Please visit our YouTube, Twitter and Facebook pages.

1. Crime visa admints 32k
2. UT takes unexpected approach
3. CO bill would change bail
4. AZ sheriffs' controversy
5. AZ proponents look forward

1.
The 'crime visa': How 18,000 illegal immigrants got legal status by being the victim of a crime
The Daily Mail, March 20, 2011

More than 18,000 illegal immigrants, plus 14,000 of their relatives, have gained U.S. visas under a new law since 2009 because they were victims of crime.

While many immigrants may still be unaware of the U visa, word is spreading fast in some communities.

The controversial rules state that if you are a victim of crime and you cooperate, or are 'helpful' with authorities, then you stand a good chance of getting a U visa.

Since 2009, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has issued 18,654 and rejected 5,639 U visas — a 77 per cent approval rate.

Congress has put a ceiling on the number available annually at 10,000 and this year the USCIS looks on course easily to reach that figure, having received 3,331 applications in the first quarter.

Supporters of the visa says it helps in fighting crime. All too often crimes ranging from robbery and domestic violence to rape and murder have gone unreported because the victims were in the U.S. illegally.

The visa rewards people who may have worked hard, they say, and it helps keep families united because relatives of the crime victim can also get the papers saying they can stay in America.

Critics of the visa say it has created a legal minefield that is being increasingly played out in courtrooms across the country.

They also argue that it is wrong to be writing out so many visas at a time when so many Americans cannot get a job.

Both sides would agree on the curious irony that what could be the worst thing to happen to you, being a crime victim in a land where you are trying to stay under the radar, could actually turn out to be the best thing that could happen to you.
. . .
Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank, attacks the provision that says crime victims can apply for a U visa even after they've been officially told they're being deported.

'It's their last-ditch Hail Mary pass to avoid being sent home,' she said.

Victims can get legal status for their spouses and children, even those living in another country. Victims under 21 can sponsor their parents and unmarried siblings under 18. In cases of murder or manslaughter, spouses and children can apply as 'indirect victims,' even if they didn't witness the crime.
. . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367986/Crime-visa-How-18k-illeg...

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

2.
Utah Surprises with Practical Approach to Illegal Immigration
By Jennifer Riley
The Christian Post, March 20, 2011

The very red state of Utah surprised quite a few people this week when Republican Governor Gary Herbert signed into laws immigration bills considered liberal.

Among the most controversial moves was allowing illegal immigrants to obtain legal residency through a two-year guest worker permit if a background check concludes the applicant has committed no serious crimes. But applicants that entered the country illegally would need to pay a fine of up to $2,500 for the worker pass.

Under this new policy, which can only take effect if the Obama administration gives the green light, illegal immigrants would be recognized by Utah as legal residents even though other states would still consider them illegal. The Utah government is trying to negotiate with the Obama administration to allow employers in the state to hire illegal immigrants – a federal crime, according to the Los Angeles Times.

"Utah did the right thing. We did the hard thing," Gov. Herbert, who signed the bills on Tuesday, stated on his website. "Today I challenge our federal delegation and those who work alongside them in Washington, D.C.: It is time to get off the sidelines and have a meaningful dialogue about immigration in this country."

Another important policy change in Utah is softening an Arizona law that allows law enforcement officers to question people's legal residency status. In Arizona, police can ask for verification of a person's legal status if he or she breaks even the most minor rules, including jaywalking. But under the new Utah law, police can only question someone's legal status if the person commits a felony or serious crime.

The new immigration laws in Utah reflect a document called the "Utah Compact" – supported by Utah businesses, the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce, civic groups, and the Mormon Church – which calls for immigration policies that care for the family and is compassionate. It also calls for using law enforcement officers to fight crimes rather than illegal immigrants.

"I want more Christian news!"

Utah's more progressive immigration laws despite its highly Republican voting base can be explained by the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and local businesses. Mormons, who make up about 60 percent of the population, are mostly sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants having come in contact with many people from different cultures during their mandatory missionary stints.

