Please visit our YouTube, Twitter and Facebook pages.

1. Border Patrol doubles in size
2. Amnesty label is sticking point
3. PA bill requires E-Verify
4. SC House approves bill
5. CT Senate passes tuition bill

1.
Border Patrol doubled its size in the past five years
KVUE (AZ), May 24, 2011
http://www.kvue.com/news/Border-Patrol-doubled-its-size-in-the-past-five...

The largest law enforcement agency in the country is now the Border Patrol. It doubled in size in just five years. Some agents are asking whether the rush for higher numbers means lower standards.

Agent Jacob Nunez joined the Border Patrol nearly four years ago. He's more experienced than most agents now on the job.

"The average time in with the patrol is three years right now," he said.

Many were hired during the massive buildup of the Border Patrol during the last five years.

As the force as grown to 21,000 agents, the level of experience has plummeted. It comes as violent cartels take over key smuggling routes.

"Smugglers arent trainees," said Jim Stack of the National Border Patrol Council. "The smugglers who are doing this, they're seasoned. They know what they're doing. They've done it for years."

Stack has 23 years on the force. He and others with the Border Patrol agents union are concerned training has been sacrificed in the rush to put more boots on the border.

"They're not getting the training and the guidance that they need because there are no seasoned agents," he said. "You basically have trainees training trainees."

Homeland security officials say new agents are well prepared for the job.

"We know we have a young workforce but we're taking steps to provide the kind of training and mentoring that law enforcement officials are good at giving and we're seeing the results from San Diego to Brownsville," said Alan Bersin, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner.

Students spend less time at the academy now, 55 days instead of 81 if they know Spanish. Those who need language lessons stay an additional 45 days.

"They're put out in the field by themselves and they lose a lot of that experience they would have gained riding with journeymen, which is something I did when I came," said Rob Russell, of the U.S. Border Patrol Council.

It was nearly a year before Russell was allowed on patrol alone. He has watched newer agents struggle in the field with split second decisions.

"An armed Mexican officer came across the river chasing somebody. The agent, being that he was new, I dont think he'd reached his year yet, didn't know how to handle the situation," said Russell.

Agent Nunez values the time he spent learning real life scenarios from a senior agent.

"It can be very dangerous so really they prepare you for all that. Really I enjoyed my field training. Its an eye opener. What you learn in the academy is different from what you learn in the field. Its a vital peace," he said.

A vital piece passed on by those who have the experience soon that will be tougher too, as the few seasoned agents still on the force retire.

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

2.
'Amnesty' label is a sticking point in immigration policy debate
By Todd J. Gillman
The Dallas Morning News, May 24, 2011

WASHINGTON What counts as amnesty?

The debate that President Barack Obama reignited in El Paso, Texas, over immigration changes could hinge on which side prevails: those who insist that stiff fines and a 13-year wait to become a citizen don't qualify, or those who denounce any sort of liberalization as "amnesty."

"When you get down to it, they're here illegally, and they get to stay. That's what amnesty is," said Mark Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates more restrictive immigration policies.

The term is so powerful that immigrant advocates go out of their way to avoid it, while hardliners insist that "path to citizenship" and "legalization" are euphemisms.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, for instance, uses the terms interchangeably. By any name, he argues, the policy would reward lawbreakers and encourage more illegal immigration.

The administration and its allies insist that whatever amnesty is, the policy they're pushing isn't it.

"It's absolutely false," said the White House director of Hispanic media, Luis Miranda. "It's a long and difficult process."

Obama has offered only broad outlines, though advocates on both sides say his plan mirrors ideas that have been kicked around for years. To stay, illegal immigrants would have to pass a criminal background check, pay fines and back taxes, learn English and wait years.

"That's not amnesty," Miranda said.

Whether the public agrees, or the label sticks, could dictate the outcome of this latest push.

Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said the sense that "amnesty" is derogatory has grown in the last five or six years, since the last serious attempt at a comprehensive immigration plan fell apart.

To him, true amnesty would not entail the hurdles proposed by Obama. The 1986 law signed by President Ronald Reagan, for instance, let about 3 million immigrants gain legal status just by registering with the government.

"That was amnesty," Papademetriou said. "This is what we call earned legalization or earned regularization. ... This is not just forgiveness."

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a security-first Republican who initially embraced creation of a new guest worker program and a path to citizenship, with conditions, said legalization doesn't have to entail amnesty.

"What people are reacting to is the 1986 immigration reform bill that promised enforcement in exchange for amnesty," he said. "People are rightly concerned that there be enforcement."

