Please visit our YouTube, Twitter and Facebook pages.

1. Obama, Calderon to meet
2. GA House set to vote
3. SC Senate begins debate
4. TX considers enforcement
5. UT introduces bill

1.
President Calderon at the White House: Immigration and More on the Agenda
By Eve Zibel
FoxNews.com, March 2, 2011

Mexican president Felipe Calderon will visit the White House Thursday for his second visit to Washington since President Obama took office, and with the recent death of I.C.E. agent Jaime Zapata fresh in the memories of many Americans, it's possible the issue of U.S. agents carrying guns inside of Mexico, as well as illegal immigration and the war against drugs could be some of the topics on the agenda.

Earlier this year, I.C.E. agent Zapata was shot and killed in Mexico City, after being targeted by drug gangs. The Mexican government does not allow U.S. law enforcement officials to carry weapons, but after Zapata's death many administration officials are questioning the policy. Both Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have mentioned in recent days that the policy should be examined. Senior Administration officials wouldn't comment on the topic, and punted on whether or not it will be discussed Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the on-going issue of illegal immigration continues to haunt the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship. The White House says it's a "topic that has been high on the agenda" each time the two leaders have met and "undoubtedly" the two presidents will discuss immigration. But, the administration is aware the issue can't be solved at only one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. A Senior Administration Official made clear, again, the president's commitment to passing legislation "in a bi-partisan fashion" and in a way that holds everyone from lawmakers to employers to immigrants responsible for their actions.
. . .
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/02/president-calderon-white-ho...

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

2.
House set to vote on major bill targeting illegal immigration
By Jeremy Redmon
The Atlanta Journal Constitution, March 2, 2011

Republican state lawmakers weren’t kidding last year when they vowed to take on illegal immigration in Georgia.

In recent months, they have introduced no fewer than eight bills seeking to crack down on a long list of problems tied to illegal immigrants.

And in the process, they have managed to rile a long list of constituencies, including the state’s agricultural, landscaping, commercial building and restaurant industries; groups representing hospitals and local government and school officials; civil and immigrant rights groups; and religious leaders.

Critics are hoping the weight of opposition will doom some of the legislation. Lawmakers have already softened some bills in the face of stout opposition.

Supporters argue that the state must act because the federal government has failed to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. They say illegal immigrants are burdening hospitals, public schools and jails and taking jobs from Georgians amid high unemployment.

Those supporters racked up a significant victory Monday when a key legislative panel passed a bill partly patterned after Arizona’s tough new law aimed at illegal immigration. House Bill 87 is scheduled for a vote on the House floor Thursday.

Among other things, HB 87 would require many businesses to use a free federal program called E-Verify to confirm that new employees are eligible to work in the U.S. Other bills would ban illegal immigrants from attending state colleges and collecting unemployment and workers’ compensation benefits. Another bill would require school and hospital officials to count the number of illegal immigrants they serve.

As one of several people who testified in support of HB 87, Jan Barton, a retired technical consultant from Marietta, addressed the range of groups that oppose the illegal immigration bills.

“Who do our legislators want to listen to, the citizens or the special-interest groups?” Barton said.

Opponents complain the measures could burden businesses with costly new regulations, deter immigrant workers from coming to Georgia and damage the state’s economy.

The Georgia Hospital Association, for example, opposes a provision in House Bill 296 that would require hospitals to report to the state how many of their patients are illegal immigrants. The bill would also require the hospitals to report what treatment these people received, the cost and dates of that treatment. and whether and how they paid for their care. That information would be published annually on the state Department of Community Health's website.

Federal law, however, requires hospitals to treat all emergency room patients, regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay. A spokesman for the hospital association said his organization is concerned HB 296 could run afoul of that federal law.

“We feel like this is more of a policing function that hospitals really have no business being a part of,” GHA spokesman Kevin Bloye said.

The Georgia School Boards Association has raised similar concerns over another provision in HB 296 that would require school officials to count the number of illegal immigrants they serve. The state Board of Education's rules prohibit school officials from inquiring about the legal status of students in accordance with a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. That ruling says school districts must educate all children regardless of their immigration status.

In an interview this week, the bill’s sponsor said the identities of hospital patients will not be sent to the state.

“We must not lose sight of who we work for here. It’s the taxpayers. They have a right to know what it is costing to provide service to those who are here illegally,” said Republican Rep. Josh Clark of Buford.
. . .
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/house-set-to-vote-858...

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

3.
Immigration bill debate considers effect on law enforcement
By Tim Smith
Greenville News (SC), March 3, 2011

Detractors call it unconstitutional or “do nothing” legislation, while its chief Senate sponsor said he hopes it will make phones “ring off the hook” in federal immigration enforcement offices.

State Senate debate has begun on a bill spawned by Arizona's attempt to crack down on illegal immigration, and the South Carolina General Assembly shows no signs of quickly adopting the legislation.

The South Carolina bill would allow law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally when they are stopped for other reasons.

