IT IS NOT ABOUT IMMIGRATION...                           





Get Your Latest News by Visiting News Links:


  Monday  Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Weekend Edition






NEW - E-Verify Self Check - E-Verify Self Check (“Self Check”) is a voluntary, fast, free and simple service that allows you to check your employment eligibility in the United States. If any mismatches are found between the information you provide and your Department of Homeland Security or Social Security Administration records, Self Check will inform you of how to correct those mismatches.


Fact Sheet: E-Verify (Read This And Send It To Your Elected Officials – Don’t Let Them Get Away With Lies About This Program)

US Citizenship and Immigration Services

E-Verify (formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an Internet-based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA) that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers the program.   E-Verify is free and voluntary and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security Numbers.


Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens

Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens is a Department of Homeland Security initiative that improves public safety by implementing a comprehensive, integrated approach to identify and remove criminal aliens from the United States. The Secure Communities Program Management Office coordinates all ICE planning, operational, technical, and fiscal activities devoted to transforming, modernizing, and optimizing the criminal alien enforcement process.  Congress has allocated $1.4 billion for ICE criminal alien enforcement in 2009.

Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program

US Citizenship and Immigration Services

The SAVE Program enables Federal, state, and local government agencies and licensing bureaus to obtain immigration status information they need in order to determine a non-citizen applicant's eligibility for many public benefits. The Program also administers employment verification pilot programs that enable employers to quickly and easily verify the work authorization of their newly hired employees.



US-VISIT is a continuum of security measures that begins overseas and continues through arrival and departure from the United States to ensure the person crossing our border is the same person who received the visa.


A Law Enforcement Partnership 287 (g)

Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE)

ICE ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) provides local law enforcement agencies an opportunity to team with ICE to combat specific challenges in their communities.  The 287(g) program is only one component under the ICE ACCESS umbrella of services and programs offered for assistance to local law enforcement officers.


ICE Mutual Agreement Between Government and Employers (IMAGE)

To combat unlawful employment and reduce vulnerabilities that help illegal aliens gain such employment, the ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (IMAGE) program was initiated in 2007. The goal is to assist employers in targeted sectors to develop a more secure and stable workforce and to enhance fraudulent document awareness through education and training.


The Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT)

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-wide system for the storage and processing of biometric and limited biographic information for DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, and other DHS mission-related functions, and to provide associated testing, training, management reporting, planning and analysis, or other administrative uses.


Federal Contractors Required to Use E-Verify System

WASHINGTON— Federal contractors and subcontractors will be required to begin using the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ E-Verify system starting Jan. 15, 2009, to verify their employees’ eligibility to legally work in the United States. In a final rule scheduled to publish tomorrow in the Federal Register, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to reflect this change.


Frequently Asked Questions: Federal Contractors and E-Verify


Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) - An Introduction

The ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) directorate is a critical asset in the ICE mission, responsible for investigating a wide range of domestic and international activities arising from the illegal movement of people and goods into, within and out of the United States. HSI investigates immigration crime, human rights violations and human smuggling, smuggling of narcotics, weapons and other types of contraband, financial crimes, cybercrime and export enforcement issues. ICE special agents conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation. In addition to ICE criminal investigations, HSI oversees the agency's international affairs operations and intelligence functions. HSI consists of more than 10,000 employees, consisting of 6,700 special agents, who are assigned to more than 200 cities throughout the U.S. and 46 countries around the world.


Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) - An Introduction

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) enforces the nation's immigration laws in a fair and effective manner. It identifies and apprehends removable aliens, detains these individuals when necessary and removes illegal aliens from the U.S. This unit prioritizes the apprehension, arrest and removal of convicted criminals, those who pose a threat to national security, fugitives and recent border entrants. Individuals seeking asylum also work with ERO. ERO transports removable aliens from point to point, manages aliens in custody or in an alternative to detention program, provides access to legal resources and representatives of advocacy groups and removes individuals from the United States who have been ordered to be deported.



  ü   Click here to get your copy of the Arizona US Court Decision


            ü  Click here to get your copy of the Arizona's Law "Legal Arizona Workers Act"



See What Illegal Aliens Have Done To Saluda SC



Lindsey Graham Commercial #1

Lindsey Graham Commercial #2

        Click Here And Watch Lindsey Graham's Speech Giving Thanks To LaRaza (The Race)

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., honored Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at the 2007 NCLR Capital Awards gala on Tuesday, March 6 at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC. Senator Graham was recognized for his effort to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation.  He calls Americans who disagree with his amnesty stance, "Bigots."


FBI Study:  2009 National Gang Threat ASSESSMENT

Approximately 1 million gang members belonging to more than 20,000 gangs were criminally active within all 50 states and the District of Columbia as of September 2008.

Gangs pose a serious threat to public safety in many communities throughout the United States. Gang members are increasingly migrating from urban to suburban areas and are responsible for a growing percentage of crime and violence in many communities. Much gang-related criminal activity involves drug trafficking; however, gang members are increasingly engaging in alien and weapons trafficking. Additionally, a rising number of U.S.-based gangs are seemingly intent on developing working relationships with U.S.- and foreign-based drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and other criminal organizations to gain direct access to foreign sources of illicit drugs.

The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration

The H1B Visa Sham

Illegal Alien Child Molesters Love American Children

You Say You Want A Reconquista?

MS-13 gang seeks to unite nationwide

Details Revealed of Senate Compromise Bill

Z Visa = Z End of the Line

Illegal Aliens Nabbed In New Jersey Terrorist Plot

Illegal Aliens Kill More Americans Than Iraq War

Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake by Ed Meese

Planning for State Immigration Enforcement Legislation  by Immigration Reform Law Institute

The Real Immigration Crisis

Feds target marriage fraud

Smugglers seen getting 'sophisticated, organized'

Appeal Planned on In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

Mexican, American - or both? Some Hispanics Pushing for Dual Citizenship

Speakout: Illegal immigration hurting Hispanics

Productivity and immigration

Enforcing U.S. laws a local task

Another Hypocrisy of the Green Movement

Illegal Immigration: The treason lobby

Pledge to Mexican flag featured at Texas school

Former Mexican President Vincente Fox Has Hired Bush Advisor to Thwart Border Security

Website targets racist Hispanics (Aims to 'counter the false information dished out by Mexican hate groups' )

The Impact of New Immigrants on Young Native-Born Workers, 2000-2005

Hazelton: The people vs. the ACLU

What We Learned from Randy Graf's Win by Tom Tancredo

On-the-job solutions to immigration already exist by Tom Tancredo

Hired-Hands: Breaching the Border

A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant by Tom Tancredo

Myths (and Truths) of the Illegal Immigration Invasion

Concerned Citizens Drain Desert Water Tanks Intended for Illegal Immigrants





A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant
An imaginary exercise.

By Congressman Tom Tancredo, (R-CO)

May 1, 2006

What would a day without illegal aliens really be like? Let’s try to imagine it.

On May 1, millions of illegal aliens working in meat-processing plants, construction, restaurants, hotels, and other “jobs Americans won’t do” are supposed to stay home from work to show the importance of their labor to our nation’s economy. Doubtless, there will be some inconvenience if that happens, but there is another side to the story that is not being reported.

We are talking about illegal aliens, not mere “immigrants.” If legal immigrants stopped working for a day, we would miss the services of physicians, nurses, computer programmers, writers, actors, musicians, entrepreneurs of all stripes, and some airline pilots…as well as the CEO of Google. That would be more than an inconvenience, but it won’t happen because legal immigrants are not out marching angrily for rights that are already protected by our courts.

But if illegal aliens all took the day off and were truly invisible for one day, there would be some plusses along with the mild inconveniences.

Hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance.

OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los Angeles’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent.

Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent.

In Durango, Colorado, and the Four Corners area and the surrounding Indian reservations, the methamphetamine epidemic would slow for one day, as the 90 percent of that drug now being brought in from Mexico was held in Albuquerque and Farmington a few hours longer. According to the sheriff of La Plata County, Colorado, meth is now being brought in by ordinary illegal aliens as well as professional drug dealers.

If the “Day-Without-an-Immigrant Boycott” had been held a year earlier on May 8, 2005, and illegal alien Raul Garcia-Gomez had stayed home and did not work or go to a party that day, Denver police officer Donnie Young would still be alive and Garcia-Gomez would not be sitting in a Denver jail awaiting trial.

If the boycott had been held on July 1, 2004, Justin Goodman of Thornton, Colorado, would still be riding his motorcycle and Roberto Martinez-Ruiz would not be in prison for killing him and then fleeing the scene while driving on a suspended license.

If illegal aliens stayed home—in Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, and 100 other countries—the Border Patrol would have 3,500 fewer apprehensions (of the 12,000 who try each day).

Colorado taxpayers would save almost $3,000,000 in one day if illegals do not access any public services, because illegal aliens cost the state over $1 billion annually according to the best estimates.

Colorado’s K-12 school classrooms would have 131,000 fewer students if illegal aliens and the children of illegals were to stay home, and Denver high schools’ dropout rate would once again approach the national norm.

Colorado’s jails and prisons would have 10-percent fewer inmates, and Denver and many other towns would not need to build so many new jails to accommodate the overcrowding.

Our highway patrol and county sheriffs would have about far fewer DUI arrests and there would be a dramatic decline in rollovers of vanloads of illegal aliens on I-70 and other highways.

On a Day Without an Illegal Immigrant, thousands of workers and small contractors in the construction industry across Colorado would have their jobs back, the jobs given to illegal workers because they work for lower wages and no benefits. (On the other hand, if labor unions continue signing up illegal workers, no one will be worrying about Joe Six-Pack’s loss. Sorry, Joe, but you forgot to tell your union business agent that your job is as important as his is.)

If it fell on a Sunday, Catholic Churches in the southwestern states might have 20-percent fewer parishioners at Mass if all illegals stayed home, but they would be back next Sunday, so the bishop’s job is not in danger. The religious leaders who send people to the marches and rallies will never fear for their jobs, because illegal aliens need their special “human-rights” advocacy and some priests and nuns seem especially devoted to that cause. The fact that most Catholics disagree with the bishops’ radicalism doesn’t seem to affect their dedication to undermining the rule of law.

All of this might be a passing colorful episode in the heated national debate over immigration policy if it weren’t for an odd coincidence: The immigration-enforcement agency responsible for locating and deporting illegal aliens is also taking the day off today. Of course, they didn’t call it a boycott. It is just (non)business as usual.

Tom Tancredo is a Republican congressman from Colorado.

Back to top



Myths (and Truths) of the Illegal Immigration Invasion

A variety of myths and misconceptions have been purposefully propagated by those who would like us to see illegal aliens as mere ‘undocumented workers’ who have every right to the privileges once reserved for actual citizens of the United States. Immigration ‘activists’ use bumper sticker slogans and simplistic sound bites repeated over and over in an attempt to win the hearts and minds of the American people. We are all descended from immigrants one way or another, but to muddy the stream of thought with the assertion that there is little difference between an illegal and a legal immigrant is a smart tactical, if dishonest, move and one that sows confusion in those attempting to make sense of this national debate.

I’d like to address just a few of the myths that have been spread about illegal immigration:

• Illegal immigrants are only doing work Americans won’t do.

The truth is that illegals are taking good jobs, or what used to be good paying jobs, from Americans. Ask anyone who used to work in the construction, hotel or restaurant industries and they’ll tell you quite a different story than what is being portrayed. Are there some jobs that Americans in general are not as willing to do? Yes. Do these require twelve to eighteen million illegal immigrants, and millions of more legal immigrants, to fill? Of course not.

One could even make the argument that there is no such thing as low income jobs filled by illegal immigrants. They are really subsidized income jobs with the US taxpayer picking up the tab. The scope of the societal costs from such a poorly paid and sometimes exploited workforce is overwhelming. You, the taxpayer, pay tens of billions for entitlements to these tens of millions and their families. This includes food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Earned Income Tax Credit, public schooling, the WIC program, food stamps, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

Removing illegal immigrants from the work force would only raise wages, relieve an overwhelming economic burden on the welfare, correctional, medical and educational systems, lower the unemployment rate, and force a few people to clean their own pools or mow their own grass until they could find an enterprising teenager to do it for them. To act as if our national economy could not survive without an additional three million ‘undocumented workers’ a year is simply ridiculous and a red herring argument at best. For those who make the arguments that open borders are ‘needed’ the question is really on their shoulders as to how many millions of illegal immigrants do they think we really need. I’ve yet to receive a straight answer to that question.

• Building The Wall across the southern border is morally equivalent to the Berlin Wall built by communist totalitarians.

Perhaps the silliest argument I’ve heard yet, but one stated with all seriousness on the Senate floor by Colorado’s own Senator Ken Salazar and shamelessly alluded to by those who cringe at the idea of a secure border. Never mind that one wall was built to keep people in and the other would be built to keep people out. One kept people from escaping to freedom, the other would be built to protect a free people from those who seek to break its laws and violate its national borders. We all know that good fences make good neighbors. Sovereignty begins at the border and a country is not a nation if anyone, at anytime, can come in whenever they feel like it.

• We have a responsibility to let in anyone who wants to immigrate.

Not everyone can come here. If we let everyone come, they would. The American people have no moral responsibility to perpetually take in untold millions of people just because they would rather live here than in their country of birth. We are the most generous and compassionate nation the world has ever seen but that doesn’t mean everyone is guaranteed the right to live in this country just because they want to. Nor does it mean that the American standard of living has to be compromised due to the underdevelopment and corruption of other countries.

We are a nation of laws that should be respected, not circumvented and violated at will. It is Mexico’s responsibility to reform its corrupt government and palsied economy. That won’t happen unless Mexico quits using the US as a dumping ground for its poor, its desperate, and its criminal element. Illegal immigration is the safety valve used by the Mexican government to prevent true reform from social pressure at home. It has also become the second biggest source of income for Mexico as millions of immigrants (both legal and illegal) send tens of billions of American dollars back home to their family and friends. Billions of dollars that otherwise would have stayed in American communities are siphoned off to keep afloat a crippled economy and an unbelievable culture of corruption.

• Illegal immigration is not related to national security.

The proponents and defenders of illegal immigration advocate what is effect an open borders philosophy. If anyone can stroll across the border due to lax or inadequate enforcement then so can drug runners, violent gang members, sexual predators, common criminals as well as the next terrorist waiting to strike. These are all intertwined when it comes to ‘national security’. Whether it is keeping your child safe from the drug pusher, your wife safe from a violent predator or your state capitol safe from the evil intent of a terrorist armed with a dirty bomb, the security of the average American is as an important element of ‘national security’ as protecting a national monument. A secure border is absolutely essential to national security and the safety of the American people.

• This is ‘their land’, stolen from Mexico, and the concepts of borders and national citizenship are inherently racist.

The implication seems to be that we should all somehow transport ourselves back to pre-1492 borders. It is a far more racist argument than any I’ve heard from those seeking to stem the illegal immigrant invasion. The crowds waving Mexican flags may wish to re-fight the Mexican-American war, create the nation of Aztlan, and give a good many of us a one way ticket off the continent but such arguments tend to backfire badly with the American public and are only accepted by white apologists and the occasional guilt-ridden college professor. Attempting to deal with modern realities and the modern concept of nation-states should not be an insurmountable intellectual achievement. It is not racist to state that any nation should not allow ten thousand people a day to violate its borders.

The pinnacle of Western Civilization has the right, and the obligation, to defend its borders, language and culture from those who refuse any attempt at assimilation. It is hypocrisy to despise the very entity you seek entry, support and sustenance from. Hyphenated Americanism is a seductive ideology but one that creates a vicious Balkanization that is even now rearing its ugly head across the fruited plain.

Like the Roman Empire, we have let our borders be overrun even as our society self destructs from the inside. The leaders of the two major political parties have sold their soul for cheap labor on the one hand and cheap votes on the other.

Many voices of reason are finally being heard in the immigration debate. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo is no longer a lone voice in the wilderness crying out for something, anything, to be done to stop the illegal invasion. We now see him joined by a host of national figures bringing legitimacy and attention to the issue. Such diverse figures as Frosty Wooldridge, Phyllis Schlafly, Lou Dobbs, Dick Lamb, David Limbaugh, Jim Gilchrist, and Michele Malkin have lent their voice of outrage to stopping illegal immigration and protecting America’s borders. They have been joined by a slim majority of the House of Representatives, a host of other voices in TV, radio and print, as well as by a growing majority of average Americans who are completely and totally fed up.

An unbelievable one-eighth of the Mexican population (and a significant number from other countries) has already immigrated to the United States. Several million more will attempt to cross the border this year. At what point is it correct to say that “enough is enough”? It is a national disgrace that the leaders of both political parties have lacked the courage and vision to take the steps necessary to define and protect our borders.

There is no excuse for the travesty that is unfolding on a daily basis. An estimated 1.2 million illegal aliens will be apprehended storming US borders this year alone. For every one caught another two or three will escape capture. The question is not just what needs to be done but why has it not been done already. Balkanization, national bankruptcy and cultural suicide are not my idea of the American dream.

The message the American people must send is simple, but profound:

No amnesty for illegals, and secure the borders.

How much should we be willing to spend? As much as it takes. Some ask if it be really be done. The answer is absolutely. One only has to have the will to use the resources available to correct the problem.

It is difficult to watch a nation, a people, and a culture slit its own throat. The marching protestors may have waved the Mexican flag with pride, but it the American flag, and the people it represents, who have been trampled beneath their feet.

Date:  June 18, 2006

David M. Huntwork
Author, The Conservative Citizen

Copyright © 2006 by David M. Huntwork
All Rights Reserved.


Back to top

Concerned Citizens Drain Desert Water Tanks Intended For Illegal Immigrants

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Judging by their own actions, a group of people called "Humane Borders" sees fit to leave clearly marked water tanks for the express purpose of making it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the desert.(1) They make the claim that "border crossers are innocent, crossing in search of a better life."(2) Humane Borders' claim is unsupported and, in any case, is not true. Some border-crossers may be only crossing to work, but they still know that they are breaking the law. Let that sink in: they know they are breaking the law. What does that make them? Lawbreakers. In his own words, illegal immigrant Laureano Miranda "We've heard that there are soldiers and armed 'migrant hunters,' but we have to try," he said. "If we don't make it [across the U.S. border] in three tries, then we'll go back home."(3)

In addition to these allegedly peaceful lawbreakers, it is known that violent criminals also cross the border illegally. An immigration activist "says Humane Borders is helping illegal immigrants, some he calls criminals, cross the border safely. These are robbers, rapists, murders. [Setting up water stations] is simply aiding and abetting criminal activity"(4) This immigration activist's statement is correct. You may recall some of my earlier research:

One thing that annoys me is that the sheer scale of the crime associated with illegal immigration is simply ignored in most of the major coverage. "While the news reporters talked about illegal workers who perform jobs Americans refuse to perform, they continue to avoid mentioning the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who prey on men, women and children -- US citizens. It is these innocent Americans who are murdered, raped and robbed because of an insane immigration policy. Criminal aliens are entering the US in the tens of thousands and remaining here as they join violent gangs such as MS-13, or they choose to commit their mayhem solo."

And for those of you who say that it is unfair to associate the violent beasts comprising MS-13 with "honest" hard-working illegal immigrants, consider the following: "The violent MS-13 -- or Mara Salvatrucha -- street gang is following the migratory routes of illegal aliens across the country, FBI officials say, calling the Salvadoran gang the new American mafia." For those of you who are unaware of this group of two-legged beasts, "MS-13 -- the focus of a nationwide crackdown by FBI and federal immigration agents -- has become known in recent years for home invasion robberies, drug dealing and machete attacks on its enemies. . . [and even] could be far more dangerous than thought [apparently employing extremely well-honed paramilitary tactics and using military-grade weaponry]."(5)

The fact is that the American People don't want illegal immigrants here. We have laws to keep them out. We get annoyed when the laws aren't enforced. We have reached the end of our rope. We are sick of our government doing nothing. People go out and put water stations up to help illegal aliens cross. This has to stop. The people from Humane Borders say that each week, they find "at least one or more of their 70 water tanks vandalized, an act these volunteers say can kill. If they're planning on getting their water at that location and they get there and there's no water, then the next time they could get water could be not before they die,"(6)

I would like to turn this insane idea on its head. If illegal immigrants are counting on those water stations, it is because the people who wish to aid and abet their unlawful behavior put them there. There are always illegal immigrants who will cross the border. The only ones who will die specifically because the water stations are removed are those who decided to cross or decided not to carry enough water specifically because they knew of the water stations. So, it could be said that Humane Borders is causing the deaths of illegal immigrants who were relying on their water stations because, if not for them, they would not have chosen to cross in the way that they did.

(1) Lyon, Amber. "Vandals drain desert water tanks intended for illegal immigrants," KVOA News 4, Tuscon, Arizona, 2006 June 14, (last accessed 2006 June 14)
(2) Ibid. At paragraph 15.
(3) Rodriguez, Olga R. "Troops Reducing Illegal Border Crossings" (AP), The Houston Chronocle, World News, 2006 June 12, paragraph 24,
(4) Lyon at paragraphs 13-14.
(5) Realm of Sovereigns, "The Mexican/Latino Invasion Finally Reaches the Front Pages," Sovereign Commentary, 2006 March 28, paragraphs 6-7,, citing: Kouri, Jim. "The Illegal Immigration Reform Scam," Men's News Daily, 2006 March 27,; Ward, Jon. "Gang follows illegal aliens," The Washington Times, Metropolitan, 2005 May 05,; and Johnson, Kevin. "MS-13 gang growing extremely dangerous, FBI says," USA Today, 2006 January 05,
(6) Lyon at paragraphs 9-10.

Technorati Tags: News Politics News and Politics Mexico Illegal Immigration Migrants Crime MS-13 Mara Salvatrucha Humane Borders

Back to top


On-the-job solutions to immigration already exist

Basic Pilot Program and worksite enforcement are key


August 22, 2006


WHY do millions of illegal aliens travel a long way at great personal risk to come to the United States?

The answer is simple: because they know there will be a job waiting for them when they arrive. Most often that job isn't glamorous and doesn't pay well. But compared to where they come from, mowing lawns, cleaning dishes or bussing tables — usually for even substandard wages — is a better life.

To stop the massive flood of illegal immigrants, our government must find solutions that address the supply-and-demand at work. If we stifle the demand for illegal labor — if we cut off the jobs — illegal immigrants won't come in the first place.

Enforcing the laws against hiring illegal immigrants isn't technically difficult. Much of the infrastructure for serious worksite enforcement is already in place.

Since 1996, the Department of Homeland Security and its predecessor organizations have operated the Basic Pilot Program, which allows employers to verify the legal status of prospective employees. Employers can simply go online, plug in the name and Social Security number of an employee and within seconds find out whether the information matches federal records.

Some employers claim that they can't tell the difference between fake and real identifications, and when they suspect that an employee's I.D. is fake, they're threatened with discrimination suits by a legion of immigration lawyers.

If the Basic Pilot Program were mandated nationwide, conscientious employers would have another tool to follow the law and unscrupulous employers would have one fewer excuse to justify hiring illegal workers.

Still, a few daring businesses might hire illegal workers even if they were forced to participate in Basic Pilot. Without a significant increase in the federal government's worksite enforcement, they'd have reason to continue doing what they've been doing.

In effect, the government did not do any worksite enforcement until six months ago, when the Bush administration engaged in a handful of raids. The government's notices of intent to fine businesses for hiring illegal workers dropped nationwide from 417 in 1999 to three in 2004. When the government doesn't enforce a law, it shouldn't be surprising that businesses refuse to follow it.

That doesn't mean that we have to hire an army of new enforcement agents. A modest increase in worksite enforcement resources focused on high-profile raids would persuade many illegal employers to get on the right side of the law.

An increase in penalties including jail time for illegal employers would help, too, but the publicity alone would probably have the requisite effect on the supply of illegal jobs.

Worksite enforcement would also affect the supply of illegal workers because fewer would make the long trip if, at the end of it, there were a distinct possibility that the immigrant would be shipped back to where he came from.

Taking a few simple steps to enforce the law would relieve a severe financial strain on our public schools, hospitals and welfare system. Taxpayers would get needed relief, and the marketplace could finally reward American workers who have suffered for so long from the wage depression caused by illegal immigration.

