boost wages, they'll find plenty of U.S. workers to fill open positions. With unemployment on the rise and potentially headed for double digits, it's unlikely employers can win more temporary work visas. "It will be impossible to push a large-scale temporary worker program," says Alexander Aleinikoff, dean of the Georgetown University Law Center and a member of the Obama team's immigration task force.

Competitors or Colleagues?
At the heart of the debate about immigration is the question of whether immigrants are complementing or replacing American workers. If they complement U.S. workers—because they possess rare abilities or will do jobs natives won't—they make a net contribution to the U.S. economy and even help create jobs. But if they replace native workers with similar skills, U.S. workers can be displaced and wages dampened, reducing the spending power of at least some populations.

Of course, what impact immigrants have ultimately depends on what laws are in place and how they're enforced. Some economists say that given the state of the economy, lawmakers should focus on inviting in more highly skilled, high-wage workers in certain professions on a permanent basis, thereby filling labor needs while increasing the tax base and encouraging home and car purchases. They also argue that legitimizing the status of the 12 million undocumented workers will level the playing field both for U.S. workers competing with them and for employers who compete against rivals that use cheaper, undocumented labor.

This series of BusinessWeek.com stories is designed to go beyond the Washington policy debate to look at the lives of immigrants—tech entrepreneurs, artists, and nurses—who are contributing to the U.S. economy even as it falters. Immigrants like those profiled tend to contribute positively to the U.S. economy, culture, and society. The series will tell the stories of real people caught in the middle of the debate over immigration, revealing the human drama behind the policy debate. We'll look at how hopes and dreams have clashed with reality. We'll also include a snapshot of the job market in each of their industries, which will provide a context for the broader employment situation.

Our aim in focusing on individual stories isn't to obscure the fierce policy debate over immigration. Advocates for immigrants point to studies like a 2007 report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which concluded that immigration as a whole increases the U.S. gross domestic product by about $37 billion each year. Immigrants increase the size of the total labor force, and that, by definition, has a positive impact on GDP. Immigrants also contribute purchasing power to the economy, which in turn creates additional jobs.

Globalization's Losers …
But immigration can also displace U.S. workers and dampen wages in certain industries and demographic groups. An April 2009 report written by Prasanna Tambe of New York University's Stern School of Business and Lorin Hitt of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania estimates that H-1B admissions at the current levels are associated with a 5% to 6% drop in wages for computer programmers and systems analysts over time. "In this paper, we simply sought to dispel the myth that globalization generates no losers. … Globalization does appear to have a negative wage effect on workers in some occupations," wrote Tambe and Hitt in the paper, which reflects the research findings by Harvard economist George Borjas. (Tambe and Hitt declined to comment on the paper until after the academic peer review process.)

Similarly, wages can be pushed down in certain low-skill jobs if the supply of workers rises significantly through immigration. And immigration can allow employers and government to avoid the hard work of improving the skills of the existing domestic workforce. "The more we are able to solve skills shortages by importing workers from other countries, the fewer incentives we have to improve the schooling and educational training opportunities for our domestic and more disadvantaged populations," says Gerald Jaynes, professor of economics Yale University. "In fact, there's almost no incentive."

… And Winners
Academics aren't in agreement on the issue. Amar Bhide, a professor of economics at Columbia University, calls studies like Tambe and Hitt's "junk science" propagated by "techno-nationalists." Bhide argues that immigrants have a negligible impact on wages. Instead, immigration performs a critical role in what he calls a "venturesome economy," in which immigrants most often complement native workers and add to the growth and dynamism of an economy.

Immigrants themselves may offer the strongest evidence of the positive effects. Take Jennifer Gould Keil, Canadian-born author of the nonfiction book Vodka, Tears, and Lenin's Angel, for example. Already an established writer, she obtained her visa in 2001 to stay in the U.S. to further develop her craft. Now a columnist for the New York Post—and a permanent resident since marrying her late husband, an American—Gould Keil says she is grateful for the opportunities afforded her, which in turn benefit the country. "[The visa] allowed me to come here, make a living, and contribute," she says. At the same time, "Immigration is a valuable source of brain power to the U.S.," she says. "Without it, the country wouldn't grow and prosper."

Herbst is a reporter for BusinessWeek in New York.