A decade ago, President George W. Bush was working on migration policy with his Mexican counterpart, Vicente Fox, though the Sept. 11 attacks derailed the effort. All sides avoided the A-word, preferring "regularization" and "legalization."

As the head of the National Council of La Raza told The Dallas Morning News at the time, focus group testing found those terms generated far less backlash.
. . .
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/05/24/2028379/amnesty-label-is-a-st...

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

3.
Bill requires contractors to prove workers are legal
By Richard Gazarik
Tribune Review (PA), May 25, 2011

Contractors bidding on publicly financed construction projects in the state will have to verify electronically that employees are legal immigrants before they can undertake any project.

Senate Bill 637 was sponsored by Sen. Kim Ward of Hempfield, prompted by a traffic stop in December that revealed that a public housing project in Jeannette employed illegal aliens as carpenters and roofers.

Ward's measure, which becomes law, requires contractors and subcontractors to prove that their workers are in the United States legally.

The program, known as E-Verify, is linked to databases at the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. It is administered through Citizenship and Immigration Services.

After checking a worker's status, a contractor or employer will receive a certification from the government verifying workers' residency. That certification must be presented to the governmental body commissioning the work.

"I can't find an argument that would merit voting against this piece of legislation," Ward said after the 42-7 vote.

"It attempts to stop an illegal activity that costs the state money because illegal workers pay no taxes, take jobs away from our own workers, and it opens the door to possible national security risks," she said.
. . .
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates there are 175,000 illegal workers in the state. An estimated 18,000 to 35,000 work in the construction trades. Others work in restaurants, on farms, in retail stores and as landscapers.
. . .
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_73878...

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

4.
S.C. House approves immigration crackdown bill
By Gina Smith
The State (SC), May 25, 2011

Those suspected of being in the country illegally soon may have to prove they are U.S. citizens, at least in South Carolina.

S.C. House members approved an Arizona-style crackdown on illegal immigrants by a 69-43 vote. The bill requires law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they pull over for traffic violations or stop on suspicion of other violations.

After one more perfunctory vote, the bill, which the House amended, heads back to the Senate, which previously approved it.

If the Senate goes along with the amendments, South Carolina will become one of a growing number of states adopting immigration laws, traditionally an area overseen by the federal government. But Arizona, Utah and Georgia have adopted similar laws, saying the federal government has failed to stem a flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

S.C. House Republicans said Tuesday the bill will halt the influx of illegal immigrants into the state, making it safer and ensuring jobs go to legal residents.

“This bill gives our state’s law enforcement officers another valuable tool to use in the day-to-day fight they wage to enforce our immigration laws,” said House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston.

Supporters said the proposal is a needed change.
. . .
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/25/2233839/sc-house-approves-immigrat...

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

5.
Senate Passes In-State Tuition Bill For Children Of Undocumented Immigrants
By Daniela Altimari
The Hartford Courant, May 24, 2011

The state Senate gave final legislative approval Tuesday night to a bill that will allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at Connecticut's public colleges and universities.

After a lengthy filibuster by Republican opponents, the state Senate gave final legislative approval Tuesday night to a bill that will allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at Connecticut's public colleges and universities.

The vote was 21-14.

The bill already has passed the House, and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said he will sign it. "This bill isn't controversial, it's common sense," Malloy said after the Senate vote Tuesday.

The drawn-out debate — 8 hours and 50 minutes — was sharply out of proportion with the number of undocumented students that supporters of the bill say will take advantage of the lower in-state rate — about 200 a year. But like much of what gets discussed at the Capitol, the symbolism of the measure outweighed its impact.

For its supporters, the bill is a matter of fairness for the children of immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally through no choice of their own. "It is not the American way to visit the shortcomings of the parents on the children," said Senate President Donald Williams.

Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, noted that the measure had the support of a broad coalition that included the leaders of the state's public colleges as well as its Catholic bishops.

"I think this is a compassionate law, trying to give people a leg up," said Bye, D-West Hartford, and co-chairwoman of the legislature's higher education committee. "We can make a difference in the lives of these students."

Other supporters said that having more college-educated people would only enrich the state — and bolster its economy.

But critics expressed concern over the message that such a proposal sends. Sen. Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford, called it "bad public policy" because it rewards people who break the rules.

He asked how he would respond to a constituent whose child was denied entrance into the University of Connecticut because the slot was taken by the child of an undocumented immigrant. "I'm not so sure I can go back to that person and explain to them why breaking the rules is a good thing," he said.
. . .
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-senate-tuition-paid-sick-leave-0...