But what about the rest, the illegal immigrants who aren't coming for jobs?

In the post-9/11 world, that is the more difficult problem.

As the World Trade Center's twin towers were smashed to the ground by terrorists — a number of whom were in this country illegally — America lost the luxury of being "mostly" secure.

Hard-working Mexicans are not the only ones streaming through our porous borders. Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans, Iraqis and other illegal immigrants from nations that foster terror also poured in, according to the latest five years of Border Patrol data. One can only imagine what those illegals were coming for, but it wasn't to "do the job no American will do."

Worksite enforcement is no panacea. America needs to get tough on our borders and on illegal employers to make our country secure. But if Congress and the president are serious about solving our immigration problems, if they really want to address the massive disobedience of our laws and the violation of our borders, worksite enforcement is an effective first step that can be taken today.

Back to top

Hired Hands: Breaching the border

Thousands start the perilous trek with offers in hand from U.S. employers.

By Susan Ferriss -- Sacramento Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, September 3, 2006

SÁSABE, Mexico -- Somewhere north of this Mexican cattle outpost, U.S. National Guard troops man 24-hour observation posts and better-equipped U.S. Border Patrol agents roam the desert, searching for illegal immigrants.

Yet even as the Bush administration points to a drop in apprehensions at the border as proof that the new security measures are working, thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans still gather daily in border towns like this, willing to risk anything for a slot in the U.S. labor market.

"There's a lot of migra now, mucha migra, but I must keep trying," said Felipe Pérez, 30, using the name migrants collectively call the border forces.

Pérez wiped away rivulets of sweat as he shouldered his backpack for a second attempt in 48 hours to climb over the wire cattle fence dividing this section of Mexico's Sonora state from Arizona. Once over, he planned to walk toward Phoenix, through the kind of 100-plus-degree heat that killed 267 migrants in Arizona alone last year.

But Pérez's determination is no blind desperation -- like most others making the trek, he not only knows he'll find work in the United States, he knows exactly what he will be doing, for whom and where.

In a mix of Spanish and English, he ticked off his past jobs: picking tomatoes in Florida and building homes in the Rockies. Now, after a visit home to Mexico, he was eager to get back to a construction job awaiting him in Colorado Springs.

No amount of enforcement, it seems, can counterbalance the fundamental motivations for crossing the border illegally.

Hurricanes wreaked havoc in Mexico's far south and Central America last year, prompting migration from places where it had been rare. Small Mexican farmers increasingly find they can't compete with bigger domestic producers or U.S. imports. Most industrial and service jobs still pay a pittance south of the border, migrants complain, and factory jobs assembling clothes for U.S. chain stores pay poorly, too.

By contrast, there is no shortage of promises of jobs from family and friends in the United States. Sometimes U.S. employers even assure veteran undocumented workers that they will hold a job open for them while they visit an ailing parent or a pining spouse back home. GGGG

Heeding the call -- job waiting

Eliezar Reyes was pondering a second attempt at crossing through Sásabe precisely because of a call from Florida to his home in Veracruz state, Mexico.

"In January, the boss called me. I mean, he told someone who speaks Spanish to call me and tell me there was work waiting for me," said Reyes, 24.

Three years ago, Reyes started mowing golf courses in St. Augustine, Fla., then moved into construction, earning $100 a day. He took a break last November to visit his wife in Mexico.

His construction boss was able to reach him there, Reyes said, because he had earned enough in the United States to have a telephone installed back home.

For those lacking a close connection to a U.S. boss, the smugglers known as coyotes make the link to employment.

In Tijuana, at a government-run shelter for underage deportees, 16-year-old Juan José Pérez told his story. From field work starting at age 12 in Mexico's Jalisco state, he had gone on to work construction in San Diego.

"I was given the name of a gringo coyote, a Mr. Wilson," he said. The man came to Pérez's Tijuana hotel to tell him whom to meet for his trek over mountains east of Tijuana. The smuggler also helped Pérez get a job renovating houses.

"Wherever you go there's corruption," Pérez said, eating cereal on his bunk bed at the shelter. "The gringos at work said, 'If the migra comes, you just run.' "

He'd be in the United States still, Pérez added, had he not been caught driving a car without a license. GGGG

Hooked on migrant labor

Even before President Bush ordered National Guard troops to the border in May, the United States had invested billions over the past decade attempting to block illegal immigrants from crossing in urban areas, such as Tijuana and El Paso.

That pushed migrants into Arizona's desert and other isolated terrain, resulting in a 500 percent increase in deaths between 1994 and 2004, according to the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. More than 3,000 fatalities have been recorded since the mid-1990s, and hundreds of bodies and bones remain unidentified, according to the CRLA Foundation and Mexico's Foreign Ministry.

Human rights activists have long objected to a border policy they consider not only cruel but contradictory, given that U.S. employers still hire undocumented immigrants.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and major labor unions also have become migrant allies. They're urging the House of Representatives to look beyond border enforcement and support a Senate bill to increase immigrant and temporary work visas. Currently, low-skilled immigrant work visas are capped at 5,000 a year.

At the border, however, the political dispute often is expressed in simpler, personal terms.

"It looks like they don't like us but they want us for the work," said Oscar Galindo, 18, who had been deported earlier that day to Nogales, Mexico, a city separated from Nogales, Ariz., by a 10-foot metal fence.

Galindo had hoped to trade a waiter job paying $5 a day, plus tips, in Tlaxcala, Mexico, for work in Queens, N.Y., restaurants with his uncle.

Traveling with Galindo was Federico Ramírez, 24, who hoped to reach a place he called "Co-neck-tee-coot."

"New Haven," he added, where his parents have been living since he was 16.

"My mother went, my father went, my sister went and now I'm going," Ramírez said, trying to sound determined.

The two watched an American activist clean the injured feet of Armando Chávez, 26, whose family in New York had agreed to pay $2,000 in smuggling fees, on delivery.

Chávez grimaced as the volunteer from the Tucson-based No More Deaths poured a saltwater solution onto his split toes. He accepted a pair of new socks before limping toward a man whispering advice about how to get over the line.

No More Deaths has drawn both criticism and praise for providing water and food to migrants in the desert. Another group, Humane Borders, has erected water stations marked by blue flags.

"This is an issue that seems to cut to the hypocrisy of the United States today," said No More Deaths volunteer Charles Vernon, 30, a Colorado school bus driver, sitting in the shade of a tarp, handing out water.

"These are jobs we need people to do," Vernon said. "But we're going to make it as hard as possible for people to get into the United States to do them." GGGG

Many workers, many stories

Virginia National Guard volunteer Sgt. Clyde Hester sat on a hill just across the border from Vernon, scanning the horizon through binoculars.

"I can see the point of view of these people; however, I've got a job to do," said the Iraq veteran from Lee County, Va.

Hester wore a flak jacket and had an automatic weapon at his side, but his orders were to observe and report suspicious movement to the Border Patrol.

"We've got lots of unemployed people where I'm from," Hester said. "Of course, you have to find someone willing to work. We got people on welfare for generations."

About 40 percent of the 6,000 National Guard troops on border duty were sent to Arizona because of its popularity as a crossing point. Packed vans unload scores of people daily in Sásabe alone, dropping them near a statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe.

Led by a smuggler, a group of young men approached the Virgin, crossing themselves, then marched toward the fence with the purposefulness of Army recruits on a training mission. Dressed in black and camouflage, they carried heavy backpacks and gallons of water.

"Fresno," one said, when asked where they were headed. "Virginia," murmured another. "Washington," several said.

Nearby, a couple from Cancún piled out of a van with a crying 3-year-old. The boy's mother, Sandra Luz Ordóñez, 23, looked terrified, and with good reason: Another 3-year-old had perished in the desert earlier in the summer.

Ordóñez's husband, Amilcar Rodríguez, said he was tired of receiving what he considered poor wages -- less than $100 a week -- as an electrician in the high-cost Cancún resort. Sandra cleaned motels for $6 a day plus tips.

Their destination: North Carolina.

Joselino Velásquez, 36, who had accompanied them in the van, was trying to get to Tennessee, where relatives work in factories making chairs, batteries and car parts.

Last year's hurricanes, he said, left him with nowhere to work in Chiapas state, on the Guatemalan border.

"The plantations just slid away, destroying all the coffee and bananas," Velásquez said. GGGG

This day, it's too hot to cross

Two hours to the south, in another smuggling hub called Altar, a group sat in a main plaza awaiting smugglers' instructions.

Among them was Carlos Zozoya, 25, a Guatemalan who had learned English doing landscaping in Florida, Georgia and Michigan for more than five years. He had left the United States to visit his mother and now wanted to head back.

When he was just 3, Zozoya's family fled civil war in Guatemala and he grew up in a U.N. refugee camp in Mexico. Though the family eventually gained Mexican residency, that didn't assure economic stability. Many moved farther north, to the United States.

Referring to the summer heat as well as the National Guard, Zozoya said, "It is too hot now. We will try again to get across in October or November."

Some others who had recently been deported said they, too, were considering giving up -- at least for now. As Julio Adrian, 24, a Mexico City electrician and his sister, Norma, a secretary, took refuge from the heat under the No More Deaths tent in Nogales, they debated the risks of repeated attempts.

"It's Americans who kicked us out, and Americans who received us and helped us here," Julio said. "Now we have to decide whether to return to our ordinary lives, or keep going to cross over to the American dream."

Deportee Elvira Sotelo, 45, said she had lived in California and Salt Lake City for a total of 22 years before returning to Guerrero, Mexico, a few months ago to see an ailing sister.

In Utah, she said, she never went without work, at McDonald's, Wendy's and "Carlos, Jr's." As she sat in the dark outside a Nogales migrant shelter, she stared at a claim ticket Border Patrol agents had given her when they took her backpack. She never got her belongings back, she said, including some Mexican pesos, gold earrings and a jacket.

Although she planned to try to cross again the next day, Sotelo was nearly penniless and was contemplating work at a clothing-assembly factory in Nogales.

City officials there are encouraging the migrants to consider factory jobs in town, so they'll have some income and be less likely to steal.

"I think I'll try it," Sotelo said, trying to sound interested in the $80-a-week-pay. "They say it's a factory for Wal-Mart."


A look at U.S. immigration policy through the ages:

1790: United States requires two years of residency to become a citizen.

1808: Congress bans importation of slaves.

1816: Effort to repatriate free slaves to Liberia in Africa begins.

1845: Influx of Irish immigrants after the Potato Famine.

1849: California's Gold Rush prompts influx from all over, including China.

1854: Know-Nothing candidates sweep Congress, urge limits on Roman Catholic immigrants and a 21-year wait before immigrants can vote.

1860: U.S. labor needs, turmoil in Poland lead to admission of Poles, who will number about 2 million by 1914.

1868: Japanese laborers contracted to work in Hawaiian sugar cane industry.

1877: After Chinese help build the U.S. railroads, Congress issues a report citing criminal influence and moral impact of the Chinese.

1880: U.S. labor needs and crop failures in Italy usher in admission of 4 million Italians.

1882: Chinese Exclusion Act signed; businesses in the West increase recruitment of Mexicans.

1892: Labor demands contribute to opening of Ellis Island, the admission point for 12 million Europeans in the early 20th century.

1910: Mexican Revolution prompts thousands to flee north, with a million seeking security and work over the next 20 years.

1919: Thousands of immigrant labor activists are deported after raids led by U.S. attorney J. Edgar Hoover and the U.S. Bureau of Immigration, then part of the U.S. Department of Labor.

1922: Supreme Court rules Japanese immigrants are not eligible for citizenship.

1924: National Origins Act imposes immigrant quotas based on heritage, severely limiting Eastern and Southern Europeans, shutting out Japanese.

1929: Great Depression begins. Massive forced deportation of Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans follows.

1942: Mexican bracero guest workers imported for farm and railroad work at onset of World War II.

1943: Chinese Exclusion Act repealed.

1952: Immigration and Nationality Act allows all races to naturalize. It sets no restriction on immigrants from the Western Hemisphere, but it imposes quotas on others and gives preference to skilled workers.

1954: Ellis Island closes.

1965: Immigration Act ends national origin quotas, establishes yearly per-country quota of 20,000, mostly based on family ties. Bracero program ends after more than 4.5 million temporary permits are issued.

1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act requires employers to view, but not authenticate, identification proving legal eligibility for work. Grants amnesty to 3 million based on long-term work or residency history.

1992: Addition of barriers and beefed-up Border Patrol begin in San Diego and El Paso, Texas. Crossings shift to Arizona, where migrant deaths escalate.

1996: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act eliminates most judicial paths for the undocumented to legalize via family or employer sponsors. Creates small pilot program to check employee IDs by computer.

1997: Central American Relief Act allows certain undocumented Central Americans, Cubans and former Soviet Bloc natives to legalize. Half of the planned 10,000 annual low-skilled immigrant work visas are reserved for these applicants.

2000: One-party rule ends in Mexico; President Vicente Fox and President Bush discuss more work visas for Mexicans.

2001: Sept. 11 terrorist attacks lead to Patriot Act, which tightens scrutiny for visas.

December 2005: House passes bill to make illegal immigration a felony and to increase border security and document checks.

May 2006: Senate passes bill to increase border security and ID checks, along with the number of work-related visas. Congress deadlocks. President Bush requests 6,000 National Guard volunteers to support the Border Patrol.

Sources: University of California Davis School of Law; Migration Policy Institute; Library of Congress; University of North Carolina; U.S. Justice Department; U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Ellis Island Museum; American Immigration Lawyers Association.

About the writer:

·         The Bee's Susan Ferriss can be reached at (916) 321-1267 or sferriss@sacbee.

 Back to top

What We Learned From Randy Graf's Win

by Rep. Tom Tancredo
Posted Sep 15, 2006

A funny thing happened in Arizona's 8th District primary election on Tuesday.  A conservative former state legislator, Randy Graf, faced off against the hand-picked candidate of the retiring incumbent, liberal Republican Jim Kolbe and the entire Republican establishment.  The Kolbe clone had the backing of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which had decided that Graf was "too conservative for his district.”

The Republican voters in the 8th District of Arizona told the NRCC and Jim Kolbe to take a hike and gave Graf a healthy 43% plurality in a field of five candidates.  Graf will likely continue down the path of victory in November, unless the party establishment chooses to interfere and works against an already proven campaign organization.

In the more publicized Rhode Island race between liberal incumbent Lincoln Chafee and a conservative challenger, at least the party bigwigs were supporting an incumbent.  The Arizona race had no incumbent; it was an open seat.  Yet the national party elites intervened to help the liberal candidate, Steve Huffman, against the conservative.  What's the political equivalent of "clueless"?

Arizona’s 8th District is not a liberal district.  Moderate Republican Kolbe was first elected in the Reagan landslide in 1984 and became increasingly liberal with each succeeding term, but his constituency is as far from Rhode Island politically as it is geographically. Washington insiders have always had a hard time seeing over the horizon.  Back in 1980, every "smart Republican" in Washington knew Ronald Reagan was "too conservative" to get the Republican nomination and they were certain he was too conservative to beat Jimmy Carter.  It must be something in the water.

Arizona's 8th District encompasses the east side of Tucson and the southeastern corner of the state, including 80 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border.  In 2004 the chickens came home to roost for Kolbe.  A conservative state legislator challenged Kolbe in the 2004 Republican primary over the issue of border security and government spending got 43% of the vote with very little money and no outside help.  Kolbe had opposed all efforts to crack down on illegal aliens crossing the border and was a cosponsor of House amnesty legislation that was very similar to the Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill.  He was so openly hostile to border security that the Tucson Border Patrol union local called for his defeat. After his near-defeat in 2004, Kolbe announced his retirement and Graf announced he would run for the open seat.

Despite the efforts and the deep pockets of the party establishment in support of Kolbe's
candidate, Randy Graf won.  The bad news is, the national party leaders who opposed him in the primary may abandon him and the district to the Democrats.  A Graf win in November would mean they were wrong, and that would be just too embarrassing.

Randy Graf is an experienced legislator with impeccable Republican credentials. He was
Republican majority whip in the Arizona House of Representatives and highly respected by his colleagues.  He has the endorsement of 26 members of the state legislature, taxpayers groups, the local Border Patrol union, law enforcement associations, the Minutemen and pro-life organizations.  The Democrat opponent has the support of the public employee unions, the liberal news media and probably 80% of the University of Arizona faculty.

The 8th District has a slight Republican edge in voter registration and more than 100,000 independent voters.  It is undoubtedly a less conservative district than some others in Arizona because of the influence of the university and a liberal daily newspaper. Yet the No. 1 issue in the district in 2006 is illegal immigration.  Why? It has something to do with the fact that 45% of the more than 2 million illegal aliens coming across the Mexican border each year come through some part of the 8th District.  It could also have something to do with the epidemic ID theft, auto theft, methamphetamine sales and gang violence spreading across the southwest.  

The citizens of the 8th District also might be upset by the overburdened hospital emergency rooms and crowded school classrooms.  Many Democrat and independent voters may join Republicans is saying the clock has run out on political correctness and it is time to secure our borders.

Graf's biggest obstacle to victory in November will not be his Democrat opponent, but the damaged egos of the Republicans who backed Kolbe's hand-picked candidate.  They have threatened to pick up their marbles and go home.  The national Republican Party encouraged and legitimized this temper tantrum by funding Huffman in the primary. They need to step forward and tell the Kolbe faction in Tucson what Barry Goldwater told the conservatives at the National Republican Convention in Chicago in 1960: "Grow up!"

Graf was the voters’ choice in the party's primary, and the Republican big wigs in Washington should give Graf the financial support needed to win.  Whether the wounds of a bitter primary can be healed before November 7 all depends on which goal these party blue bloods take more seriously—keeping this congressional seat in Republican hands or punishing the man who challenged Kolbe and beat him.

The "Graf can't win" slogan always did ring hollow, and now it sounds merely petulant. Most voters can remember when that was said of Ronald Reagan's candidacy in 1980.  Like Reagan, Randy Graf may have one more surprise in store for those slow  learners in Washington.


Back to top

Hazelton: The people vs. the ACLU

By John Armor
September 19, 2006

Louis Barletta, mayor of Hazleton, Pa., has thrown down the gauntlet to those who think America belongs to anyone who can walk across the border. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a Puerto Rican group have taken up the challenge. And the mayor has upped the ante by hiring as defense counsel the former head of immigration in the Justice Department.
    Step One in this legal clash, likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, was a series of three ordinances passed in Hazleton. Propelled by several local crimes apparently committed by illegal aliens, and inspired by the mayor, the City Council decided to fine landlords who knowingly rent space to illegal aliens. It also decided to deny licenses to local businesses which knowingly hire such aliens. Lastly, it declared English would be the official language of the town.
    Step Two is the federal suit filed by the ACLU against the town, claiming it was "unconstitutionally" seeking "to enforce immigration laws." Joining the ACLU in filing the case was the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. This is an odd partner because legal residents of Puerto Rico are American citizens. Laws directed at illegal aliens don't apply to them.
    Step Three in many ACLU challenges to local laws and actions often is capitulation by the local officials. Often when the ACLU files suit, sometimes when it only threatens to file suit, local officials cave to the pressure, and throw in the towel. This is due to the threat of budget-busting legal fees, both to defend the local decisions and to pay court-ordered fees to the ACLU.
    In this case, Hazleton has not caved. Quite the contrary, it has girded its loins for battle. It has engaged as chief defense counsel, Kris W. Kobach, formerly Attorney General John Ashcroft's chief adviser on immigration law. Also, Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Federation for American Immigration Reform have volunteered staff and lawyers to defend the town's position.
    What is the likely fate of the three ordinances? Easiest to predict is English as the official language. Several states have passed such laws. Legal challenges have been brought and decided. So long as the town's ordinances have the usual escape clauses for emergencies -- medical care, appearances in court, etc. -- this law will be found constitutional.
    The ordinance on landlords should also be upheld. Though the ACLU claims the town is "enforcing immigration law," the law's effects are entirely within city limits. Regulating housing stock for the residents' health and safety has been a normal function of municipal government since the Middle Ages, in England.
    The ordinance on business licenses should also be upheld. Again, the licensing of local businesses for the health and welfare of local residents has been a normal power of municipal governments for centuries.
    Providing for the welfare of local citizens is the very essence of municipal government. The ACLU effort to replace government by the town council with government by an unelected judge is a direct attack on the civil rights of all citizens of Hazleton. The court which ultimately dismisses the ACLU attack on Hazleton should also award serious fees and costs against the ACLU and the Puerto Rican group in favor of the town and its beleaguered taxpayers.
    What are the larger consequences of this legal war against Hazleton's ordinances? Hazleton has a population of only 30,000. Compared to America's more than 300 million residents, including an estimated 11 million illegal aliens, Hazleton is a drop in the bucket.
    Many other towns have picked up on what Hazleton is doing. Some have introduced or passed similar laws. Others are interested, but hold back -- out of the ACLU line of fire until the Hazleton case has been won. More and more cities and states may adopt Hazleton-like laws. The crimes and public service costs of illegal aliens would then be concentrated more and more in cities and states that make themselves "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens.
    This small case in a small town could have an enormous effect. It could generate from the grass roots, the pressure on Congress to deal with the problem of illegal aliens, rather than speak platitudes and duck the problem for another generation.
    John Armor is an attorney who has has practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years. This article was written on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union,
Back to top

The Impact of New Immigrants onYoung Native-Born Workers, 2000-2005

September 2006

By Andrew Sum, Paul Harrington, and Ishwar Khatiwada


Over the 2000-2005 period, immigration levels remained very high and roughly half of new immigrant workers were illegal. This report finds that the arrival of new immigrants (legal and illegal) in a state results in a decline in employment among young native-born workers in that state. Our findings indicate that young native-born workers are being displaced in the labor market by the arrival of new immigrants.

·   Between 2000 and 2005, 4.1 million immigrant workers arrived from abroad, accounting for 86 percent of the net increase in the total number of employed persons (16 and older), the highest share ever recorded in the United States.

·   Of the 4.1 million new immigrant workers, between 1.4 and 2.7 million are estimated to be illegal immigrants. This means that illegal immigrants accounted for up to 56 percent of the net increase in civilian employment in the United States over the past five years.

·   Between 2000 and 2005, the number of young (16 to 34) native-born men who were employed declined by 1.7 million; at the same time, the number of new male immigrant workers increased by 1.9 million.

·   Multivariate statistical analyses show that the probability of teens and young adults (20-24) being employed was negatively affected by the number of new immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in their state.

·   The negative impacts tended to be larger for younger workers, for in-school youth compared to out-of-school youth, and for native-born black and Hispanic males compared to their white counterparts.

·   It appears that employers are substituting new immigrant workers for young native-born workers. The estimated sizes of these displacement effects were frequently quite large.

·   The increased hiring of new immigrant workers also has been accompanied by important changes in the structure of labor markets and employer-employee relationships. Fewer new workers, especially private-sector wage and salary workers, are ending up on the formal payrolls of employers, where they would be covered by unemployment insurance, health insurance, and worker protections.

During the last five years, new immigrants have accounted for an overwhelming share of the growth in the number of employed persons in the United States. Native-born adults and established immigrants have been unable to capture much of the new employment opportunities that have been created in the nation since 2000. The number of employed persons in the civilian working-age (16 and over) population rose by 4.835 million between 2000 and 2005. During 2005, a total of 4.134 million new immigrants were working in the United States. New immigrants who entered the United States since 2000 and were still residing here during 2005 accounted for 86 percent of the total increase in employment in the nation over the 2000 to 2005 period. Native-born and established immigrants accounted for less than one-sixth of the total rise in civilian employment that occurred in the nation over the past five years. These findings differ by gender. Among men, new immigrants accounted for all of the rise in employment, as the total number of employed men in the nation increased by only 2.665 million while the number of employed new immigrant males was 2.767 million during 2005. For the first time since the end of World War II, there has been no gain in employment among native-born men over a five-year period.