Mexican Data Shows Migration to U.S. in Decline

The New York Times
May 15, 2009
Mexican Data Shows Migration to U.S. in Decline
By JULIA PRESTON

MEXICALI, Mexico — Census data from the Mexican government indicate an extraordinary decline in the number of Mexican immigrants going to the United States.

The recently released data show that about 226,000 fewer people emigrated from Mexico to other countries during the year that ended in August 2008 than during the previous year, a decline of 25 percent. All but a very small fraction of emigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico is to the United States.

Because of surging immigration, the Mexican-born population in the United States has grown steeply year after year since the early 1990s, dipping briefly only after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, census data in both countries show.

Mexican and American researchers say that the current decline, which has also been manifested in a decrease in arrests along the border, is largely a result of Mexicans’ deciding to delay illegal crossings because of the lack of jobs in the ailing American economy.

The trend emerged clearly with the onset of the recession and, demographers say, provides new evidence that illegal immigrants from Mexico, by far the biggest source of unauthorized migration to the United States, are drawn by jobs and respond to a sinking labor market by staying away.

“If jobs are available, people come,” said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. “If jobs are not available, people don’t come.”

The net outflow of migrants from Mexico — those who left minus those who returned — fell by about half in the year that ended in August 2008 from the preceding year. The figures are based on detailed household interviews conducted quarterly by the census agency in Mexico, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography.

Along the border, the signs of the drop-off are subtle but ubiquitous. Only two beds are filled in a shelter here that houses migrants hoping to sneak into the United States. On the American side, near Calexico, Calif., Border Patrol vans return empty to their base after agents comb the desert for illegal crossers.

In recent weeks, the spread of swine flu in Mexico and the government’s response of shutting down schools and canceling public gatherings brought migration here and elsewhere nearly to a halt. But demographers expect the deep flu-related decline to be temporary.

With so many Mexicans remaining in their home villages, the population of illegal immigrants in the United States stopped growing and might have slightly decreased in the last year, an abrupt shift after a decade of yearly influxes, research by demographers in the United States shows. Mexicans account for 32 percent of immigrants in the United States, and more than half of them lack legal status, the Pew center has reported.

Still, at least 11 million illegal immigrants remain in the United States, the demographers say. Despite collapsing job markets in construction and other low-wage work, there has been no exodus among Mexicans living in the United States, the Mexican census figures show. About the same number of migrants — 450,000 — returned to Mexico in 2008 as in 2007.

Some researchers argue that the drop in crossings from Mexico proves that tough law enforcement at the border and in American workplaces can reduce illegal immigration in times of rising unemployment in the United States. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials stepped up factory and community raids last year, and the Border Patrol expanded its force by 17 percent in one year, to nearly 17,500 agents.

“The latest evidence suggests that you can reverse the flow,” said Steven A. Camarota, a demographer at the Center for Immigration Studies, a research group in Washington that calls for reduced immigration. “It is not set in stone, so with some mix of enforcement and the economy, fewer will come and more will go home.”

But Wayne Cornelius, the director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California, San Diego, predicted that if the United States job market revived, border enforcement would become much less of a deterrent.

The center has documented the causes of the decrease in Mexican migration though interviews this year with more than 1,000 Mexicans in California and in a Yucatán village that has been a source of migrants. In the interviews, all of the Mexicans who did set out from Yucatán for the United States reported that they eventually succeeded in crossing.

Mexicans are “not forgoing migration forever,” Professor Cornelius said. “They are hoping that the economy in the United States will improve.”

For now, though, Mexicans like José Luis Z., 16, of the state of Michoacán, are setting the trend. José Luis went to the Albergue del Desierto, a migrant shelter in Mexicali for minor boys, after setting out from home without telling his parents.

But when a job planting trees in Washington State fell through and he heard from migrants of increased patrolling along the border, he decided to head back home.

“I thought it would be easy, but now I see how people suffer,” said José Luis, who asked that his last name be withheld because he was a minor. He said he would go back to picking strawberries in Michoacán, if his furious father did not banish him.

“There is work back home,” José Luis said, “but it doesn’t pay anything.”

The enforcement buildup along the border, which started during the Bush administration, has made many Mexicans think twice about the cost and danger of an illegal trek when no job awaits on the other side, scholars said.

“There is a lack of certainty about jobs, so for the time being it is better to stay home,” said Agustín Escobar Latapí, a sociologist at the Center for Research in Social Anthropology in Guadalajara, Mexico.