And Utah businesses have seen how Arizona's harsh immigration laws have had a detrimental effect on the state's economy, with businesses protesting against the tough laws by canceling conferences and conventions in the state.

Given the intense pressure against Arizona's hardline immigration policies, a bill that would deny U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants failed to pass on Thursday. Several Republican state senators voted against the bill.

The issue of illegal immigration has become a hot topic among evangelicals, with a growing number moving to the side that supports a comprehensive immigration reform policy that would provide a pathway for undocumented immigrants already in the country to gain legal status.
. . .
http://www.christianpost.com/news/utah-surprises-with-practical-approach...

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

3.
DAs back bill to forfeit bonds when illegal-immigrant suspects are deported
By Lynn Bartels
The Denver Post, March 21, 2011

Jefferson County District Attorney Scott Storey and other prosecutors are turning to the legislature for some help in handling illegal immigrants charged with crimes.

The group is backing House Bill 1088, which involves bail for illegal immigrants facing criminal charges.

They said they are worried about the fate of the bill, which is scheduled to be heard this afternoon by a Democrat-controlled Senate panel that they call the "kill committee."

Storey and his senior chief deputy, Peter Weir, who headed the Department of Public Safety for former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, said they are dismayed that the bill has become part of a larger debate about illegal immigration.

"That's a federal issue," Storey said. "But it becomes our issue when we have illegal immigrants committing crimes. Why should they be treated better than our citizens when it comes to posting bail?"

The bill is being fought by surety companies that post bail and by some immigrants-rights activists.

Under current law, a prisoner who posts bail but has a hold from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is turned over to ICE.

If that person is deported from the country, either voluntarily or by a magistrate's order, the bail bondsman forfeits only a small amount of the bail bond.

Under House Bill 1088, sponsored by Colorado Springs Republicans Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Mark Barker, the entire bond would be forfeited, which is what usually happens when defendants don't show up for court.
. . .
http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_17660949

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

4.
Babeu taps into debate over border
By Tim Steller
The Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), March 20, 2011

Sheriff Paul Babeu's county is 80 miles north of the Mexican border, yet he's poised to receive $5 million in border-security money from the Legislature.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's county shares about 125 miles of border with Mexico, yet the state Senate's budget deliberately excludes his department from any border-security funding.

What gives?

Politics, for one thing: Dupnik is a Democrat who has vocally opposed some of the Legislature's anti-illegal-immigration measures. Babeu is a Republican, an enthusiastic campaigner for SB 1070, and a national alarm-sounder on border-security issues.

But the explanation goes deeper than just that, reaching from the rudiments of border-security funding to the rhetoric of illegal-immigration control. Even Babeu acknowledges that his pending appropriation, passed last week by a Senate committee but still awaiting a vote by the whole chamber, has both practical and symbolic aspects.

"You have a sheriff here before you who is asking for the help, who is willing to go out and lead the fight against cartels," Babeu told a Thursday hearing of the Senate's committee on Border Security, Federalism and States Sovereignty. "Symbolically it sends a message to Washington: Do your jobs - solve the core issue."

Sheriff Tony Estrada of Santa Cruz County, a Democrat, sees a different message in the Legislature's actions - of partisanship over pragmatism.

"I was very disappointed because it's very obvious that they're playing favorites up there," Estrada said. "They're really not thinking about the border."

Worse than Pima County

For almost a year, Babeu has led a campaign to show that conditions in his county prove the federal government has failed to secure the border.

But Babeu says his effort isn't just an initiative to show he can do the job better than the federal government. His county especially needs the help, Babeu asserted in an interview last week: "It's far worse than Pima County, Cochise County or Santa Cruz County."

To demonstrate, he cites department figures showing a surge in vehicle pursuits, marijuana seizures and calls to Border Patrol in the last two to three years. Border Patrol officials and others agree that more traffic has shifted into the corridor that leads north through the Tohono O'odham Nation into western Pinal County in the last year or two.