A substantial share of employed new immigrants appear to be illegal workers, often employed in off-payroll jobs that are increasingly concentrated in a newly emerging informal sector of the American labor market. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that there were 4.4 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States in 2005 who had entered the country since 2000.1 We estimate that 2.857 million of these new illegal immigrants were actively participating in the labor force during 2005 and that about 5.5 percent of the immigrant labor force was unemployed.2 With a labor force of 2.857 million and an estimated unemployment rate of 5.5 percent, we conclude that the number of new illegal immigrants who were working in the United States during 2005 was 2.7 million. This means that about two-thirds of all employed recent immigrants in the United States were working illegally during 2005 and that more than one-half (56 percent) of the total rise in employment that occurred in the nation between 2000 and 2005 was attributable to the growth in employment among illegal immigrant workers.

The extraordinarily high share of new employment captured by new immigrants was accompanied by a powerful shift in the organization of the nation’s labor markets. In a subsequent section of this report we will provide evidence that some employers have begun to re-organize work in ways that systematically exclude certain native-born workers, especially those under the age of 35, from employment and that create work that does not meet the basic labor standards that have been developed over the years by federal and state legislation, custom and tradition, and through labor-management/collective bargaining agreements.

The ability of the nation’s teen and young adult (20-24) population to become employed has deteriorated badly over the past five years. Employment levels for all those aged 16 to 34 have fallen by more than 1.5 million between 2000 and 2005, even as the total number of employed persons increased by more than 4.8 million over the same period of time. Several alternate explanations might help explain this employment decline among young people in the nation. Part of the explanation could simply be associated with demographic change. Reductions in the size of the teen and young adult age cohorts can result in employment declines even though the likelihood of a member of that cohort finding work doesn’t change. Alternately, changes in the likelihood of becoming employed can reduce the number of young people working. The first explanation has no validity since the number of native-born people aged 16 to 34 rose as the echo generation (baby boomers’ children born between 1978 and 1996) moved into this age group in large numbers.

The number of native-born males aged 16 to 34 in the population increased by nearly 1.1 million between 2000 and 2005.3 Rather than reducing employment levels, these demographic forces would have been expected to increase overall employment levels of native-born males aged 16 to 34. Indeed, we estimate that if the proportion of native-born young males working during 2005 were the same as the share of native-born workers employed during the full employment year of 2000, 1.721 million more young native-born men would have been at work during that year. Employment among native-born young men declined not because there were fewer young men, but because their employment rates declined precipitously. The employment to population (E/P) ratio of young males has fallen sharply over the last five years. Some of these declines are quite extraordinary and, in the case of male teens, the 2005 E/P ratio was the lowest in the nation over the entire 58-year period covered by the Current Population Survey (CPS) teen employment series.

Among females, the trends in employment have been similar. While the size of the young native-born and established-immigrant female population has increased at about the same rate as males, the number who are employed has declined sharply. Similar to findings for their male counterparts, the E/P ratio of native-born female teens and young adults fell considerably over the last five years, accounting for all of the decline in employment among young native-born females. If native-born teen and young-adult females had been able to maintain their employment rate at the same level as the full employment year of 2000, then the number who were employed in 2005 would have increased by 1.382 million.

The decline in employment levels among native-born teens and young adults implies that employers have turned to alternative sources of labor supply to meet their labor requirements. One alternative source of substitute labor is, of course, the surging older worker population fueled by the baby boom age cohort entering their pre-retirement years in the past five years. These individuals represent a ready potential source of substitute workers for teens and young adults. The other potential alternative source of labor supply is the flow of new immigrants to the United States since 2000. Large numbers of new foreign workers, the majority of whom entered the United States and work here illegally, also represent a ready source of labor supply to take the place of native-born and established-immigrant teens and young adults in the nation’s labor markets.

As noted below, the job deficit for native-born male teens and young adults in the nation was 1.721 million, while the number of new immigrant male workers in the same age group in 2005 was 1.859 million (Table 4). If the jobs held by new immigrant males aged 16 to 34 were made available to jobless native-born males, then the job deficit among the native-born would be completely eliminated. Among women, the substitution of jobless native-born young women for recent young female immigrants would result in the native-born female job deficit declining by more than 60 percent. Overall, nearly 90 percent of the native-born teen and young adult job deficit that has emerged over the last five years would be eliminated if native-born teens and young adults worked in jobs now held by recent immigrants of the same age. While some mismatches in the occupational composition of employment might occur between native-born and foreign-born workers, the jobs held by these groups are quite similar to jobs in all occupations simultaneously held in large numbers by both foreign-born and native-born workers.4 These findings strongly suggest that a major proportion of the native-born job deficit of teens and young adults that has developed in the United States over the past five years is the result of newly arrived, young female, and especially male immigrants displacing these potential workers from employment. Native-born older workers are a much less-likely substitute for employers who hire many fewer native-born teens and young adults. Native-born older workers have differing levels of work experience, expectations of hours and weeks of work, and are paid at considerably higher wage rates than are teen and young adult workers. Recent young immigrant workers are much closer substitutes for young native-born workers compared to the aging members of the baby boom generation.

Impacts of New Immigrants on Young Adult Employment
Most studies of the economic impacts of immigration on native-born workers have focused on wage and annual earnings impacts rather than employment impacts. There is a general tendency among labor market analysts to assume that, as a result of labor market and wage flexibility, there are few job displacement effects of immigration on native-born workers, citing older studies to back up these opinions. Several more recent statistical studies, however, indicate that less-educated native-born workers, teenagers, and black males do suffer employment declines as a result of immigrant labor inflows.5 Ethnographic research work in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and other large central cities across the nation has revealed that young immigrant workers are often preferred by employers over poorly educated native-born workers, especially those from inner city neighborhoods characterized by high poverty rates.6

One might well expect the labor displacement effects of immigration to be low in periods of full employment, when job opportunities are abundant and vacancy rates are high, such as the late 1990s in the United States when employment rose across the board among both most native-born workers and new immigrant workers. However, in more slack labor market environments, such as the 2003-2004 period, one might well expect that a rise in the supply of immigrant labor could generate displacement impacts on native-born workers, especially among those in most direct competition for available jobs with newly arrived immigrant workers, such as young, native-born adults with limited formal schooling, especially those in central cities.

To test whether the influx of new immigrant workers over the 2000-2003 period had an adverse effect on the employment prospects of the nation’s young adults (16-24 years old), we estimated a series of multivariate statistical employment models for young adults, including a variable representing the relative size of new immigrant inflows into the labor force of the state in which the young adult resided at the time of the 2003 American Community Survey (ACS).7 The relative sizes of these new immigrant labor force inflows varied quite considerably across states between 2000 and 2003. The size of these immigrant inflows ranged across the 50 states and the District of Columbia from a low of .2 percent to a high of 3.9 percent, with a mean of 1.63 percent.

The dependent variable in this multivariate statistical model was the employment status of a 16-24 year-old respondent at the time of the 2003 ACS. The variable was a dichotomous variable that took on the value of one if the respondent was employed (either part-time or full-time) and the value of zero if he/she was not employed at the time of the ACS. The right-hand-side predictor variables included the gender, age, race-ethnic group, and educational attainment of the respondent, the unemployment rate of the state in which he/she resided at the time of the survey in 2003, and the relative size of new immigrant labor inflows into the state since 2000. We estimated these employment probability models for all 16-24 year olds and for a variety of gender, nativity, gender and schooling, and school enrollment subgroups.8 The findings in Table 5 display the estimates of a one percentage-point increase in the state labor force due to new immigration on the probability of employment among young adults.

For the entire sample of 16-24 year olds,9 a one percentage-point increase in the state labor force due to new immigration would have lowered the predicted employment rate of such youth by 1.2 percentage points. The estimated impact was highly statistically significant (.001). For a state with a recent large influx of new immigrants (a three percentage-point rise in the civilian labor force of the state), the probability of employment among 16-24 year olds in that state would have declined by a substantial 3.6 percentage points.

The estimated impacts of new immigrant workers on the employment rates of 16-24 year olds were approximately the same for the native-born as they were for all 16-24 year olds, but as expected were considerably larger for men than for women (-1.6 percentage points for men versus -.9 percentage points for women),10 and were larger for less-educated women than for women with some post-secondary schooling.11 The finding of larger adverse employment impacts for men than for women is not surprising given the relatively high share of new immigrant workers that were men (66 percent). Larger adverse impacts for less-educated workers were also expected given the above-average share of new immigrant workers who lacked a high school diploma and the weaker national labor market for less-educated native-born workers during this time period. The results in Table 6, thus, provide substantive empirical evidence that the recent influx of new immigrant workers has resulted in job losses for many subgroups of young adults in the nation, especially in those states that were more heavily impacted by new immigrant labor. Males, in-school youth, less-educated workers, and black males appear to have been more adversely affected than other demographic subgroups of young adults.

The availability of the public use micro data from the 2004 ACS allowed us to update our findings on the impacts of new immigrant worker inflows in states on the employment probabilities of very young adults. Given the continuing severe labor market problems of teens and youth in their early 20s throughout 2004, we selected 16-20 year olds for our analysis. There were observations for approximately 74,000 youth in this age group on the ACS public use files, of whom 58,600, or nearly 80 percent, were enrolled in school at the time of the ACS survey’s completion.12

The dependent variable in these models is the employment status of the respondent at the time of the survey. Those employed respondents, including persons with a job but temporarily absent due to vacation, weather-related factors, etc., were coded as a "1" and all others as "0." In these models, we control for a wide array of demographic and family income background variables, the school enrollment status and educational attainment of the respondents, the unemployment rate of the state in which they lived, and the relative size of new immigrant worker inflows since 2000.13

These regression models of young adult employment rates were estimated for all 16-20 year olds and for a variety of gender, race, and school enrollment subgroups. Estimates of the impact of new immigrant inflows on the probability of employment of young adults are displayed in Table 6.

For the entire group of 16-20 year olds, the presence of new immigrants in their state’s workforce had a strong, statistically significant, negative impact on the likelihood that they will be employed. A one percentage-point increase in the share of new immigrants in the state’s workforce will reduce the probability of employment of young adults by 2.1 percentage points. The effects of new immigrant workers are negative and statistically significant for each subgroup of young adults in Table 6, and are equally large for both men and women,14 but they are much larger for in-school youth than for out-of-school youth (2.4 percent vs. 0.6 percent). The size of the coefficient was highest for black men, implying that they are the most adversely affected by new immigrant inflows.

New Immigrant Workers’ Impact on the Job Market
The rise in immigrant employment, especially among illegal workers, over the past decade has been accompanied by a number of important changes in the structure of employment relationships in U.S. labor markets. Recent years have seen the growth in contractor employment relationships and the use of independent consultants and off-the-books workers.15 These newly hired workers do not go on the formal payrolls of the firms that hire them, and they typically are not paid employee benefits such as health insurance and pension benefits or covered by the Unemployment Insurance, workers compensation, or Social Security systems.

These changing employment relationships are not simply revealed in growing media coverage of labor market developments at the local level, but also show up in the large differences between employment changes registered by the two national surveys used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate monthly employment, the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES) payroll survey and the Current Population Survey (CPS) household survey.16 The CES generates a monthly count of wage and salary payroll jobs from a monthly sample of about 160,000 businesses and federal, state, and local government organizations covering 400,000 individual establishments that participate in the unemployment insurance system. The CES is considered by many economic and financial analysts to be the primary source of data on wage and salary job growth and decline in the nation and among states and is a primary topic of discussion and analysis in BLS’ monthly Employment Situation news release, which is widely covered by the national media. One of the most important uses of the CES data at the national level is to measure the job-generating performance of the economy over the course of the business cycle.

A second source of information on monthly employment trends at the national and state levels is the findings of the CPS. The CPS is a survey of approximately 60,000 households conducted each month by the Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unlike the CES, which measures only the number of private and public formal payroll jobs, the CPS provides a more comprehensive count of the number of employed persons ages 16 and older each month. The CPS employment count includes not only workers in traditional wage and salary jobs, but also workers outside the scope of the payroll employment survey, including agricultural workers, the self-employed, independent contractors, unpaid family workers, and some "under the table" or "off-the-books" workers.17 The CPS survey counts each employed person only once, regardless of the number of jobs he/she holds at the time of the survey, while persons holding multiple wage and salary jobs will be counted twice in the CES. Historically, the CPS and CES employment measures have tracked one another fairly well. However, during the past five years considerable differences have emerged between the two surveys’ estimates of the overall increase in the nation’s employment levels, with the CPS showing much greater growth in private sector wage and salary employment. These findings stand in sharp contrast to that observed for earlier time periods.

During both the 1980s and 1990s economic expansions, the growth in payroll employment levels in the nation was greater than that measured by the household survey. Typically, payroll employment levels in the nation grow rapidly during the early stages of recovery from an economic recession. Rising Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increases the demand for labor by employers who then add more workers to their payrolls. Over the period from the early 1960s though 2000, the nation experienced five recoveries from economic recessions. On average, the nation’s wage and salary employment levels increased by 11.7 percent during the first four years of recovery for these five post-recession periods. The rates of new job creation varied from a low of 7.3 percent during the early stages of recovery from the 1990-1991 recession to a 16 percent rise in the nation’s wage and salary employment levels during the recovery from the recession of 1974-75.

However, the rate of job growth during the first four years of recovery from the recession of 2001 has been much slower than the historic pace of national payroll employment growth in recovery periods. Despite robust rates of growth in real GDP, strong growth in corporate profits, and a stock market boom, the nation’s rate of new payroll employment growth was just 2.5 percent between 2001 Q4 and 2005 Q4. This rate of new job creation was equal to only one-fifth of the historical average rate of new job creation over the previous five recoveries (Table 7). Why has the rate of payroll employment growth been so slow over the past four years, given the strong overall performance of the nation’s economy by most key economic indicators? Increased labor productivity growth appears to be an important explanation, but part of the answer is associated with strong growth in off-payroll employment, especially among the recent-immigrant population. Since the end of the 2001 recession in the fourth quarter of 2001, payroll employment in the nation increased by just 3.23 million jobs while the number of working-age persons who were employed, according to the CPS, rose at twice that pace, increasing by 6.446 million (Table 8). Unlike the employment expansions of the 1980s and 1990s, when payroll employment growth substantially outpaced that of household employment, the current recovery is characterized by a new pattern of job growth.

Over the entire 2000 to 2005 period, the nature of the relationship between the employment growth estimates of the two surveys has changed radically. Between 2000 and 2005, wage and salary employment levels, as measured by the CES, rose by only 1.678 million or 1.3 percent while the CPS found that the number of employed workers increased by 4.672 million over the same period of time (Table 9). On an annual average basis, we find that employment as measured by the CES business establishment survey increased from 131.785 million during 2000 to 133.463 million by 2005, an increase in non-agricultural payroll jobs of only 1.678 million. In contrast, the household survey found that the number of working-age persons employed in the nation increased from 136.934 million to 141.606 million, a rise of 4.672 million over the 2000 to 2005 period, a difference of nearly three million.

The CPS household survey measured a rise in employment that was nearly three times greater than that measured by the CES over the 2000-2005 period. As we noted earlier, the CPS and the CES use somewhat different employment concepts. The CPS includes agricultural workers, the self-employed, independent contractors, unpaid family workers, and some off-the-books workers while the CES does not.

We have adjusted the CPS employment data to more closely fit the CES employment concepts in order to obtain a more direct comparison between the CPS and CES measures of employment change over the 2000 to 2005 period.18 Our first adjustment was to exclude agricultural workers from the CPS household survey employment count since the CES measures only employment in the non-agricultural sector of the nation’s economy (Table 10). After excluding agricultural workers, non-farm employment as measured by the CPS survey increased more considerably — by 4.976 million between 2000 and 2005 — indicating that employment among agricultural workers declined over this five-year period. It is important to note that recent immigrants are about 1.8 times more likely to work in the nation’s agricultural industries than are the native-born.

The estimated decline in agricultural employment over the last five years suggests that this sector was not a major source of new employment opportunities for new immigrants.19 Excluding agricultural sector employment from the CPS totals further widens the difference between the CPS employment growth estimate and the CES job growth estimate over this period, raising the size of the gap in employment growth from 2.994 million to 3.268 million. The CPS estimate of new employment growth rises to 2.95 times that estimated from the CES payroll survey versus only 2.78 times when agricultural employment is included in the CPS totals.

Much of the new payroll job creation that occurred in the nation over the 2000 to 2005 period was concentrated in the government sector. About 60 percent of the total rise in payroll employment that was generated nationally over the last five years has been on government payrolls. Native-born workers are much more likely than immigrants, especially recent immigrants, to work in federal, state, and local government agencies. During 2005, native-born workers were three times more likely to be employed in a government job compared to employed recent immigrants (Table 11). The CES estimated that between 2000 and 2005, federal, state, and local government payroll employment increased by 1.023 million jobs while the CPS found that the number of persons who said they were employed by the government increased by 1.143 million. Thus, the CPS government employment growth estimate was nearly identical to that of the CES.

Findings from the CES, however, reveal very small increases in private sector wage and salary employment in the nation over the past five years. The CES found that non-farm, private sector payroll employment increased by just 665,000 jobs over the past five years. In contrast, the CPS household survey estimated that the number of persons employed in non-farm, private sector jobs increased by 3.026 million. The CPS estimate of non-farm, private sector employment growth between 2000 and 2005 was more than five times larger than that estimated by the monthly CES establishment survey. Recent immigrant employment is heavily concentrated in the private non-agricultural sector of the nation’s labor market. While about three-quarters of all native-born workers are employed in private wage and salary jobs, 86 percent of recent immigrants report that they work for an employer in the private non-farm sector.

Over the past five years, the relationship between the CPS and CES estimates of employment growth rates has changed dramatically. Instead of observing the pattern of substantially more payroll job growth compared to increases in the number of employed persons from the CPS prevailing in the 1980s and 1990s, the employment data since 2000 reveal much higher growth in employment measured by the CPS relative to the slow growth registered by the CES. We also have analyzed the relationship between the CPS and CES estimates of job growth at the state level over the last five years. Our findings reveal that those states that had large increases in the number of employed immigrants were also those states with the largest gaps in employment growth estimates between the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program and the count of jobs from the state CES survey. The LAUS program is a statistical program used by states to estimate the monthly number of employed and unemployed residents.

For example, the findings in Table 12 reveal that, while the number of employed residents in the state of Texas increased by 733,000 between 2000 and 2005, total payroll employment levels in the state increased by less than half of this amount, rising by just 308,000 over the same five-year period. At the same time, the number of new working immigrants in the state increased by more than 388,000, the second largest increase in the nation. A look at the top-20 states ranked by the size of the CES-CPS employment growth gap reveals a fairly strong connection between the size of the gap and the size of the increase in the number of new immigrants employed in each state. The correlation between the CES-CPS employment gap and growth in employed immigrants is quite high. We estimate a correlation coefficient of .79 between the absolute size of the difference in employment change between the two jobs measures and the change in the number of employed immigrants in each state over the 2000 to 2005 period.

The above findings imply that large numbers of these new immigrant workers are not appearing on the formal payrolls of their employers. Instead, they are being hired as independent contractors or completely off the books and being paid in cash. Evidence from other data sets, field research by the authors, and growing media stories support this assertion that a high share of new immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are employed in the informal or "black" economy.20 In 2003 and 2004, only one-third of new employed immigrants reported being covered by a health insurance plan at work and fewer than one in five reported that they were covered by a pension plan at work, versus nearly one-half of the native-born.21 Among less-educated workers from Mexico and Central America, the dominant sources of illegal workers, only about 15 percent reported any health insurance coverage from their employers. When unemployed, fewer than 10 percent report being covered by unemployment insurance benefits.

The employment growth gaps between the CPS and the CES at the national level were systematic in nature and specific to particular classes of workers. The size of the employment growth gap for the government sector of the labor market was quite small. Government was among the least important sources of jobs for employed new immigrants and access to government jobs is largely confined to formal wage and salary positions. Few illegal workers have the opportunity to find work in most government organizations. Strict hiring protocols dramatically limit the potential use of off-the-books work for many government positions. The comparatively small employment growth gap between the household and payroll survey for the government sector appears to be the result of increasing use of workers as independent consultants by some state and local government agencies, a common practice in states such as Massachusetts.

In contrast, the CES data reveal little growth in the nation’s non-farm private sector wage and salary jobs over the past five years. These positions are ones in which the overwhelming majority of employed Americans work. They are characterized by a formal employer-employee relationship such as that defined in the Social Security Act. Indeed, a hallmark of formal payroll jobs is the automatic payroll deductions made for employee contributions to the Old Age, Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance trust fund. Yet, in contrast to the very slow private sector wage and salary job growth as measured by the CES, the CPS reveals non-farm, private wage and salary growth that was 5.5 times higher.

We find that the unprecedented gap between the household and payroll surveys’ estimates of employment growth over the past five years is primarily the result of concentrating new employment growth in independent contractor and off-the-books jobs. Employers in many sectors, especially construction, landscaping, retail trade, office cleaning, and leisure and hospitality industries as well as in private households where strong job growth also has been reported in recent years, are increasingly re-organizing work to take advantage of the substantial influx of new illegal immigrants into the United States since 2000. Many of these jobs are filled by illegal immigrants who arrive on street corners, informal shape-ups, and convenience store parking lots waiting for any of a number of potential employers to come by and pick them up for a day’s work.

Increasingly, the nation’s employers seem to be operating outside of the legal framework that has defined U.S. labor markets since the New Deal. Expansion of contract employment, off-the-books workers, and black labor markets in an increasing number of communities throughout the nation has meant that a growing fraction of workers now provide their labor outside of the fundamental worker protections that the nation had previously taken for granted, including wage and hour laws, worker safety and health mandates, and minimum wage protections established over the past 70 years. These changes in labor relationships also have reduced rates of unionization, lowered the share of workers receiving key employee benefits, such as health insurance, paid vacations, and pensions and have decreased unemployment insurance, Social Security, and workers’ compensation tax receipts.

The growing inflow of illegal-immigrant workers has contributed to a fundamental breakdown in the nation’s labor laws and labor standards as the sheer volume of illegal hiring activity overwhelms what has amounted to meager enforcement levels of basic labor standards across the nation by federal and state officials from both political parties.22 Absent renewed efforts to strengthen enforcement of both border security and federal and state labor laws, these new forms of work organization will continue to grow in the future. The past formal relationships between workers and employers will continue to unravel, undermining the unemployment insurance and social security systems and basic worker protections that have evolved in the nation over the last century. These adverse effects on employer-worker relationships have to be taken into account in any benefit-cost calculus of the impacts of new immigration. Advocates of guestworker programs have been derelict in addressing these key economic concerns.

End Notes

1 Jeffrey S. Passel, The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey, Pew Hispanic Center, Washington DC, March 2006.

2 Our estimates of the size of the immigrant labor force are based on applying population shares by age/sex group and labor force participation rates for key age/sex groups in the new immigrant population to Pew estimates of the number of illegal immigrants for each of these age/sex groups.

3 All of this increase was among native-born males aged 16 to 29. This age cohort increased in size by more than 1.6 million. However, this was partially offset by a decline of 537,000 in the number of native-born persons aged 30 to 34 in the nation.

4 Steven Camarota found this was the case between foreign-born and native-born workers in general: See Steven Camarota, Dropping Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit from the Labor Market, 2000-2005, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington DC, March 2006.

5 For recent statistical evidence on the links between immigrant worker inflows and the employment of native- born workers, See: (i) George Borjas, "The Labor Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market," Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2003, pp. 1335-1374. (ii) Paulo Tobar, The Employment Experiences of Teens in Central City Labor Markets: The Influence of Demographic/Human Capital Traits, Family Background, and Environmental Factors, M.A. Workshop Paper, Department of Economics, Northeastern University, Boston, 2004; (iii) Ishwar Khatiwada, Andrew Sum, and Tim Barnicle, New Foreign Immigrant Workers and the Labor Market in the United States, February 2006.

6 See: (i) William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears, Alfred Knopf, New York, 1996; (ii) Katherine S. Newman, No Shame in My Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1999.

7 The immigration variable is defined as the ratio of the number of new immigrant labor force participants in the state between 2000 and 2003 to the size of the resident civilian labor force of the state in 2003.

8 The models are linear probability models estimated by ordinary least squares regression techniques. The coefficient on the foreign immigrant labor force variable indicates the percentage point change in the likelihood of employment among the designated group from a 1 percentage point increase in the state’s civilian labor force due to new immigration.