Most immigrants now need smugglers to guide them through searing deserts and hidden mountain passes where there are gaps in Border Patrol surveillance. In Mexicali, smugglers’ fees are now $3,000 to $5,000 for a trip to Los Angeles, immigrants and social workers said. They reported that Mexicans’ relatives in the United States, struggling to hold on to their own jobs, no longer had money to lend to a family member to pay a smuggler.

Some here in Mexicali said they were not surprised by the low number of Mexicans coming back from the United States. “Our people are not stupid,” said Mónika Oropeza Rodríguez, the executive director of the Albergue del Desierto. “There may be a crisis in the United States, but they know that we have been in an economic crisis in Mexico for many years.”

Inside Obama's Hispanic strategy

Inside Obama's Hispanic strategy
By: Jonathan Martin
May 14, 2009 04:20 AM EST
POLITICO

TEMPE, Arizona – To get an idea of just how much effort the Obama administration is putting into retaining the support of the Hispanic community, click on the homepage of Eduardo Sotelo.

Don’t know who that is?

Top Obama aides do, and they’ve already had the president speak twice to the nationally syndicated radio talk show powerhouse better known as “Piolin.”

Last week, they brought the Southern California-based talker into the Oval Office for a sit-down that went largely unnoticed – except, that is, to the millions of listeners in the 52 markets where Piolin is heard.

“We need to be able to communicate through radio and obviously you’ve got the biggest listenership so we’ve got to make sure you’re involved,” Obama said in the interview.

It was just one example of a relentless courtship of the nation’s largest minority group and a pivotal voting bloc that numerous aides say has become a near-obsession of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

After initially facing questions about whether he could win the Hispanic vote, Obama won it by 36 percentage points against a pro-reform Republican – and his staff is determined to do it again in 2012.

Obama officials are focused on the fast-growing interior West and especially this state, which they believe the president lost only because it is John McCain’s home. With states such as Arizona adding congressional districts after the 2010 census – and thus electoral votes – turning the West into a Democratic bulwark could ensure a lock on the presidency, Obama’s strategists believe.

And they're backing it up with personal attention from Obama, who made his second trek to Arizona in barely four months in office. The president addressed Arizona State University graduates in a mostly full football stadium Wednesday, winning cheers from a crowd of about 60,000 when he went off-script at one point to pay homage to Latino icon Cesar Chavez in his commencement speech.

Yet even as the Obama charm offensive continues, the administration is faced with twin political challenges that ultimately may threaten any good will they’ve won from Hispanics – how he handles immigration reform and his first Supreme Court nomination. Hispanic leaders say their voters are watching.

“He will ultimately be judged by the Hispanic community on what he does for the weakest and most vulnerable,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the veteran Chicago Democrat, referring to the issue on which he’s become a national leader, comprehensive immigration reform.

Gutierrez said he and fellow Hispanic officials appreciate the wooing and White House invites, but want action on the issue of providing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. And he doesn’t mince words about what he sees as White House foot-dragging on the issue, which proved difficult to tackle even in better economic times.

“If Rahm thinks he can get away with not doing anything on immigration and still have the support of Latino voters, it won’t get done,” said Gutierrez, who has had a long and at times contentious relationship with his fellow Chicago pol.


But Emanuel aside, Gutierrez said he believes Obama is “reluctant” on the issue and that little progress has been made since the president had the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to the White House in March.

Obama pledged at his 100 Days press conference to work with Gutierrez and another member on immigration reform, but Gutierrez quipped: “That’s why you shouldn’t have term limits.”

“Because if you don’t have term limits, and you’ve been here for nine terms, you don’t get all lit up because the president mentioned your name at a press conference,” he said. “You look for what substantially has changed given his comment.”

Janet Murguia, president of La Raza, said she has been invited to the White House for a series of conferences and meetings this year but was still waiting for a clearer sign on Obama’s intentions on immigration.

“There’s going to be growing frustration if we don’t see some tangible and real signals that this is going to be carried out in earnest this fall,” Murguia said, suggesting that Obama needed to give a speech or somehow make clear this summer that he wanted Congress to act.

Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, also lavished praise on the White House effort to be inclusive but was equally candid: “I think they genuinely want to do [immigration reform] but they genuinely want to do other things a lot more.”

Obama himself conceded to Piolin on the radio last week that “we’ve been delayed a little because of the economic crisis” in addressing immigration. He said it was his “hope is that we can get something moving this year.”

That is, of course, different than getting an actual bill signed into law this year.

A senior administration official recognized that Gutierrez is “pushing very hard” on the issue and acknowledged its significance to the Latino community.

“The immigration issue tends to suck up all the oxygen,” said the official. “But our other major priorities, especially the economy but also health care, are also Latino issues.”

And while getting an immigration bill done isn’t the only thing weighing heavily on the minds of Hispanics, it’s not just the economy and health care. The community is making no secret of their strong desire to see the first Hispanic justice appointed to the Supreme Court, and the Hispanic Caucus has sent Obama a letter urging him to do just that.

Rep. Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat and member of the House leadership, said picking an Hispanic to replace David Souter would spark an “off-the-charts” reaction among Hispanics.

And if the president passed over the community?

“Then people would say the game is still played by the same people,” said Becerra, who himself nearly joined Obama’s Cabinet. “The game has not been changed. People would have every right to say that the doors of opportunity haven’t been completely opened.”


Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz), who made a point to note his support for Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, said “it would just build up [anticipation] for the next appointment.”

“The urgency would be greater than it is now,” Grijalva said.

Murguia said plainly that it would be “a real opportunity for him to solidify his support with the Latino community.”

White House officials are reluctant to discuss the high court pick, but they note that this isn’t likely to be the president’s only appointment. Press secretary Robert Gibbs said this week that lobbying wouldn’t be helpful.

While anxious on immigration and the court pick, Obama’s Hispanic allies in Congress and advocacy groups generally offer praise on what they see as an unprecedented effort to include them – and not just on traditional Latino or minority issues.

It’s a point of pride for the White House.

“We’re not just doing this on the obvious conversations, but in every major policy conversation,” said a senior administration official.

Hispanics, the official noted, were at the table for meetings on the budget, the stimulus, health care and for a fiscal summit. And a major education speech was delivered before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Another top White House aide pointed out that when the president travels, they don’t just include Hispanic leaders in the intimate meetings set up before and after events in the usual places like California but in rust belt states like Ohio and Indiana, too.

Obama aides have put special emphasis on catering to the Spanish-language media.

They held a town hall meeting on the H1N1 virus earlier this month entirely in Spanish (except for the president).

When they announced their easing of the sanctions on Cuba last month, it was done by in Spanish and English by a bilingual NSC official.

All the daily press releases and advisories also go out in Spanish.

Obama has been interviewed on a variety of Hispanic radio and TV programs, including Univision, Telemundo and CNN En Espanol. Aides also note that the president has twice used his prime-time press conferences to call on Spanish-media representatives.

More quietly, aides such as Emanuel, energy and climate czar Carol Browner, domestic policy chief Melody Barnes and cabinet secretaries have also conducted briefings. And on the day of the State of the Union speech, newscasters from the Spanish-language TV stations got their own preview from Vice President Joe Biden.

“For many it’s the news of choice,” said Becerra of the Spanish-language channels.

When Piolin asked Obama if he had the votes in Congress on immigration reform, the president was candid.

“Probably not yet,” he said

But when it comes time to rally support for the bill, Obama said he would need the talk show host’s help.
“You can count on me,” Piolin assured.


THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

February 17, 2009

INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT

BY EDDIE “PIOLÍN” SOTELO, RADIO


Via Telephone


1:48 P.M. MSTTHE PRESIDENT: Hello.

Q Hello.

THE PRESIDENT: Who am I speaking with?

Q Piolín.

THE PRESIDENT: Piolín, my friend, this is President Barack Obama.

Q How are you doing? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I am doing good. I promised you that I would be on the show when I was President, and here I am on the show. (Laughter.)

Q You promised me that you were going to be in the studio –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven’t gone to Los Angeles yet, but I should get credit for keeping my promise this way.

Q Oh, yes, yes. (Applause.) Yes, but we’re waiting for you because we are celebrating together. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: How have you been?

Q Great, great, Mr. President. We have Mr. President Barack Obama with us. And thank you, Mr. President, for taking the time to speak with us today. And you make history — we’re so proud. I know you are the President for everybody.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Well, you know, it was wonderful being on your program when I was running. And now I want to make sure that we continue to reach out because you have so many listeners and I think that it’s so important that the Latino community, the Spanish-speaking community, continues to stay involved in politics.

We’ve got a very tough economy and we just signed a stimulus bill today that’s going to put people back to work and provide health care to people who don’t have it. We signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Now legal immigrants are able to get health care for the first time, which is something that the Latino community had been arguing for, for almost a decade.

And so I think we’re making real progress, but we’re going to have to keep on making sure that all of you are involved as much as possible.

Q Mr. President, you know, I just want to begin by saying now, today is an exciting today. Congratulations on your accomplishment.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q And how soon can we expect to see the positive effect of the stimulus package?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that right away what you’re going to start seeing is, first of all, states and local governments, they’re going to be able to keep people in their jobs. There was — the budgets are so bad at the state level that people who were teaching in schools, or police officers, or firefighters, a lot of people were going to be fired from their state jobs. And so we’re going to be able to keep those jobs open.

We’re also going to be making investments and rebuilding roads and bridges and school construction, and that’s going to put a lot of people to work, especially people who are in the construction industries. With the housing market in such bad shape, they’ve been out of work. Now, hopefully, some of these construction jobs will become available again. It will probably take six months to a year before we start seeing a big impact, but at least we’ve now gotten the process moving so that we can start doing a lot better than we’ve been doing over the last several months.

Q So that means, Mr. President, that now that you have signed the stimulus package, I’m going to receive a raise, a pay raise?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, the — you, Piolín, are already making so much money that you probably won’t get a pay raise. (Laughter.) You know, but for people who aren’t as rich as you, I think that they’ve got a good chance of getting help –

Q I’ve been playing, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Well, and the other thing is, you know, the — a lot of people who’ve been laid off of their jobs, they need unemployment insurance. And what this bill does is it makes sure that they keep on getting unemployment insurance. It means that they have a easier time keeping their health care, even if they’ve lost their job. So it’s really going to provide a lot of relief to people who need it.

Q Mr. President, how will the stimulus package help persons who are losing their homes, and how will it benefit those who want to buy a home for the first time?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s actually a separate piece of legislation that we’re going to be announcing tomorrow. And the key there is to make sure that we work with the banks and the homeowners to try to reduce the monthly payments that they make. And so I’ll be announcing that program, but it’s something that should help a lot of families who are making their payments, but are having a much, much tougher time because home values have gone down so drastically. So we’ll have an entire separate home program — housing program that we’re going to be announcing tomorrow.

Q Thanks a lot, Mr. President. We have Mr. President Barack Obama with us. And let me tell you this, Mr. President; I’m sure you know, but it’s important to let you know once again, we make a big contribution to our country from all across art, music, labor. And most important a lot of Hispanics are in Iraq defending the United States, even without being American citizen.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q We need your help.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I’ve said every time I’ve been on the show, Piolín, we’re going to make sure that we begin the process of dealing with the immigration system that’s broken. We’re going to start by really trying to work on how to improve the current system so that people who want to be naturalized, who want to become citizens, like you did, that they are able to do it; that it’s cheaper, that it’s faster, that they have an easier time in terms of sponsoring family members.

And then we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform. Now, you know, we need to get started working on it now. It’s going to take some time to move that forward, but I’m very committed to making it happen. And we’re going to be convening leadership on this issue so that we can start getting that legislation drawn up over the next several months.

Q Mr. President, is there some sort of network we could establish to be in communication regarding the comprehensive immigration reform, and personally what can I do?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, the key thing right now is obviously we’ve got to make sure that all the people who are involved in immigration reform issues, that they sit down together and they start thinking about how we’re going to approach this problem. Politically it’s going to be tough. It’s probably tougher now than it was, partly because of the fact that the economy has gotten worse. So what I’ve got to do is I’ve got to focus on the economy, I’ve got to focus on housing, and make sure that people feel a little bit more secure; at the same time, get the various immigrant rights groups together and have them start providing some advice in terms of what strategies we’re going to pursue in Congress.

Q That’s one of the things, Mr. President, I would like to happen. I’m working for media and knowing that our people worked so much. And, you know, they came out from the houses, going to work — scary because they don’t even know if they’re going to be deported. And can we try to establish like a signal, like a network — for example, I like what you did with the financial — financial people, that you set it up, for example — the newspaper from LA, is part of that — those groups of advisors, financial advisors that you put — I like the idea. How can we have kind of like the thing where I can receive information? What do we need to do so we can receive a comprehensive reform?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ve got some wonderful people on my White House staff who are working on this issue on an ongoing basis. And what we’ll do is we’ll make sure that one of those people can appear on your program on a regular basis, giving you information about what we’re doing. And hopefully at some point you’ll be able to come visit us at the White House.

Q Any time, Mr. President. And I would like to be there when you sign the comprehensive immigration reform.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. Well, thank you so much, Piolín. It’s great to talk to you.

Q Mr. President, you know we are close friends and you know that I have your BlackBerry phone number and you have mine. (Laughter.) So keep in touch.

THE PRESIDENT: You know I will. Thank you so much. Tell everybody in the studio I said hello. I had a great time when I visited you, and everybody there was so nice. And you were very nice to my wife, as well, when she was on the program. So thank you so much, Piolín. Take care.

Q Take care, Mr. President. You know, you are in our prayers. You have our support, and we want to help in any way we can.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you, guys. Bye-bye.

END 1:57 P.M. MST

President Obama's deliberate path toward immigration reform

The Seattle Times
Tuesday, May 5, 2009 - Page updated at 01:22 AM

President Obama's deliberate path toward immigration reform
By E.J. Dionne Jr

WASHINGTON — On many questions, President Obama's approach is full speed ahead. On immigration reform, he prefers to take one step at a time. There really is no alternative.

Immigration is politically vexed because it splits both parties and scrambles the usual ideological alignments. And on this issue, there is no clear majority.

Roughly a third of Americans strongly favor granting illegal immigrants a way to become citizens, while another third is strongly opposed. But there is an ambivalent middle that knows the status quo is unsustainable and wants a comprehensive solution, yet is also upset about the government's failure to stop illegal immigration.

The Obama administration has particular worries of its own. Obama won election with overwhelming support from Latino voters who helped him carry such swing states as New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. Latino political leaders are appropriately insistent that the president keep his promise to fix immigration and end a system that, in Obama's words, "keeps those undocumented workers in the shadows."

But the president's lieutenants are well aware that Obama also won in swing states where there is less sympathy for a path to legalization (Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio), and do not want to throw immigration reform into an already combustible legislative mix.

So Obama has thus been sending two signals simultaneously: Yes we can, but not quite yet.

On April 9, a front-page headline in The New York Times read: "Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority." The story spoke of Obama's plans "to begin addressing the country's immigration system this year." It was the sign Latino leaders badly wanted.

But note that word "begin." That's different from legislating anytime soon, as Obama made clear at his news conference last week. He said all the right things about the urgency of change. "We can't continue with a broken immigration system," he argued. "It's not good for anybody."

Yet his answer lacked the fierce urgency of now. "We want to move this process," he said, and spoke of the importance of "building confidence." And then he kicked responsibility over to Congress. "Ultimately," he said, "I don't have control of the legislative calendar."

There is much fascination with the role of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in crafting the administration's response. As a Democratic House leader, he was decidedly cautious on immigration reform (to the consternation of Latino organizations), but has emerged recently as a supporter of action — eventually.

Emanuel is candid in saying that his angle of vision from the White House is different from the view he needed to take as an adviser to Democrats from highly competitive districts on the politics of the issue.

While noting that his own voting record was sympathetic to comprehensive immigration reform, Emanuel observed in an interview that many of his electorally vulnerable Democratic colleagues hailed from areas in which such a position would be unpopular.

"My job then was to give them the best political advice I could, given the districts they were representing," he said. "My job now is to see this issue from a national perspective and from the president's perspective." And Emanuel was mightily impressed with the Latino political mobilization in 2008.

Yet Emanuel and Obama know that most of those same Democrats still represent competitive seats and continue to worry about the costs of a vote for immigration reform. That's why the administration has settled on a strategy of slowly building consensus rather than moving fast.

Hispanic Democrats have sent a strong signal to the business lobbies. They are saying that until comprehensive reform passes, they will withhold their votes for temporary fixes to raise immigration ceilings for groups of workers sought by particular industries. They hope to pressure business to pressure Republicans to toss more votes immigration reform's way.

The success of immigration reformers will ultimately depend upon winning over those in the ambivalent middle and not treating them as either xenophobes or racists.

The core argument for reform must be that the presence of so many illegal migrants without any enforceable rights undermines the rights of everyone else. The real message that a path to citizenship will send is that all long-term residents of our country should be able to assume their responsibilities as Americans.

Moving us in that direction is not about doing favors for illegal immigrants. It's about strengthening the American community. Obama needs to use the time he is buying himself to make that case.

