1. ICE stretched definitions
2. Gov't lobbied for Mexican TPS
3. GOP attacks DREAM Act move
4. Supreme Court to rule on AZ
5. CA GOP split on measure

1.
Customs pushed envelope to hit goal
By Andrew Becker
The Washington Post, December 6, 2010

For much of this year, the Obama administration touted its tougher-than-ever approach to immigration enforcement, culminating in a record number of deportations.

But in reaching 392,862 deportations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year, according to agency statistics. ICE also ran a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer than ever before, allowing the agency to count at least 6,500 exits that, without the program, would normally have been tallied by the U.S. Border Patrol.

When ICE officials realized in the final weeks of the fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, that the agency still was in jeopardy of falling short of last year's mark, it scrambled to reach the goal. Officials quietly directed immigration officers to bypass backlogged immigration courts and time-consuming deportation hearings whenever possible, internal e-mails and interviews show.

Instead, officials told immigration officers to encourage eligible foreign nationals to accept a quick pass to their countries without a negative mark on their immigration record, ICE employees said.

The option, known as voluntary return, may have allowed hundreds of immigrants - who typically would have gone before an immigration judge to contest deportation for offenses such as drunken driving, domestic violence and misdemeanor assault - to leave the country. A voluntary return doesn't bar a foreigner from applying for legal residence or traveling to the United States in the future.

Once the agency closed the books for fiscal 2010 and the record was broken, agents say they were told to stop widely offering the voluntary return option and revert to business as usual.

Without these efforts and the more than 25,000 deportations that came with them, the agency would not have topped last year's record level of 389,834, current and former ICE employees and officials said.

The Obama administration was intent on doing so even as it came under attack by some Republicans for not being tough enough on immigration enforcement and by some Democrats for failing to deliver on promises of comprehensive immigration reform.

"It's not unusual for any administration to get the numbers they need by reaching into their bag of tricks to boost figures," said Neil Clark, who retired as the Seattle field office director in late June, adding that in the 12 years he spent in management he saw the Bush and Clinton administrations do similar things.

But at a news conference Oct. 6, ICE Director John T. Morton said that no unusual practices were used to break the previous year's mark.

"When the secretary tells you that the numbers are at an all-time high, that's straight, on the merits, no cooking of the books," Morton said, referring to his boss, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. "It's what happened."

ICE declined to make any officials available for interviews. In selected responses to e-mailed questions, spokesman Brian P. Hale wrote that the agency did nothing different from previous years but did not deny that ICE had focused on voluntary returns when it faced a shortfall weeks before the fiscal year ended. Rather, field offices were reminded of the voluntary return option, he said.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/05/AR201012...

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

2.
Petition aims to protect illegal Mexican immigrants
By Susan Carroll
Houston Chronicle, December 5, 2010

It's a potentially explosive idea being circulated on petitions in Houston's Latino supermarkets, lobbied for in Chicago's Hispanic neighborhoods and now is landing on the front pages of the Spanish-language press.

With more than 30,000 dead in the last four years from drug violence in Mexico, some immigrant advocates are starting to lobby the U.S. government to grant millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico "Temporary Protected Status," a kind of temporary reprieve from deportation generally reserved for countries ravaged by natural disasters or destabilized by war.

"There is a big chance of getting kidnapped and killed over there right now. It is extremely, extremely violent," said Victor Ibarra, the president of the Houston advocacy organization Alianza Mexicana. "That is why we're asking for temporary protection."

Ibarra said volunteers had collected more than 1,000 signatures in support of TPS since starting a petition drive in Houston on Nov. 4. He said that 15 immigrants rights organizations in Texas, including several in Dallas, Austin and San Antonio, were planning to participate in the petition drive. Nationally, he said, he's been talking with organizations in California, Arizona and Chicago about making a more unified push.

But the idea, which would require the approval of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, is highly controversial and, many say, unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. Matthew Chandler, a DHS spokesman, said DHS is not considering TPS for Mexican nationals.

"We continue to work with our Mexican partners to ensure the safety and security of communities on both sides of the border," Chandler said.

Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization based in Washington D.C. that advocates for stricter immigration controls, called the idea of TPS for Mexicans in the U.S. a "nightmare scenario."

"People have talked about it, the activist types, but I don't see that happening," he said. "Honestly, if the president actually did that, a sweeping TPS for Mexicans, I could see articles of impeachment being offered. That would be so beyond the pale that I just don't see any way that can happen."

About 6.65 million illegal immigrants from Mexico live in the U.S., according to the most recent estimate from DHS in January 2009. It's impossible to know how many would qualify for TPS.
. . .
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/7325969.html

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

3.
Sessions Says Reid’s DREAM Act Motives Create ‘Chaotic Situation’
Personal Liberty Digest, December 6, 2010

Republican leaders are venting frustration after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) placed a new version of a controversial immigration law on the legislative calendar without an official hearing to discuss the bill.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Reid has introduced four different versions of the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship to young illegal immigrants who attend college or the military, without legislative review.

"This unusual approach creates a chaotic situation, one that makes it more difficult for the public and their representatives, as well as the press, to review this deeply controversial measure," Sessions said in a statement.
. . .
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that approximately 1 million illegal immigrants will eventually enroll in public institutions as a result of the DREAM Act, and each student will receive nearly $6,000 in tuition subsidy each year from taxpayers. The CIS suggests that taxpayers will spend at least $6.2 billion annually to fund these students.
. . .
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/liberty/sessions-sa...

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

4.
High court ruling on Arizona act could shape immigration law
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times, December 6, 2010

President Obama once favored a "crackdown on employers" who hired illegal immigrants, and as a candidate called for "much tougher enforcement standards" for companies that employed illegal workers.

But this week, Obama's top courtroom lawyer will join the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in urging the Supreme Court to strike down an Arizona law that goes after employers who hire illegal workers. The administration also seeks to void a part of the state's law that tells employers they must check the federal government's E-Verify database to make sure their new hires are authorized to work in the United States.

The move sets the stage for a high court ruling on the most disputed issue in immigration law: Can states and cities enforce their own laws against illegal immigrants, or must they wait for federal authorities to act?

The administration found itself in an awkward spot in part because the Legal Arizona Workers Act was signed into law in 2007 by then- Gov. Janet Napolitano. She said it would impose the "business death penalty" on employers caught a second time hiring illegal workers, and blamed "the flow of illegal immigration into our state … [on] the constant demand of some employers for cheap, undocumented labor."

Now, however, Napolitano is Obama's secretary of Homeland Security, which enforces the immigration laws and administers E-Verify, a voluntary electronic program that checks whether new hires are authorized to work in the United States. Federal agencies and federal contractors are required to use the program.

This year, the administration had a fierce internal debate over what to do about laws in Arizona and elsewhere against illegal immigration. In November 2009, the high court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on the Legal Arizona Workers Act and whether it conflicted with federal law.

Several participants in the debate say Napolitano counseled against intervening in the case. She and others emphasized that the administration had tried to send the message that it favored strong enforcement, particularly against employers who were repeat violators.

But in the spring, immigrant rights advocates stepped up the pressure and argued that the administration had to take a stand against a second Arizona law. SB 1070 required police to check the immigration status of people they have lawfully stopped and suspect are in the country illegally. Activists feared it would lead to "racial profiling" and harassment of legal immigrants.

In May, shortly after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070, the Obama administration made its decision. It sent a brief to the Supreme Court urging the justices to hear the challenge to the Legal Arizona Workers Act on the grounds that it conflicted with the federal government's exclusive authority to enforce immigration laws.

In recent years, most states and many localities have considered laws that restrict or regulate illegal immigrants in areas such as employment, education, housing or law enforcement. Governors and lawmakers, including Napolitano, said they needed to act because the federal government had failed to enforce immigration laws.

Lawyers for the federal government argued these state and local laws should be thrown out because they conflicted with Washington's exclusive control over immigration enforcement.

In July, a federal judge in Phoenix, acting on a suit by the Obama administration, blocked SB 1070 from taking effect. That case is before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

For its part, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on the federal-vs.-state clash over immigration since 1976.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-immigration-2...

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

5.
California Republicans are split on possible anti-illegal immigration measure
By Seema Mehta
Los Angeles Times, December 6, 2010

A nascent California ballot measure that seeks to replicate Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants is dividing the state's Republicans, with a number of prominent strategists and leaders fearing that it could further harm their party's already fraught relationship with Latinos — the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

It's unclear whether the ballot's backers will have the financial resources to gather enough signatures to place the measure on the 2012 ballot.

Several Republicans said that even the effort to do so has the potential to increase the chasm between the party's candidates and the voting bloc whose record-breaking turnout tilted races in November and delivered a clean Democratic statewide sweep in a year in which Republicans celebrated major victories in the rest of the nation. They equated it to 1994's Proposition 187, which would have stopped illegal immigrants from receiving any state services had it not been largely voided by the courts.

"It's completely counterproductive to the future of the party as well as counterproductive to the immigration debate and coming to a real solution," said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who advised failed gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman. "It allows those who make a living off the demagoguing of immigrants to continue to do so."

Supporters of the measure counter that the party's nominees suffered deep losses because the party has no clear message on immigration.

"I think a greater damage to the future of the party in this state is that we have no position or message on immigration," said Mike Spence, a conservative Republican activist. "That to me is the bigger problem. I don't see how we can be damaged more than we already are."

The debate mirrors one taking place at the national level. Several prominent GOP candidates who were successful in recent elections have taken a hard line on immigration. Party operatives and leaders who have grown worried about alienating Latinos this week announced a major outreach effort, led by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

But while national leaders are looking toward an approaching demographic shift, the clout of Latinos already is in full bloom in California.

In November, one in five voters was Latino; 80% of them cast ballots for Democratic Gov.-elect Jerry Brown, while 15% voted for Whitman despite her multimillion-dollar effort to woo them. Their participation, driven by labor unions who used the Arizona immigration law to pull Latinos to the polls, was nearly double what it was in the last gubernatorial contest. And those numbers are expected to grow.

In California, Republican candidates have long faced a quandary when dealing with immigration, frequently touting their "tough as nails" credentials as they seek the GOP nomination from the party's most conservative voters, then modulating their tone as they try to sway moderate Republicans, independents and Democrats in the general election.

The next elections will be conducted with an open primary, but it's unclear what effect that will have on the tenor of the immigration debate or which GOP candidates might have an advantage.

The California proposal, known as the Support Federal Immigration Law Act, is modeled on Arizona's suspended law, SB 1070, but has tweaks that supporters believe will allow it to survive legal challenges.

The proposal would require law enforcement officers to swiftly check the immigration status of those they stop whom they suspect are in the country illegally, as long as such verification does not hinder an investigation. It would create new hiring requirements for businesses and new penalties for those who knowingly or negligently hire illegal immigrants.

The measure also addresses prospective employees, day laborers, immigrant smugglers and sanctuary cities.

Backers need to collect 433,971 valid signatures by April 21, 2011, to qualify the measure for the ballot, which they hope to do with a combination of paid signature-gatherers and "tea party" volunteers, said Michael Erickson, the initiative's proponent and a former member of the state Republican Party's executive committee.

A key question is whether Erickson will be able to raise at least $1 million to hire signature-gatherers. Another crucial question among Republicans is what effect the effort will have on Latino voters. The issue has become a staple of newscasts in the Spanish-language media.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigration-20101206,0,7110055.s...