9 There were 127,151 16-24 year old youth in the ACS sample.

10 The difference between the coefficients of the new immigrant labor force variable in the male and female employment models was large enough to be statistically significant at the .01 level.

11 In fact, the coefficient on the new immigrant labor force variable was not statistically significant at the .05 level in the model for women with 13 or more years of schooling.

12 The ACS questionnaire asks respondents whether they had been enrolled in school at any time in the prior three months. If they answer "yes" to this question, they are classified as enrolled in school. Persons must be attending a school or college that will lead to the attainment of a regular diploma or a college degree.

13 The new immigrant worker variable is measured similarly to that for the previous models based on the ACS 2003 data. It is the ratio of the number of new immigrant labor force participants in 2004 as a percentage of the state’s resident labor force in 2004.

14 The modestly larger coefficient of the immigrant variable in the male equation (.022 vs. .019 for women) is not significantly different from that of women.

15 For a review of these changing job market operations in Massachusetts and the United States, See: Paul E. Harrington and Andrew Sum, "As Jobs Go Off the Books, Immigrants Edge Out Some Native-Born Workers," Commonwealth, Volume 11, Number 2, 2006, pp. 83-90.

16 For a recent review of conceptual differences between the two surveys, See: Mary Bowles and Teresa L. Morisi, "Understanding the Employment Measures from the CPS and CES Surveys," Monthly Labor Review, February 2006, pp. 23-38.

17 It is not clear that all off-the-books workers will report their employment to the CPS interviewer despite guarantees of confidentiality. Besides, immigrants have been historically undercounted in the CPS survey.

18 Changes in multiple job holding can also be a source of divergent growth in employment levels between the two surveys. While important in the past, this factor appears to have had little impact on the employment estimates of the two surveys during the first half of this decade. The number of persons who held multiple jobs remained virtually unchanged between 2000 (7.556 million) and 2005 (7.546 million). See: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 2001 and January 2006, Washington, D.C.

19 Jeffrey Passel estimates that fewer than 4 percent of all illegal workers in the nation worked as agricultural workers in 2005.

20 See: (i) Naomi R. Kooker, "Hospitality Immigrant Quandary," Boston Business Journal, April 2006; (ii) Josh McHugh, "Notes from the Underground Economy," , May 30, 2005; (iii) Casey Ross, "Contractors: Stop the Illegal Insanity," The Boston Herald, May 5, 2006; (iv) Peter Reull, "Shadow Workers: Towns Take Aim at Illegal Restaurant Help," The Boston Herald, May 4, 2006; (v) Shawn Sutner, "Illegal Immigrants: These Workers Are Often Anxious and in a Constant State of Fear," Worcester Telegram, April 16, 2006.

21 These estimates are based on our analysis of the March 2004 and March 2005 CPS work experience supplements, which capture information on health insurance and pension coverage.

22 The Washington Post recently reported that, during 1999, only 182 employers were prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants. Remarkably this figure fell to just four prosecutions during 2003. See: Spencer S Hsu and Kari Lydersen, "Illegal Hiring Is Rarely Penalized," The Washington Post, June 19, 2006.

Andrew Sum is the Director, Paul Harrington the Associate Director, and Ishwar Khatiwada an Associate at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University..

Back to top 

Website targets racist Hispanics
Aims to 'counter the false information dished out by Mexican hate groups'
Posted: May 1, 2006
4:40 p.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom

© 2006

Mexica Movement activists protest in L.A.

A website run by opponents of illegal immigration highlights the tactics of Hispanic activists who defend unlawful aliens, including the use of hate speech, profanity and calls for whites to be deported. begins with a warning that the site "contain graphic examples of hate and racism that has and is occurring in large cities and small towns across America."

States the site: "The website is dedicated to exposing the other side of illegal immigration ... the side our president, many in Congress, the media and especially the racist hate groups do not want us to see." is meant as a response to the League of United Latin America Citizens, or LULAC, which reportedly created a website called

"It had photos of our friends, portrayed as racists. We were infuriated and decided to build a website," the newer site states.

While is currently not an active website, records indicate it is licensed to LULAC.

" is online to counter the false information dished out by Mexican hate groups and spoon-fed to Americans by the mainstream media," states the site.

An introductory Flash video includes audiotape of speakers at rallies denouncing whites and proclaiming that Latinos will take power in the United Sates.

States one pro-illegals speaker on the video: "We're here to show White Anglo-Saxon Protestants of L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority; we claim this land as ours. … If anyone is going to be deported, it's going to be you!"

Another protester shouts: "Go back to Europe where you came from; go back to England!"

Many photos of signs used in pro-illegals rallies are included in the presentation, including "Minutemen, you've taken on a fight larger than you can imagine," and "We are standing in Mexico here!" – presumably at a rally in California.

Besides vulgar chants that cannot be reprinted, one crowd shouts in rhythm: "Our land, our continent, we're taking it back!"

Explains the FAQ page on the site:

"The photos and soundtrack (that make up the intro video) are from real events that happened in California and Virginia. It was never shown on the news, talked about on radio, or written in the newspaper. We knew it was about time to let all Americans know what we know. Illegal aliens are not all 'good people looking for a job.' Federally funded racist Hispanic organizations are not simply 'educating' their people, they are inciting illegal aliens to riot and to demand 'rights' that they do not deserve."

The site is run by married couple Nathan and Linda Muller. Linda has worked for the campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., the leading opponent of illegal immigration in Congress.

Included on the site is a message board, with one thread discussing today's rallies in favor of amnesty for illegals across the nation.

Posted Linda Muller: "I put off all my shopping for groceries, gas and other needs until today. I want American business to know we do not need illegal aliens. I almost wish I needed to go to the motor vehicle department, the bank, or even the hospital. What a pleasure it would be not to have to compete with illegal aliens for services.

"The roads will be safer and less congested, too. Maybe other Americans will notice that our country is better off without illegals and decide deportation is not a bad idea after all.

"It's a great day in the USA!"

As WorldNetDaily reported, the Mexica Movement helped organize a large Los Angeles pro-illegals rally in March. The organization believes it is the "non-indigenous," white, English-speaking U.S. citizens of European descent who have to leave what they call "our continent," not illegal aliens.

Back to top


Mexican Has Hired Bush Advisor to Thwart Border Security, Immigration Reforms

Jim Kouri
September 26, 2006
The Common Voice

In a move that has many proponents of tough US border security and illegal immigration reforms scratching their heads in puzzlement, Mexican President Vincente Fox recently retained the services of a well-known Republican strategist to help stop the rising tide of public outcry over poor border security and rampant illegal immigration.

President Fox reportedly rehired the public relations man and GOP political consultant who is credited with helping Fox win the presidency in 2000. Fox wants Rob Allyn to curtail what he perceives as a growing anti-immigration political juggernaut, especially when it comes to illegal aliens from Mexico.

When the House of Representatives passed a key bill that would provide an additional 700 miles of border fencing on the US-Mexican border, and would make illegally entering the US a felony, Fox denounced the measure as shameful. His foreign minister called it stupid and underhanded.

The Mexican government's comments about US policy appears to have backfired, with many Americans demanding Mexico butt out of American politics and policy.

"Most Americans don't buy the argument about illegals helping the US economy. Illegal workers depress wages, deplete available social and healthcare services, and creates crime problems," says homeland security expert Sid Francis.

"If the Mexicans want sympathy from US citizens, calling them stupid and underhanded isn't going to do it."

The proposed immigration bill falls short of giving President Bush and President Fox their desired "guest worker" program that will benefit Mexicans almost exclusively.

Fox, who didn't seek reelection in 2006, did wish to leave a legacy that provides easier access to the United States, so he turned to a GOP insider to help him. The conventional wisdom is that the Republican Party is tougher on national security and homeland security, so they are the leaders to whom he must plead his cause.

So Fox called on GOP strategist Rob Allyn, the man who assisted George W. Bush in beating Governor Ann Richards for the State House in Texas. When Vincente Fox, then governor of Guanajuato state, began his campaign for the Mexican presidency, Allyn joined Fox's presidential campaign, with the stipulation that Allyn's role remain secret.

According to the Los Angeles Times, for three years, Allyn worked clandestinely, helping craft Fox's message of change, as well as his TV commercials, his polling and his wardrobe. Allyn made dozens of trips to Mexico, traveling under one of three pseudonyms.

After the July election, Allyn told the Dallas Morning News he hid his work for Fox because he didn't want to be a political liability. Mexicans are sensitive to foreign interference, especially involving the United States.

Some Beltway insiders believe that Allyn, who also worked on the Bush presidential campaigns, may have been urged to help Vincente Fox with immigration public relations work by the White House.

According to Rob Allyn, he will attempt to sway public opinion away from tougher border security measures and increased penalties for surreptitiously entering the US. His strategy is likely intended to change the debate regarding illegal immigration. Calls for tighter illegal immigration measures are growing louder in the United States as Mexican and Central American workers multiply yearly.

Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, whose vitriolic statements have made him very unpopular with conservative Republicans, said Allyn's message should be that Mexicans have sunk roots deep in their US neighborhoods and that they contribute more through their work, taxes and families than they take away in public services. However, studies conducted by several non-profit organizations casts doubt on that argument
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance ( He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and  He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri's own website is located at


Back to top

Illegal Immigration: The treason lobby

By: William Calhoun | Published on 09/24/06    

An acquaintance who has worked in Washington DC for 35 years recently said to me, "A dark cloud casts its sinister shadow upon our nation's capital. And that dark cloud is the pro-immigration treason lobby."

If anyone has not noticed, our country is under invasion. And key Democrats and Republicans are doing nothing to save it. Some of them even encourage the illegal invasion.

Why such treason? In the 1950s when our nation was under invasion, President Eisenhower (via "Operation Wetback") responded with troops and in less than a year deported almost 1 million illegals. Yet, many of our leaders say they are unable. Rather, they are unwilling. They support something "higher" than American sovereignty; that is to say, they support liberal internationalism.

Many Democrats and Republicans have been hypnotized by the sinister spell of liberal internationalism. Although they may disagree over a few minor points, they all support the same agenda: the weakening of states' rights, the proposition nation, "free" trade & the NAFTA superhighway, the erosion of national borders, and the expansion of unhampered and unrestricted immigration policies. They are but cronies for big business and mutinous multiculturalists, all at the expense of Middle America. And if they have their way, they will transform the US into a third-world wasteland.

In the Democratic Party the treason lobby is headed by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Charlie Gonzalez, Nancy Pelosi, Russell Feingold, Loretta Sanchez, and John Conyers.

In the Republican Party, the treason lobby is spearheaded by GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Arlen Specter, and Mike DeWine.

The Constitution entrusts the protection of the US to our elected leaders, and the above backsliders have failed in their Constitutional duties.

Already 20 million illegals have invaded the US. They plan to reclaim the Southwest and "kick every single white person out," as one Mexican recently said. They will not rest until the Southwest is theirs and all the "gringos have been eliminated." They are not Western; they are of Aztlan.

Doubt what I say? Just look at the ethnic composition of Mexicans. Other than a small upper class of pure European blood, the vast majority of Mexicans are either Amerindian or Mestizos (mostly Amerindian with a few drops of Spaniard, or African, blood). In short, they are not European. They are Asiatic.

These invaders do not self-identify with the West. They despise it. Hispanics recently have demanded that all "European elements" be removed from their liturgy, and Hispanics in Southern California have banned all white authors from their public schools. They have invaded the United States and have "declared war upon gringo culture."

What are we to do? Until we are able to secure people in DC who actually care for the US, patriotic Americans will be forced to take matters into their own hands: chapters of the Minutemen, militias, and strict anti-immigration local and state laws. Perhaps the real solution lies at the local level. Lobby your mayors, sheriffs, councilmen, and state legislators to run all the illegals out of Dodge. They are our last hope. We know we cannot rely upon the internationalist turncoats in DC.

Back to top 

Pledge to Mexican flag featured at Texas school
Principal says he was pursuing 'diversity,' but wouldn't do it again

Posted: September 22, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

The principal of an elementary school instructed his students to stand during the recitation of a pledge to the Mexican flag during a diversity assembly recently, and he's been trying to backtrack ever since.

"We absolutely refuse to stand up and pledge allegiance to another country's flag," a mother whose daughter attends the school told talk show host Chris Baker on AM 740 KTRH radio. "Where is the sensitivity to the country and to the troops and the men and women that have fought and died for this country?"

The mother, identified only as Amy, said school officials gave all the children Mexican flags to wave and then asked everyone to stand up and pledge allegiance to the Mexican flag.

"Get out!" Baker shouted. "What school is that?"

It was Velasco Elementary in Clute, Texas, where Sam Williams is principal.

Stuart Dornburg is a spokesman for the Brazosport Independent School District which includes Velasco, and he said Sept. 15 through Oct. 15 is a national Hispanic Heritage Month and the assembly was a cultural education activity in a district that values and respects diversity.

But Amy said she got "glares" when she didn't participate and when she "proudly" put the Mexican flag on the ground.

She said her husband was in Vietnam for three tours of duty, and she has a son in the war now.

"Arrest that man immediately. Bring him to me," Baker said.

In a report in The Facts, Williams said the response to his action was "overwhelming."

"It's been a real trying ordeal and all I can say is I deeply apologize if anyone was offended by it – and I can see that they are," the principal said

He said the situation should have been done differently. "There's no way that we would repeat it," he told the news group.

Officials say there are 635 students from preschool age to fourth grade in Velasco, and about two-thirds are Hispanic.

"We have stated in our mission statement that we are a campus that is a beacon of hope for a culturally diverse population,” Williams said.

The assembly was held Sept. 16, a day on which Mexico celebrates its independence from Spain.

Baker said the recitation was especially offensive since the U.S. is in the middle of a serious dispute over illegal immigration and the huge ramifications the nation faces from not having a secured border with Mexico.

"To blow it off as quote-unquote 'historical teaching methods' either shows complete arrogance or a lack of the ability to grasp the seriousness of the illegal immigration issue to Americans," told his listeners.

On a weblog, a fan identified as El Jefe Maximo said, "What's needed is a dose of nationalism, with a pinch of religion, and I'd throw in a dash of evil old imperialism as well."

Papa Ray told the same blog, "Homeschooling is looking more and more attractive to me for my Sweet Sarah."

Williams was upset that parents took their complaints to the radio waves.

"I would have graciously visited with that parent and explained on-site what the intent was," he said.

"I really don't understand why President Bush is so gung ho on giving these people 'a pathway to citizenship.' I would like to see them given a pathway back to Mexico after they help to build the wall," said Starblazer.


Back to top 

De-greening immigration

By Valerie Richardson
October 1, 2006

    Illegal immigration is an environmental issue for Shela A. McFarlin, who has seen firsthand the tons of trash dumped in the fragile Arizona desert by border-crossers.
    Illegal aliens have turned parts of the Southwest desert into environmental disaster areas -- dumping an estimated 25 million pounds of trash in the Arizona desert, carving out hundreds of miles of roads through the wilderness and destroying thousands of acres of habitat with cooking fires that have gone awry.
    "The desert environment is fairly sensitive, so we're concerned about the damage to habitat, plants and animals," said Miss McFarlin, who authored the Bureau of Land Management's 2006 report on environmental damage from illegal immigration. "It's not at all inviting to see toilet paper, fecal matter and backpacks by the thousands. Not at all."
    Once the immigrants, both legal and illegal, arrive, the scenario isn't much rosier. Immigration is now the primary factor in U.S. population growth, which drives such environmental woes as housing sprawl, pollution and traffic.
    But don't expect your local Green Party activist to grab a lawn chair and join the Minutemen border patrols any time soon: The mainstream environmental movement is firmly and uniformly agnostic on the issue.
    "We've never taken a position pro or con on immigration," Sierra Club spokesman Eric Antebi said.
    "We don't have the expertise to deal with that [illegal immigration]," Wilderness Society spokesman Ben Beach said.
    These responses exasperate environmentalists such as Dick Lamm, the former Democratic governor of Colorado and a 30-year member of the Sierra Club. Mr. Lamm broke ranks with the movement years ago by insisting that a responsible environmental policy has to include population and immigration controls.
    He is among the most prominent of a small-but-hardy band of environmentalists who have tried for years to push the movement toward an anti-immigration stance. So far, they haven't had much luck.
    "The environmental movement refuses to acknowledge that immigration and population are environmental issues," Mr. Lamm said.
    Why? Politics, he said.
    "The environmental movement has gone politically correct," Mr. Lamm said. "They're committing political malpractice by ignoring population."
    But Jenny Neeley, Southwest representative for Defenders of Life, said her group hasn't taken a stance on immigration reform in Congress because "I don't think we're knowledgeable enough to say, 'This will stop the illegal crossings.'"
    Faced with a difficult choice, critics said, the environmental movement has abandoned its primary mission -- protecting the planet -- rather than deviate from the liberal establishment.
    "They're still pretty much ignoring it [illegal immigration] because it's politically sensitive or because they perceive it to be politically sensitive," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for Immigration Reform. "Nobody denies that environmental degradation is due in part to population growth, and nobody denies that the biggest reason for population growth is immigration.
    "But somehow, when they put together A and B, it doesn't lead to C," he said.
    Alienating illegals
    Some environmentalists counter that population control is an issue that doesn't respect borders. Whether the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States chose to live in New Mexico or Mexico City, they are still part of a global overpopulation problem.
    "Do people who migrate to the United States increase environmental stress? It depends on where they would end up otherwise. Los Angeles, for example, could handle 10,000 Ecuadoreans more easily than the Galapagos Islands could," Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope wrote in a 2004 article in the group's magazine.
    Alan Kuper, a longtime Sierra Club member and a critic of its immigration stance, said this is an unfair comparison because Americans are greater consumers of resources than people living in other countries.
    "That's the cop-out argument that you get," Mr. Kuper said. "An individual in the U.S. is responsible for consumption or use of resources of about 30 times the resources a child in India will use in his lifetime."
    Critics also cite the group's longstanding policy that calls first for U.S. population control, then global stabilization.
    "Our immigration policy can't make a dent in world poverty, and we take in two times more immigrants as any other country already," Mr. Lamm said. "The question is how can the U.S. best help the environment? By building a sustainable society."
    Other environmentalists acknowledge that they tread lightly when it comes to illegal immigration in order to protect their work on other environmental issues.
    "Because it's such a charged issue in this country, it's hard to get involved without getting caught in the crossfire," Mr. Antebi said. "We have a history of working with a large number of constituencies, and we want to continue to work with them.
    "If we'd gotten involved with the immigration issue, we would have burned a lot of bridges," he said.
    The group would have burned those bridges not just with its allies, but with many of its grass-roots members.
    "We tend to work with communities that have a lot of immigrants," Mr. Antebi said. "In California, the places with the worst air pollution tend to be the places with the largest number of immigrants.
    "If we took sides on immigration pro or con, it would affect our relationships with these communities," he said.
    No environmental group has debated the immigration issue more publicly than the Sierra Club. In 2004 and 2005, anti-immigration candidates attempted to reverse the club's direction by running for seats on its 15-member board of directors. All of them lost, including Mr. Lamm, in 2004.
    The club came under fire in 2004 after a wealthy donor, Wall Street investor David Gelbaum, told the Los Angeles Times that he had warned Mr. Pope in 1994 or 1995 that he would never give another dollar if the club ever took an anti-immigration stance.
    In 1996, the club voted to adopt a neutrality stance on immigration, reversing its longstanding position in favor of limiting immigration. In 2000 and 2001, Mr. Gelbaum donated a total of $100 million to the organization.
    Critics accused the Sierra Club of selling out, but Mr. Antebi denied any linkage between the events.
    "This organization is too big and too democratic in its grass-roots leadership," he said, pointing out that the club's policies are set by its elected board. "No one person can wield that much influence."
    Besides, he said, Sierra Club members hardly need to be bribed to recognize the merits of avoiding the immigration debate.
    "It's not that crazy to figure out why an organization like the Sierra Club would not want to wade into an issue like immigration," Mr. Antebi said. "Protecting ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]? That's our bread-and-butter. Reducing air-pollution levels? That's our bread-and-butter. Immigration? That's really not our bread-and-butter."
    Remembering ZPG
    At one time, however, stabilizing the U.S. population was indeed a central tenet of the environmental movement. In the 1960s and 1970s, when it was just taking root, the call for "zero population growth" was as loud and insistent as the cry for cleaner air and water.
    In 1970, the Sierra Club adopted a policy calling for the nation to "bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world." Three years later, Mr. Pope told the New York Times that "we can't hope to absorb all who want to come in. ... Immigration is a sentimental symbol whose day is long past."
    By 1998, however, the environmental movement was in full retreat from both the population and immigration issue. Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz of NumbersUSA attribute the phenomenon to a number of factors, including the drop in U.S. fertility rates.
    However, the researchers from the immigration-reform group conclude that the primary cause was demographics: The immigrants were Hispanic, and there were millions of them. Environmental leaders soon decided they couldn't afford a political skirmish with a large and increasingly influential minority group.
    "One of the main reasons the Sierra Club leadership gave in 1998 for avoiding the immigration issue was that they dared not risk appearing to be racially insensitive," the authors wrote in their paper, "The Environmental Movement's Retreat from Advocating U.S. Population Stabilization (1970-1998)."
    The authors quote Mr. Pope in a 1997 online message to members: "While it is theoretically possible to have a non-racial debate about immigration, it is not practically possible for an open organization like the Sierra Club to do so. ... [Recent history] has caused me to change my view of whether it is possible for the Sierra Club to deal with the immigration issue in a way which would not implicate us in ethnic or racial polarization."
    While that calculation might be correct, critics say, there's just one problem: It puts environmental protection second. The result has been the birth of a hybrid political movement made up of environmentalists-cum-immigration hawks.
    Among the leaders of the movement is Mr. Kuper, a one-time Sierra Club leader and retired physics professor. After the 1996 neutrality vote, Mr. Kuper founded Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization, a splinter group of disgruntled members devoted to returning the club to its "traditional population policy."
    The group developed a scorecard that grades members of Congress on their votes on the environment, immigration and family-planning issues. Mr. Kuper also regularly lobbies the League of Conservation Voters to include immigration on its list of issues.
    Relations between the rebels and the mother ship aren't always cordial. During the 2004 and 2005 board elections, the anti-immigration candidates accused Sierra Club staffers of playing the race card to undermine their campaigns.
    After the 2004 election, Mr. Pope wrote an essay titled "The Virus of Hate," which warned members against a possible infiltration of the club by racists. He said that some candidates "on the losing side" had entered into an "ugly alliance with individuals and groups whose motivations are clearly racist."
    Mr. Kuper now includes a disclaimer on his Web site denouncing racism under the heading "No to racism, yes to environmentalism."
    Battle at the border
    One issue that could pull the environmental community back into the immigration debate is the degradation at the border. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that only 1 percent of the 25 million tons of garbage left in the Southern Arizona desert has been hauled off since 2002.
    The hardest-hit areas include the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, which now includes about 200 miles of illegal roads carved into the landscape by trucks and off-road vehicles, prompting the Wilderness Society to issue an alert.
    "The trash problem is staggering, to say the least," said Defenders of Life's Miss Neeley, whose group has been active in cleanup efforts. "If you've seen it, it's almost surreal."
    The groups' solution, however, isn't likely to warm the hearts of immigration hawks. Instead of calling for a clampdown on illegal immigration, both groups have stern words for the U.S. Border Patrol, calling on the agency to make a stronger commitment to environmental protection.
    Miss Neeley said in a 2006 article in an environmental group's publication that the problem lies with the agency's decision to push illegal aliens from urban points of entry such as Nogales, Ariz., to the desert. The idea was to make crossing the border more difficult, but the result has been the degradation of protected lands, she said in the Sky Island Alliance's newsletter.
    The Border Patrol also needs to drive on established roads and avoid carving new ones through the wilderness, environmentalists say. The groups also are uniformly opposed to a border wall or fence, which they say would cut off wildlife migration routes.
    What about the actual border-crossers, who rarely stick to the main highway?
    "Of course, that's being done by crossers, too, but we can't tell crossers, 'Hey, you're breaking these laws,'" Miss Neeley said.
    The blame-the-Border Patrol response exasperates agency spokesman Gus Soto, who suggests that the illegal aliens, drug smugglers and human smugglers bear greater responsibility for the damage than its officers.
    "Unfortunately, they do choose to point the finger at us, but you have to remember, we're not the ones out there crossing. We're not the ones out there creating roads. We're trying to stop the smuggling industry," Mr. Soto said.
    The agency has implemented a training program for its officers in environmental awareness. Officers often patrol sensitive areas via aircraft or on horseback, and they feed their horses only with seeds that are indigenous to the region.
    "We don't go off-road," Mr. Soto said. "Before we do anything, we have to do an environmental-impact study to make sure it won't have a negative impact. We don't want to leave an environmental footprint in these sensitive areas."
    The smugglers, on the other hand, "will cross anywhere without concern for the environment," he said. "It's the smugglers that are doing this, not the Border Patrol. We're going after the people who are causing the environmental harm."
    They have their differences, but one thing both the Border Patrol and Defenders of Wildlife do agree on is that something must be done to reduce the total number of border-crossers. And that's a start.
    "If we don't start reducing the total number of crossers, the problem is only going to get worse," Miss Neeley said. "And so far the environmental community really hasn't had an adequate response."

