1. Controversy in NM
2. Dems see Latinos as key
3. AZ law not up to par
4. Report on Puerto Ricans
5. Whitman: Enforce law

1.
Routine Wilderness Bill Sparks Immigration Outcry
By Elise Foley
The Washington Independent, October 29, 2010

On July 21, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources unanimously approved a bill to designate part of the Organ Mountains in southern New Mexico as wilderness. It was a routine measure — the committee passes several federal land designation bills each year — that generated little debate at the time and seemed destined to pass the full Senate without fanfare when it eventually reached the chamber floor.

But in the intervening months, the innocuous-appearing bill has sparked a surprising amount of controversy, as immigration enforcement advocates have expressed concern that it could hamper border security and send a flood of illegal immigrants into New Mexico.

In other wilderness areas, particularly Pima County in southern Arizona, wilderness designation areas set by the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1990 have at times corresponded with areas with higher levels of illegal immigration. Most experts dismiss the connection and attribute the rise in immigration to increased border enforcement elsewhere: As fences and security made it more difficult to cross the border into California, immigrant guides, or “coyotes,” began to move through lands where they could better avoid detection.

But pro-immigration enforcement groups claim that federal wildlife designations are to blame for illegal immigration in Arizona, and that the wilderness designation proposed by New Mexico Democratic Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall would make New Mexico the new hotbed for illegal border crossing.

The argument goes like this: In lands designated as wilderness, Border Patrol cannot build roads or surveillance posts because of environmental concerns. As a result, more illegal immigrants and drug cartels enter the country through un-policed land.

“It’s like a big welcome mat to the cartels,” said Janice Kephart, director of national security policy at Center for Immigration Studies, a pro-enforcement group. “They know the designation is there, they know they can start using it.”

This increase in illegal activity, enforcement advocates argue, can actually undermine the environmental goals of a wilderness designation, since the new flood of border-crossers damages the lands the government is trying to protect.

These claims are all the subject of heated debate, at the center of which is the question of how best to balance environmental concerns and border enforcement — or whether the two truly are mutually exclusive.

There is no easy answer; the Department of Homeland Security has struggled with the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture over how Border Patrol can work under strict guidelines in the federal lands along the border. In theory, tensions between the agencies were ironed out in a 2006 memorandum of understanding that allows for some exceptions to land designations, such as emergency access to lands without permission. But according to an Oct. 19 report from the Government Accountability Office, 15 percent of Border Patrol officials said regulations from the Interior Department and the Agriculture Department have prevented them from catching illegal border crossers.

The laws that govern federal lands along the border can hold up a patrolling process that requires speedy adaptability. While Border Patrol shifts its resources and patrolling to react to changing pathways used by immigrants and smugglers, federal law requires agents to receive permission from the other agencies before it can build roads or establish surveillance posts. The GAO report said the process can often take months.

But despite these delays, most of the agents in charge along the border — 22 of the 26 lead agents in the southwest region — told the GAO that overall security in their jurisdiction was not affected by the land management laws. Instead, the Border Patrol leaders said their challenge was the terrain itself, which in many areas is mountainous or otherwise difficult to navigate.

Still, Republicans and anti-illegal immigration groups have latched onto tension over federal land designations as a cause for the number of unauthorized immigrants who move across the border each year. They argue that the laws funnel illegal activity through certain areas where Border Patrol agents are less likely to catch them — and where they can destroy the wildlife that the designations are designed to protect.

In a report released this month, Kephart wrote that the Bingaman-Udall bill would likely lead to a groundswell of illegal immigration to New Mexico, where immigrants would then leave trash and waste behind and devastate the local land.

Wilderness designation laws are too outdated and strict to allow Border Patrol agents to act effectively, she told TWI. Overall, the wilderness designations hurt border security by limiting patrol actions within certain areas and requiring Border Patrol to pay mitigating fees to the Department of the Interior for lands it harms.

Kephart said the best decision for both border security and the environment would be to allow Border Patrol unfettered access to enforce immigration within wilderness areas.

“If by allowing the border patrol in, you can help save the environment and secure the country, that’s a double win,” Kephart said. “The cartels don’t care about people, let along the environment.”

The argument is standard among critics of federal land designations along the border. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), one of the leaders of the movement in Congress, gave an impassioned 37-minute speech on the House floor in June arguing that illegal border crossers and drug cartels do massive damage to the border landscape.

“The sole purpose of trying to stop the border patrol is because of the fear they may cause damage to the environment,” Bishop said on the floor. “The bad guys, the drug cartels, the human smugglers, the potential terrorists: they’re not inhibited by any of that. They go into that area and they don’t care what kind of environmental damage they do.”
. . .
http://washingtonindependent.com/101987/routine-wilderness-bill-sparks-i...

