Please visit our YouTube, Twitter and Facebook pages.

1. House expands E-Verify inquiry
2. IN bill passes committee
3. Seven bills filed in FL
4. AZ bill to be reintroduced
5. AZ rancher to fight court

1.
As lawmakers look at E-Verify, businesses fear expansion of immigration program
By Shankar Vedantam
The Washington Post, February 10, 2011

In an early indicator of how congressional Republicans will legislate on immigration, House GOP leaders are expanding an inquiry into an enforcement program that allows employers to check the immigration status of employees.

The E-Verify program has long been championed by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's immigration panel, which will hold a hearing on it Thursday.

Many business owners believe that Gallegly and other House Republicans want to make E-Verify, currently a voluntary program for companies, mandatory. Critics of such a move, many of them farmers, warn that it could destabilize the agricultural economy, which is heavily dependent on undocumented immigrants, and jeopardize millions of jobs held by American citizens that are upstream and downstream of farm labor.

Supporters of E-Verify say that, with minimal effort, the program ensures that jobs are filled only by U.S. citizens and those foreigners who are legally authorized to work.

After he was named chairman of the immigration subcommittee, Gallegly noted that "making [E-Verify] universally mandatory would ease the cumbersome and easily manipulated I-9 process employers now use to screen employees. It would also greatly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the American workforce."

Gallegly was referring to the I-9 form, which employers must have job-seekers fill out. It requires documentation, such as a Social Security number, that the applicants are eligible to work in this country. With E-Verify, employers can run the information through federal databases to confirm it or identify people who are not legally authorized to work.

"I have a real mixed reaction from my members," said Randel Johnson, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Some find it workable, and others do not."

"With some companies, it is the logistical problem of having a computer on your construction site" to run the online queries, Johnson added. "If you are running a small business, there is aversion to a new system that will make things more complicated."

The fast food company Chipotle Mexican Grill was recently asked to turn over I-9 information about employees at 60 Washington and Virginia restaurants to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The chain was forced to fire suspected illegal workers at its Minnesota restaurants after a similar probe. Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said that restaurants in Arizona and the Carolinas currently use the E-Verify system and that the company is weighing whether to expand its participation in the program nationwide.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said illegal workers are taking jobs that could help reduce unemployment among legal residents.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/09/AR201102...

********
********

2.
Senate panel passes bill to crack down on illegal immigration
By Mary Beth Schneider
Indianapolis Star, February 10, 2011

After more than four hours of sometimes emotional testimony, a Senate committee late Wednesday approved a bill that would require state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws.

Those who back Senate Bill 590, which is modeled on a controversial Arizona law, argued that the federal government has failed to do its job, leaving the nation vulnerable to terrorists and criminals and forcing states to spend millions of tax dollars to educate illegal immigrants and provide them with health care and other services.

And, several supporters said, employers are taking advantage of illegal residents, giving them jobs for lower wages and taking work away from citizens.

Those who oppose the bill argued that an Arizona-style law would lead to racial profiling, with police asking people -- based on their skin color, broken English or a foreign-sounding name -- to prove they are here legally.

Opponents also said the bill would have staggering costs: millions to enforce federal law and house those arrested, millions to defend the law from likely court challenges, and millions in lost economic development when the state becomes known as one that doesn't welcome foreigners.

The bill now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration, because it is expected to cost the Indiana State Police as much as $5 million a year to enforce.
. . .
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110210/NEWS05/102100396/1001/business/Senate-panel-passes-bill-crack-down-illegal-immigration?odyssey=nav|head

********
********

3.
Immigration bills advance despite warnings from business lobbyists and immigrant advocates
By Jim Turner and Jenna Buzzacco-Foerster
TC Palm, February 10, 2011

State Rep. William Snyder and Sen. Mike Bennett both agree Florida shouldn’t be dealing with immigration policies.

But since they believe the federal government hasn’t done enough to enforce immigration policies, they’re trying to get Florida out in front of the growing national debate regarding undocumented people on American soil.

Already, seven bills have been filed for the 2011 session focusing on a wide range of immigration issues, with the most attention going to efforts by Mike Bennett and William Snyder that would make it a state crime if non-U.S. residents fail to carry alien registration documents — that range from green cards to visas and passports — and requires businesses to use a federal database to check the immigration status of new hires.

And while Republican leaders in Tallahassee appear to be easing away from their campaign rhetoric to crack down on illegal immigration in Florida by bringing in the hard-core enforcement effort enacted last year in Arizona, the efforts by Rep. William Snyder, R-Stuart, and Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Sarasota, continue to move forward.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and immigrant-rights groups have called the bills unconstitutional, saying racial and ethnic profiling will be the primary means for law enforcement to surmise if an individual is not a U.S. resident.

Still, William Snyder and Mike Bennett say they are trying to push forward a debate — demanded by constituents — on the issue.

And as their bills move forward, Snyder’s is expected to have a brighter future because he chairs the first House committee reviewing the proposal, while senators — including Bennett himself — have expressed doubts about Bennett’s effort.

Plus, Paul Ortiz, an immigration expert at the University of Florida, said the way Bennett’s bill has been written, compared to what Snyder has so far proposed, is “incredibly vague.”

“The argument is that these types of laws, no matter what, would increase (racial profiling),” Ortiz said. “It doesn’t matter if race is not a standard here. We all know race is going to be perhaps the most important identifier here. But what does an undocumented person look like? That’s the crux of this.”

But Eugene Milhizer, the dean of Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, a conservative, private school, said while an initial draft of the Arizona law was “largely discriminatory,” the current law prohibits profiling.

“There has to be an independent basis apart from questions (about immigration status) for the police-citizen contact, like being pulled over for speeding ...” he said. “If they’re pulled over for an independent legitimate basis … police are entitled to request proof of immigration status. That is just enforcing the federal law.”

After reviewing the proposed Senate bill, Milhizer said it appeared “to be similar to the Arizona law in the most important aspects.”

“I don’t see any Fourth Amendment problems here,” Milhizer said. “Of course the law might be subject to abuse, but this is true of all laws and the proposed Florida statute specifically prohibits racial profiling.”
. . .
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2011/feb/10/seven-fla-immigration-bills-filed...

********
********

4.
Ariz. Birthright Immigration Bill to be Reintroduced
By Stephanie Samuel
The Christian Post, February 10, 2011

An Arizona lawmaker plans to reintroduce a state bill that would deny citizenship to the “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants after the bill stalled in a Senate committee on Tuesday.

State Sen. Ron Gould (R) said he plans to reintroduce two Arizona bills disqualifying the children of illegal immigrants from being legal citizens of the state and the United States to a committee next week for a vote. Gould cancelled the vote originally slated for Tuesday.

The two bills introduced by Republicans provide law enforcement tools for immigration laws and reduce state costs related to illegal immigrants. One proposed bill would define Arizona citizenship - and by default U.S. citizenship - as requiring at least one parent to prove he/she is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident.

The other bill would set up a system under which birth certificates would note whether the birth parents could prove citizenship. Neighboring states, according to the bill, would agree to honor each other's notations.

Gould explained his decision to move the vote by saying that the new vote will allow voters to know which lawmakers supported and opposed the measure.

The Arizona birthright citizenship proposal is controversial because it would change the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The proposed legislation was subjected to a lengthy discussion among visitors and Senate committee members who peppered the bill’s supporters with questions.

John Eastman, a Chapman University law professor, argued for more than an hour that there is no legal basis for the current practice of giving citizenship to all children based on the location of their birth.

Eastman said passing the two measures proposed by Gould would finally give the nation's high court a chance to squarely address the scope of the 14th Amendment.

Sen. Adam Driggs (R) pointed out that the Arizona citizenship proposal raises a host of unanswered questions.
. . .
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20110209/ariz-birthright-immigratio...

********
********

5.
Arizona Rancher Will Fight Court Order To Pay Damages to Undocumented Immigrants
By Elizabeth Llorente
Fox News Latino, February 9, 2011

An Arizona rancher who was ordered to pay nearly $90,000 in punitive damages to undocumented immigrants he confronted, with a gun, is going to request a rehearing, his attorney said.

“We’ll be filing a motion for a rehearing,” said David T. Hardy, who is representing Roger Barnett. “He feels he got screwed. I have some sympathy for that view.”

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court verdict ordering Barnett to pay the damages for the 2004 incident, in which the plaintiffs claimed that he approached them with his dog and said he’d shoot them if they tried to leave.

The court said that an Arizona law permitted a person to threaten to use – or actually use – physical force against someone else when that person believes it is necessary for protection “against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.”

But the court said that Barnett held them at gunpoint even after becoming aware that no one in the group of 16 men and women was armed, and so he could not use the argument of self-defense.

“Basically they said he took his pistol out and kept his pistol out longer than necessary,” Hardy said.

In fact, Hardy added, Barnett put his gun away after realizing that no one in the group was armed, and after feeling he was not in physical danger.

“What they [judges] missed was that once he saw they were harmless, he holstered his gun,” Hardy said. “When the Border Patrol showed up, [the pistol] was in his holster.”

David Hinojosa, southwest regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, which represented the plaintiffs in the suit against Barnett, said he is confident the Ninth Circuit Court will deny a rehearing.

"He pointed the barrel of the gun at every single one of those immigrants," said Hinojosa, who was co-counsel in the case. "He apparently didn't remember yelling racial epithets at the people, or making one lady break down to the point of crying and praying to be let go."

"The jury believed the immigrants, they didn't believe him," he said. "It's just a simple delay tactic for Barnett rather than just paying the debt."
. . .
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/02/09/arizona-rancher-fig...