Back to top

A few localities want their officers to be able to do federal duties
Sunday, October 1, 2006

Faced with local concerns about illegal immigration, officials in at least three Virginia communities are looking at a federal program that allows local police to enforce immigration laws.

The move concerns some people, including in immigrant communities, who say it could undermine efforts to build trust be- tween police and immigrants -- legal or not -- who might become more reluctant to assist police for fear of being deported or seeing a relative forced from the country.

The Herndon Town Council voted last week to apply for the law-enforcement training grant available through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security. The Culpeper County Sheriff's Office is sending two officers for training in the coming months, and a Manassas Town Council member also wants his colleagues to consider the program.

In Herndon, the move follows the ouster in the May elections of the former mayor and two council members who supported the establishment of a day-laborer center in the town. The new mayor, Stephen J. DeBenedittis, said in a statement that the program is not designed to round up illegal immigrants in random street operations. He did not return calls or e-mails seeking comment.

Manassas City Councilman Jackson H. Miller echoed that sentiment, saying, "It's not a program where our police start going into the kitchens of our restaurants and start demanding green cards."

The efforts are being driven, in part, by local frustrations about the impact of undocumented residents on schools, social services and judicial systems. In Culpeper, Town Councilman Steve Jenkins is pushing for stricter enforcement of the local ordinance governing how many unrelated people can live under one roof. He also wants to tighten the ordinance's definition of family and is considering pushing to officially designate English as the town's primary language.

No locality in the Richmond area has asked for specific authority to enforce federal immigration laws under the homeland-security program. However, local police departments say that under some circumstances, they have authority to detain illegal immigrants until federal immigration agents can investigate.

Virginia decided against seeking authority for the State Police to directly enforce civil laws. State Police Superintendent W. Steven Flaherty said his department initially wanted to be certified under the federal program to help in criminal investigations that involved gangs and other criminal enterprises involving illegal immigrants. "We wanted it very narrowly focused," he said

Flaherty said the administration of then-Gov. Mark R. Warner concluded that the department had sufficient power under a 2004 state law that gives law enforcement greater leeway to hold illegal immigrants if there is reasonable suspicion that they are committing a crime.

Miller, who is a Prince William County police officer, said he has spoken with constituents who are stunned that an undocumented resident who is arrested for committing a crime is not automatically deported. He said he recently arrested an illegal immigrant who shoplifted and then punched two store employees, but federal immigration officials were reluctant to get involved because it didn't involve murder, rape or robbery.

Tim Freilich, legal director of the Virginia Justice Center in Charlottesville, said such an instance points to the need for comprehensive federal immigration reform, not empowering local police to take up the slack.

"It's a terrible use of local law-enforcement resources," he said, adding that the efforts imperil years of community-policing efforts aimed at building trust with immigrants.

Jose Osegueda, chairman of the Fredericksburg-based National Organization for the Advancement of Hispanics, agrees that immigration enforcement is not a local job. "We need local police doing what their mission is. I don't think at any time the mission of police was to work on federal issues," he said.

Freilich does not contest the legality of the program but says his group will be carefully watching the implementation.

Miller acknowledges that funding is an issue. He said the federal program provides money only for training, not for implementation, including detaining petty criminals who might otherwise be released if not for their immigration status.

"Nothing worthwhile is easy. Do we have the [jail] capacity? If the political will is there, anything can be done," he said.

Culpeper County Sheriff H. Lee Hart said he would be remiss not to explore available training. He is sending two officers, one assigned to the jail and one who investigates gang activity, for the training. He says the county has documented activity by MS-13, the shorthand name for Mara Salvatrucha, a street gang with Salvadoran roots that has a widespread presence in Northern Virginia.

"I'm not saying we have a gang problem," he said. "But we have to be proactive."

Freilich said illegal immigrants are not the only people who should be concerned about local police being able to start deportation proceedings. He noted that U.S. citizens and legal residents are not required to carry proof of citizenship or legal status.

"All Virginians should start thinking about what they're going to say when a cop asks if they're legal," he said, adding that stepped-up efforts could tear apart families that include both legal and illegal residents.

Several other local and state law-enforcement and corrections agencies nationwide are participating, including in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida and North Carolina.

In the Charlotte, N.C., area, Mecklenburg County Sheriff Jim Pendergraph says his department has screened 1,500 possible illegal immigrants and marked 650 for deportation.

Pendergraph agreed that funding is a concern, perhaps even more so for small communities. His large department has 12 people assigned full time to the program and has received federal funding partly because the department already houses federal inmates.

He says the community has generally been supportive and that he hasn't heard from employers complaining the efforts are depleting the work force.

"The ones that we're seeing aren't working, quite frankly," Pendergraph said of undocumented residents. "Some people have a misunderstanding that we're out with a net on street corners. . . . I don't have the resources just to hunt for people who are here illegally."

Contact staff writer Kiran Krishnamurthy at or (540) 371-4792.
Staff writer Michael Martz contributed to this report.

Back to top

Productivity and immigration

By Alfred Tella

The Washington Times
Published October 1, 2006

Productivity is the offspring of human creativity and the primary source of our economic well-being.
    Productivity means doing things more efficiently, finding a better way. In technical jargon, it is output per unit of input. It is the wellspring of economic growth, the fabled goose that lays the golden eggs. But the goose can come to harm, and we need to be ever vigilant.
    One threat to productivity today is cheap immigrant labor. An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, mostly low-skilled, poorly-educated Mexicans and other Latin Americans, have stolen into and remain in our country. Their numbers increase by nearly a half million yearly and if the president and the Senate have their way the immigrant inflow is bound to accelerate.
    The negative impact of illegal workers on American wages and social welfare costs has been well documented and publicized. But far less attention has been given to the detrimental effects the excess supply of immigrants has on productivity. Following is a summary of some of the more significant analyses.
    Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, in a paper on guest-worker programs, explains how illegal immigration slowed productivity growth in American agriculture. Take the case of raisin grapes.
    The conventional harvesting method involves cutting the grapes off vines by the bunch with a knife, then laying them on paper trays and repeatedly turning them by hand for drying. In the late 1950s, grape farmers in Australia, faced with a labor shortage, came up with a more efficient way of producing raisins whereby the grapes dried naturally on the vine and were knocked into bins by a tractor-mounted harvester. Labor use was cut drastically and yields skyrocketed.
    Did this new technique spread among raisin farmers in American? For the most part, no. The ready availability of cheap immigrant workers blunted the incentive to make the expenditure to switch to the more efficient method, with consequent long-term losses to both farmers and consumers.
    Because of the excess supply of immigrant labor in American, notes Mr. Krikorian, the European Union is well ahead of us in bringing new agricultural technologies to market, which could result in the U.S. losing out to international competitors. But if we were to restrict cheap foreign labor, modernization would be spurred, not only in the farm sector says Mr. Krikorian, but in services as well.
    Others have arrived at similar findings. A study titled "Alternatives to Immigrant Labor?" by agricultural researchers Yoav Sarig (Agricultural Research Organization, Israel), James F. Thompson (Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis), and Galen K. Brown (Florida Department of Citrus), analyzed fruit and vegetable crop mechanization in the United States. The authors found there has been little investment in mechanized harvesting by growers since 1980 because of the ready availability of cheap labor, and "many workers were illegal aliens using falsified papers."
    Philip Martin, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California-Davis, in a paper on foreign workers, wrote: "In 1960, 80 percent of the 45,000 peak harvest workers used to pick 2.2 million tons of the tomatoes used to make catsup in California were Braceros [Mexican laborers] and growers testified that 'the use of Braceros is absolutely essential to the survival of the tomato industry.' In 1999, about 5,000 workers were employed to ride machines to sort 12 million tons of tomatoes harvested by machine on 300,000 acres. In the tomato case, the end of the Bracero program led to the mechanization of the tomato harvest, expanding production, and a reduction in the price of processed tomato products, which helped to fuel the fast-food boom."
    Michael Lind, Whitehead Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, recently wrote in the Financial Times: "The availability of low-wage immigrant labor has caused the U.S. to lag behind Japan, Australia and others with advanced mechanical harvesting. And thanks to the glut of cheap labor, home construction in the U.S. remains low-tech and inefficient. A tight labor market would force rapid productivity gains in nontraded domestic industries that today are labor-intensive."
    In manufacturing, the story is similar. Economists Myriam Quispe-Agnoli and Madeline Zavodny at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in their study, "The Effect of Immigration on Output Mix, Capital, and Productivity," developed a regression model that showed "changes in the labor supply due to immigration appear to lower labor productivity in both the low- and high-skilled sectors."
    Ethan Lewis, economist at the Federal Reserve of Philadelphia, authored an econometric study, "Immigration, Skill Mix, and the Choice of Technology," based on Census plant-level data. The study examined the impact of low-skilled immigrant labor on technology adoption in manufacturing. It concluded plants with fast labor supply growth "adopted automation technology more slowly... and even de-adoption was not uncommon.... The relative supply of less-skilled labor reduced demand for technology."
    Unless and until effective immigration reforms, including border protection, employer sanctions and benefit restrictions are put in place, the tide of illegal immigrants entering our country will not abate. If low-skilled immigrants continue to increase their share of the work force, there likely will be a further dampening of technological and productivity growth in key sectors of the economy. America cannot afford that. It's not that productivity isn't growing, but it could be higher.
    Alfred Tella is a former Georgetown University research professor of economics.

Back to top

Speakout: Illegal immigration hurting Hispanics

By Waldo Benavidez
October 2, 2006

I am a fifth-generation Hispanic and would like to express a viewpoint that has not been a major part of the debate about illegal immigration: the impact illegal immigration has on the working poor of this country and the political impotence it has injected into the Chicano community.

Hispanics see firsthand every day the drain illegal immigration has on institutions such as school systems, law enforcement, the criminal justice system, health care and jobs, and as a factor in the depression of wages. Our taxpayer-funded institutions are reeling from this migration into the United States, particularly those that are primarily supposed to be serving the low-income people of this country. In my neighborhood, low-income families are increasingly competing with an endless flow of illegals for limited funds, resources and basic survival necessities.

Those who defend illegal immigration argue that these people are not harming anyone, "all they want is work, they do not bother anyone" and "they only take jobs no one else wants." This naive and simplistic rationale for illegal immigration fails to acknowledge the far-reaching and critical impact on low-income people. I see it every day and I live on the front lines of this invasion.

The competition for low-income housing is one example of how those who advocate for illegals ignore the working families who cannot compete for the high rents landlords are demanding.

A family of four with one breadwinner, for example, has a difficult time meeting the inflated rents being asked for often-substandard housing, not to mention the high costs of energy, food and clothing.

Immigrants, on the other hand, can pay whatever is asked by landlords because they often pack four or five times more working individuals into the unit and, by pooling their resources, manage the often inflated rent. Native Hispanics see their wages driven down and their prices and rents driven up by this abused form of labor.

Too many elitist Hispanic organizations, funded by liberal foundations, have become open-borders advocates, focusing their attention on immigration advocacy, but I fear it comes at the expense of the Latino U.S. citizen.

What about our own community? Education in this country is in a crisis, with statistics for Latinos at appalling levels in most cities while low achievement is spreading at an alarming rate. The graduation rate for Latinos is 20 percent or, in some cases, less.

Higher education is not even a consideration for many young Latinos yet the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and others choose to take policy positions of increasing and packing more into the already overburdened school systems by encouraging more immigration from Mexico and other Third World countries. They do a disservice to this country by overloading the system to the point where the quality of education suffers and schools become mere warehouses. Overcrowded schools lead to more failure and the cycle continues.

Instead of holding Mexico accountable for its immigration policies, these groups pander to and collaborate with a country that uses the United States as a means of abdicating its responsibilities to its poorest citizens. At the same time, Mexico enhances its own economy with a considerable amount of money sent back each year by immigrants - anywhere between $15 billion to $30 billion. Is it any wonder that Mexico has positioned itself in a win-win situation?

The painful reality is that many illegal immigrants with fake Social Security cards are working in just about every kind of employment there is. They are not just picking and topping sugar beets and cleaning toilet bowls, they are in federal and state government employ, public school systems, the fast-food industry, construction, building trades, the restaurant and hotel industries, universities and factories . . . the list is endless.

These are jobs U.S. citizens don't want? Take McDonald's, the mega- hamburger corporation that employs thousands of people. Instead of employing so many immigrants, McDonald's could set up an after- school or summer training program for our youth in high school who in turn would receive valuable training and earn money teenagers badly need. Maybe some youths would take a greater interest in graduating if they had more support from the business community!

I work full time trying to help my community and Colorado, but illegal immigration is giving us supply-side poverty that makes it almost impossible to solve our problems. We need help, not so much in the form of government programs, but to stop the endless chain of poor (illegal) people who arrive in the United States every day, every week, every month and every year.

Longtime political activist Waldo Benavidez is a social service agency director and is co-chair of Defend Colorado Now. He is a resident of Denver.

Copyright 2006, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

Back to top

Mexican, American - or both? Some Hispanics Pushing for Dual Citizenship

08:42 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 11, 2006
By LENNOX SAMUELS / The Dallas Morning News

CHICAGO – The Mexican tricolor flaps on some verandas along Pulaski Road, while the U.S. flag takes pride of place on others. Ranchera music blares from the Happy Dollar Plus store as a vendor pushes his cart along 26th Street, selling mango-flavored frozen treats to parched customers.

The intersection of 26th and Pulaski is in the core of the Windy City, but by sights, sounds and smells, it could be in any town in Mexico. This is La Villita, "Little Village," where about 100,000 people live and work, maintaining the Spanish language, traditions and culture of Mexico.

As President Bush and others call for assimilation of Latino immigrants, some Hispanics in La Villita and other parts of the country, including North Texas, are on what could be a collision course, pushing to be fully binational, with equal rights in Mexico and the United States and grounded in both societies.

"We're never giving up our Mexican roots," said Maria Cantú-Dougala, assistant vice president of Second Federal Savings and an American citizen. "I still consider myself Mexican. That's where we're so different from other immigrants. We just can't give it up."

Effects on policy

Such views complicate any efforts to change immigration policy to make it easier for Mexicans to live and work in the U.S., and could even result in harsher migration measures, some analysts and lawmakers say.

The U.S. must avoid "balkanization" and has to maintain its national identity, common culture and common English language "or we will follow the path to the ash heap of history like the Roman Empire," said U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston.

"Arrogant nationalistic attitudes like this, which are blatant violations of American law, along with the uncontrolled mass migration and marching with Mexican flags have combined to push this country over the tipping point in favor of aggressive immigration law enforcement and strict border security," said Mr. Culberson, who has criticized White House immigration policy as lax.

Migration expert Jonathan Fox said there is a double standard on dual nationality in the U.S.

"I don't see them worrying about U.S. citizens fighting in the Israeli army. I don't see any concerns when they're fast-tracking for citizenship those foreigners who join the [U.S.] military. I don't see them asking that they burn their [original] passports," said Dr. Fox, a political science professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Dr. Fox calls the phenomenon of Mexicans striving to be members of both U.S. and Mexican societies "civic binationality." It is one of several practices that suggest immigrants are finding new ways to integrate into the U.S., he said.

Full members of society

Many Mexicans want to go from being "less than a full member of either society to a full member of both societies," he said.

There are an estimated 42 million Latinos in the U.S., almost 60 percent of them of Mexican descent. The Pew Hispanic Center in Washington estimates there are between 11.5 million and 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, a majority of them Mexican.

Under Mexican law, Mexicans naturalized in the U.S. may keep their Mexican citizenship. And for the first time this year, Mexico allowed its citizens abroad to vote in the country's presidential election.

In the U.S., the growth in the number and sophistication of associations that link immigrants to their hometowns in Mexico has helped the immigrants participate more fully in American civic life while maintaining close relationships with the mother country, experts said.

"The migrant organizations reflect broader changes in civic bi-nationality and also drive them," Dr. Fox said.

Some of these groups, such as the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations, have binational membership structures, according to a report co-edited by Dr. Fox.

In some municipalities, immigrants who are not citizens participate in civic affairs, including elections – though not as voters.

Dr. Fox noted that in Los Angeles, noncitizens work the phones in efforts to get citizens to vote in local and state elections.

Why so few applicants?

Some critics have questioned why more legal permanent residents do not seek citizenship.

"That process already exists for legal immigrants who seek to be naturalized in the United States. However, if illegal aliens want this right, then I suggest they go back to their countries of origin and proceed through the lawful steps in order to reach that goal," said U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

Mr. Tancredo, a longtime immigration foe, said that even the notion of dual citizenship is "an oxymoron," and that being an American citizen means renouncing all prior allegiances and loyalties.

But the issue is not one of loyalty, said Paula Cruz Takash, a sociology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"Anyone who understands that we have to be thinking about global citizenship will appreciate this notion of civic binationality," she said. "Any country that understands and encourages the acquisition of not just one other language but maybe others will be at an advantage as globalization goes ahead."

A majority of Latinos, 57 percent, believe immigrants have to speak English to be part of American society, according to Pew, while 41 percent say they do not.

Dr. Fox said many Mexicans do want to become citizens but added that American governments traditionally have done little to push naturalization. "If they cared, they would put billions of dollars on the table to help people get through the citizenship process," he said.

In North Texas, about 80 percent of the approximately 1.5 million Hispanics are of Mexican heritage, and there is no unanimity among them about keeping a foot in both the U.S. and Mexico.

Roberto Chavarría, 46, a Dallas businessman who arrived from Mexico when he was 14, says he has not really considered becoming a citizen.

"I don't think it is so easy to change to a citizenship one doesn't really feel," he said. "Very few do it with conviction; they do it for migratory reasons."

For Tereso Ortiz, an Oak Cliff resident who became an American citizen 10 years ago, duality is normal.

"We should practice American culture but not forget where we come from," said Mr. Ortiz, 57, who works as a butler. "I feel American, but I don't stop feeling Mexican."

In Chicago, Ms. Cantú-Dougala's bank sits right on the corner of 26th and Pulaski, and its clientele is overwhelmingly Hispanic.

"Lots of people who come here have been in this country 20, 30, 40 years and are not interested in giving up their Mexican citizenship," she said. "Even a lot of the kids that were born here want to speak Spanish and keep that Mexican-ness."

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said some in Mexico may "have visions of the North American Union ... where borders become less important."

"But I see zero support for that in the United States. I think our history and traditions are so strong, and our identity as unique people would never allow that to happen."

Staff writer Sudeep Reddy in Washington and Al Día staff writer Gustavo Martínez in Dallas contributed to this report.

Back to top

Appeal planned on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants

By Aurelio Rojas - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 6:25 am PDT Thursday, October 12, 2006

A Yolo County judge's ruling upholding a California law that allows public colleges and universities to extend resident fees to illegal immigrants will be appealed, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said Wednesday.

"We fully intend to appeal," said Kris Kobach of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, adding the challenge will be filed within the next few weeks in the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento.

The class action lawsuit was filed last December on behalf of out-of-state students, including two children of Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad.

The plaintiffs claimed that giving certain undocumented immigrants lower-cost in-state tuition discriminates against legal U.S. residents who are charged higher tuition.

They also argued the law -- which applies to California community colleges, California State University and University of California campuses -- violates federal immigration reform legislation passed in 1996.

But Yolo Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner concluded last week the challenge to Assembly Bill 540, approved in 2001 by the Legislature, lacked legal merit.

"There has been no showing that Congress intended the Immigration and Naturalization Act or any other federal statute cited by the plaintiffs to occupy the field of determining resident tuition rates at state universities and community colleges," Warriner wrote in his decision.

Robert Rubin, legal director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, argued the law does not violate federal law because tuition benefits are not restricted to illegal immigrants.

To qualify for lower in-state charges, a prospective student has to have attended three years of high school in California, graduated from a California school and met admission standards.

"This important decision ensured the rights of all long-standing residents of California, including undocumented immigrants, to afford a state college or university tuition," Rubin said.

But Kobach said "this is really just the first stage of a multistage lawsuit."

At least nine other states have enacted similar legislation. But, as Warriner noted in his ruling, no federal agency "has rendered any opinion on the issue."

Bilbray said he was "frustrated" with the decision and predicted legislation will be introduced in Congress to settle the issue.

"If (states) want to violate the power of separations act by encouraging illegal immigration with education, then we're going to restrict education funds," Bilbray said.

But supporters of the law -- including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic challenger Phil Angelides -- say it makes fiscal sense to encourage all high-performing students to pursue an education.

They also argue children brought into the country illegally should not be punished for the actions of their parents. AB 540 requires students to sign an affidavit stating they have applied to become legal residents or will do so if they become eligible.

Lawyers representing California's public colleges and universities defended the law in court. School officials say more U.S. citizens than illegal immigrants have benefited from the law.

Only 371 students enrolled in the UC system during the 2005-06 academic year were undocumented immigrants admitted under AB 540. The CSU system does not keep a tally.

Most of the students who have taken advantage of the law attend the state's community colleges. During the first 2 1/2 years of the law, more than 18,000 did so.

Without the law, supporters say, many students would not have been able to afford college.

In the California State University system, out-of-state fees run about $10,000 more than in-state fees per year.

At the University of California, there is a $15,000 surcharge. At California's community colleges, in-state fees run about $78 per course, while out-of-state students pay $500.

Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for Immigration Reform, called the state law a "state-sponsored inducement to illegal immigration that needs to be challenged."

Opponents of granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants are challenging a similar law in Kansas.

"The California case has already gotten further down the road than the Kansas case," said Kobach, who is also representing plaintiffs in that case.

