Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Tennessee Drivers' Licenses

Tennessee has ended its policy of issuing "certificates for driving" to undocumented immigrants, citing federal investigations that uncovered applicants using fraudulent documents — and even bribing state workers — to obtain driving privileges, officials said Friday.

The state began giving immigrants the certificates in July 2004, with the hope of balancing domestic security and traffic concerns. The cards give holders the legal right to drive but, unlike driver's licenses, they are not to be used for identification purposes. For instance, they cannot be used to board an airplane.

By doing so, Tennessee officials had hoped to solve a problem that has bedeviled other states, including California, where some lawmakers continue to press for full driver's licenses for illegal immigrants despite opposition from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Tennessee model was criticized early on from diverse quarters. Anti-immigration forces worried that it gave legitimacy to illegal immigrants. Immigration-rights groups feared that police and others would be confused, and therefore inconsistent, in dealing with cardholders.

Officials in the capital, Nashville, grew concerned in recent months as federal investigations uncovered numerous instances of fraud by illegal immigrants.

Bob Corney, a spokesman for Tennessee's Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen, said the governor's office was informed that immigrants were coming from other states to get the certificates, using forged residency documents. Last month, a former worker at a driver's license office was sentenced to two years in federal prison for issuing more than 40 certificates to unqualified immigrants, taking a $400 bribe for each fraudulent card.

"At this point it just seems that we've got this very … serious problem, and we really felt that the appropriate thing to do was to suspend this program," Corney said.

When Bredesen proposed the 2004 law, he billed it as a get-tough measure, because the state previously had allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Bredesen said the law would continue to ensure safe streets, because illegal immigrants would still have to pass a driving test to obtain the certificates.

The law also made the certificates the only avenue for legal immigrants to obtain driving privileges in Tennessee. That policy is the target of a federal class-action lawsuit, now on appeal, which alleges that it violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

In a press release Friday, Department of Safety officials said they would work with legislators to change the law and allow legal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.

source: LA Times, Feb. 25, 2006


February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Minutemen in Maryland

After waging a high-profile fight in Northern Virginia against a center where employers can go to hire temporary workers, the anti-illegal immigration group has expanded into Maryland. In recent weeks, its members have patrolled centers funded by the Montgomery County government in Wheaton and Takoma Park that assist day laborers. They also have monitored a Gaithersburg parking lot as well as others in Montgomery and Prince George's County where men gather almost every morning, said Stephen Schreiman, director of the group's new chapter.

"The objective here is to send a clear message to the business community that it's illegal to hire undocumented workers and it's illegal not to pay appropriate taxes," said Schreiman, who couldn't specifically say how many people had joined the new chapter.

The group said it has recruited dozens of volunteers who plan to photograph laborers and the people seeking to hire them at centers in Silver Spring and Baltimore. Typically, three to six people take pictures at each site on any morning, Schreiman said. Day-laborer centers provide jobs for illegal immigrants and should not be funded by a county government, the group says.

But advocates for immigrants say the sole purpose is intimidation.

"The good news is that these Minutemen are yet another in the long line of radical fringe groups that will die of their own weight in Montgomery County because they don't speak for Montgomery County," said County Council member Tom Perez (D-Silver Spring). About 40 percent of the county's 930,000 residents are foreign born.

The Minuteman Project began attracting national attention when members initiated civilian patrols of the Mexican border in an effort to inhibit border crossings. The opening of a day-laborer center in Herndon last year galvanized the group and its opponents in Northern Virginia.

Montgomery has become a battleground in the debate because of its efforts to expand services to immigrants, regardless of their legal status. The county-funded centers in Silver Spring and Wheaton -- as well as the temporary site in Takoma Park -- are run by CASA of Maryland, a nonprofit advocacy group.

The Maryland Minutemen formed amid controversy over the county's efforts to open another center in Gaithersburg. Local officials found a building, signed a lease and allocated money for the center. Then, city officials reversed course in October after residents complained. Gaithersburg's mayor and City Council have appointed a task force to decide on the next move.

Source: Washington Post, Feb. 26, 2006


February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Problems With President Bush's Guest Worker Proposal

Alan Lee, Esq. writes "So there are valid concerns at this time whether any immigration reform package besides one that only has enforcement provisions can be passed during this Administration."




February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Senator Byrd's Regrets -- Including Voting for the USA PATRIOT Act

FROM CNN -- http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/28/patriot.act.ap/index.html

Sen. Robert Byrd, the Senate's dean and resident constitutional expert, counts only a few regrets in his 48-year Senate career: filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act, voting to expand the Vietnam War, deregulating airlines.

Add to the list a new one from this century: supporting the anti-terror USA Patriot Act after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"The original Patriot Act is a case study in the perils of speed, herd instinct and lack of vigilance when it comes to legislating in times of crisis," the West Virginia Democrat said Monday. "The Congress was stampeded, and the values of freedom, justice and equality received a trampling in the headlong rush."


February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Human Rights First Concerned With Senator Specter Immigration Reform Bill

Attached is a document listing Human Rights First's concerns about the Specter bill. Download hrf_concerns_about_specter_bill.doc


February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

NYC Immigration Conference

The Center for Migration Studies of New York, an educational nonprofit institute, in collaboration with the Fordham University School of Law, will hold its 29th Annual National Legal Conference on Immigration and Refugee Policy on March 13-14, 2006. The conference will be held at the Fordham University School of Law, located at 140 West 62nd Street, New York, NY 10023.

For twenty-eight years, the Annual National Legal Conference on Immigration and Refugee Policy has provided a forum for the leadership of Congress, the executive branch, state and local government officials, the immigration bar, voluntary agencies, scholarly communities and international organizations to discuss critical issues dealing with immigration and refugees.

The Annual National Legal Conference is a unique national forum. For policymakers and government officials, this conference is one of the most diverse feedback groups available. In fact, this conference often gives rise to policy proposals that later are discussed at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Labor, the State Department, and other agencies involved in immigration.

The conference will feature a number of distinguished speakers, including Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan (the invited luncheon speaker), a number of other government officials, private practitioners and immigration advocates, as well as immigration law professors including Deborah Anker and Gemma Solimene.

Click on the link below for the conference program (still being updated) and registration form. This program is accredited for 9.5 non-transitional New York State Continuing Legal Education credits in the area of professional practice. Please also encourage your students to attend this informative conference.

Center for Migration Studies

29th National Legal Conference on Immigration and Refugee Policy http://cmsny.org/conference.htm

If you have any questions about attendance or registration, feel free to contact me (cshannon@fragomen.com or 212-891-7517) or Howard Gordon (hgordon@fragomen.com or 212-230-2841).


February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Arizona Republic on Illegal Immigrants


Get real: Migrants aren't our enemies

Linda Valdez, The Arizona Republic
Feb. 19, 2006 12:00 AM

You're being had, America.

You're being scared about a made-up enemy.

The big boys in Washington hope you won't notice what's going on. Their useful idiots, the xenophobic anti-immigrant activists, want you to get drunk on a little covert bigotry. After all, the overt kind just isn't acceptable anymore.

So "illegal immigrant" becomes code for Mexican. And Mexican - well, you


February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

A Response to the Mississippi Report

Greg Siskind responds to the Mississippi report on the costs of illegal immigration on the state that was mentioned on the blog yesterday:

Dan Kowalski forwarded me the link to a new Mississippi state-funded study at


that makes some incredibly shoddy findings regarding the economic impact of illegal immigrants on Mississippi. I've read the whole report and it is rife with bogus conclusions, dubious citations, editorializing, etc. Here are a few of my thoughts and feel free to use what you like:

1. The report first states this conclusion:

"While the State receives some revenue in the form of income taxes and sales taxes, the overall cost to Mississippi appear to be significant, especially in the area of health care, education and corrections. Best-case scenario
estimates in this report suggest that illegal immigrants may contribute $44 million in sales and income taxes to the State economy." The report then estimates health care costs at $35 million, education at $24 million and corrections at just $237,360. Thus, the net raw costs, if you believe the numbers, are about $25,000,000.

The report fails to then take the next step which would be what it would cost the state if all of the undocumented left. North Carolina estimates that its largely undocumented Hispanic population spends $9 billion per year in the state. Even if we assume Mississippi is much smaller than this, the impact of the departure would mean more than lost taxes. The reduction in billions of dollars annually spent in the state would presumably have a ripple effect in terms of jobs that depend on this spending, taxes paid by businesses that cater to Hispanics, etc. And then there are other effects
that should be measured. Mississippi is heavily dependent on tourism. Hurricane Katrina already has many employers straining for survival. What will happen if labor costs skyrocket because of a lack of availability of

2. The estimates on the costs of illegal immigrants to the state are way out of sync with others. North Carolina's estimate is $102 per Hispanic. Mississippi has it at $510 per person. The authors try to say that the other studies are not reliable because they don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. But then they fail to explain why illegal workers are
more costly than legal immigrants. Are the costs of educating legal immigrant children less? Are the costs of
health care for uninsured legal immigrants less? In fact, legal immigrants have access to many public benefits that illegal immigrants do not so arguably the net cost to society is actually LESS in the case of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

By the way, the report bases some of its conclusions of the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies.

3. The report purports to be designed to be objective and state simply what the economic impact of illegal immigration is on the state. But then it is peppered with statements like this:

"Regardless of anything else, illegal aliens are here in violation of state and federal law. Arguments are made that they do jobs that Americans do not want. However, what they really do is potentially displace skilled and unskilled workers because they are willing to work for lower wages and less benefits than those established by the federal government. As a result, the over the last several decades, the percentage of foreign workers in certain industries has increased significantly." Is this a report issued by FAIR or a government agency?

4. The estimate of 49,000 undocumented immigrants is not based on any scientific numbers other than picking the average of many estimates out there. But the ranges cited are from 9,000 to 90,000. If the number is
really a lot closer to 9,000, then most of the conclusions of the report would be highly exaggerated. The recently released Migration Policy Institute study puts the foreign-born Hispanic population in Mississippi at
just 13,000 and only a total of 23,000 legal and illegal immigrants. If one is conservative and assumes 1/2 of the immigrant population is illegal, you're still looking at only 12,000 or so. That's less than 25% of the
estimate the report authors are using.

5. The report makes a number of dubious assumptions regarding tax payments by immigrants such as that all those paying income taxes are claiming the maximum number of exemptions. And there is no mention of the billions of
dollars of social security taxes paid that will never be claimed as well as FICA and other taxes. It also fails to quantify the tax revenues indirectly generated by Hispanics as noted above.

The report hints that it is underestimating the real costs because it is not calculating the impact on programs like Medicaid and worker's compensation. But the authors are not being honest here since illegal immigrants - unlike legal immigrants - are not eligible for the programs that are mentioned.

Anyway, there is a lot to make you upset and if the report goes unanswered, then the anti-immigrants will have won a nice little victory.

Gregory Siskind, Attorney at Law
Siskind Susser - Immigration Lawyers
email: gsiskind@visalaw.com
Web: www.visalaw.com


February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

US Settles 9/11 Lawsuit

The federal government has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by an Egyptian who was among dozens of Muslim men swept up in the New York area after 9/11, held for months in a federal detention center in Brooklyn and deported after being cleared of links to terrorism. The settlement, filed in federal court late yesterday, is the first the government has made in a number of lawsuits charging that noncitizens were abused and their constitutional rights violated in detentions after the terror attacks.



February 28, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, February 27, 2006

Mississippi on the Costs of Immigrants


Dan Kowalski's editorial comments:  "Amazing. One of the poorest states in the Union, and yet they find a way to bash immigrants."


February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

AILF -- Playing Politics with Immigration

Immigration Policy Center (IPC)


...providing factual information about immigration and immigrants in the United States.


February 27, 2006

Despite the public's demand for a sensible and straightforward response to the ongoing problem of undocumented immigration, in December 2005 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. This bill would, among other things, make felons of all undocumented immigrants as well as persons who assist them, a group that potentially includes religious workers, social workers, and librarians. One explanation for why so many congressional representatives would choose to spend precious legislative time on a proposal that offers little hope of actually reducing undocumented immigration might be that the members of Congress with the fewest undocumented immigrants in their districts were the most likely to support the bill. Lawmakers whose constituents experience relatively little impact from undocumented immigration have the luxury of playing politics on the issue rather than confronting it directly. When the immigration debate shifts to the Senate in March, one can only hope that lawmakers there will adopt a more serious approach and rely less on political posturing than their colleagues in the House.

Among the findings of this report:

Among representatives from the 61 congressional districts with 50,000 or more undocumented immigrants, a mere 5 percent (3 out of 61) supported H.R. 4437: none of the 53 Democrats and only 3 of the 8 Republicans.

Among representatives from the 96 congressional districts with fewer than 5,000 undocumented immigrants, 74 percent (71 out of 96) voted for H.R. 4437: 90 percent of Republicans (56 out of 62) and 44 percent of Democrats (15 out of 34).

Roughly 67 percent of all representatives who supported H.R. 4437 come from districts with an undocumented population of less than 15,000, while 62 percent of the representatives who opposed the bill have 15,000 or more undocumented immigrants in their districts.

About three-fifths of the Republicans who opposed H.R. 4437 represent districts with 15,000 or more undocumented immigrants, while four-fifths of the Democrats who supported the bill are from districts with fewer than 15,000 undocumented immigrants.

Read the entire report at: http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policybrief/policybrief_2006_playingpolitics.shtml

For more information contact Benjamin Johnson at (202) 742-5612.

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is dedicated exclusively to the analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States. The IPC is a division of the American Immigration Law Foundation, a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

American Immigration Law Foundation
918 F Street, NW - Washington, DC 20004

PLAYING POLITICS ON IMMIGRATION: Congress Favors Image over Substance in Passing H.R. 4437

February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

U.S. Government Apologizes for Visa Delays

News from www.ilw.com

The US issued a visa on Friday, February 24 following an apology from Ambassador Mulford to Professor Goverdhan Mehta for the prolonged visa delays he experienced. While prolonged visa delays are not unusual, the news is notable because it is one of the few times that the US has publicly apologized concerning a visa matter. The trick in visa issuance post 9/11 is to balance legitimate national security concerns with speedy and fair adjudications. We believe that visa issuance cannot primarily be about security. Preserving our national security is what our armed forces are for (as is our country's foreign policy), and we wish them well in their difficult endeavor.


February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New Immigration Articles

Griswold, Noel L. Note. Forgetting the Melting Pot: an analysis of the Department of Homeland Security takeover of the INS. 39 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 207-231 (2005).

Volpp, Leti. Divesting citizenship: on Asian American history and the loss of citizenship through marriage. 53 UCLA L. Rev. 405-483 (2005).

Widdison, Jeffrey B. Casenote. Cutting undocumented alien employment using the spine of a knife: how the Fourth Circuit failed to adequately use Title VII to strengthen IRCA in ... (Egbuna v. Time Life Libraries, Inc., 153 F.3d 184, 4th Cir. 1998, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1142, 1999.) 28 N.C. Cent. L.J. 87-108 (2005).

19 GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL, NO. 4, SUMMER, 2005. Wible, Brent S. The strange afterlife of section 212(c) relief: collateral attacks on deportation orders in prosecutions for illegal reentry after St. Cyr. 19 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 455-493 (2005). McCaffrey, Angela. Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act: precedent for waiving the English language requirement for the elderly. 19 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 495-550 (2005). Wahlquist, Brian R. Note. Slamming the door on terrorists and the drug trade while increasing legal immigration: temporary deployment of the United States military at the borders. 19 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 551-583 (2005). Freshwater, Patricia J. Note. The obligation of non-refoulement under the Convention Against Torture: when has a foreign government acquiesced in the torture of its citizens? 19 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 585-608 (2005). Current Developments Legislative Branch. 19 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 611-613 (2005). Judicial Branch. 19 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 615-618 (2005).