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

2.
Democrats see Latino votes as key to winning races
By Suzanne Gamboa
The Associated Press, October 29, 2010

On the ground in Colorado, workers trying to get out the Latino vote are talking about state ballot initiatives aimed at cutting spending.

For Latinos, the cuts could mean loss of library services, teacher and public sector jobs and transportation, said Jess Ulibarri, state director of Mi Familia Vota (My Family Votes), a get-out-the-vote group.

"When we talk to voters in Pueblo, folks really understand what less taxes means in terms of how that will really impact your family," said Ulibarri, whose group is working with two others to encourage Colorado Latinos to go to the polls Tuesday.

For Democratic Rep. John Salazar, the Hispanic turnout in Pueblo could decide whether he gets a fourth term representing Colorado's Western Slope. He's not alone in needing a high turnout among Latino supporters.

Arturo Vargas, executive director of the bipartisan National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said Hispanics have the potential to swing several gubernatorial and congressional races.

"It's not just where Latinos are running that Latinos will make a difference, but in states with major contests among non-Latinos," said Vargas, whose group tracks the Latino vote.

Reps. Loretta Sanchez's district in Southern California and Ciro Rodriguez's district in Texas have a much bigger Hispanic voter base than Salazar's, but their jobs also hang on how many Latinos turn out.

A Pew Hispanic Center poll of Latino voters last month found that they were far less likely to vote than non-Hispanic voters but that more than two-thirds of those who expect to vote planned to support the Democratic candidate in their district.

Vargas is projecting 6.5 million Latinos will vote this year, up from 5.6 million in the 2006 midterms. The Census Bureau estimates that 9.7 million Latinos voted in 2008.

Salazar's pitch to Hispanics, who make up 15 percent of the voters in his district, is that Republicans stood in the way of passing immigration reform.

"We try to reach out," he said. "I'm one of us. I'm Latino."

The Republican candidate, Scott Tipton, who opposes providing legal status to people in the country illegally, is emphasizing jobs and the economy.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR201010...

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

3.
Arizona immigration law has not lived up to reputation
By Alia Beard Rau
The Arizona Republic, October 29, 2010

The nation's toughest immigration law has been in effect for three months. But after the federal courts prevented key portions from going into effect, it has failed to live up to both opponents' worst fears and supporters' greatest hopes.

Immigrant-rights groups and major Arizona law-enforcement agencies say they've heard of no arrests made or citations issued using the statutes created under Senate Bill 1070, and no Arizona resident has taken advantage of the portion of the law that allows them to sue an official or agency that is not enforcing federal immigration law to the fullest extent.

The law that went into effect on July 29 is a shadow of its original self. The day before, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton halted four key provisions from going into effect, including the portion of the law that requires a police officer to verify a person's status when there is reasonable suspicion that the subject is an undocumented immigrant.

Gov. Jan Brewer is appealing Bolton's ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments from both sides Monday in San Francisco.

But several state statutes created under SB 1070 went into effect on July 29. Individuals on both sides of the issue said after Bolton's ruling that the law still had teeth.

New statutes

The statutes allowed to go into effect do several things:

- Require government officials and agencies to enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent permitted by federal law and allow Arizona residents to sue if the official or agency adopts a policy that violates this requirement.

- Allow law enforcement to pull anybody over for any traffic violation if the driver is suspected of engaging in the "smuggling" of human beings for profit or commercial purposes. This could include stopping a driver for a secondary offense such as not wearing a seat belt, which in every other circumstance can be cited only if the driver is stopped for a separate primary violation such as speeding.

- Make it a crime to pick up or be picked up as a day laborer if the vehicle is stopped on a road and impeding traffic.

- Make it a crime to encourage an illegal immigrant to come to Arizona or transport, conceal, harbor or shield an immigrant if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact the immigrant is in the country illegally. This offense has to be during the commission of another criminal offense.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other immigrant-advocacy groups had said they were concerned overzealous law enforcement would misapply these remaining portions of the law, particularly the harboring and day-labor provisions.

Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who sponsored the bill, said in July that even though Bolton struck down parts of the law, the remaining portions still meant "the handcuffs come off law enforcement."

On Thursday, he said that despite there having been no arrests under the law, it has succeeded at driving illegal immigrants out of Arizona and assisting law enforcement.

"It is having the impact needed," he said. "I have talked to law enforcement, and they intend to use these laws."

He said it has also succeeded at getting some law-enforcement agencies to change policies that before did not allow officers to question individuals such as witnesses and crime victims about their legal status.
. . .
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/10/29/201010...

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

4.
Report Shows Plight of Puerto Rican Youth
By Sam Dolnick
The New York Times, October 28, 2010

Theirs was the first Latino group to settle in New York City in large numbers. Most speak English, and they are United States citizens, entitled to the benefits and security that new immigrants can only dream of.

