Please visit our YouTube, Twitter and Facebook pages.

1. Judiciary head considers objectives
2. Audit: ID policy not implemented
3. Conflict of wilderness, security
4. Immigration adds to growth rate
5. Hispanic groups tout lout

1.
GOP shifts immigration rhetoric
By Carrie Budoff Brown
Politico, December 23, 2010

If conservatives expected Republican Rep. Lamar Smith to champion the most controversial anti-immigration measures when he takes control of the House Judiciary Committee next month, they’re in for a surprise.

After weeks of speculation that he would pursue a scorched-earth immigration agenda, Smith detailed his to-do list for the first time in an interview with POLITICO — and it’s an early but important signal that the new House Republican majority plans to attack the issue of immigration through the prism of jobs, rather than red meat for the base.

Smith’s first two hearings will focus on expanding E-Verify, a voluntary electronic system for checking the immigration status of workers that President Barack Obama supports and scrutinizing the administration’s record on worksite enforcement.

“They are what I call 70 percent issues — 70 percent or more of the American people support those efforts,” Smith said. “I think they are popular across the board, and I think they will be appreciated by all American workers regardless of their ethnicity or background or anything else.”

At the same time, he downplayed the key planks in the conservative immigration agenda.

He won’t say when his committee plans to tackle birthright citizenship, the policy of granting citizenship to every child born in the country. He doesn’t want to talk about whether he will pursue reducing the level of legal immigration, family migration or work visas — all at the top of the wish list for anti-illegal-immigration advocates.

“That is later on in this Congress; that is not our initial focus,” Smith said. “We don’t have any specific plans now in the early months to move on these issues. The focus is on creating jobs and protecting jobs.”

But if Smith takes too long to get to the more controversial policies, he could be squeezed by his party's conservative wing, which is anxious to make progress on issues that have been stalled while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held the gavel.

The GOP’s incoming freshman class includes dozens of members who ran on strict immigration limits, and they may not be willing to settle for a muted approach. And the lawmaker poised to become chairman of the Judiciary’s immigration subcommittee is Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an immigration hard-liner.

“If he is not willing to do it — there is a lot of public support for reducing legal immigration — he is going to find he will be pressured on that issue,” said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.

Smith’s early emphasis on jobs flows from the House Republican leadership. Michael Steel, spokesman for incoming House Speaker John Boehner, said Republicans “heard — loudly and clearly — that the biggest issue right now is jobs. So I imagine that will be our priority in a number of issue areas.”

But it also underscores Smith’s cautious streak, a politician who is unquestionably conservative on immigration but tends to take a more measured public tone than fellow stalwarts, such as King and former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.).

“People like to really vilify Lamar Smith, but he is not Tom Tancredo,” said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, which favors putting illegal immigrants on the path to legal status. “He is someone who will not push legislation if he thinks it doesn’t have the wide support of the American people.”

Camarota said he believes Smith is enough of a dealmaker that he might even consider a modified DREAM Act legalizing young immigrants, if it was coupled with a cut in legal immigration and stronger enforcement — although pro-immigrant advocates would be all but certain to dismiss it as a bad deal.

“He is a very cautious guy, personally and politically,” Camarota said. “Every time I have talked with him, all of his staffers, he is a very careful guy. Contrast that with someone like Steve King, who is willing to say what is on his mind.”

That is not to say, however, that pro-immigration activists are at all comfortable with Smith’s agenda or even agree with the logic behind his approach —that reducing the number of illegal immigrants frees up jobs for legal workers and pushes down the unemployment rate.
. . .
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46774.html

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

2.
Lapse in Use of Border Documents
By James C. McKinley Jr.
The New York Times, December 22, 2010

Houston - A year and a half after the federal government strengthened rules on the documents needed to enter the country, millions of people are still being allowed to enter without passports or other hard-to-forge identification cards, a government audit has found.

The inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security estimated this week that about 3.6 million people a year were still passing through customs without the required documents, and that about half of those were coming through the border crossings in Texas.

The audit noted that overall compliance with the law was relatively high; about 96 percent of travelers entering the country’s 39 land ports of entry along the Mexican and Canadian borders now follow the new rules, presenting, for instance, a passport, a border-crossing card or a birth certificate.

But the auditors found that hundreds of thousands of people were still being waved through by customs officers without being referred for a secondary inspection. They also warned that if all the people who flouted the rules were sent for an extended second interview, it would overload customs officers.
. . .
Critics said the audit proved that the Obama administration had failed to fully carry out the stricter identification requirements mandated by Congress in response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

“If you are just letting them through without asking questions, then you are not implementing the program,” said Janice Kephart, a former counsel for the Sept. 11 commission who is now with the Center for Immigration Studies. “That’s a big security risk.”
. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us/22border.html

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

3.
Wilderness areas face criticism from border security advocates
A proposal to consolidate a swath of 250,000 acres of wilderness study areas in New Mexico has sparked an outcry from groups fearing an influx of illegal immigrants and drugs from Mexico. But the Border Patrol says the designation has little effect on its work.
By Nicholas Riccardi
Los Angeles Times, December 25, 2010

A new front has opened in the centuries-old battle over preserving federal lands in the West, with some advocates of a tighter border arguing that designating some lands as wilderness — meaning they are so precious that no mechanized vehicle can enter — hinders border security.

The U.S. Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies can take vehicles into wilderness areas while chasing lawbreakers. But to patrol the lands by vehicle, plant sensors or build operating bases, they must get permission from the federal agency controlling the region. Some retired agents say they were told by managers of wilderness areas that they could not use helicopters to pick up injured migrants, or that they could patrol only on horseback.

Critics point to Arizona, the main gateway for illegal immigrants and drugs from Mexico; much of that traffic passes through wilderness areas in the south-central and eastern parts of the state. A Border Patrol agent was shot to death this month in an isolated canyon south of Tucson, in an area being studied for wilderness designation.

Republican Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah has proposed a law to allow the Border Patrol unlimited access to federal lands along the border, just as it has access to all private land. The current situation, he said, forces the agency to ask permission to do its job.

"There is now a conflict," he said, "between wilderness and border security."

Environmental groups and some federal officials, however, contend that the conflict is overblown and that there is more cooperation than confrontation between the Border Patrol and land managers. They point to a Government Accountability Office report issued in October that found that 22 of 26 Border Patrol station chiefs in the southwest said that though environmental regulations can cause delays, they have no effect on overall security.

Lynn Scarlett, who as deputy secretary of Interior under President George W. Bush in 2006 drew up an agreement with the patrol on how to police wilderness lands, acknowledged there have been misunderstandings over the issue.

But she argued that the belief that Border Patrol efforts are hindered in wilderness areas stems not from facts, but a deep distrust of federal environmental protections among some in the West. "The debate about the Border Patrol becomes another vehicle for that long-standing debate," she said.

Environmental groups say that wilderness areas can be designed to enhance border security. The centerpiece of their argument is this swath of desert grasslands, volcanic craters and serrated peaks 40 miles from the war zone of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has proposed a new, 250,000-acre wilderness that would halt five miles from the border, allowing the Border Patrol to intercept smugglers and illegal migrants. Deeper in, a road would be built to allow the patrol to check the wilderness area. "We believe the result is both better protection of the community and the landscape," said Jude McMartin, a spokeswoman for Bingaman.

The head of Customs and Border Protection, Alan Bersin, has endorsed the proposal, saying it would make what is currently a little-traveled stretch of the border even securer.

But, in a sign of how contentious the debate has become, some retired Border Patrol officials, ranchers and local business leaders oppose the deal.

In a report, Janice Kephart of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which advocates for tighter border security, calls the proposed wilderness "a gift to the drug cartels." She argued that if the wilderness is approved, New Mexico could see Arizona-level problems.

It's a contention that has picked up steam locally. "It scares us to think that what happened there could be replicated in New Mexico," said Tom Hutchinson, owner of a well-known restaurant in Las Cruces and a former head of the local Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the wilderness designation.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-border-wilderness-2...

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

4.
2010 census results: Why did US population growth slow?
The US added some 27 million residents in the past decade. But that population growth is small, percentage-wise – 9.7 percent. Only during the Great Depression decade was the growth rate lower.
By Peter Grier
The Christian Science Monitor, December 21, 2010

The United States population has crashed through the 300 million mark, according to just-released 2010 census data. The total number of people living in the US as of April 1 this year was 308,745,538. That means the country has added about 27 million residents over the past 10 years.

That sounds like a lot of people, and it is. Only two other decades in US history have seen a larger number of people added to the census rolls. But since the US population is already quite large, even a big number of new additions can result in relatively slow growth, percentage-wise. And that’s just what the new census numbers reveal.

It’s one of the 2010 census’ most intriguing results: The US population has grown at only a 9.7 percent pace since 2000. In the context of US history, that’s quite slow. Only one other decade has seen slower growth, in fact. That was 1930 to 1940, when total population gain was 7.3 percent, according to Census Bureau records.

Why was growth so slow this time around? Well, one main cause was probably the powerful recession of the past several years. Hard times cause some couples to put off having children. They also convince more immigrants to return to or stay in their native lands instead of traveling to the US for work.

Think about the 1930s – it was the era of the Great Depression. No wonder it was the decade with the least vigorous US population growth of all time.

Another factor at work here is sheer size. The bigger the nation gets, the more the number of people it has to add just to maintain the same percentage of growth. That’s a trend that’s clear if you look at the nation over the past century. The 1910 census showed US growth of 21 percent. The comparable figure from the 1920 count was 15 percent.
. . .
And immigration remains a powerful force in US demographics. Roughly three-quarters of the US population growth that did occur over the past decade was due to immigrants, according to an analysis of census data by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The census counted 13.1 million new immigrants, both legal and illegal, who have arrived in America since 2000. In addition, immigrant women gave birth to 8.2 million children in the decade.
. . .
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/1221/2010-census-res...

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

5.
Is GOP in Danger From Ignoring Latinos?
By Stephanie Condon
The CBS News, December 23, 2010

Sen.-elect Marco Rubio of Florida is one of three Latinos who won statewide elected office in the 2010 midterm elections.

Despite a growing recognition in political circles of the political clout of the Hispanic community in the United States, several potential 2012 Republican presidential contenders are skipping an event next month billed precisely as a way for the GOP to address that community, Politico reports.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Texas Gov Rick Perry will all reportedly miss the first Hispanic Leadership Network conference next month in Miami. So far, the only potential presidential candidate confirmed to attend is Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Carlos Gutierrez, who served as commerce secretary under former President George W. Bush, will co-chair the two-day event. The Bush family, perhaps more than any other Republicans, have shown how the GOP can effectively court the Latino community.

While Hispanic Americans are typically reliably Democratic voters, they far from politically homogeneous. In fact, Hispanic Republicans made historic gains in the 2010 midterm elections. For the first time ever, three Latino candidates won top statewide offices, and they are all Republicans: New Mexico's Governor-elect Susana Martinez, Nevada's Governor-elect Brian Sandoval and Florida's Sen.-elect Marco Rubio. Still, Latino voters in the 2010 elections largely sided with Democrats.

If it ignores the Latino community in the 2012 presidential race, the GOP could cede critical ground. States with large Hispanic populations, such as Florida, Nevada and New Mexico, are expected to be battleground states in the next election. This week's Census report makes Florida and Nevada even more critical -- both states won one more electoral college vote.

The Census won't release the racial breakdown of their 2010 report until February or March, but the bureau did release some data from the American Community Survey indicating that the growth in some states could be attributable to growing Hispanic populations. The survey showed that there are more than 45 million Hispanics in the U.S., twice as many as 20 years ago. The Census predicts that by 2050, nearly one in three U.S. residents will be Hispanic.

In addition to states like Florida and Texas, Georgia may also be able to attribute its electoral vote pickup to a growing Hispanic population, Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza, told Chris Good of the Atlantic Magazine. Census data has shown that Hispanics' share of the population in Georgia has grown by nearly 50 percent since 2000.

Democrats should be keenly aware of the importance of the Hispanic voting bloc. In the 2010 midterms, strong support from the Hispanic community helped bolster Democrats in tough races, including California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid and Washington Sen. Patty Murray.

While Democrats failed in their attempts to address immigration reform this year in Congress, President Obama has made a strong commitment to revive the issue, even in the face of GOP opposition.

I am determined to get immigration done," he said in a press conference Wednesday. "It is the right thing to do... We need to reform this immigration system so we are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants."

Mr. Obama also said failing to pass the DREAM Act, a measure intended to give upstanding undocumented young people a pathway to citizenship, was his "biggest disappointment."
. . .
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026538-503544.html