February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Know Your Rights Pamphlet for Post-9/11 Era

What Are My Rights? A Post-9/11 Guide for California's Muslim, Sikh, Middle Eastern, and South Asian Communities

: The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights has produced a pamphlet on post-9/11 backlash discrimination in employment, housing, schools, and business establishments in response to persistent complaints of discrimination from the affected communities. Copies are available for download (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) in English, Arabic, Urdu, or Punjabi. You may reprint this pamphlet (best printed on legal size paper) to distribute in your community or request hardcopies by calling LCCR at 415-543-9444. LCCR acknowledges the generous support of the law firm of Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP in producing this pamphlet.



February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

American Lawyer Series on "The Asylum Wars"

You will want to check out the February 2006 issue of the American Lawyer(pp. 66-77).  It includes stories on law firms handling asylum cases, the quality problems with immigration court and BIA decisions, and the challenges of gender-based asylum claims. 


February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Senate Counter-Proposal on Immigration Reform

FROM Nancy Morawetz NYU School of Law

The news this weekend was full of articles about Senator Specter's "mark" of the immigration reform bills.  The official mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee begins this Thursday.  The bill may change as amendments are offered from both sides of the aisle.

Here is a section by section analysis of the proposed bill. In addition to the new work visa provisions (about which I am sure others are more expert), the bill contains many sections on enforcement, naturalization, bars to relief, due process, and judicial review. Here are some highlights: it includes the much reported treatment of unlawful presence as a crime, punishable by up to six months on the first conviction; it changes voluntary departure to make it an "agreement" that is voided if the individual files an appeal; it expands the aggravated felony definition; it creates new rules authorizing indefinite detention; it creates new address rules that will make it much more difficult to challenge an in absentia order when the agency has failed to process an address change; and it places all immigration matters (review of removal orders and
review of district court decisions in detention habes actions) in the federal circuit, and then creates a single judge system for certifying appealability in which an appeal is automatically denied if it is not acted on within a specified time period.  Download SectionBySectionSummaryOfSpecterChairmansMark.doc


February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Immigrants in the OC

Los Angeles Times
Police in O.C. Arrest Latino Laborers
Eight are taken from a Home Depot store to an immigration checkpoint by officers in Orange, who say the men broke work solicitation laws.
By Jennifer Delson, Times Staff Writer
February 25 2006

Eight Latino laborers without proof of legal U.S. residency were arrested Friday morning in front of the Home Depot in Orange and taken to an immigration checkpoint, from which they could be deported.

Orange police said the men were soliciting work outside the store and were cited for violating a city law that prohibits it.

A police spokesman said the arrests were made at the request of Home Depot and its customers. Company spokeswoman Kathryn Gallagher said store officials did not call police and were unaware that arrests were to happen.

The arrests drew applause from opponents of illegal immigration and raised concerns among immigrant advocates.

Both groups, however, agreed that the arrests were uncommon, despite the large number of day laborers who solicit work at Home Depot stores and elsewhere throughout Southern California.

"It is unusual, but I think it's wonderful. These people are criminals in violation of federal immigration law," said Barbara Coe of Huntington Beach, chairwoman of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

The arrests alarmed immigrant activists, including Nativo Lopez of Santa Ana, national president of the immigrant advocacy organization Hermandad Mexicana, who wants to work to overturn the local law.

Lopez said he believed that police violated the workers' due-process rights because the workers did not have a chance to challenge what could have been an improper arrest.

Cities with similar laws have faced legal challenges. In May, a federal judge struck down a Glendale law that barred day laborers from soliciting work at curbsides, arguing that the law violated the workers' free speech rights.

Orange Councilman Steven F. Ambriz said he was unaware that police were targeting the workers, and said he would request a report from the Police Department.

Eight of nine men arrested did not have proper identification and were taken to a Border Patrol checkpoint in Dana Point, said Orange Police Sgt. Fred Lopez.

Another man who did have identification was cited and released.

The citation carries a fine that must be determined in Orange County Superior Court, said the sergeant.

"These are not immigration sweeps," said Fred Lopez. "We are arresting people who are violating our laws." He said the solicitors had violated city code, and police chose to enforce the law Friday because workers were soliciting work on property where signs in English and Spanish prohibiting it have long been posted.

The Home Depot is in an area of the city in which the code prohibits soliciting work during certain hours on public or private property from a person in a vehicle.

Leo Donati, 31, of Orange was arrested and released because he had an identification card, he said later. He said that about 7:30 a.m. Friday, a motorist in a van asked him and others if they were looking for work. When they approached, police arrived in a second van.

"There are people out there all the time," he said.

"Nothing like this has ever happened."


February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)


The UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs and the Immigration Law Society are pleased to present:

The Impact of Global Terrorism on Immigration Law and Policy

Friday, March 3, 2006
9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
UCLA School of Law
Room 1347

9:30-10:00 a.m. WELCOME
-Michael Schill, Dean, UCLA School of Law

-Norman Abrams, Professor Emeritus, UCLA School of Law


MODERATOR: Máximo Langer, Professor, UCLA School of Law
-Niels Frenzen, Associate Professor, USC Law School
-Marielena Hincapié, Director of Programs, National Immigration Law Center (NILC)
-Ira Mehlman, Media Director, Federation for American Immigration
Reform (FAIR)
-Stadler M. Trengove, Legal Officer, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs


DISCUSSANT: Jack Beard, Lecturer, UCLA School of Law
-John Fonte, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute (Washington, D.C.)
-Lucas Guttentag, Director, Immigrants Rights Project, American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU)
-Michael Werz, Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund (GMF),
Director, Hessen Universities Consortium (New York)

1:00-2:00 p.m. LUNCH


DISCUSSANT: Saúl Sarabia, Director, Critical Race Studies, UCLA School of Law
-Audrey Hemesath, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of California, Attorney General's Office, Department of Justice (DOJ)
-Peter Schey, President, Executive Director, Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL)
-Daniel Solorio Ramírez, Professor, Autonomous University of Baja
California, Mexicali, Mexico

3:30-4:00 p.m. CLOSING REMARKS
Norman Abrams, Professor Emeritus, UCLA Law School

For more information, please visit:


4.25 MCLE credits are available. UCLA School of Law is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. The event is free and open to the public ($10 donation is suggested). Seating is limited. Please RSVP to jilfa@lawnet.ucla.edu or (310) 206-2643

Program funding provided by: The Campus Programs Committee of the Program Activities Board and the UCLA Graduate Students Association (GSA).


February 27, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Governors Continue to Agitate on Immigration Issues

More than 40 state governors convened this weekend for the National Conference of Governors, and immigration was a top priority for many.  The AP story on this issue -- as picked up by the Post -- is here.

The AP story, as picked up by the Post and several other news organizations, contains the following odd paragraph: "The pressure has been rising in recent months. In Texas, there was an armed standoff last month between state authorities and apparent drug smugglers wearing Mexican military-style uniforms."   The stand-off in question was an isolated incident, apparently involving drug smuggling, which took place along the El Paso-Juarez border.  In my mind, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues addressed by the governors as captured in the article.  The paragraph appears in a story that is otherwise concerned with the economic and social pressures generated by the arrival of immigrants into various localities.

The only work that the unexplained reference does in this story is to interject images of violence and mayhem into the general topic of immigration.


February 26, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Asylum Project of Austin

Friday's Austin American-Statesman carried a complimentary story on the work of the Asylum Project of Austin.  The story documents the mission of the Project, which has expanded to fit the needs of contemporary immigration law and policy.  The story is here. 


February 26, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)