A state driver's license, military ID or passport would release them from further questioning. The bill also would shorten the time businesses have, from five days to three days, to verify the status of new employees.

Some senators questioned the need for the legislation and said it is opposed by many in law enforcement.

But Sen. Larry Martin, a Pickens Republican who is championing the bill, told the Senate on Wednesday that it won't burden law enforcement.

“We're not asking them to do the impossible,” he said. “We're not asking them to enforce federal law.”

Sen. Gerald Malloy, a Darlington County Democrat, said he is torn on whether to vote on the measure because of opposition from law enforcement. He questioned whether lawmakers should allow more time for lawmakers' last immigration reform to “percolate.”

Martin said the bill is designed to make local law enforcement officers call federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to verify the status of suspects they face after stopping them for other matters or investigating accidents or crimes.

“I hope their phones ring off the hooks,” he said.

Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat, argued that the bill would be unconstitutional and invasive to ordinary citizens. He described it as “Arizona light.”

“You better start carrying passports,” he said. “If you can't show you are a citizen, you are in trouble.”
. . .
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110303/NEWS/303030012/Immigrat...

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

4.
Texas mulls Arizona-style illegal immigration law
By Jay Root
THe Associated Press, March 2, 2011

State and local police officers would be allowed — but not required — to help enforce federal immigration laws under a compromise plan working its way through the Texas Legislature.

The bill is a far cry from some of the harsh crackdowns some lawmakers proposed, but it still sparked often emotional testimony in a House committee Wednesday night. Dozens of supporters and detractors packed a hearing room outside the Texas Capitol, eager for a chance to air their views despite the late hour.

Supporters generally said the legislation would help police identify illegal immigrants who commit crimes in Texas. Critics said it would lead to racial profiling, detract from real police work and give license to rogue agents who want to harass immigrants.

The bill's author, Republican Rep. Burt Solomons, said it would prohibit so-called "sanctuary cities" and law enforcement entities from adopting policies that keep police and criminal investigators from providing immigration enforcement assistance. Republican Gov. Rick Perry put the issue on the fast track at the Capitol after making it a major theme of his 2010 re-election campaign.

Unlike Arizona's new immigration law, parts of which are being challenged in court, the legislation known as House Bill 12 does not require police officers to inquire about immigration status or enforce federal laws when people are detained. But the bill would not allow any law enforcement agency from adopting policies that prohibit them from doing so. Solomons said his proposal would establish a "uniform consistent policy" across the state.

"There's nothing in this bill that requires a police officer to ask one question that they don't think they need to ask," Solomons said. "We're not mandating anything."

It would allow police to ask about immigration status, maintain records of it and work with federal agents on immigration matters when people are "lawfully detained for the investigation of a criminal offense or arrested." Other legislation similar to the Arizona law was also proposed, but Perry's office has been working with Solomons on the compromise bill. The legislation was left pending in a House committee Wednesday night, but other bills were being debated, including one that would make English the official language and create a state database of illegal immigrants arrested in Texas.
. . .
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7454293.html

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

5.
Utah bill to partner with Mexico
By David Montero
The Salt Lake Tribune, March 2, 2011

Two lawmakers who have been at odds with each other on immigration legislation stood together Wednesday to jointly introduce a migrant worker bill that seeks to begin a partnership between Utah and a state in Mexico.

The bill, HB466, is sponsored by Rep. Stephen Sandstrom and co-sponsored by Sen. Curt Bramble and would allow businesses in Utah who need labor to directly solicit it through Nuevo Leon. The approach would work within federal guidelines where legal visas are distributed by the federal government with the state acting essentially as middleman.

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who helped draft the bill, said that while the proposal didn’t address the estimated 110,000 undocumented immigrants currently in Utah, it would create a legal pipeline for workers to fill the needs of employers who can’t fill jobs with citizens here.

Shurtleff said the proposal directly targets the primary reason immigrants come to the United States — work.

“They are waiting and ready to come to this country,” Shurtleff said. “But they need a portal.”

Sandstrom said he wanted to run the bill because he supports immigration and felt the bill was a legal way to do so. He said he doesn’t support various guest worker bills that require a federal waiver to begin employing those already here without documents.

By working with Bramble, Sandstrom said it was also a chance to show people that “while we disagree on some issues... we do welcome immigrants.”

The bill would establish a 25-member panel to oversee the process, including representatives from the governor’s office as well as state-level elected officials and members of the public.

It would run for a year, after which Shurtleff said it would be reviewed. If it is successful, backers would seek to run the program for any country not on the State Department’s list of terrorist countries.

Sen. Luz Robles, who is also pitching SB60 as a pilot program that seeks to allow those in the state to be accounted for and documented so they can work legally, said this bill was “a state solution that is a reality.” Robles’ bill is awaiting a chance to be heard on the Senate floor. It has been criticized for being unconstitutional — though she said she thinks the federal government would grant a waiver to run it as a pilot program.
. . .
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51349338-76/bill-bramble-federal-immig...