High Court Hears Illegal Worker's ID Theft Case

High Court Hears Illegal Worker's ID Theft Case
by NPR's Nina Totenberg

Morning Edition, February 25, 2009 · The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case testing a policy pioneered by the Bush administration to leverage plea bargains from illegal immigrants.

At issue is a 2004 federal law that imposes a mandatory two-year prison term for identity theft.

The facts of this case illustrate the question before the court.

Ignacio Flores Figueroa, a Mexican national, came to the United States illegally. For six years, he worked in an Illinois steel plant using a false name and a Social Security number that belonged to no one.

Then, in 2006, for some unknown reason, he decided he wanted to work under his real name, and he bought a counterfeit resident ID card and Social Security card.

Needless to say, his name change aroused his employer's suspicions, and Figueroa was soon arrested and charged with being in the country illegally, using fake immigration documents and aggravated identity theft. He got four years on the first two charges, and an additional two-year mandatory penalty for the aggravated identity theft.

The Word 'Knowingly'

At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Figueroa's lawyer Kevin Russell will argue that the identity theft statute and its mandatory penalty was wrongly applied to Figueroa because the statute requires knowing use of someone else's identity documents, and Figueroa didn't know the Social Security number he was using belonged to a real person.

"It really comes down to a question of whether you can commit identity theft if you don't know that the person whose identity you're mistakenly using even exists," Russell says.

The government counters that the grammar of the statute permits it to charge aggravated identity theft regardless of whether the accused knows the Social Security number he is using belongs to a real person. The law imposes a mandatory two-year prison term for anyone who "knowingly transfers, possesses or uses ... identification of another person."

Forcing Deportations Through Threats

Former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty readily admits that the Bush administration latched on to the language of the aggravated identity theft statute and used the threat of its two-year prison term to force illegal immigrants to accept voluntary deportation and shorter prison terms for other immigration violations.

"The real hope was that individuals would avoid that kind of penalty and willingly plead to illegal entry or illegal presence in the United States and voluntarily be deported," McNulty says.

Last May, for example, the government raided a kosher meat plant in Iowa and indicted hundreds of workers on identity theft charges for using Social Security numbers that were assigned to others. Faced with the threat of two-year mandatory sentences, most of the workers pleaded guilty to lesser charges and were sentenced to less than six months in jail.

Immigration lawyers contend that some of the people trapped this way have legitimate claims to staying in the U.S. They say that Congress didn't enact the identity theft law as a remedy for illegal immigration, but rather that the law's tough penalties are aimed at criminals who, for example, steal your identity in order to raid your bank account.

Greenspan says illegal immigration good for the U.S.

Houston Chronicle
By: Mizanur Rahman

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had a lot to say today about immigration during a Senate hearing billed as the kickoff in Congress to debate over reform this year.

His most headline-grabbing remark? Illegal immigration has been good for the country. The testimony came during New York Sen. Charles Schumer's hearing titled "Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?"

Bloomberg reports:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that illegal immigration makes a "significant" contribution to U.S. economic growth by providing a flexible workforce.

Greenspan, appearing before a Senate subcommittee today, said illegal immigrants provide a "safety valve" as demand for workers rises and falls.

"There is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy," Greenspan said. An overhaul of U.S. immigration laws is "badly needed" to create legal avenues for skilled and unskilled workers to enter the country legally, he said.

"Our immigration laws must be reformed and brought up to date," Greenspan told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.


Greenspan went on to testify that the federal government should allow more foreign workers to enter the U.S. labor force.

Not everyone embraced Greenspan's glowing view of undocumented workers. A statement from the Federation for American Immigration Reform :

Two years ago, a small group of senators emerged from behind closed doors with a bill offering amnesty to illegal aliens, cheap foreign workers to business interests, and vague promises of immigration enforcement. Despite that bill being overwhelmingly opposed by the American public, the U.S. Senate is laying the groundwork yet again.

"A lot has changed in the past two years," noted Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "Our economy has gone into a tailspin, unemployment has doubled, government at every level is running massive deficits, and the public recognizes more than ever that their own interests are being ignored by the political and economic elite.

"What hasn't changed is the arrogance and indifference of many in Washington, and the demands of the special interests seeking political and economic gain at the expense of hard-working, law-abiding Americans," continued Stein. "Rather than an honest attempt to assess the social, economic, fiscal and environmental impact of a massive amnesty and foreign guest-worker bill, today's hearing amounts to little more than a kangaroo court in which the special interests get to play the roles of witness, judge and jury."