1. DREAM Act back in Senate
2. BP overhauls communication
3. Brown criticizes Democrats
4. WA Senate race divided
5. Police defend checks

1.
A Piece Of Immigration Debate Returns To Senate
By Audie Cornish
NPR, September 20, 2010

The issue of immigration reform has been dormant of late on Capitol Hill, and a lack of bipartisanship has been keeping it and some other matters from moving anywhere.

The DREAM Act has been talked about for more than a decade. At this 2004 rally in Washington, D.C., supporters held a mock graduation ceremony.

But this week, Democrats are seeing if they can open a window of opportunity — one that could quickly close because of the looming midterm elections.

They're looking to attach the DREAM Act to the annual defense policy bill that the Senate is scheduled to take up Tuesday. The measure would put illegal immigrants who come to the United States as children on a path to citizenship if they fulfill several requirements. (DREAM stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors.)

It's one of two high-profile issues that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said will be voted on when senators take up the defense legislation. The other, which is already a part of the defense measure, is repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay Americans from serving in the military.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), has been trying for 10 years to get the DREAM Act through Congress.

"Here is how it works," says Durbin. "The student would have the chance to qualify only if he or she meets these requirements: came to the United States as a child; lived here for more than five years; has good moral character; has not engaged in criminal activity; does not pose any threat to national security; passes a thorough background check; and graduates from an American high school."

If they meet those tests, young people would qualify for temporary legal status. They would have to go to college or join the military in order to get a green card.

The proposal had been floating around Congress without much momentum until last week, when Reid raised eyebrows with the announcement that he wants the DREAM Act added to the annual defense policy bill.
. . .
Sweeping immigration overhaul bills are considered dead-ends on Capitol Hill because they won't get anything close to bipartisan support. The more narrowly focused DREAM Act has had Republican sponsors, and so is considered by some a foot in a door that stands some chance of passage and perhaps leads to more overhaul efforts in the future.

But Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports strict immigration control, says Democrats are going to "get pinched by that door closing on their foot."

He sees the DREAM Act firing up conservative voters. Democrats, he says, have given opponents "something specific to work against."
. . .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129994506

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

2.
Border Patrol gives contract to firm stocked with former insiders
By Ken Dilanian
Tribune Washington Bureau, September 21, 2010

The Border Patrol wants its leaders to talk to one another, and the agency is willing to pay some former government employees nearly half a million dollars to help make that happen.

In an example of how common it has become for government agencies to outsource seemingly routine tasks to former officials, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has awarded a "strategic consulting" contract worth up to $481,000 over five years to a small firm staffed by former agency insiders.

Get breaking news alerts delivered to your mobile phone. Text BREAKING to 52669.

One of the three major tasks outlined in the deal is to "facilitate discussions among senior Border Patrol leaders" at conferences near the agency headquarters in Washington, according to the contract documents. The fees work out to about $240 an hour — not including travel expenses or the cost of the conferences.

Among those who will benefit from the contract are the agency's former commissioner and the husband of a current agency spokeswoman. It's legal as long as the officials observe a one-year ban on landing work from their former agency.

"It really is just contracting as usual," said Allison Stanger, a Middlebury College professor who detailed the explosive growth of government contracting in her 2009 book "One Nation Under Contract." "When contractors are doing so much of the work of government, these sorts of private companies are seen as extensions of government. When former agency employees are involved, the lines are blurred even further."

In a statement, Homeland Security Department spokesman Rafael Lemaitre said the contract was intended to "solicit independent, expert input for CBP's ongoing efforts to design a 21st century border security strategic framework," and that the agency "will not utilize this or any other contracts to organize conferences for CBP officials."
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conference-contract...

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

3.
Brown critical of Democratic plans for immigration bill
By Stephanie Vallejo
The Boston Globe, September 20, 2010

Senator Scott Brown this afternoon criticized Democrats for bringing up a proposal that would allow illegal immigrants with a quicker pathway to citizenship through college or military service, calling the plan “amnesty” and politically motivated.

“I am opposed to illegal immigration, and I am deeply disappointed that Washington politicians are playing politics with military funding in order to extend a form of amnesty to certain illegal immigrants,” the Massachusetts Republican said in a statement.

The Senate could vote as early as tomorrow on whether to add the so-called Dream Act to a defense appropriations bill. Brown’s statement came as a group of undocumented immigrants started an around-the-clock vigil outside of Brown’s Boston office to try and press him to support the proposal.

The legislation would create a path to legal residency for youths who arrived before they turned 16; have lived in the United States for five consecutive years; and have no criminal record. In order to become citizens, they would have to graduate from high school or obtain a GED, complete two years in college or the military, and be under 35 years old.

Critics say that it would reward immigrant families who came to the country illegally, and say it lacks the comprehensive provisions to crack down on illegal immigration.
. . .
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/09/brown_...

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

4.
Murray, Rossi on opposite sides of immigration fight
By Kyung M. Song
The Seattle Times, September 20, 2010

Dino Rossi wants to keep out illegal immigrants with "a tall fence with a high gate." Sen. Patty Murray opposed building a fence along the Mexico border.

Rossi, the U.S. Senate Republican candidate, rejects a pathway to legal residency for illegal immigrants already living here. Three-term Democratic incumbent Murray voted for exactly that.

Rossi would open his arms wider for highly skilled and educated foreigners. Murray is more inclusive, favoring expanded guest-worker programs that would allow a larger pool of legal foreign labor for less-skilled jobs as well.

When it comes to immigration — as with taxes, spending and abortion — Murray and Rossi agree on little.

In many ways, Rossi and Murray embody the rift between Americans who believe that large increases in legal immigration and accommodations for illegal residents ultimately undermine the nation's security and economy, and those who believe that the country is largely enriched by newcomers.

Congress this year seemed poised to tackle the most far-reaching overhaul of immigration policies since 1986. The issue gained impetus from a controversial new law in Arizona that, among other things, required noncitizens to carry papers proving their legal status at all times or risk state charges. Major elements of that law are on hold until an appellate court rules.

The momentum for congressional action devolved amid partisan acrimony, with some congressional Republicans calling to review or even revoke the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil.

Clear differences

Murray was one of only 19 members of the Senate to oppose a 2006 authorization to build a 700-mile fence along one-third of the southern U.S. border. Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell opposed it as well.

Murray also voted against declaring English the nation's official tongue, which would have barred the government from issuing communications in other languages. She also opposed a Senate proposal to bar immigrants from collecting Social Security benefits they earned while working without legal status.

Rossi, by contrast, wants to deter illegal immigrants with both physical and legal barriers. He repeatedly has called for erecting the remaining planned fence along the Mexico border to reduce illegal crossings.

Rossi also opposes allowing any of the estimated 11 million people already in the United States illegally to apply for legal residency. However, he hasn't called for deporting them. He has offered no options, saying he hasn't "heard a good solution for the people that are already here that makes sense."

advertising

Rossi has not joined the recent push by some congressional Republicans to review and possibly repeal a section of the 14th Amendment that bestows citizenship on anyone born on American soil.

"It's not an issue he's looking at," Rossi spokeswoman Jennifer Morris said.

Morris, citing a busy schedule, said Rossi was unavailable to discuss immigration. Murray agreed to an interview about the issue.

In 2006, she voted for the first comprehensive immigration-overhaul effort since 1986, a Senate bill that would have tightened the borders, allowed long-term illegal immigrants to apply conditionally for citizenship and created a guest-worker program to permit more legal immigration. The bill died.

Instead, sensing an anti-immigration mood among voters, Congress voted five months later to build the 700-mile fence.

The Department of Homeland Security since has finished some 650 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing. Construction and maintenance are expected to cost billions of dollars in coming decades. A separate project to erect a "virtual fence" — cameras, radar and sensors — along the rest of the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border has been slowed by technical problems.