But Babeu and his department also frequently use more slippery figures based on extrapolations of descriptions by federal agencies.

Last week in a speech in Tucson, Babeu repeated a description he often makes, calling Pinal County "the No. 1 pass-through county for drug- and human-smuggling in America."

That characterization is based not so much on hard comparative data but on the fact that the Border Patrol's Tucson sector is the country's top area for illegal crossings, and that federal officials say that in Southern Arizona, "all roads lead to Pinal County."

In other words, vehicles carrying contraband through Pinal County on I-10 or I-8 also count toward the county's "No. 1" ranking.

Babeu also repeated to the Senate committee a claim he makes frequently - that "nearly 400,000" illegal immigrants made it into the United States in the Tucson sector during the last fiscal year.

His reasoning? The Border Patrol made 241,000 apprehensions in that sector last year, and the Border Patrol once said there are 2.6 crossers who get away for every one who makes it. Do the math, and the number of successful crossings seems to add up to 385,000.

Except that the Border Patrol says the figure is wrong.

"The Sheriff's estimation is outdated, and when examined, does not take into account the significant dedication of resources over the last two years," agency spokeswoman Melanie Roe said in an email. It also doesn't take into account that many illegal immigrants cross time and time again, and can be counted several times in the number of apprehensions.

During a recent press conference, Tucson sector chief Randy Hill said he estimates the agency catches nine of every 10 who try to cross illegally into this sector.

Any estimate of those who got away is "sheer speculation and guesstimation," said David Shirk, director of the Transborder Institute at the University of San Diego.

pinal excluded

While Pinal County stands to gain a windfall in border-security funding from this Legislature, it has missed out on previous funding rounds because it's removed from the border.

Last year, Gov. Jan Brewer's Office of Economic Recovery distributed nearly $10 million in federal stimulus money to cities and counties near the border. Pinal County was excluded.

Cochise County received $1.55 million, Santa Cruz County received $1.3 million and Pima County received $1.1 million, which it spent on 52 4X4 SUVs, helicopter parts and fuel, rifle optics and other equipment.

Babeu asked to be included in the funding but was only able to get a later $200,000 award from the governor.

Some federal funding also focuses on counties and municipalities closer to the border. Babeu told the committee his agency received $300,000 in Operation Stonegarden funding - federal money largely used for overtime paid to officers doing border-related patrols - that was passed on by other Southern Arizona agencies who couldn't use it.

Babeu's current effort is pioneering in that it aims to make unnecessary such federal funding and assistance, said Janice Kephart national security policy director for the Virginia-based Center for Immigration Studies, which favors lower immigration levels.

"The sheriff represents a credible, logical law-enforcement-oriented perspective on the situation of Arizona that is devoid to a large part of the political charge you had with Sheriff Joe (Arpaio)," Kephart said. "Adding credibility to this issue is tremendously important."
. . .
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_c30d26f6-f017-5d9c-9f00-5...

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

5.
Birthright citizenship change would have wide effects
By Daniel González and Dan Nowicki
The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), March 20, 2011

It might not happen this year, or even the next, but supporters of restricting birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants are not giving up on their drive to force a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Backers of the idea, which they believe will discourage illegal immigrants from coming to the U.S., hit a major setback Thursday when the Arizona Senate rejected two birthright citizenship bills.

slideshow Birthright legislation controversy

The issue took a backseat, as it has in a handful of other states, to budget chaos and continuing economic anxiety. But supporters say it will remain part of a larger strategy to turn up the heat on undocumented immigrants so they will leave on their own - or not come in the first place.

Whether limiting citizenship would work the way proponents say is a matter of debate, but like other immigration-control tactics, the change would likely have far-reaching implications.

Supporters argue that illegal immigrants would be less likely to come to this country if their children didn't automatically receive citizenship.