Back to top

Smugglers seen getting 'sophisticated, organized'

By Jerry Seper
October 18, 2006

Law-enforcement authorities along the U.S.-Mexico border are outgunned and outmanned by drug smugglers armed with automatic weapons, grenade launchers, bazookas, improvised explosive devices and state-of-the-art communications and tracking systems, a congressional report said yesterday.
    "While the United States has taken positive steps to secure its borders, much more is needed to combat an increasingly powerful, sophisticated, organized and violent criminal network, which seeks to move illegal contraband ... into our country for profit," said the House Homeland Security management, integration and oversight subcommittee report.
    The 39-page report said drug-trafficking organizations and alien-smuggling networks are "proliferating and strengthening their control" of key corridors along the nation's Southwest; that Mexican drug cartels wield "substantial control" over the U.S.-Mexico border; and that criminal organizations and networks are "highly sophisticated and organized."
    It also found that drug-trafficking cartels, alien-smuggling networks and U.S.-based street gangs, including MS-13, are increasingly coordinating with one another to achieve their objectives, and that federal, state and local law-enforcement report "new and ever-increasing levels of ruthlessness and violence" associated with the gangs.
    The report echoes complaints from the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition, which repeatedly has said the federal government's inability to secure the Southwest border has resulted in a dramatic rise in violence against U.S. authorities and made it easier for terrorists to enter the country.
    Texas' Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr. told Congress in March the cartels "have the money, equipment and stamina" to bring increased violence to the border, much of it aimed at law-enforcement authorities.
    Sheriff Gonzalez told The Washington Times at the time that the coalition -- which includes all 16 border sheriffs -- was concerned about terrorists using Mexican drug and alien smugglers as cover to cross the border.
    Each year, hundreds of illegal aliens from countries known to harbor terrorists or promote terrorism are routinely encountered and apprehended while attempting to enter the U.S. illegally, the House report said.
    "The federal government has taken positive steps to secure its borders, but much more is needed to combat an increasingly powerful, sophisticated, and violent criminal network, which has been successful in smuggling illegal contraband, human or otherwise, into our country," the report said.
    "The growth of these criminal groups, along the Southwest border, and the potential for terrorists to exploit the vulnerabilities which they create, represents a real threat to America's national security," it said. "It is imperative that immediate action be taken to enhance security along our nation's Southwest border."
    The report recommended enhancing Border Patrol resources, constructing physical barriers in vulnerable and high-threat areas, and implementing state-of-the-art technology, cameras, sensors, radar, satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles to ensure maximum coverage of the nation's Southwest border.
    President Bush on Oct. 4 signed into law a bill that calls for the hiring of 1,500 more Border Patrol agents and an increase in the number of detention beds for apprehended illegal aliens by 6,700. Congress has approved a bill authorizing the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, which Mr. Bush has promised to sign when it gets to his desk.
    Mr. Bush also has called for improving border security with high-tech equipment.
    Yesterday's House report also noted that federal law-enforcement authorities estimate that 10 percent to 30 percent of the migrants seeking to illegally enter the United States are apprehended and 10 percent to 20 percent of the drugs bound for this country are seized. It said that in 2005, as many as 4 million to 10 million illegal aliens crossed into the United States; and as much as 5.6 million to 11.2 million pounds of cocaine and 34.3 million to 68.6 million pounds of marijuana entered the United States.
    The report also called for an expanded use of the expedited-removal policy; building a secure communications network for Border Patrol and state and local law enforcement; and mandating a comprehensive risk assessment of all Southwest border ports of entry and international land borders to prevent the entry of terrorists and their weapons.
    During his testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee, Sheriff Gonzalez said law-enforcement officers have found many items along the banks of the Rio Grande indicating ties to terrorist organizations. He said Border Patrol agents found a jacket near the border with Arabic military badges, one with an airplane flying over a building and heading toward a tower.
Back to top

Feds target marriage fraud
Mike Madden
Republic Washington Bureau
Oct. 14, 2006 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Enter a bogus marriage to help an immigrant stay in the United States and you could get paid thousands of dollars.

If a new effort by federal agents works out, you could also wind up in prison.

Facing what authorities say is a surge in fraud, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is targeting phony-marriage rings, document counterfeiters and other large-scale operations that try to evade laws about who can get permission to work legally in the United States. Task forces to combat fraud have been set up in 10 cities, modeled after one that started in Washington, and ICE is planning a second wave soon in more locations. Phoenix, the largest city in the state with the most undocumented-immigrant crossings from Mexico, could be considered.

Agents are focusing some of the new attention on organizations that make fake matches between U.S. citizens and immigrants and help them apply for benefits married couples qualify for under immigration law.

The spouse of a citizen is entitled to a visa that gives him or her legal permanent residence. Known as a "green card," a spouse can obtain one without worrying about the annual visa caps faced by those who are sponsored by other relatives or by employers.

"What you get when you marry a U.S. citizen is essentially an instantaneous green card, and with that green card, you enjoy virtually all the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen," said James Spero, chief of ICE's identity and benefits fraud unit, which oversees the task forces. "You can come and go as you please without any worry or regard to law enforcement coming to arrest you."

Agents aren't combing through wedding announcements looking for fraud. Rather, they are concentrating on large and lucrative marriage-fraud rings that may set up scores of phony unions a year. Patterns of suspected fraud spotted by government workers or tips from private citizens start most investigations.

Recent busts have included one in northern Virginia that officials say took in as much as $6,000 from immigrants paying for bogus weddings.

One in Utah generated nearly $1.3 million in illegal fees, while a Santa Ana, Calif., fraud organization arranged 75 sham marriages. Another based in New York City reportedly netted more than $1 million.

Agents investigated some of those cases for a year or more before making arrests.

Threat to security

The notion of Uncle Sam asking questions about a couple's finances and married life to check whether their union is legitimate may seem odd, but authorities and experts say marriage fraud helps undermine the legal immigration system and could pose a security threat.

"If you're here and you need to stay for a long period of time, then marriage fraud is the simplest thing to do," said Janice Kephart, a former staffer for the 9/11 Commission. In a post-commission investigation, she found 16 cases where suspected terrorists got green cards through bogus marriages. "The fraud is still so easy," she said.

Echoing Kephart's work, a Government Accountability Office audit this year found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, the agency that processes applications for green cards and other benefits, needed to improve its ability to detect fraud.

The agency processed more than 6 million applications for benefits in fiscal 2005 and rejected about 20,000, or less than 1 percent, for fraud, the report found. Critics say the agency misses more fraud than it detects.

USCIS officials responding to the report said new anti-fraud efforts already under way will improve their detection efforts by analyzing fraud risks and giving immigration officers access to computer databases used by law enforcement.

The agency is also involved in the ICE fraud task forces, and USCIS agents can refer cases to ICE for criminal prosecution if they suspect large-scale deception.

ICE investigated 3,591 cases involving marriage and other types of fraud in fiscal 2005, up more than 55 percent from fiscal 2004. Investigations led to convictions in 27 percent of cases in 2005, up slightly from the 24 percent conviction rate in 2004.

Phony marriages can lead to charges of marriage fraud, visa fraud, conspiracy and alien smuggling. Penalties range from five to 10 years in prison.

Costly transactions

The marriage-fraud rings typically find new business by word of mouth, with organizers recruiting citizens and immigrants within small social circles in their communities, ICE's Spero said. Immigrants pay $2,500 to $6,000 for services, though in the Santa Ana case, the lead organizer pleaded guilty this summer and admitted charging as much as $60,000 on occasion.

Citizens typically are paid $500 to $1,000 upfront for marrying the immigrants and receive payments throughout the first year of the bogus marriage until all the USCIS applications have gone through and the immigrants have their green cards.

Agents haven't found any one country whose natives tend to take part in marriage fraud more than others. But Spero said immigrants from countries that typically receive few visas through legal means, such as work ties, legitimate family ties or asylum claims, have accounted for several recent cases.

The busts in Utah and California involved immigrants from Vietnam and China, while the northern Virginia scam ring reportedly catered to immigrants from West Africa.

'Enforcement-based eye'

The cities where ICE started its task forces represented the biggest potential threats from all sorts of fraud. Even in cities where ICE has yet to set up a task force, the anti-fraud efforts can force legitimate couples to take pains to document their marriage to qualify for green cards.

"(The USCIS) tends to look at everybody with a very enforcement-based eye," said Judy Flanagan, an immigration lawyer in Phoenix who said she sometimes has to turn away potential clients who admitted they didn't really have legitimate marriages.

"In the vast majority of cases - just because of the paperwork, the families have children together, they've filed taxes - it's pretty clear that it's a legitimate marriage.

"Sometimes, it's just a sense of there is no paperwork on the two of them together. They don't seem to know each other very well."

Back to top

The Real Immigration Crisis
Virginia Deane Abernethy, Ph.D.

Saturday, Oct. 28, 2006

The Census Bureau's much-heralded announcement in October that the United States has reached the population milestone of 300 million is another scene in a great charade. The Census Bureau (CB), it appears, is massaging statistics, possibly in the service of policy rather than accuracy.

The CB also claims there are roughly 9 million illegal aliens in the United States, and that the U.S. population will reach 600 million by the year 2100. But can we believe these statistics? Many estimates, along with some conservative mathematical calculations, suggest that the U.S. population is already nearing 330 million, and that we could have a billion people in America by the year 2076.

Illegal Calculations

In February 2002, a Border Patrol supervisor of 27 years service testified before Congress that the number of illegal aliens was several times the Census Bureau (CB) estimate. He stated, "According to various Mexican media and official Mexican government sources, the country of Mexico has 18 million of its citizens residing illegally in the United States at this very minute."

That is not to mention other illegals: Filipinos, Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Eastern Europeans, Irish, Brazilians, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Haitians.

Using financial and employment data, analysts for Bear Stearns Asset Management also put forth a number much higher than anything considered by the CB. They concluded in early 2004 that, "The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, more than double the official 9 million people estimated by the Census Bureau."

Time magazine asserted, also in 2004, that more than 4,000 illegal aliens walk across just the Mexico/Arizona border each day. Nationwide, an estimated 3 million enter annually, and as many as "15 million" are thought to remain in the United States.

Department of Education reports are also suggestive. Comparing projected and actual enrollments for the latest years the data were compiled yields this: The projected K-12 increase in public school enrollments from 2002 to 2003 was 11,000 pupils. But "actual 2003 enrollments came in 339,000 above 2002's level — more than 30 times the projected rise." Where did these children come from, if not illegal immigration?

Patrick Buchanan's 2006 book, "State of Emergency: Third World Invasion and Conquest of America," states that the Border Patrol apprehends 150,000 illegal aliens breaking into the United States each month, amounting to 1.8 million apprehensions annually.

Some illegal border crossers may be apprehended more than once, although most — 70 percent — make it in a first or second attempt, and 92 percent make it eventually according to the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego. In recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center, stated that 92 percent to 97 percent succeed on two tries or less.

The Border Patrol, now formally called the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) estimates that, for each illegal alien apprehended, three to five succeed in entering. Taking the middle figure of four, then four multiplied by 1.8 million annual apprehensions equals 7.2 million aliens who enter illegally each year.

Moreover, many foreigners enter supposedly for a visit but never leave. In 1992, approximately 150,000 more foreign passengers arrived in U.S. airports than left. USA Today reports that "at least 3.8 million" illegal aliens arrived legally but remained after visas expired. This could be, in part, workers who stayed — contrary to the terms of their visa — after termination of their job.

Conservatively, assume that just 5 million — rather than 7.2 million plus visa over-stayers — actually enter the United States each year. Of these 5 million, assume that 40 percent remain indefinitely. This calculation suggests that 2 million illegal aliens melt permanently into the U.S. population annually. If 60 percent stay, then approximately 3 million new illegal aliens remain in the United States annually. Compare that to the Census Bureau's puny estimate of 500,000 illegal aliens staying annually.

Once here, illegal aliens seemingly wish to stay: According to the U.S., Mexico will take in a record $24 billion in remittances this year. Transients do not earn that kind of spare change, particularly in the low skill jobs available to most Mexican and Central American workers.

Real Population Numbers

In reality, the U.S. population passed 300 million in year 2000. The current U.S population is approximately 327 million.

According to statistics for which the latest year was reported, 2004, there were approximately 1.7 million more total births than deaths. This indicates a faster rate of population growth and a shorter doubling time than the CB rate reported for the 1990s (1.2 percent annual growth, projecting 58 years to double).

Summing annual growth figures (1.7 million natural increase, 1 million legal immigrants, and 2 million or 3 million illegal aliens who stay), one sees that, each year, the population grows by 4.7 million to 5.7 million. The annual growth rate is between 1.4 percent and 1.7 percent. If 1.4 percent, the population doubling time is 50 years.

The rate of growth has itself been growing. If acceleration of the growth rate continues, we are on trend to pass the 1 billion mark in approximately 70 years.

What's Wrong With Rapid U.S. Population Growth?

Some ecologists, labor economists, and conservationists say that rapid population growth, regardless of its source, is a danger. This concern departs from the United Nations and The Wall Street Journal view, which decries European and Japanese economic and social health because these countries' populations are on the verge of stabilizing.

So what, if anything, is wrong with an exploding U.S. population?

First, native-born Americans spontaneously chose small family size starting in approximately 1970. The majority would probably be better off economically and ecologically today if, congruent with the recommendations of the 1972 Rockefeller Report, the U.S. population had begun to stabilize 30 years ago.

Second, current population growth is being forced on native-born Americans by immigration. Approximately 90 percent of growth results from the annual immigration flow and the descendants of post-1970 immigrants.

Third, current immigration comes overwhelmingly from Third World countries that have cultures vastly different from ours. These immigrants may not wish to assimilate and, indeed, may have difficulty adjusting.

The territorial integrity of the United States may develop into a further contentious issue that divides citizens from Mexican immigrants. A June 2002 Zogby poll reveals that a "substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that Southwestern America properly belongs to Mexico."

Fourth, rapid increases in the labor force have resulted in a 30-year trend toward lower real, inflation-adjusted income for the 80 percent of Americans who depend on wages and salaries. Immigration drives most of labor force growth and thus accounts for virtually all of the recent income depression.

Economist George Borjas observes that immigration depresses wages and displaces Americans from jobs, costing native-born American workers $195 billion annually. In 2000, the wages of native-born American workers were reduced by an average 3.2 percent.

Not Just ‘Jobs Americans Don't Want'

The impact is not even. Citing a current Northeastern University study, The New York Times states that "illegal immigrants contributed to a sharp decline in employment of teenage and young adult Americans." The effect on young and less-educated workers is not new news. Most recently, however, Borjas reported that the wage impact is "most intense at the two ends of the native-born education range."

In addition to depressing wages, immigrant workers displace Americans. Steven Camarota analyzes CB data, finding that "between March 2000 and March 2004, the number of adults working actually increased, but all of the net change went to immigrant workers."

Andrew Sum and his colleagues at Northeastern University concur. Since 2000, immigrants have taken more than 100 percent of net new jobs, that is, both capturing new jobs and displacing Americans from existing jobs.

Another fiscal problem: Many Third World immigrants are very low skilled. Consequently, they do not pay taxes commensurate with the costs they impose on communities and States.

High Public Costs

Professor Donald Huddle estimates that between 1996 and 2006, immigrants cost taxpayers an average of $93 billion annually, net of any taxes immigrants pay. In view of the unexpectedly high flow of immigrants, Huddle's numbers would, today, be adjusted higher.

The National Research Council's well-received report, The New Americans, estimates that each legal or illegal immigrant without a high school education imposes a net (that is, after subtracting all taxes the immigrant pays) lifetime cost on taxpayers of $89,000 in direct services. With a high-school education, the average fiscal impact per immigrant is still negative, $31,000. The figures are significant insofar as the average Mexican and Central American has less than an eighth-grade education.

Economist Lester Thurow's 1990s analysis of the cost of population growth — without reference to whether the growth is organic or from immigration — concludes that maintaining the quality of infrastructure requires a nation to commit 12.5 percent of its GDP for each 1 percent of population growth.

A community study on infrastructure costs associated with population growth is congruent. Eben Fodor calculated in the 1990s that each new three-person residential unit burdened taxpayers with an average of more than $15,000 in new requirements for capital improvements, not counting annual operating costs.

Diminished Resources

Less immediately evident but powerfully important in the long run, population growth harms the nation through depleting its natural wealth — as documented by Carrying Capacity Network, a non-profit grass-roots organization that advocates an immigration moratorium. One acre of land is lost to highways and urbanization for each person added to the U.S. population; each person uses 2,800 gallons of oil equivalents and 530,000 gallons of water per year.

Such ecological losses and challenges are separate from the loss of community public spiritedness that follows rapid growth and multiplying languages and cultures. Immigration advocates are challenged to show one fast-growing, multicultural society that is cohesive, democratic, and smoothly functioning.

The tally of losses from mass immigration suggests that a large price is paid for so-called cheap labor and for advancing the financial and political elite's agenda of erasing borders and integrating Canada, Mexico, and the United States into the Partnership for Prosperity and Security, aka the North American Union. Middle-class Americans, possibly to be joined by Canadians, would pay the greater part of the bill.

A healthy respect for probable errors in Census Bureau data advances the case for putting enforcement with the purpose of stopping illegal immigration and dramatically reducing legal immigration at the top of the legislative and executive branch agenda.

A catch-our-breath moratorium on all immigration should be a further goal of domestic policy. Immigration legislation should be debated on the basis of accurate demography, as well as economic and social data, that recognize both the costs and the benefits of additional immigration.

Unrealistic Estimates

The Census Bureau's misinformation appears consistent with intent to soothe a public that is becoming alarmed at the scale of immigration and the rapidity of population growth.

"Underestimates" also go far to discredit those who call for a moratorium on both legal and illegal immigration, and for ending automatic citizenship awarded to children born in the United States to illegal alien parents. Accurate reporting of numbers would make ending birth-right citizenship politically compelling and would strengthen the argument for a catch-our-breath moratorium on legal immigration.

One may fairly conclude that the Census Bureau is a willing participant to misinforming the public on the state of the nation. Perhaps this is a strategy designed to redirect and lull voters into complacency so that they forgive their representatives and senators who legislate in favor of illegal aliens and massive legal immigration, rather than in the interest of citizens of the United States.

Virginia Deane Abernethy is professor emeritus of psychiatry (anthropology) at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. She has published widely in both scholarly journals and popular media and is the author of "Population Politics and Population Pressure and Cultural Adjustment." Until 1999, she was editor of the ecological journal, "Population and Environment." She holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University and an MBA from Vanderbilt University.

Back to top


1666 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Suite 402

Washington, DC 20009

 Planning for State Immigration Enforcement Legislation

I. Permissible Scope of State and Local Legislative Authority over Immigration:

State and local governments have more extensive authority than is generally recognized to enforce federal immigration law and to enact statutes and ordinances that sanction immigration-related activities which are also unlawful under federal immigration law.

The two key constitutional limits to state and local legislative authority are:

(1) State legislation cannot contradict or contravene the terms under which a non-citizen has been admitted to the United States by the federal government, and

(2) State government agencies and courts cannot directly admit, remove or deport a noncitizen to or from the United States, a power which is exclusively the function of the federal government.

Any deviation from these principles, either direct or indirect, can be interpreted by the judiciary as either a “regulation of immigration,” a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, or a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

II. Practical Considerations:

The primary incentive for illegal immigration is economic – access to employment and, to a lesser extent public benefits and services. The primary goal for successful state or local immigration control legislation is to remove or reduce the economic incentives for unlawful presence, by use of (1) the states’ inherent police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and legal residents, and (2) specific powers delegated by Congress to the states and local governments.

Insure that each draft bill includes a definitional and a construction provision requiring that the terms, requirements, and obligations of the bill be construed so as to be consistent with federal immigration law.

III. Recommended Measures:

Following are general IRLI recommendations on various legislative measures that -in combination- will have a powerful and practical deterrent effect on the entry and continued presence of legal aliens at the local, regional, or state levels. This list is meant to be illustrative, and not comprehensive.

A. Unauthorized Employment:

Note: Current federal law (8 USC 1324a(h)(2)) expressly preempts any non-federal law.

“imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.”

In practice, this means that draft legislation should usually avoid (a) direct fines or (b) criminal convictions against employers for recruiting or hiring illegal aliens as a principal enforcement mechanism.

1. Prohibition of performance of unauthorized employment by aliens.

Make the performance in the jurisdiction for more 80 hours in any 12-month period of work of any type for compensation, whether in cash, benefits or other valuable consideration, by any person who is an unauthorized alien as defined in federal law (8 USC 1324a(h)(3), a felony punishable by at least one year imprisonment and a fine equivalent to the value of any compensation received by the alien. Note that this criminal sanction is applied to the alien, not the employer, and thus is not preempted.

2. Unfair discharge of a United States worker.

Make the discharge of any United States worker (as defined in federal law) by an employer, if the employer on the date of discharge retained as an employee any unauthorized worker, an unlawful discharge. Aggrieved discharged US workers may initiate a civil action in state court for recovery and damages. Provide employers who have used the electronic verification system (e.g. Basic Pilot) to verify the worker’s employment eligibility (even if later found to be in error) immunity/safe harbor from suit.

3. Disallowance of business expenses deductions from state taxes.

Disallow the deduction from state income, corporate, or other business taxes of the expense of compensation provided to an unauthorized worker within the fiscal year in question. Disallowance of a tax deduction is not a civil fine.

4. Restriction of payment of invoices for government contracts.

Require government contracts to contain a clause allowing the government to disallow payment of any portion of an invoice submitted to a government agency for contracted services of any nature, where the services were performed by unauthorized workers. Provide employers who have used the electronic verification system (e.g. Basic Pilot) to verify the worker’s employment eligibility (even if later found to be in error) immunity/safe harbor from enforcement of this contract clause.

5. Private cause of action to revoke corporate charter.

Permit a private cause of action by any aggrieved corporate entity or legal resident of the state to compel the state agency regulating corporations to revoke the corporate charter of any for-profit or non-profit corporation registered in the state which violates the alien smuggling provisions of 8 USC 1324 or employs an unauthorized worker in violation of 8 USC 1324a. Statutes creating private causes of action are not preempted civil sanctions.

6. Workers Compensation Reform.

Require employers to pay workers compensation claims approved for claims filed by employees regardless of unauthorized worker status. Require payment of claims only to a bank in the alien’s country of nationality, or another foreign country where the alien has been lawfully admitted. Note: This requires the disable illegal alien to depart the US before receiving compensation payments. Waive the immunity from suit for employers in such cases, allowing the Workers Compensation Commission to recover the amount of claims actually paid, if the employer is found to have failed to comply with federal employment authorization verification (I-9) procedures. This ensures that the employer, not the injured alien or the taxpayer, is responsible for the financial injuries incurred caused by failure to comply with federal law.

7. License suspension.

Upon confirmation of the validity a written complaint, filed by any state or local government agency or by an aggrieved legal resident of the jurisdiction, of the employment of an unauthorized alien by any entity holding a business, professional, or occupational license issued by the jurisdiction, require the issuance by the state department of labor of a cease and desist order to the license-holder, suspending the license(s) at issue until lawful presence of all employees or independent contractors of the license holder is confirmed. Require the extended suspension of the license in case of continued non-compliance pursuant to regulations. Note: Fines would be preempted by federal law, but not a temporary closure of the business due to failure to maintain a business license.

B. Citizen Identification and Citizenship Status Protection

1. Lawful presence test.

Require the state motor vehicle department, after consultation with the US Department of Homeland Security, to issue a list of documents which may be presented to a state or local government agency to establish legal presence in the United States. Require public notice and hearings on development of the list. Require other government

agencies to adopt the approved list. Allow US citizens (only) without documents (e.g. homeless or disaster victims) to sign an affidavit of US citizenship under perjury, which may be accepted by the agency for immediate use, but must be verified within a reasonable time (30-60days) by the agency. Provide criminal and civil penalties for false statements or use of forged or misappropriated documents to meet the lawful presence test. 

2. Limitation on use of insecure foreign identification documents.

Prohibit use of documents issued by foreign governments to establish identity for any official purpose, or for any private transaction whose value is greater than $100, unless the alien also presents a US government-issued document from the approved list establishing lawful presence in the United States.

3. Lawful presence test for drivers licenses.

Add the lawful presence test to the requirements for eligibility for a driver’s license or state or local government identification cards.

4. Criminalize false claims of US citizenship or legal permanent residence.

Make a false claim of US citizenship or legal permanent resident alien status to obtain any official public service or valuable consideration of $100 or greater from a business a felony (parallel to the federal statute).

5. Define domicile or legal residence in the state.

By statute, restrict the right to establish legal domicile in the state to U.S. citizens and nationals, legal permanent resident aliens, and other aliens admitted or paroled into the U.S. for an indefinite or limited period whose terms of admission under federal immigration law permit establishment of residence in the United States. Allow for exceptions for limited purposes (e.g. marriage or standing to maintain a civil suit) where expressly authorized by statute.

C. Local Law Enforcement of Immigration Law

1. Criminalize willful violation of alien registration laws.

Enact the federal misdemeanors of willful failure to complete alien registration or to carry an alien registration document or notarized copy on the person as parallel state misdemeanors. Note: All legally present aliens, whether in permanent or temporary status, possess this document. Enforcement of registration laws, as opposed to federal “illegal presence” laws, is entirely document-based, and thus less vulnerable to impermissible profiling and related civil rights abuses.

2. Clarify peace officer arrest authority for immigration crimes.

Amend and clarify the state statute regulating peace officer arrest power to include misdemeanor violations of US Code Title 8 (INA).

3. Allow temporary detention of illegal aliens charged with misdemeanors or infractions.

Allow state and local law enforcement agencies to temporarily detain aliens charged with a misdemeanor or traffic violation, or similar infractions, for whom probable cause to believe the alien is inadmissible under federal immigration law (8 USC 1182) been confirmed with US DHS, until US ICE personnel are available to take transfer of the alien into federal custody. Also permit state and local police agencies to transport detained aliens across state lines to facilitate transfer into federal custody.

4. Federal-local cooperation agreement.

Require an appropriate state official or agency (e.g. state police) to negotiate and execute a cooperative agreement with US DHS, as authorized by 8 USC 1357(g), to train and designate state or local law enforcement officers as immigration enforcement officers, to perform specified immigration enforcement functions, which could include all of the functions in #1-3 above. Note: State must pay for the cost of training, which can be limited version of federal officer training, but officers obtain federal qualified immunity while performing enforcement functions per the agreement.

5. Private right of action to challenge local government restriction on immigration law compliance.

Grant any aggrieved legal resident of a local jurisdiction a private right of action to file a civil suit for injunctive relief and legal costs to restrain the municipality from implementing or enforcing any restriction on the authority of any official or personnel to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities as provided by 8 USC 1373 and 1644 (anti-“sanctuary” measure).

6. State alien smuggling conspiracy statute.

Make alien smuggling (as defined by 8 USC 1324(a)(1), including conspiracy) within the state for financial gain a state statutory felony, with penalties equivalent to the federal statute. Note: Builds on successful Arizona model of charging illegal alien border crossers (nearly all currently use the services of a smuggler) as well as their smugglers under state law.

7. Collect and report data on illegal alien arrests.

Require local and state law enforcement agencies to verify the lawful presence of any person arrested by the agency on a criminal charge. Agencies must report the presence of a verified illegal alien to the federal immigration enforcement agency, and to a state police database that state and local agencies can query. Note: will help identify and facilitate the removal of illegal alien recidivists.

8. Add alien-smuggling crimes to state racketeering statutes.

In states with companion racketeering statutes to the federal RICO laws, add the alien smuggling felonies described in 8 USC 1324 as predicate crimes under the state statute, allowing private lawsuits against alien smugglers and large-scale employers.

D. Public Benefits.

1. SAVE System.

Require all state and local government agencies to use the SAVE online system to verify eligibility for all State and Local Public Benefits, as defined in 8 USC 1621. Note: All States are currently required to use the SAVE system to verify federal public benefits administered by the states.

2. Access to Higher Education.

Bar enrollment or eligibility for financial aid at any public or private institute of higher education chartered or licensed by the state to an illegal alien.

E. Control of Financial Transactions Involving Illegal Aliens.

1. Withholding on certain remittance payments.

Require the withholding of income tax at 10 per cent for any electronic funds wire transfer to an overseas party or the purchase of any negotiable bank draft or international money order for any person who does not provide a valid social security number.

2. Campaign Contributions.

Make it unlawful for any person who is not a citizen of the United States to contribute funding, goods or services to any candidate for elected office, political party or political action committee.

3. Civil and criminal penalties for accommodating illegal aliens in rental or hotel facilities.

Make it unlawful to rent, lease, or sublease residential property or hotel rooms to any person for use as accommodation for an illegal alien. Allow landlords to request documentation of lawful presence before renting or leasing accommodation to any person. Grant a private right of action to an aggrieved legal resident of the state to file a civil suit for injunctive relief and legal costs to restrain landlords from renting or leasing property to an illegal alien. Make it a felony to engage in a pattern or practice of providing rental accommodation to 24 or more illegal aliens for more than two weeks within any 12-month period.

4. Restrict use of ITINs by illegal aliens.

Make it unlawful for any person or entity to accept from any person an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) for identification or any other purpose not authorized by the US Internal Revenue Service, without concurrent presentment of a document establishing lawful presence in the United States.

IV. IRLI Technical Support:

IRLI staff attorneys and legislative specialists are available to assist legislators, attorneys, government officials and civic or advocacy organizations in developing the concepts outlined in this memorandum into legislative language appropriate to the jurisdiction in question. These services are provided without cost to qualified parties, as resources permit. For further information, please see our website,, or contact us at, 202-232-5590, or via facsimile at 202-464-3590.

©2006 IRLI

Back to top

Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake

by Edwin Meese III
Posted Dec 13, 2006

Human Events Online

This is the fifth in an occasional series of exclusive articles in which leading conservatives who served in the Reagan Administration explain how they believe the principles of Reagan conservatism ought to be applied today and in the coming years. This week, Edwin Meese, who was Reagan’s first presidential counselor and then attorney general, addresses immigration.

 What would Ronald Reagan do? I can’t tell you how many times I have been asked that question, on virtually every issue imaginable.

As much as we all want clarity and certainty, I usually refrain from specific answers. That’s because it is very difficult to directly translate particular political decisions to another context, in another time. The better way to answer the question—and the way President Reagan himself would approach such questions—is to understand Reagan’s principles and how they should apply in today’s politics, and review past decisions and consider what lessons they have for us.

Immigration is one area where Reagan’s principles can guide us, and the lessons are instructive.

I was attorney general two decades ago during the debate over what became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. President Reagan, acting on the recommendation of a bipartisan task force, supported a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal immigration, including adjusting the status of what was then a relatively small population. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Service was then in the Department of Justice, I had the responsibility for directing the implementation of that plan.

President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because these are pretty much the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that President Reagan called it for what it was.

Lesson of 1986

The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens.

So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.

What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. He knew that secure borders are vital, and would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. He would employ new tools—like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border—that make enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective.

One idea President Reagan had at the time that we might also try improving on is to create a pilot program that would allow genuinely temporary workers to come to the United States—a reasonable program consistent with security and open to the needs and dynamics of our market economy.

And what about those already here? Today it seems to me that the fair policy, one that will not encourage further illegal immigration, is to give those here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border—a combination of incentives and disincentives—will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.

Lastly, we should remember Reagan’s commitment to the idea that America must remain open and welcoming to those yearning for freedom. As a nation based on ideas, Ronald Reagan believed that that there was something unique about America and that anyone, from anywhere, could become an American. That means that while we seek to meet the challenge of illegal immigration, we must keep open the door of opportunity by preserving and enhancing our heritage of legal immigration—assuring that those who choose to come here permanently become Americans. In the end, it was his principled policy—and it should be ours—to “humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.”

Back to top

Illegal Aliens Kill More Americans Than Iraq War


By The Editors

As noted in Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Full Swing, in April 2005, the GAO released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003.  It found the following:

Of the 55,322 illegal aliens studied, researchers found that they were arrested a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.

·  They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien.

·   49% had previously been convicted of a felony, 20% of a drug offense; 18% a violent offense, and 11%, other felony offenses.

·   81% of the arrests occurred after 1990

·   56% of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions. 

·   Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories.  90% had been previously arrested.  Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.

All of these crimes would have never happened, i.e. they were preventable, has we had a serious program of deportation of the illegal aliens already here and proper border security to prevent both entry and re-entry.

In reviewing those numbers, note that the study sampled only about 21% of the incarcerated illegal aliens.  To get the full extent of the collateral damage, we need to apply the average number of offenses across all 267,000 currently incarcerated illegal alien criminals.  Doing so results in 1,288,619 crimes!

Don’t let the mainstream media and illegal alien advocates tell you that illegal immigration is a “victimless crime” and that they are here only to do the work Americans don’t want to do.  Since each crime has a victim, 1,288,619 sounds like a lot of victimization to us.  Also keep in mind that the 1,288,619 crimes are only the ones committed by the hard core illegal alien criminals who were finally caught and incarcerated.  The ones not caught and the new criminals crossing daily are committing more crime each and every day.

One of the problems in identifying the involvement of illegal aliens in crime is that NO ONE TRACKS IT as a particular demographic statistic.  While the INS keeps track of all sorts of demographic data for the illegal aliens who were actually arrested and deported and puts it in the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the judicial system does not track it.  As noted in Cop Murder Spotlights Crisis of Killer Aliens - No Government Agency Tracks Crimes by Illegals, Not Even Attacks on Police, nobody really knows how many illegal alien criminals there are or how many crimes they are actually committing.  Many simply fall through the cracks.

If we assume illegal aliens commit crimes at the same rate as citizens in the general population, an assumption that may grossly underestimate their involvement, we can estimate the number of crimes being committed by illegal aliens.  To do this, we note the number of illegal aliens in the population and apply the percentage representation in the population to the total number of crimes committed. 

The current population of illegal aliens ranges from a generally accepted low of 12 million to a few estimates in the 25-30 million range.  For the purposes of this discussion, we will use a relatively lower estimate of 15 million in a population of 300 million which is a 5% representation.  It is worth noting that many official government figures are a bit lower number.  If in fact accurate, a lower number of illegal aliens in the general population would actually increase their disproportionate involvement, something that is probably occurring anyway, as we shall see latter.

According to FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Crime in the United States (CIUS) 2005, we now take the Estimated Number of Arrests and apply a straight 5% illegal alien participation.  These numbers are grossly understated as you will see later in this article, but we include them as an academic exercise to show what the bottom-most numbers could be:

This calculates:

CRIMES (actual arrests)

Number In USA

 by illegal aliens




Murder & non-negligent manslaughter



Forcible rape



Offenses against family & children



The last column is the estimated criminal collateral damage inflicted by illegal aliens for 2005 as a straight proportional percentage basis of the population.  Similar collateral damage would have been inflicted in 2006 and you can expect about as much in 2007. 

Using a simple cost-benefit analysis, is this much crime acceptable to save ten cents on a head of lettuce?

You probably wouldn’t think so if you were one of the 704,709 victims, and as one of the murder victims, you wouldn’t be able to think at all.  Again, keep in mind, this is the collateral damage being PER YEAR with a 5% participation rate.  If the number of illegal aliens is greater than 15 million the number of crimes goes up.  If the participation rate is greater, the number of crimes goes up.

In determining who is actually committing the crimes and whether the 5% straight participation is valid, as noted in The Tarpit blog, Hispanics/Latinos, by far the largest component of illegal aliens, become “White, Caucasian, or Other” perpetrators in Arizona.  The same thing in Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, and probably other states as well.  Even the FBI doesn’t seem to want to know, as neither the nationality of the perpetrator nor a Hispanic/Latino category is even present in either their Uniform Crime Reports or Victims and Offenders Supplement.

When we inquired of Justice Department why they didn’t want to know if Hispanics or foreign nationals were committing any crime, their response was:

“The Uniform Crime Reporting Program was mandated by Congress to collect and publish the crimes that are reported to police agencies for statistical purposes, not investigative purposes.

The elements of race and ethnicity built into the UCR Program adhere to the guidelines established by DIRECTIVE NO 15, RACE AND ETHNIC STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL STATISTICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING.  Those guidelines are set by the Office of Management and Budget, and as a federal agency in the capacity of overseer of the UCR Program, the FBI is required to abide by those guidelines.  For UCR purposes there are four racial categories: White; Black; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and Asian or Pacific Islander.  The term Hispanic is an indicator of ethnicity, and the UCR Program does not currently collect information on ethnicity.”

We also asked the Justice Department what categories the foreign national terrorists and the 2,752 Americans killed by foreign nationals on 9-11-2001 fell into but did not get a response.

While the Justice Department tracks nearly every conceivable aspect of crime, evidently, Congress wants to know only what crimes “White, Black, American Indian, and Asian” Americans are committing.  It is interesting that ethnicity is totally unimportant for determining who is committing crimes, but is very important for establishing minority status and preferences.  It does not strain credulity to imagine that crimes are being committed by illegal aliens, aka foreign nationals, but unfortunately for Americans, these statistics are not tracked.

While we are on the subject of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Jim Kouri notes in Crime Statistics and the Itsy Bitsy Yellow Polka Dot Bikini:

“Yet the public is generally unaware that the UCR system is essentially a voluntary system; there is no federal legislation that requires States or local jurisdictions to report their crime data to the FBI.

The voluntary nature of the UCR, of course, affects the accuracy and completeness of the data. Although the FBI devotes a great deal of attention to the quality of the data it publishes in CIUS, it cannot mandate agencies to provide data on time (or at all).”

Thus, if anything, the FBI underreports crime.

In any case, it would appear that other than what the INS reports when foreign nationals are deported, NO ONE IS TRACKING CRIMES COMMITTED ON US SOIL BY FOREIGN NATIONALS. Given the serious of the crimes and the large participation by mostly Hispanic and illegal alien, a.k.a. foreign national, criminals it seems almost as if the various government agencies don’t want us to know.  Also, we could not find any investigative reporting by the mainstream media on the issue.  If even a small number of those 704,709 crimes were committed against members of the media or politicians maybe we would have heard something…but the silence is deafening.

As noted in the previously-mentioned September 2006 article, Cop Murder Spotlights Crisis of Killer Aliens, in WND:

While no government agencies specifically track crimes by illegal aliens, there have been some efforts to quantify the loss.  Last December, Mac Johnson set out to investigate the number of homicides perpetrated by illegal aliens.  Since the federal government would not provide any useful information, he contacted all 50 statehouses.  Three months later, he had fewer than a dozen responses.  Only one state, Vermont, provided any useful information.

He then set out to estimate statistically the number of murders by illegal aliens based on available crime data and conservative estimates of the actual number of illegal aliens in the country – which, of course, no one really knows.

He found that between 1,806 and 2,510 people in the U.S. are murdered annually by illegal aliens.  If he's right, that would represent between 11 percent and 15 percent of all murders in the U.S.”

Using the mean of Mr. Johnson’s range, there are 2,158 murders committed annually by illegal aliens – crimes that never would have happened if they weren’t here.  This is part of the collateral damage of tolerating illegal immigration. 

Note that at 2,158 murders, that is 15.3% of all the murders reported by the FBI, which would be about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.  Whether illegal aliens are committing three times as many of the other crimes as well is unknown because NO ONE IS TRACKING IT.  Regardless, keep that “three times” in mind because it will come up again.  

At this point it is worth noting Representative King states, in Biting the Hand That Feeds You, that illegal aliens are responsible for 4,380 murders.  I believe Congressman King based his numbers on two GAO reports (d05337r and d05646r).  He apparently then took the number of incarcerated illegal aliens and the total number of incarcerated prisoners and applied the resulting percentage to the FBI’s reported number of crimes.  Based on this estimate, illegal aliens would be responsible for about 31% of the murders, a rate that is about 6.2 times their representation in the population.  While there are indications that this number may be more accurate, no one really knows because NO ONE IS TRACKING IT.

Returning to the FBI’s crime list and a straight 5% prorated share committed by illegal aliens, some 704,709 crimes in 2005 were committed and each of these crimes has both a personal and economic impact.  You can easily imagine the personal devastation on individuals and on families since all these crimes would not have happened if there were no illegal aliens in the country. Moreover, the unfortunate fact is that we as a nation and people have tolerated, and in many cases aided and abetted, illegal immigration.

The economic burden these crimes impose on their victims and on society have significant costs attached to them.  As noted earlier, there has been a tremendous increase in the law enforcement budgets and each criminal arrested needs to be incarcerated at about $25,000 per year.  How much more law enforcement is spending as a direct consequence of illegal aliens is unknown but reviewing the expenditure graphs, note that the rate of the expenditures increases after around 1989 which corresponds with the large increase in the illegal alien population. 

In any case, with 267,000 illegal aliens incarcerated as of 2003, just the incarceration costs at $25,000 per inmate per year is $6.7 BILLION per year.  We’ll take a wild guess that you didn’t realize we were spending that much.  Do you have any better ideas on what we could be spending $6.7 billion a year on rather than providing three meals a day and color TV to a bunch of illegal alien prisoners?  While you think about that, here is another one to ponder: how much money would we have saved since 1980 if there were still only 9,000 incarcerated illegal aliens rather than 267,000? 

As extensive as these direct costs are, there are also indirect costs imposed on the victims, including loss of income and property, uncompensated hospital bills, and treatment for resulting emotional and psychological trauma, to say nothing of permanent physical disabilities.

As noted in the abstract of the report Victim Costs of Violent Crime and Resulting Injuries, by Miller, Cohen, and Rossman:

“This DataWatch estimates the costs and monetary value of lost quality of life due to death and nonfatal physical and psychological injury resulting from violent crime.  In 1987 physical injury to people age twelve and older resulting from rape, robbery, assault, murder, and arson caused about $10 billion in potential health-related costs, including some unmet mental health care needs.  It led to $23 billion in lost productivity and almost $145 billion in reduced quality of life (in 1989 dollars).  If associated deaths and cases resulting in psychological injury only are included, costs average $47,000 for rape, $19,000 for robbery, $15,000 for assault, and $25,000 for arson.  Considering only survivors with physical injury, rape cost $60,000, robberies $25,000, assaults $22,000, and arson $50,000.  Costs are almost $2.4 million per murder.  Lifetime costs for all intentional injuries totaled $178 billion during 1987-1990.”

Note that those costs are in 1989 dollars.  Using the CPI index to adjust for 2006 dollars, multiply those numbers by 1.62 which means that, today, each rape costs society an average of $76,140 and each murder costs some $3.9 million.  Thus just the 2,158 murders committed by illegal aliens burdened our society with $8.4 BILLION in costs.  

The report tabulates the various costs for each crime as follows:

And all this…to save ten cents on a head of lettuce?


C’mon America…this is YOUR problem and only YOU can clean it up. Your elected officials will not do this unless you tell them to. Go here to register your complaint. Your thoughts matter.




Go to and sign the petition which must be notarized.  And then to send it to all your family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers who are fed up with illegal immigration and ask them to sign it, too.

Brought to you by the research staff and editors of


© 2003-2007 All Rights Reserved

Back to top

Illegal Aliens Nabbed In New Jersey Terrorist Plot
By Tom Fitton
May 15, 2007

Here's a story for all of those illegal immigration apologists out there who claim all illegal aliens are innocents who only come to the United States to seek opportunity and a better life. Last Tuesday, six New Jersey men were arrested and charged in an alleged terror plot (web site) against soldiers at Fort Dix, located in Burlington County, New Jersey. Three of the men are illegal aliens from Yugoslavia.

According to WNBC: "Investigators said the men planned to use automatic rifles to enter Fort Dix and kill as many soldiers as they could at the New Jersey military base..."

The three illegals, all brothers, are Islamic fundamentalists (web site) who are being charged with possessing firearms. Ironically, one of the other terrorists was given safe haven at Fort Dix eight years ago, when the Clinton administration took in Albanian refugees from Kosovo.

So, how did these terrorists get caught? According to press reports, the suspects attempted to have a "disturbing" video converted to DVD at a store in Cherry Hill, NJ. (The video apparently "depicted 10 young men who appeared to be in their early-20s shooting assault weapons at a firing range in a militia-like style while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic, 'Allah Akbar,' or 'God is Great.'") The suspicious store owner alerted authorities, triggering an investigation. An FBI informant was then able to infiltrate the group and record conversations with the suspects.

"My intent is to hit a heavy concentration of soldiers," said one of the suspects on tape. "You hit 4, 5 or 6 humvees and light the whole place up."

Leaving aside, for the moment, the horror of six men plotting to kill our men and women in uniform on U.S. soil, why is this story relevant to the debate over illegal immigration? Because non-Mexican illegals (dubbed "Other Than Mexican" or "OTMs") are flooding across the border in record numbers. In 2001, about 5,000 non-Mexican illegals were caught crossing the border. By 2004, that number had swelled to 34,000.

Illegal alien activists will do anything they can to avoid the link between illegal immigration and crime and terrorism. As this near-tragedy proves, the link is undeniable.


Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Back to top

Z Visa = Z End of the Line

Posted By Bobby Eberle On May 18, 2007 at 6:02 am

Around much “celebration,” the U.S. Senate announced on Thursday that a “deal” had been reached on “comprehensive” immigration reform. As I heard the details of the bill, I could feel the collective groans of the conservative movement, just as if we were all punched in the stomach. Why did we work so hard to build Republican majorities? Why did we spend so many hours at phone banks or going door to door? The past six years have seen an erosion of everything we’ve worked for, and now our “leaders” give us immigration “reform.”

Following announcement of the deal, President Bush said, “Immigration is a tough issue for a lot of Americans. The agreement reached today is one that will help enforce our borders, but equally importantly, it will treat people with respect. This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty, but without animosity.”

Treat people with respect? You mean the millions and millions of Americans who don’t break the law and who are paying for illegal activity through their tax dollars? Oh, I see…

Human Events has presented a great breakdown of the deal. In it, border security will be addressed through the hiring of 18,000 new Border Patrol Agents, construction of vehicle barriers and fencing, as well as the implementation of technology through radar and video cameras along the southern border.

The practice of “catch and release” will supposedly come to an end, and new detention facilities will be established.

The next section of the deal covers “interior enforcement” of immigration laws. Provisions include:

– The stiffening of laws and penalties relate to:
* the detention of criminal aliens
* the definition of aggravated felony
* gang violence
* passport, visa, and immigration fraud, including marriage fraud
* the streamlining of background checks for immigration status

– Other provisions include language regarding:
* Increased penalties for illegally entry and reentry
* encouraging aliens to depart voluntarily
* prohibiting aliens to possess firearms
* alternatives to detention
* state and local law enforcement reimbursement and training

Workplace enforcement is also addressed “increasing penalties, revising and making mandatory a system of electronic employment verification, and promoting information sharing.”

Then, of course, a temporary worker program is established through “Y visas.” This has been part of President Bush’s plan from the beginning.

As noted in Human Events, “This title creates a new future temporary worker program for workers who are coming to the U.S. to perform temporary job that the U.S. employer is unable to fill.” It provides for visas for the worker as well as the worker’s spouse and minor children.

Another section of the deal “restructures and rebalances the current system by which green cards are distributed.” The section of the bill attempts to reduce “chain migration” and to eliminate the visa backlog.

Finally, for all those people in the country illegally, the government has a gift for you in the form of a “Z visa.” Human Events highlights the section as follows:

Creates a new four-year, renewable “Z” nonimmigrant visa to address the undocumented population within the U.S. The visa is split up into three groups:
* a principal or employed alien (Z-1),
* the spouse or elderly parent of that alien (Z-2),
* and the minor children of that alien (Z-3).

So, there we have it. The deal gives us a “temporary” worker program in which the “temporary” worker can bring his family along to lay down roots, use services, etc. How “temporary” do you think that is actually going to be? In addition, those who came into this country illegally are given a pass. Mass amnesty was granted in 1986, and it failed. Now, we are turning our backs on the respect for the law. This is shameful.

Congress Tom Tancredo (R-CO) blasted the deal:

“Senator McCain and his allies seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it ‘comprehensive’ or ‘earned legalization’ or ‘regularization.’ Unfortunately for them, however, the American people know amnesty when they see it,” said Tancredo. “The President is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security.”

As noted in Tancredo’s press release: The plan would grant an immediate amnesty for nearly all 12-20 million illegal aliens who will get legal status for residence and jobs (with assurance of green cards no later than 13 years); Tripling of the rate of chain migration of extended family from around 250,000 a year to around 750,000 a year for about a decade; and New flows of 400,000 temporary foreign workers each year, bringing their families and having anchor babies who will be given U.S. citizenship.”

In a statement released Thursday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that he “simply cannot, and will not, support any legislation that repeats the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty.”

“So we have to make a basic determination: Will this bill restore respect for our laws? Or will it have the opposite effect, and encourage still more disregard for our immigration and border security laws, placing us within a few years in the same untenable position we’re now in?”

Former Sen. Fred Thompson released the following statement:

“With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security. We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also blasted the immigration agreement:

I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new ‘Z-Visa’ does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S.

Conservatives have worked so hard over the years to help change the direction of the country. Through efforts at the grassroots level, we helped usher in a new era — one in which Republicans held the White House and both bodies of Congress. What did we get for it? Runaway spending? Corruption? And now this?

The bill should be broken up into pieces with each piece given a fair hearing. Let’s do border security. Let’s do visa reform. Let’s do employer enforcement. But to throw everything in one bill and say take it or leave it is wrong. It is a recipe for a bad bill and bad policy. This bill should be opposed and defeated, and I hope the U.S. House will step to the plate and do what is right.

There is a lot more riding on the outcome of this bill than simply immigration reform. Contact your senator today and tell him/her to vote against this bill!

++ Click here to contact your U.S. Senators and tell them to secure our borders and enforce our laws.

Please ask your friends and co-workers to support real reform as well. Urge them to contact their senators. Just point them to this page and have them click on the links. You can also use our E-mail a Friend feature.

Back to top

Details Revealed of Senate Compromise Bill

by Jed Babbin  (More by this author)

Posted: 05/17/2007

Here’s the section-by-section breakdown of the just-announced Senate deal on illegal immigration given to us by a Senate source. We haven’t had the time to analyze it yet, but we’ll be back with the fast, concise and hard details on what appears to be an horrifically bad deal.

Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2007

Title I

Title I requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify that the triggers are met before the Title IV (Guest Worker) and Title VI (Z visa ) programs can begin, with the exception of probationary status for Z workers and the programs for agricultural workers.

• Triggers include:
o 18,000 (CBP) Border Patrol hired
o Construction of 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing
o 70 ground-based radar and camera towers along the southern border
o Deployment of 4 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and supporting systems
o The ending of catch-and-release
o Resources to detain up to 27,500 aliens per day on an annual basis
o The use of secure and effective identification tools to prevent unauthorized work.
o The receiving and processing and adjudicating of applications for Z status.

• Title I also includes authorities and resources to augment border security including:
o physical infrastructure along the border
o additional field and investigative agents
o comprehensive plans and studies of the border region
o revisions to law enforcement techniques and enhanced authorities.

Title II
Title II provides for interior enforcement of immigration laws.

• The stiffening of laws and penalties relate to:
o the detention of criminal aliens
o the definition of aggravated felony
o gang violence
o passport, visa, and immigration fraud, including marriage fraud
o the streamlining of background checks for immigration status

• Other provisions include language regarding:
o Increased penalties for illegally entry and reentry
o encouraging aliens to depart voluntarily
o prohibiting aliens to possess firearms
o alternatives to detention
o state and local law enforcement reimbursement and training


Title III
Title III addresses workplace enforcement by increasing penalties, revising and making mandatory a system of electronic employment verification, and promoting information sharing.

• This Title designs a worksite enforcement system that relies on electronic employment verification and a reduced list of documents that may be presented to employers to prove identity and work eligibility.
o Also increases penalties significantly over current law for unlawful hiring, employment, and recordkeeping violations.

• Verification of employees: As of the date of enactment, employers in national security-related industries, industries involving critical infrastructure, and federal contractors to electronically verify employees, including new hires and/or current employees may be required to verify individuals, with additional employers or industries added after 6 months.
o All employers would be required to electronically verify new hires within 18 months of enactment, or on the date on which the Secretary certifies that the system is operational.
o Once the system is implemented, all employers would be required to verify all current employees within by 3 years after enactment.

• Structure of the EEVS: After the date of hire but no later than the first day of employment, the employer must transmit to the EEVS via the Internet the data that the employer has taken from the worker’s identity and work eligibility documents.

• Inconclusive determinations: Where the EEVS cannot conclusively determine the status of a worker’s eligibility, a further action notice is issued and the individual must contact the appropriate federal or state agency to initiate resolution of status and the individual continues to work while the agency resolves his or her status.

• Final nonconfirmation: If the employer has received a final non-confirmation regarding an individual, the employer must terminate the employment of the individual, unless the individual files an administrative appeal of a final non-confirmation notice within 15 days.

• Data and Information Sharing: The Commissioner of Social Security must provide the following information to the Secretary of DHS regarding data contained within the Social Security database as in relates to employment verification.

• Fraud and tamper resistant social security cards: Not later than 180 days after date of enactment, the Commissioner is required to begin work to administer and issue fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant Social Security cards.

Title IV
Title IV establishes a new temporary Y worker program to address future labor needs of temporary foreign workers and discourage future illegal employment of undocumented individuals. The title also includes measures to protect the rights of U.S. and foreign workers and prevent the U.S. employer from abusing the program.

• Structure of new visa programs: This title creates a new future temporary worker program for workers who are coming to the U.S. to perform temporary job that the U.S. employer is unable to fill. It provides for:
o non-seasonal Y temporary worker (Y-1 visa)
o seasonal temporary worker

Y-2A for agricultural workers, sheepherder, goat herders, and dairy workers

Y-2B for non-agricultural workers; and

o their spouses and minor children (Y-3 visa).

• Matching Willing Workers with Willing Employers: All Y workers must be matched to a “willing employers” through an electronic database in order to qualify for a Y worker visa.

• Families of Y visa holders: can only accompany Y workers if the worker can:
o show proof of valid medical insurance and
o demonstrate that the wages of the principal Y nonimmigrant(s) are 150% above poverty level for the household size.
o Spouses and children who do not qualify for Y-3 visa may be admitted under other nonimmigrant status.

• Period of admission: A Y-1 worker can be admitted for a two year period that can be renewed twice if that worker spends a period of one year outside the United States between each admission.
o A Y-1 accompanied by dependents are afforded a single two year visa, non-renewable.
o Workers with Y-2A and Y-2B visa qualify for 10 month visas; no extensions may be granted.

• Permanent Bar: Y worker who fails to timely depart is permanently barred from any future immigration benefit.

• Wage: The employer must attest that the Y worker will be paid not less than the greater of the actual wage paid by the employer to all other similarly situated workers or the “prevailing competitive wage.”

• Numerical Limitation: The Y-1 visa program has an initial cap of 400,000 with yearly adjustments based on market fluctuations.
o There are no numerical limitations for Y-2A while the Y-2B visas are initially capped at 100,000 with yearly adjustment based on market fluctuations.
o The market-based fluctuation is adjusted every 6 months during the fiscal year.
o The Y-3 visa for spouses and minor children limit may not exceed 20% of annual limit for Y-1 visas.
o A newly created Standing Commission will make recommendations to Congress regarding the Y visa numerical cap for each fiscal year following the initial year of the program

Title V
Title V restructures and rebalances the current system by which green cards are distributed.

• Rebalancing of Immigrant Visa Allocation: Resets the number of family-based, family backlog, merit-based immigrants, and eventual Z immigration green cards.
o The family categories are less than under current law since several of the extended family categories are reduced, while the merit-based is increased over the current employment-based levels after the processing of the family-based backlog.
o An annual total of 440,000 visas are allotted to process the backlog of family-based categories eliminated.
o It is estimated that the family backlog cases can all be processed in 8 years.
o An annual total of 10,000 visas are set aside for exceptional Y workers.

• Merit Based Points System: The current employment based green card system will be replaced by a merit based points system.

• Reducing Chain Migration and Permitting Petitions by Nationals: Elimination and reconfiguring of the following family-based preference categories:
o First: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens
o Second: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents other than spouses and minor children of permanent residents
o Third: Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens
o Fourth: Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens
o Sets cap of 40,000 per fiscal year on category for parents of U.S. citizens.
o Sets cap of 87,000 per fiscal year on the second preference category for spouses and children of permanent residents.

• Elimination of Backlog: If the family-based visa petition in the eliminated category is filed before May 1, 2005, the petition can be processed under the prior law within 8 year.

Title VI
This title provides a new visa for most individuals currently living within the U.S. illegally.

• Creates a new four-year, renewable “Z” nonimmigrant visa to address the undocumented population within the U.S. The visa is split up into three groups:
o a principal or employed alien (Z-1),
o the spouse or elderly parent of that alien (Z-2),
o and the minor children of that alien (Z-3).

• Cut off Date: In order to be eligible for this visa, one must have been illegally present within the U.S. before January 1, 2007.

• Fees and Penalties: To apply, an alien seeking Z-1 status must be currently employed and pay fees and penalties totaling $5,000 (less for derivative Z’s) to be eligible for a green card under the merit-based system.

• Probationary, the Permanent Z Status: Once an applicant submits a completed application, fingerprints, and is cleared by one-day background checks he will receive probationary benefits which can eventually be converted to a Z nonimmigrant status after all background checks are clear and the triggers set forth in Title I are achieved.

• LPR Status: A Z-1 nonimmigrant may adjust status to lawful permanent residence after the family backlog under Title V is eliminated if the Z applicant:
o Satisfies the merit requirements in the points schedule set forth in Title V.
o files the application for adjustment in the Z-1’s country of origin and
o pays a penalty of $4,000.

• DREAM ACT: Individuals under the age of 30 that were brought to the United States out of their own control as a minor are eligible to receive their green card after 3 years rather than 8.

Title VII
Title VII includes a number of miscellaneous provisions involving assimilation, including increased funding for the office of citizenship and integration ($100M)


Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He previously served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at

Back to top

MS-13 gang seeks to unite nationwide
The Washington Times
July 25, 2007

By Sara A. Carter - The international street gang MS-13 is unifying its violent members across the U.S., including the D.C. area, attempting to strengthen its criminal operation by creating a single organization.

"Traditionally, the gang consisted of loosely affiliated groups known as cliques; however, law enforcement officials have reported increased coordination of criminal activity among Mara Salvatrucha cliques in the Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and New York metropolitan areas," states a confidential letter sent out earlier this month from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Illinois.

"MS-13 is attempting to become a unified criminal enterprise operating under one leadership."

The Washington Times has obtained a copy of the letter and an Army intelligence presentation on the growth of MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha.

Federal law-enforcement agents say the gang is adopting tactics used by major Mexican and Colombian drug-trafficking groups and has become a gun-for-hire for many major Central and South American drug-trafficking cartels.

"Indications that previously independent cliques are forming alliances with other MS-13 cliques, as well as with other gangs to facilitate criminal activity, further heighten the threat," the letter continued. "It would be dangerous to look at MS-13 as just another street gang."

Agents for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) say that the gangs' tactics are terroristic but question whether the small groups can unify under one leader.

"These gang members are some of the most brutal people we have ever encountered," said a DEA intelligence officer on the condition of anonymity. "Whether they are unifying, well that's more difficult to tell. In some cases yes and in other cases no.

"But a unified criminal enterprise between all groups — it could happen. We'll have to wait and see. What we know is that they're getting stronger."

According to the DEA, the gangs' major source of income is narcotics and arms trafficking. Human trafficking and extortion also are becoming lucrative enterprises for them, the DEA agent said.

MS-13, which began as a Los Angeles street gang, is responsible for thousands of killings and mutilations in the United States, Mexico and Central America. MS-13 rival gang Mara 18, based in El Salvador, is just as violent and recruited more members internationally, said detective Patrick Word of Gaithersburg, president of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Gang Investigators Network.

"While showing some regional alignment between cliques," Mr. Word said. "MS-13 is still showing no signs that it is unifying nationally or transnationally ... There is just no one leader or even a group of leaders."

But others on the federal level disagree. The letter and presentation suggest that MS-13 has an estimated 96,000 members internationally.

"Mara Salvatrucha members typically are Salvadoran nationals or first-generation Salvadoran-Americans; however, many cliques in the United States now accept members from Belize, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Mexico," the letter stated.

There are an estimated 20,000 members associated with 125 cliques in the U.S. alone. As of 2003, DEA and FBI officials have located groups in 30 states, plus the District.

Although the group began as a small street gang in Los Angeles, it spread quickly to El Salvador as many illegal alien members were deported from the U.S. for criminal activity. Many of those deported began to recruit new members throughout Central America.

The viciousness of the gang killings is displayed in a U.S. Army intelligence presentation which included graphic photos. One photograph shows the Roman numerals for 18 carved into, and then slashed over, the severed head of a Salvadoran woman suspected of Mara 18 ties. A second photo shows a dismembered baby lying in brush.

"They can function as networks, with extensive transnational linkages," the Army presentation stated. "Their internal functions include recruiting, logistics, attacks, intelligence [collecting and propaganda], and activities including murders, drugs, extortion and others."

The Salvadoran Policia National Civil recognize MS-13 as "organized crime" and they leave death in their wake with hundreds, if not thousands, of killings from El Salvador to the U.S. annually.

On Monday, Oscar Ramos Velasquez of Baltimore, an MS-13 gang member, was sentenced to 37 years in prison, followed by five years of supervised release for conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, and conspiracy to commit assaults with a deadly weapon.

"This sentence should serve as a warning to young people who are tempted to join gangs like MS-13, that you may pay for that decision for the rest of your life," said U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein. "Federal, state and local authorities will continue to work together to combat violent gangs in Maryland."

Velasquez is one of 14 MS-13 members who have been convicted in this Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act conspiracy case.

MS-13 is also the largest gang in Northern Virginia and groups associated with the gang are growing in Montgomery County, Md., as well, said Virginia state Sen. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Fairfax County Republican.

"At my level of government, what frustrates me the most is that so many people stand in the way of tough policies against illegal immigration," Mr. Cuccinelli said. "They either ignore it or don't understand the connection to public safety, security and the community's well-being."

Back to top

Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall

You Say You Want A Reconquista?

Is "reconquista" for real? Are there really ethnic separatist movements in the United States today?

Some people scoff at the whole idea, confident that all immigrants will assimilate, and don’t want to turn the U.S. into the country from whence they came.

Others write off any talk about reconquista as a right-wing anti-immigrant fantasy.

More people are waking up, however, to see that there is more afoot than simply the isolated rantings of some radical professors (which  is certainly part of it.)

Some rather concrete incidents are helping to wake people up. Such as the raising of the Mexican flag at the Montebello High School. Or the signs borne by marchers in pro-illegal alien demonstrations, signs that read "If you think I’m illegal because I’m a Mexican learn the true history because I’m in my homeland", "This is stolen land", "Stolen Continent" and "We are indigenous! The only owners of this continent."

The sheer arrogance and hubris of anti-American irredentists is alerting more and more Americans to the fact that, yes, there are people within our borders who don’t want to be part of the U.S., who think they have a better claim on the land than we do, and who aren’t too secretive about it.

But, what did we expect? You import millions of people from Mexico, the only country with an irredentist claim on the U.S.A . Then you encourage them not to assimilate. And, when they break your immigration law, you give them an amnesty. Our leaders invited this, and promoted it.

There really are irredentist/revanchist sentiments in among Mexicans in the U.S.A., and this is bound to grow and get worse. It will make Canada’s Quebec problem look trivial by comparison.

Nevertheless, there is not, as some people imagine, one reconquista movement. All these revanchists/irredentists are not marching lockstep on the same sheet of music. On the contrary, the various Chicano/Mexican/Hispanic/Latino/reconquista/ Aztlan activists are indeed in agreement that that their people (variously defined) are an oppressed nationality that needs liberation. But there are different currents with distinct ideologies. All would break up the U.S. or transform it, but they represent contradictory, even competing, visions of the future.

In fact, Mexico should realize that stirring up things in the U.S. could be counterproductive. Several of these irredentist currents are just as much threat to Mexican sovereignty as they are to ours!

Let’s consider some of the basic separationist movements.

  • "Reconquista" specifically calls for formal return of Mexico’s lost territories (what we call the U.S. Southwest) to Mexico.

The classic argument for reconquista was spelled out 25 years ago. In 1982, Mexican columnist Carlos Loret de Mola visited Los Angeles, California. He was intrigued by the burgeoning Mexican community there (which was much smaller than today’s). Loret de Mola saw beyond the situation, and overcoming the traditional Mexican embarrassment over emigration, saw it as an opportunity for reconquest.

In his Excelsior column entitled The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own, Loret de Mola exulted that

"A peaceful mass of people, hardworking, carries out slowly and patiently an unstoppable invasion…You cannot give me a similar example of such a large migratory wave by an ant-like multitude, stubborn, unarmed, and carried on in the face of the most powerful and best-armed nation on earth. They have marked social and family characteristics, agility for adapting to the environment and for conquering a great region, once primitive and virgin, that belonged to our fatherland, and we lost it. But it seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot, nor requiring the least diplomatic action, by means of a steady, spontaneous, and uninterrupted occupation….The territory lost in the 19th century by a Mexico torn by internal strife and under centralist dictatorships led by paranoid chiefs, like Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, seems to be restoring itself through a humble people who go on settling various zones that once were ours on the old maps….Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those who deserve it.

What Loret de Mola spells out here is a re-conquest of the U.S. Southwest by demography. Other Mexican writers have expressed similar sentiments, more recently Elena Poniatowska, who while visiting Venezuela in 2001, was quoted by a newspaper there

"The Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska affirmed today that Mexico is presently recovering the territories lost in the past to the United States, thanks to emigration. ‘The people of the poor, the lice-ridden and the cucarachas are advancing in the United States, a country that wants to speak Spanish because 33.4 million Hispanics impose their culture’ affirmed Poniatowska …"" El Imparcial" (July 3rd, 2001), 

In Mexico, it’s writers and journalists who promote reconquista. Mexican politicians rarely mention it.

What the Mexican government does, however, is encourage and foster illegal immigration in various ways, and encourage Mexicans in the U.S., even dual citizens and Mexican-Americans, to identify with Mexico, not the U.S. Mexican government activity is not limited to the Southwest. Mexican consulates will meddle just as readily outside the Southwest as in it.

A formal annexation of the Southwest by Mexico is not implausible, but another option would be a form of condominium, in which the U.S. and Mexico share sovereignty. The U.S. would be responsible for maintaining the territory, Mexico would control the immigration policy, most of the people would be loyal to Mexico, and the U.S. would foot the bill.

  • The "Aztlan" irredentist movement was cooked up north of the border by Chicano activists in the ferment of the 1960s. Many people suppose that reconquista and Aztlan movement are synonyms, but they are not

Aztlan was the homeland of the Aztec people, but there’s no consensus over where Aztlan was. In Mexico, they do not refer to the U.S. Southwest as Aztlan. Prominent Mexican archaeologist Eduardo Matos Moctezuma believes Aztlan was in Central Mexico (far from the Southwest) and the state of Nayarit (Pacific Coast) includes Aztlan on its state coat of arms believing that Aztlan was in Nayarit. My Mexican wife never heard of the Aztlan / Southwest identification until I told her about it.

Chicano activists say that Aztlan was in the U.S. Southwest. They may be right about that part. Linguistically you could make a case for it. There are various Indian tribes in the region, including the Comanche, Shoshone and Hopi, who speak languages of the greater Uto-Aztecan language family. Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs, was also a branch of that family. (For the perspective of Comanche David Yeagley on the matter, read here).

Even so, that’s a flimsy reason to lay claim to the region. In the first place, all Mexicans are not descended from the Aztecs. In the second place, just because a person’s ancestors lived or passed through a region, doesn’t give his descendents title over it.

The principal (though not only) organization teaching the Aztlan doctrine is MEChA, acronym for Movimiento Estudiantil de Chicanos de Aztlan.

This organization exists and has received tax dollars on university campuses and high schools in the Southwest—and even outside the region.

MEChA has gained notoriety in recent years, as its first generation has come of age politically. California politicos Antonio Villaraigosa and Cruz Bustamante were MEChistas during their college days, and have publicly refused to repudiate their connection.

Defenders of MEChA claim that it is not irredentist; it’s just a pro-Chicano organization. Yet, its philosophical statement presents it as an organization "founded on the principles of self-determination for the liberation of our people…" See the infamous

Plan Espiritual de Aztlán


In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.


We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent


Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán.

This has never been repudiated. Why not?

  • Another break-up American proposal that has surfaced in recent years is that of the Republica del Norte, which is distinct from both Reconquista and Aztlan.

This scheme is the brainchild of University of New Mexico Chicano Studies Professor Charles Truxillo, who calls it an inevitability.

Professor Truxillo doesn’t want Mexico to reconquer the Southwest. He does want the Southwest to secede from the U.S. He also predicts that the northern states of Mexico will secede from Mexico. Then the ex-U.S. southwest and the ex-northern Mexico will together form the Republica del Norte (republic of the North), with its capital at Los Angeles.

Truxillo foresees these changes happening peacefully, through demographic and political reasons. In 2000, he predicted it would come about by 2080. "I may not live to see the Hispanic homeland, but by the end of the century my students' kids will live in it, sovereign and free." To further the development of the new republic, Truxillo is developing a "cadre of intellectuals" to work out the details in the plan.[ Southwest shall secede from U.S., prof predicts, by Frank Zoretich, Albuquerque Tribune, January 31, 2000]

Truxillo also predicts that eastern Mexico will also secede to form the "Mayan Republic". So in Truxillo’s scenario, not only will Mexico not gain territory, but it will actually wind up considerably smaller than it is now.

Here’s a map of Professor Truxillo’s prediction .You might file it away to refer to in 2080!

Truxillo foresees more breaking up throughout the continent: Quebec breaking off from Canada and the U.S. breaking up into various pieces. Truxillo envisions Mexico breaking up into three pieces: the northern part, that will join the Republica del Norte, the eastern part, which will secede and be called Mayaland, and central Mexico, which will remain part of Mexico.

Another interesting point. Remember the outcry about Samuel Huntington? Well, Truxillo agrees with Huntington, and, like others, views the conflict between Mexico and the U.S. being continuation of the conflict between Elizabethan England and Spain of the Spanish Armada days.

The Mexica movement doesn’t fit into any of the previous categories I have mentioned. They’re not into the Aztlan stuff, they don’t support the Republica del Norte. And they don’t want Mexico to reconquer the U.S. Southwest, because they don’t like Mexico either.

The Mexica claim to speak for all the indigenous people of North America—from Alaska to Panama—whom they refer to as the "Nican Tlaca" and the continent as Anahuac.

The movement’s leader is Olin Tezcatlipoca (born Leo Guerra, but he wanted a more indigenous-sounding name). This movement rejects the labels "Hixpanic" and Latino as being European based.

This movement does not recognize any borders on the North American continent, and they reject the legitimacy of any of the 10 governments on the continent, including the U.S. and Mexico. They consider all of them to be European transplants and thus illegitimate.

"We totally reject all illegal European colonial squatter occupation borders on our continent" say the Mexica, and "No European borders on our continent".

Another quote: "We are not illegals anywhere on our continent. Europeans are illegals everywhere on our continent." "Europeans can call themselves ‘Canadian’ or ‘American’ but they are still trespassing on our continent."

The reject the legitimacy of the Mexican government as being white-ruled, calling Mexico’s leaders "Mexico City Criollos [White people]"

The Mexica movement exhorts readers of its website to

"remember that Mexico, ‘Central America’ and ‘South America’ are still controlled by whites (European descent people). And don’t tell us to go back where we came from, this whole continent is where we came from, Europeans came from Europe, so if you want to disrespect us, you should go back where you came from and take your white supremacy there."

And, unlike some other protestors, you don’t see Mexica demonstrators brandishing posters of Che Guevara—they reject Guevara as being too European.

The Mexica solution is to work to develop indigenous consciousness. By indigenous they mean descendents of the people who were here on the continent before Europeans arrived, including mestizos.  Since the movement doesn’t recognize any North American borders, it teaches that any person defined as indigenous has the right to go anywhere he wants in North America. White people, meanwhile, must go back to Europe.

One more thing about the Mexica folks—they want to leave the U.S. Constitution intact while they go about their plan. Another example of how seditionists use our own constitution against us!

  • And here’s yet another possibility, which is maybe the most likely of all. What if, instead of the U.S. breaking up, it just became another Spanish-speaking country?

That’s what Univision’s Jorge Ramos predicts will take place in about 2100. Other activists who don’t subscribe to a specific doctrine (reconquista, Aztlan, Republica del Norte or Mexica movement) seem to be thinking along these lines also.

In other words, instead of working to secede from the U.S., why couldn’t unassimilated Hispanics just immigrate and multiply until they could just take over the whole country?

Under that scenario, the borders of the U.S.A. wouldn’t change. The U.S. would just be transformed into a Latin American country.

Yes, these movements and the sentiments they reflect are real. But of course the future may not turn out exactly how these movements envisage it.

What about the historic white, English-speaking majority of the United States of America? Does that majority have any say in the matter? I mean, if all these Mexican, Hispanic and Indigenous activists can boldly plan our nation’s future, what about the historic majority of the country? Or has it already been bypassed by history? Will it speak?

Given current political, social and demographic trends, the future of the nation, and its nature, will be up for grabs in the next few years.

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) resides in Mexico, with a legal permit issued him by the Mexican government. Allan recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here his "Dispatches from Iraq" are archived here his website is here.

Back to top