Murray defended her vote against the fence and her overall record on immigration, saying they reflect the values of many constituents.

"A lot of the families I talk to think that the fence takes away resources" that could be better spent on other ways to increase national security, said Murray, who has pushed for beefing up security farther north, along the Canadian border.
. . .
First introduced nine years ago in a different form, the DREAM Act covers certain illegal immigrants who are younger than 35. Immigrants who were 16 or younger when they entered the United States at least five years ago and who have completed high school or attained GED certificates could attain a six-year temporary residency.

The qualified immigrants then could become permanent U.S. residents by completing at least two years of college or serving two years in the military.

Murray said she supports it. Rossi, along with virtually all Republicans, opposes it as "nothing more than a backdoor amnesty bill."
. . .
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2012952511_senateimmigrat...

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

5.
Police defend status checks
By Maria Sacchetti
The Boston Globe, September 21, 2010

Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, a strong critic of using police to enforce immigration laws, yesterday defended the city’s participation in a controversial federal program that automatically checks the immigration status of everyone arrested.

The goal of the controversial program, called Secure Communities, is to identify dangerous criminals and turn them over to the US Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for eventual deportation.

Advocates warn that noncriminals are being swept up at the same time.

But Davis said his staff reviewed the list of people caught through the program over the past two years and determined that all of those turned over to immigration officials met the goal of removing gang members and other criminals from the streets.

“We’ve looked into each and every one of the cases, and we’re satisfied that the promise we made to the community still stands,’’ said Davis yesterday in his first interview on the matter. “We’ve made clear that if ICE begins to deport people who are simply being picked up for traffic violations and overstaying their visas, then we’re not going to participate in the program.’’

Many advocates for immigrants, however, say the program will deter immigrants from reporting crimes because they fear police.

“How can the Boston police say that this is going to give us more security?’’ said Patricia Montes, executive director of Centro Presente, an area nonprofit. “People are going to be afraid to report crimes. That means that crime will be occurring, and immigrants will be afraid to go to the police.’’

The controversy is unexpected in a city that is widely viewed as friendly to all immigrants and where 27.5 percent of the residents are foreign born.

Earlier this year the City Council passed a resolution boycotting Arizona because of its new immigration law.

In one of his first acts as commissioner in 2006, Davis decried a plan by Governor Mitt Romney to have State Police help enforce immigration law, saying that “expanding immigration enforcement to local police would have an overall negative effect on the department’s continued efforts to enhance community trust.’’

Federal statistics indicate that the Boston program has snared both violent and nonviolent offenders.

Of the 230 people turned over to ICE since the program began in 2008, nearly half had been convicted of crimes: 53 were violent offenders, such as murderers, rapists, and those who pose a threat to national security; 32 had committed a felony such as property crime or extortion; and 20 had multiple misdemeanor convictions, including minor drug offenses and disorderly conduct.

The remainder had been arrested for noncriminal immigration violations. Almost half have been deported.

But Davis said they were all involved in criminal activity, including those with criminal records from other states.

Advocates for immigrants, many of whom were unaware of the program until a WBUR report last month, are going on the offensive to protest the program.

Centro Presente, working with the ACLU of Massachusetts, will be rolling out educational seminars next month and publicizing the program on Spanish and Portuguese language radio stations.

Heloisa Galvao, head of the Brazilian Women’s Group in Allston, said a woman came to her recently after her husband was placed in deportation proceedings after being stopped by the Boston police. His family and those helping him could not figure out why. Now, she said, she believes it was because of Secure Communities.

“It’s horrible,’’ she said. “I felt like I was betrayed because we have always been told that the Boston police did not participate in this kind of program, so that’s what we have been telling our community, that Boston is not that bad.’’

But others say it is crucial for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to collaborate with one another to fight gangs, crime, and terrorism.

“I think it’s a really good idea,’’ said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter controls on immigration. “I can’t think of any good reason to be opposed to it.’’
. . .
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/09/21/bosto...