But experts counter that it is unlikely that limiting birthright citizenship would curb illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants come for jobs, not to have children that might one day, years in the future, help them win legal status in the United States, as critics of birthright citizenship contend. Many European countries, for example, lack birthright citizenship but still attract thousands of illegal immigrants every year.

Even if limits on birthright citizenship did slow the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States, the restrictions still would lead to a larger - not smaller - illegal-immigrant population because they would turn the hundreds of thousands of children born to undocumented parents every year into illegal residents themselves, demographers say.

If lawmakers are able to one day force a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which now is recognized as granting citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States, parents would for the first time in history have to prove their own citizenship before their children could be deemed citizens. Governments would have to verify the citizenship of parents, a process that likely would be costly, politicians say. Even the nation's military readiness could be affected because without legal status, the children of illegal immigrants would no longer be eligible to enlist in the armed forces.

"If you take all those factors combined, what it does is it's a real challenge to the nation's historic identity and historical genius," said Don Kerwin, vice president of programs at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. "A lot of the criticism of immigrants comes from people who feel the U.S. is an exceptional country. Yet precisely what makes us exceptional - the values embedded in the 14th Amendment and our identity as a nation of immigrants - is challenged by this."
Legal interpretation

Supporters of the move to restrict birthright citizenship say the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to nearly every child born on U.S. soil regardless of the parents' status is a powerful lure for illegal immigrants. End it, they believe, and illegal immigrants would be less likely to come to the United States because their children would no longer provide a path to public benefits or legal status for themselves in the future.

Republicans lawmakers leading the charge have zeroed in on a phrase in the 14th Amendment, claiming the passage that says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" has been misinterpreted. The amendment was ratified in 1868 to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision stating that slaves could not be citizens.

Critics want the Supreme Court to rule that the children of illegal immigrants are not entitled to automatic citizenship because, they argue, undocumented parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Lawmakers in at least seven states - Arizona, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas - have introduced birthright-citizenship bills. But as in Arizona, the South Dakota and Mississippi bills have died, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which is tracking the legislation.

"All you need is one state to pass it to trigger the lawsuit that gets to the Supreme Court," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, sponsor of the House version of the bill. "So the concept itself may move forward even though there weren't the votes in the Arizona Senate."

Legislation also has been introduced in Congress, though it is not expected to pass.

"Arizona, obviously, has been out front on the other aspect of this, SB 1070, and maybe it doesn't want to be out front on this one," said John Eastman, the former dean of Chapman University School of Law in California, who believes that the 14th Amendment was never meant to bestow birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and who testified in support of the Arizona legislation.

Nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose changing the Constitution to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, according to a February poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C.

But lawmakers say they are pressing ahead to do what they can to battle illegal immigration and the costs associated with it.

"What we are trying to do is remove the incentive for people to come here illegally," said state Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, who sponsored the Senate version of Arizona's version of the bill.

He said limiting birthright citizenship would save taxpayers money because the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants would no longer be considered citizens and therefore would no longer qualify for public benefits.

"It's an economic burden on the taxpayers of Arizona," he said.

Supporters are regrouping and considering other options, such as trying to put the question on a statewide ballot through the initiative process.
Curb or increase?

But limiting citizenship likely would do little to deter illegal immigration, say immigrant advocates, because they come to the United States for jobs, not to have babies.

Carlos Garcia, an organizer with Puente, a Phoenix-based group that advocates for immigrants, said illegal immigrants often remain in the country because they want to provide a better life for their children. He believes birthright-citizenship bills are mainly intended to increase fear among illegal immigrants in hopes of driving them away.

On the contrary, limiting birthright citizenship actually would increase the number of illegal immigrants, demographers say.

Jon Feere, the legal policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank in Washington, D.C., that favors stricter controls on immigration, said 300,000 to 400,000 children are born each year to the millions of illegal immigrants already living in the United States. Under the birthright-citizenship proposals, those children would contribute to the nation's undocumented population, he said.

"We would see up to 400,000 illegal-immigrant children added every year," Feere said.
. . .
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/20/20110320birthright-cit...