By Mark Krikorian Center for Immigration Studies | 8/20/2008
What to do about illegal immigration? Too many people are paralyzed by the magnitude of the problem, and figure that since we can’t deport them all, we’ll have to bite the bullet and let them all stay legally — i.e., give them amnesty.
But this is a digital (on-or-off, one-or-zero) approach to an analog problem. Our goal should not be a magical solution that eliminates illegal immigration, but rather a real-world solution that reduces it over time.
This approach — which has come to be called “attrition through enforcement” — involves a program of consistent, comprehensive application of the immigration law (something we have never attempted), not only at the borders, but also at our consulates overseas and at worksites and elsewhere inside the country. The aim is to reduce the number of foreigners sneaking in to the country (or overstaying visas) and at the same time increase the number of illegal immigrants already here who go home — some forcibly through deportation, but most voluntarily, through what might be called self-deportation. By engineering a steady decrease in the total number of illegal aliens, instead of the continual annual increases we’ve permitted over the past two decades, we can back out of a problem that has taken many years to develop.
But can it work? In particular, can illegal immigrants be induced to pack up and go back?
The evidence is in and the answer is “yes.” The Bush Administration began with a deep hostility toward immigration enforcement and a commitment to amnesty. But as the drive for amnesty was stopped by public outrage, the Department of Homeland Security has been given the green light to actually do its job. There have been significant increases in detention capacity, Border Patrol agents, border fencing, deportations, and local jurisdictions cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Perhaps most important have been the efforts to turn off the jobs magnet that attracts illegal immigrants and keeps them here. Worksite arrests have grown five-fold since 2004 and the E-Verify program, a voluntary online system which enables employers to identify illegal workers, has been ramped up significantly and now vets more than 10 percent of all new hires. Arizona this year has started requiring use of E-Verify by all employers in the state, and soon its use will be a requirement for federal contractors as well.
The results of this stepped-up enforcement were reported by the media in story after story quoting illegal immigrants saying that they were packing up and leaving because of the new enforcement climate. But data was hard to come by, since the enforcement push was so new.
Now there is research showing that attrition through enforcement works. A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (which I head) used Census Bureau surveys to estimate that the illegal-immigrant population has fallen from a peak of 12.5 million in August of last year down to 11.2 million this past May, a drop of 1.3 million or 11 percent. This decline is at least seven times larger than the number people removed from the country by the immigration authorities during that period, meaning that most of the drop was due to illegal immigrants deporting themselves. If that rate of decrease were to continue, the illegal population would be cut in half in five years.
So far, so good. But did enforcement contribute to the decline or was it driven just by the weakening economy? Though the slowdown in construction and other industries no doubt contributed to the decline, there are several reasons to think that enforcement was a major factor in the decision of illegal immigrants to leave. First of all, the decline in the number of illegal immigrants started before their unemployment rate increased; in the past, much smaller dips had been seen in the illegal population, but only after their unemployment rate increased — which stands to reason, of course. What’s more, only the illegal population declined; the number of legal immigrants continued to grow.
And the enforcement climate is determined not only by actions but also by words — especially the words of lawmakers debating immigration policy. It seems that the number of illegal immigrants actually spiked last summer as the Senate conducted a high-profile debate on the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. That debate was widely reported in the immigrant media, which presented amnesty as an inevitability, the culmination of several years of activism backed by all the major institutions of American society. When instead the legislation failed spectacularly in the Senate, as the result of an unprecedented public outcry, those amnesty expectations were dashed, casting the enforcement push in a whole new light. As a result, the illegal-immigrant population began to drop almost immediately.
The challenge will be to maintain this new enforcement climate under a new administration. After all, 90 percent of illegal aliens are still here, and the pressure will have to continue if the problem is to be shrunk down from today’s crisis to a more manageable nuisance. Unfortunately, both presidential candidates have an digital, all-or-nothing view of the problem, and have legalization as their chief priority.
PHOENIX -- Detectives have arrested two men in connection with the manufacture and sale of fraudulent government documents, said the Arizona Fraudulent Identification Task Force Squad.
Juan Jose Santos, 28, and Alejandro Soliz-Reyes, 34, were apprehended on Friday and booked on 14 counts of forgery, 14 counts of trafficking in the identity of another and two counts of illegal control of an enterprise. Detectives said both men are illegal immigrants.
Detectives served a search warrant for identity theft, fraudulent IDs, and trafficking at a Phoenix apartment complex at 3434 E. McDowell Road.
The search warrant was the culimnation of an on-going AFIT investigation into the illegal manufacturing of fraudulent government documents.
During the investigation, AFIT conducted an undercover operation consisting of a series of undercover buys of driver's licenses, immigration cards, and social security cards, detectives said.
Items seized from the apartment included a computer, a printer/scanner, software, an electronic storage device, a camera, a card maker, 450 pieces of blank plastic card stock, various forged government identification cards, and heavy weight paper, investigators said.
Equipment seized in fraudulent documents case
"These detectives work very hard to shut down these illegal operations and jail those responsible for breaking the law," said Roger Vanderpool, director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
AFIT is part of the multi-agency Illegal Immigration Prevention and Apprehension Co-op Team administered by the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
Copyright 2008 by KPHO.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Two Texas lawmakers ask attorney general for opinion ahead of 2009 session.
By Juan Castillo AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Signaling a revival of the illegal immigration debate in the 2009 legislative session, two Republican state lawmakers have asked Attorney General Greg Abbott to weigh in on a thorny subject: "sanctuary cities."
The term has been used to describe Austin, Houston and dozens of other cities across the United States that don't require police or other municipal employees to report to federal authorities people who may be in the country illegally.
In a letter sent to Abbott this month, Rep. Frank Corte Jr. of San Antonio and Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston asked whether the Texas Legislature has the authority to deter local governments from adopting policies — or to invalidate existing policies — that hinder state enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Such policies "would include those that prevent local citizens, officials, or law enforcement agencies from cooperating with the federal government regarding a person's immigration status," their letter says. "Although federal law expressly forbids local policies that prohibit or restrict information regarding immigrant status, sanctuary cities continue to support such policies."
The lawmakers' letter doesn't name Austin. But advocates of tougher illegal immigration enforcement have labeled Austin and other cities as sanctuary cities, saying they prohibit local law enforcement from inquiring about a person's immigration status or bar local agencies from sharing information about immigration status with the federal government. Such practices make the cities havens for illegal immigrants and criminals, critics say.
City officials dispute the idea that Austin is a sanctuary city. They say nothing prevents police from asking about the immigration status of a person they're investigating but that officers don't routinely do that because their job is to solve crimes, not be immigration officials.
Current policy prohibits Austin police from stopping or detaining people solely to check their immigration status or from checking the immigration status of victims or witnesses. It does require cooperation with immigration officials to help identify illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
Immigrant advocates say such policies encourage victims and witnesses of crimes to come forward without fear of being deported, and police have said such treatment makes the city safer for everyone.
Former Mayor Gus Garcia said confusion about the sanctuary issue may stem from a 1997 City Council resolution declaring the city a "safety zone, where all persons are treated equally, with respect and dignity, regardless of immigration status." The resolution says the city will not discriminate or deny city services on the basis of a person's immigration status.
Garcia said it was approved partly to deter racial profiling by police officers.
He said he has told undocumented immigrants that if they commit a crime, they will be punished like anyone else if convicted.
"We never said we are inviting people to come here because this is a sanctuary city," Garcia said Tuesday.
Corte, chairman of the Defense Affairs and State-Federal Relations Committee in the Texas House, said he sought the attorney general's opinion because what the state can and cannot do in the arena of immigration enforcement "is an important issue with a lot of our constituents. ... Citizens feel laws are not being upheld, and they as taxpayers are having to pay for citizens who are breaking the laws."
In their letter, Corte and Patrick cite a 2007 Oklahoma law that prohibits sanctuary cities.
Corte acknowledged that immigration laws are considered a federal responsibility and that the Oklahoma law might be challenged in federal court.
But, he said, "we should have the ability to enforce our laws. If someone commits a crime in our state and we find out they're an illegal alien, I think that needs to be one of the things we prosecute illegal aliens for."
During the 2007 legislative session, Republicans led an assault on illegal immigration, sponsoring more than three dozen bills that sought to make it harder for illegal immigrants to live in the state.
An estimated 1.5 million illegal immigrants live in Texas; 12 million nationally.
At least 20 of the immigration bills never made it out of the House State Affairs Committee after its chairman, David Swinford, R-Dumas, said that lawyers from the attorney general's office had advised him that the proposals might not pass legal challenges or were trumped by federal law.
As lawmakers prepare for the next legislative session, Corte said, "it'd be nice to have the attorney general tell us that."
Is Austin a sanctuary city?
Cities that prohibit local law enforcement from inquiring about a person's immigration status or bar local agencies from sharing information about immigrant status with the federal government are often labeled 'sanctuary cities.' Advocates of immigration enforcement contend the policies make the cities havens for illegal immigrants and conflict with federal immigration law.
In 1997, the city of Austin passed a resolution declaring the city a 'safety zone' in which everyone is treated equally regardless of immigration status.
Current policy prohibits Austin police from stopping or detaining people solely to check their immigration status or checking the immigration status of victims or witnesses, but does require cooperation with immigration officials to help identify illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
'Don't ask' cities
In addition to Austin, Houston and Katy, other cities identified as having 'don't ask, don't tell' policies regarding illegal immigrants, according to a 2006 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service include Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Detroit, Baltimore, Ann Arbor, Mich., and Madison, Wis.
AUSTIN — Two Republican state lawmakers have asked the Texas attorney general how far the state can go in dealing with illegal immigration, from yanking licenses for businesses to banning cities from enacting "sanctuary" ordinances.
On Tuesday, Rep. Frank Corte of San Antonio and Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for a legal opinion on the issues, hinting at a possible flare-up over immigration issues in the 2009 legislative session, which begins in January.
"I really believe that the citizenry are asking for something to be done," said Corte, who is chairman of the House Republicans.
The letters ask Abbott if Texas could legally yank the business license of employers who hire illegal workers — similar to a measure in Arizona — and if the state can ban cities from enacting "sanctuary" ordinances that prohibit city workers, including police, from enforcing immigration laws.
Several cities already encourage their police not to focus on the immigration status of witnesses and victims, and some legislators want to ban such practices.
Last year, several Republican lawmakers proposed a slew of anti-immigration bills, but nearly all of them failed after the attorney general said they would violate the Constitution or overstep federal authority. House leaders had asked Abbott to review all the proposals after they were filed.
Corte said it would be nice to know before the 2009 legislative session what authority Texas has to enforce immigration laws.
"I'd hate for us to spend a bunch of time debating something we don't have clarity on," he said.
State Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said immigration policy should be left to the federal government.
"Let's face facts," Shapleigh said. "The U.S. needs a vibrant labor force in technology, health services, construction and agriculture. Immigrants have shouldered that burden for years."
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A supervisor arrested after a large immigration raid at an Iowa meatpacking plant was hit with new charges Tuesday including conspiring to hire illegal immigrants.
Juan Carlos Guerrero-Espinoza is expected to plead guilty to that charge, as well as aiding and abetting the hiring of illegal immigrants, according to a court filing by the U.S. attorney.
U.S. Attorney Matt M. Dummermuth wrote in a filing that Guerrero-Espinoza is expected to waive his indictment and enter into a plea agreement.
Guerrero-Espinoza was charged last month, along with Martin De La Rosa-Loera, with encouraging illegal immigrants to reside in the U.S. and aiding and abetting the possession and use of fraudulent identification. Guerrero-Espinoza also was charged with aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft.
The U.S. attorney's office would not comment Tuesday on the status of those charges. Messages left with lawyers for Guerrero-Espinoza and De La Rosa-Loera were not immediately returned.
Guerrero-Espinoza, 35, and De La Rosa-Loera, 43, were supervisors at Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant, when a May 12 immigration raid resulted in the arrest of 389 workers.
According to the latest court filings, Guerrero-Espinoza told employees on May 7, 2008, that they would be fired and immediately rehired, and that he knew they were unauthorized to work in the United States.
Court documents allege that, over a year, he conspired to hire 10 more people in the country illegally.
A spokesman for Agriprocessors did not immediately return a telephone call requesting comment.
Associated Press writer Amy Lorentzen in Des Moines contributed to this report.
HARTFORD, Conn. - Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez has signed a new ordinance that bars police from asking people about their immigration status.
The ordinance, passed last week by the city council, would prevent police from arresting or detaining anyone solely because immigration authorities had issued an administrative warrant for them, which is a civil matter.
However, Perez says the ordinance requires that police notify federal authorities if someone they arrest turns out to be an illegal alien.
The mayor says it also requires that city employees deny any federally funded services to illegal immigrants if required to do so under federal law.
A member of the violent Mara Salvatrucha street gang, who previously was arrested as a murder suspect, is back in custody after being arrested near Yuma by U.S. Border Patrol agents.
The unidentified gang member, a citizen of El Salvador, was arrested Monday night after he illegally entered the country, the patrol said.
Agent Ben Vik, a spokesman for the patrol's Yuma Sector, said the gang member has a record of arrests in California, Nevada and Arizona on suspicion of such offenses as murder, attempted murder, evading a police officer, fugitive from justice, robbery, numerous drug offenses, possession of stolen property and violation of a deportation order.
Vik said he did not know if he had been convicted of all those offenses, but said he served a two-year prison term for a cocaine conviction in early 1990s as well as prison terms for two separate robbery convictions in 1995 and 2002.
“Border Patrol agents encounter criminals on a routine basis,” Chief Patrol Agent Paul Beeson said in a news release. “This is a fine example of our agents safeguarding our borders from a dangerous felon.”
The Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13, is considered by law enforcement to be one of the most violent gangs in the nation. Notorious for its violent tactics, including murder, the gang is active in 33 states, including Arizona. It has been the subject of massive federal roundups and deportations this year in cities elsewhere, according to The Sun's archives.
Vik said Mara Salvatrucha originated in Los Angeles in the 1980s. It was established, he said, primarily to protect Salvadoran immigrants from other, more established gangs of Los Angeles.
Vik said as the members of the gang were deported, either because of their illegal status in the United States or for committing crimes as non-citizens, they started recruiting members in their home countries and the gang grew in popularity and took hold in many Central America countries.
A fingerprint check identified the alien arrested Monday night as an aggravated felon with a history of criminal activity dating back to 1993, mainly in the San Francisco area, Vik said.
"He is a member of the San Francisco Mara Salvatrucha clique. He had planned to return San Francisco," Vik said.
"Catching a Mara Salvatrucha gang member is not a common occurrence, but we have apprehended a few," Vik said. "But when you look at the percentage of criminal street gang members we apprehend each year, it is a relatively small number compared to the overall number of apprehensions.
"They have reputation as being an extremely violent, brutal and vicious street gang," Vik said.
He said Monday's arrest came after an agent patrolling near County 8th Street and the Colorado River about 8 p.m. heard noises coming from some brush located in the area.
As the agent approached the vegetation to investigate the noise, a group of about six individuals ran out of the brush and towards the river.
The agent was able to arrest three people in the group, while the others fled back into Mexico. One of those arrested was the gang member, who admitted his affiliation with Mara Salvatrucha, Vik said.
The gang member was previously prosecuted for re-entry after deportation, illegal entry, and was served with a reinstatement of prior deportation orders under Operation Streamline, Vik said.
Vik said the gang member had no other charges pending in the United States.
"The only thing he had current was his re-entry after deportation, which he is being charged with," Vik said. "The subject would potentially face a sentence ranging from one year to five years in prison for the offense."
According to The Sun's archives, the first arrest of a MS-13 gang member by Yuma agents was in November 2005.
The other two members in the group of aliens arrested Monday had no criminal history and had only met the subject a day prior to their entry. They were prosecuted for illegal entry under Operation Streamline.
------ James Gilbert can be reached at jgilbert@yumasun.com or 539-6854.
_______________________________
THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL
Don Pesci: Hartford to the Feds: Drop dead
01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, August 20, 2008
DON PESCI
VERNON, Conn.
THE PURPOSE of Hartford’s recent illegal-immigration ordinance, we are told, “is to codify the policies of the City of Hartford regarding its residents and usage of City services as it relates to their immigration status.”
It’s always nice to have everyone on the same page.
The ordinance provides: “Any service provided by a City of Hartford department shall be made available to residents, regardless of immigration status, unless such agency is required by Federal law to deny eligibility for such service to residents because of their immigration status.”
Or to put it in other words, the ordinance stipulates that no service currently provided by the city to citizens, natural-born citizens and legal immigrants shall be denied to illegal immigrants.
The ordinance specifies that workers providing services to illegal immigrants “shall encourage residents, regardless of immigration status, to make use of all City services provided by City departments for which residents are not denied eligibility by Federal law as it relates to their immigration status.
“Referrals to medical or social service agencies will be made in the same manner for all residents, without regard to immigration status.”
The exception should be noted: If federal law denies eligibility for Hartford city services to an illegal immigrant — not very likely — the ordinance may not trump the law. The ordinance itself does not specify those occasions in which city services provided to illegal immigrants would violate federal law.
The ordinance also specifies that nothing in the ordinance “shall be construed to prohibit any employee of the City of Hartford from cooperating with federal immigration authorities as required by law.”
The operative assumption is that federal law does not require the city service workers in Hartford to report illegal immigrants to federal authorities because, if that were the case, the exception clause would kick in – illegal immigration, however you turn the phrase on your tongue, is still illegal – and the city of Hartford would be thwarted in its attempt to provide to illegal immigrants the same services provided to citizens who have not violated federal law by their illegal entree into the country.
The ordinance blurs what had previously been a sharp line between illegal and legal residency.
On police matters, the ordinance is very specific.
It requires Hartford police officers not to make inquiries concerning “a person’s immigration status unless such an act is relevant to an investigation involving criminal activity...
“Hartford police shall not inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the Hartford Police Department.
“No person shall be detained solely on the belief that he or she is not present legally in the United States, or that he or she has committed a civil immigration violation. There is no general obligation for a police officer to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding any person, unless that person is arrested on a criminal charge.
“Hartford police officers shall not make arrests based on administrative warrants for removal entered by ICE into the NationalCrimeInformationCenter database, including administrative immigration warrants for persons with outstanding removal, deportation or exclusion orders. Enforcement of the civil provisions of United States immigration law is the responsibility of Federal immigration officials.”
The last paragraph quoted above is particularly jarring because it calls upon Hartford police not to co-operate with federal officials who previously had depended upon city police to detain and arrest illegal immigrants for whom the federal government has outstanding warrants. The City of Hartford in its ordinance airily dismisses any obligation that police officers may have to co-operate with federal authorities in apprehending those who have violated federal law because “Enforcement of the civil provisions of United States immigration law is the responsibility of Federal immigration officials.”
One should view the ordinance as a beginning in the struggle of states to detach themselves from federal obligations to satisfy local political constituencies. The state, through this ordinance, is in effect taunting the federal government and saying to it: We know that we are servicing illegal immigrants and refusing to co-operate with federal authorities in their apprehension and expulsion. Just try to stop us.
It will not be long before the Kingdom strikes back.
By Judith Graham and Deanese Williams-Harris | Chicago Tribune reporter
August 20, 2008
Francisco Pantaleon's relatives are trying to prevent the undocumented immigrant, who is in a coma, from being returned to Mexico. (Family photo)
A 30-year-old Mexican man in a coma at the University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago has ignited a dispute over a little-known practice at hospitals—sending medically needy undocumented immigrants back to their countries of origin.
The disagreement revolves around Francisco Pantaleon, who arrived in the U.S. 11 years ago and suffered a severe brain hemorrhage in mid-July, according to his sister Socorro. A father of two, Pantaleon worked at a carwash and has no health insurance, she said.
The medical center believes there is "little hope for recovery," according to a statement released Tuesday, and officials arranged for Pantaleon to be transferred to a hospital in Acapulco at UIC's expense. An official said his immediate family consented to the move.
But Pantaleon's sister and cousin are protesting that arrangement and have retained lawyers in hopes of preventing it. "This is an injustice," said his sister, who worries that Pantaleon won't survive the trip or find adequate care in Mexico.
The dispute touches on two hot-button issues, Immigration and health care. With the exception of pregnant women some children and people in medical emergencies, illegal immigrants generally have no right to health care in the U.S. But access to long-term care—the kind of services Pantaleon appears to need—is not guaranteed even if the patients are U.S. citizens, with the exception of the very poor.
Legally, hospitals are bound to stabilize all patients in an emergency, regardless of their nationality or insurance status. Afterward they are required to arrange to transfer patients to settings where they can receive adequate care, said Doreena Wong, staff attorney for the National Health Law Program. The difficulty is, nursing homes in Chicago usually will not serve undocumented immigrants who don't have health insurance or any means to pay for care.
"We can't arrange long-term care here, so we try to do the best we can in the country of origin," said Dr. William Chamberlin, chief medical officer at UICMedicalCenter.
That can be problematic, said Sonal Ambegaokar, health policy attorney at the NationalImmigrantLawCenter. "The question is, is the hospital acting as an Immigration agent in effect by deporting this patient?" she said. In such cases, she suggests, immigrants may be denied due process.
"It's important to make sure that hospitals aren't permitted to dump patients on an international level when they can't do it on a local level," said James Geraghty, a Chicago lawyer working with Pantaleon's sister and cousin.
For hospitals, the crucial issue is limited resources. "Hospitals don't have the financial resources to meet all of the acute care needs [of patients without insurance], let alone take on all the chronic care needs that present with patients like this," Chamberlin said.
Members of Pantaleon's family appealed to the Mexican Consulate for help last week, said Ioana Navarrete, consul for the protection department.
"There were certain legal procedures that the hospital should have followed that they bypassed," she said, noting that the medical center failed to inform the consulate of plans to move Pantaleon, a Mexican citizen.
Chamberlin said hospital officials did not know that was necessary.
"We have worked with the individual who has had primary decision-making responsibility for the patient" and had that person's full consent, he said.
Chamberlin said he couldn't discuss the details further because the hospital hadn't received permission to relax privacy protections.
Efforts to reach Pantaleon's wife for comment were unsuccessful.
Howard Peters, senior vice president of government relations at the Illinois Hospital Association, said "the family ought to be grateful" that UIC found a facility in Mexico willing to take Pantaleon and volunteered to pay for the trip.