David R. Jones, the president of the Community Service Society of New York.

But by many measures, young Puerto Ricans are faring far worse than the young Dominicans, Mexicans and other Latinos in New York, according to a report to be released on Monday by the Community Service Society of New York, a leading antipoverty group.

Puerto Ricans ages 16 to 24 have the lowest rates of school enrollment and employment, and the highest rates of poverty among Latino New Yorkers. Puerto Rican men are more than twice as likely as their Mexican peers to be out of school and out of the labor force. Puerto Rican women are more likely to be out of school and unemployed than Dominican or Mexican women.

The findings, culled from the Census Bureau’s annual surveys from 2006 to 2008, show that Puerto Rican youth are the most disadvantaged of all comparable groups, including young black men, in New York, the report said.

“We are terribly concerned about the issues facing young Latinos, but particularly young Puerto Ricans,” said David R. Jones, the society’s president and chief executive. “It’s shaping the landscape of New York, and it’s happening really quickly.”

Since they began arriving in the city in large numbers in the 1940s, Puerto Ricans have made their mark in many realms, including business, culture and politics. Some of those political leaders — including Representative José E. Serrano, who has represented the South Bronx for two decades, and Fernando Ferrer, the former Bronx borough president — strongly disputed the study’s conclusions that Puerto Ricans are any worse off than other Latinos.

“When it comes to Puerto Ricans, there are so many studies that always try to paint the glass as half-empty,” Mr. Serrano said, though he acknowledged that the group faced unusual challenges. “Puerto Ricans are American citizens who are treated by a lot of people as if they are not American citizens.”

Others said the new report would come as no surprise to anyone who had tracked statistics over the years.

“We’re doing horribly as a community,” said Angelo Falcón, who was born in Puerto Rico and is the president of the National Institute for Latino Policy, an advocacy group based in New York. “It’s getting worse from the perspective that the problems are not being addressed. They’re festering, and it’s going into the second and third generation.

“The scary part is that people are not paying attention from outside the community.”

Latinos make up nearly one-third of the city’s population between ages 16 and 24, more than any other ethnic group. Puerto Ricans represent 26 percent of that group, while Dominicans make up 29 percent and Mexicans 13 percent.

While Latinos are often viewed as a single bloc, the report considered each group individually. Many of its findings were striking.

Roughly 17 percent of young Puerto Rican men were not in school, employed or looking for work, compared with 9 percent of Dominicans and 8 percent of Mexicans. Of those Latinos born in the United States, only 55 percent of Puerto Rican youth were enrolled in school, compared with 68 percent of Dominicans and 67 percent of Mexicans. Regardless of birthplace, about 33 percent of Puerto Rican families lived below the poverty line, compared with 29 percent of Dominicans and 27 percent of Mexicans.
. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29puerto.html

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

5.
Whitman says her former housekeeper should be deported
By Seema Mehta and Maeve Reston
Los Angeles Times, October 29, 2010

Reporting from Salinas, Stockton and Sacramento —

Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman has reignited a controversy that roiled her campaign for weeks, saying the undocumented housekeeper she employed for nine years should be deported.

The comment, her toughest yet on the matter, came in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, who asked Whitman on Wednesday whether the former housekeeper, Nicandra Diaz Santillan, should be deported.

"Well, the answer is: It breaks my heart, but she should be deported, because she forged documents and she lied about her immigration status," Whitman said.

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

She reiterated her argument that Diaz Santillan was used as a pawn in a political stunt but added: "The law is the law, and we live in the rule of law. It's important."

Whitman and her campaign aides had fought hard to turn the page on the scandal when it erupted in September. The candidate has said that both she and a hiring agency relied on documents that turned out to be false, and she fired Diaz Santillan when the housekeeper disclosed her immigration status last year.

On Thursday, Whitman tried to step back from her remarks, saying they didn't represent a change in position. "I think people are tired about talking about my housekeeper; they want to talk about how they're going to stay in their house," she told reporters in Stockton.

Until Wednesday, however, Whitman had declined to say whether Diaz Santillan should be deported, asserting that it was a matter for federal authorities. Moreover, she said repeatedly, she was reluctant to make an example of a woman she described as "a member of our extended family."

The deportation remark represents the kind of hard-line stance that Whitman sought to avoid for most of the campaign. It comes as she faces a barrage of polling that shows her Democratic rival, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, with a significant lead in the contest for governor.

One of Brown's biggest allies, the Service Employees International Union, released a statement saying Whitman was "making a desperate attempt to pander to the right in the last five days of the election."
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-campaign-20101029,0,5645135.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal+%28L.A.+Times+-+California+|+Local+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader