Please visit our YouTube and Facebook pages.

1. Analysis: Joblessness threatens amnesty
2. Labor coalition alienating support
3. GA Gov. mulls crackdown on criminals
4. MA pol under fire for suffrage stance
5. GA co. limits business licenses

1.
Jobless Rates Pose Threat to Immigration Reform
By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call (Washington, DC), April 20, 2009

Sky-high unemployment rates threaten to stall immigration reform despite a push by Hispanic and Asian lawmakers to keep the issue on the agenda this year.

The Obama administration has signaled that it plans to start working on the controversial subject but hasn’t committed to getting it done this year.

And some Democrats privately acknowledge that the economy — and in particular the jobless numbers — has to start turning around before they can consider bringing a comprehensive reform bill to the floor.

Otherwise, Democrats in many vulnerable districts will face endless attacks that they are granting legal status to illegal workers at a time when millions of Americans are joining the unemployment rolls.

“Whether that is right or not, there is a lot of economic insecurity, and people could be vulnerable to that message,” a House Democratic leadership aide said.

The aide also said immigration reform could end up tripping up the rest of the agenda if it were put on the floor too quickly.

“We’ve got an unprecedented level of challenges right now and a lot on our plate, and we’ve got a lot of momentum,” the staffer said. “This potentially could disrupt that momentum. We can’t get sidetracked.”
. . .
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_116/news/34073-1.html

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

2.
Labor agreement could backfire on immigration reform
By Jared Allen
The Hill (Washington, DC), April 18, 2009

Organized labor’s new unified front in support of comprehensive immigration reform could disrupt what’s left of the delicate bipartisan balance on one of the most politically charged issues in Congress.

Earlier this week, labor celebrated the coming together behind a single set of immigration reform principles after years of being at odds with itself over various parts of a planned immigration overhaul.

But that unity could have the unintended consequence of driving a wedge between Democrats and those few Republicans whose support will be critical to getting a major immigration reform bill through the Senate – and could even prevent such a bill from having bipartisan support in the House.

“The current plan being developed by the administration and organized labor calls for immigration reform that does not adequately address either securing the border or a legal temporary worker program and is a plan I cannot support,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the lead Republican sponsor of the immigration bill that died in the Senate after a conservative uprising against it in 2007.

McCain’s support – and the support of other Senate Republicans – will be necessary to advance a comprehensive bill even to the point it got to two years ago.

The two major labor groups – the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win federation, which includes the Service Employees International Union – have always agreed on the most contentious immigration issues, which is creating a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented workers already in the country illegally.

But before the Senate agreement fizzled the two groups split over immigration when the AFL-CIO refused to support a guest worker program backed by President Bush and that a number of Republicans working toward a full immigration overhaul said was critical to earn their support as well.

The business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, has long supported the guest worker program.

With the new labor framework, though, the guest worker program would be scrapped in favor of a national commission to determine the number of permanent and temporary workers allowed across the border every year, which the labor groups said would be “based on labor market shortages that are based on actual and real needs.”

The SEIU and its affiliated unions, which had in the past backed the guest worker program, said they had not abandoned their principles.

“How we get to numbers and all of that and who makes those decisions is what the commission will do,” Eliseo Medina, the SEIU’s international executive vice president, said last week in a conference call with reporters. “How [workers] get here is what’s different, not what rights they have when they come here. I don’t think it’s inconsistent. I think it’s what we been speaking about the whole time.”

AFL-CIO has opposed the current guest worker program on the grounds that some employers use it to exploit foreign employees at the expense of U.S. workers they would otherwise have to provide better pay and conditions to.

The other tenants of the labor agreement include a pathway to citizenship provision, a worker verification system and proposal for “rational, operational control of the border.”

And labor made it clear that they want Congress to bend to their new plan.

“We will do whatever it takes, whatever is necessary to really encourage our legislators and to encourage the people of the United States to really support this position,” said Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the United Farm Workers.

“The ball’s going to be in Congress’ court to say why this agreement won’t work,” added Ana Avendano, the ALF-CIO’s director of the group’s immigrant worker program.

But the immediate response in Congress has been mixed at best.

“We need to act on the pressing issue of border security now, and then seek comprehensive immigration legislation that includes a temporary worker program,” McCain continued. “Any legislation that does not address these two key components is not real reform.

The Republican-friendly Chamber of Commerce has also criticized the labor agreement, citing the planned elimination of the guest worker program
. . .
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/labor-agreement-could-backfire-on-im...

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

3.
Illegal immigration targeted
If Perdue signs bill, tougher measures to take effect
By Mary Lou Pickel
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 18, 2009

Georgia’s crackdown on illegal immigration will continue if Gov. Sonny Perdue signs into law a measure approved by the General Assembly requiring more jail checks that could lead to deportation.

“That is a deterrent, in and of itself, to people coming into Georgia or remaining here illegally,” said D.A. King, president of the Dustin Inman Society, a Marietta-based anti-illegal immigration group, and a supporter of the legislation.

The measure, House Bill 2, updates sections of the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act of 2006, a comprehensive crackdown on illegal immigration in Georgia. It is awaiting Perdue’s signature.

Georgia law already requires jailers to check legal status and report any illegal immigrants charged with a felony, DUI or driving without a license. Under House Bill 2, jailers also would be required to alert federal agents when they encounter an illegal immigrant charged with misdemeanors of a “high and aggravated nature.”

In addition, the bill requires that public employers and contractors use a federal database to verify that new hires are not illegal immigrants, and that those who receive public benefits —- from welfare to a business license —- are in the U.S. legally. Local governments that don’t comply could lose state road-building money, the measure says.

Jerry Gonzalez, head of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, called the bill a waste of time. Gonzalez said immigration is a federal issue that should be resolved by Congress, not at the state level. President Barack Obama is expected to address immigration reform this year.

“The bottom line is that immigration reform is coming,” Gonzalez said.

Terry Norris, executive vice president of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association, called it another unfunded mandate.

“Most sheriffs do not have the resources to enforce immigration law,” Norris said. He added, however, that sheriffs will comply with the law.
. . .
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/04/18/legimmig0418...

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

4.
Under fire - Rep. criticized for supporting voting rights for illegals
By Lurdes C. da Silva
The O Journal (Fall River, MA), April 17, 2009

Framingham -- Give Massachusetts's undocumented residents the right to vote? Even many immigrant advocates say that should remain illegal.

In recent days, State Rep. Pam Richardson (D-Framingham) has ignited widespread opposition with her idea to give illegal immigrants the right to vote in local elections. To the point she backed down only a day after she said she was in favor of adding the issue to the state Democratic Party's official platform.

"I have been receiving a lot of e-mails and phone calls... I'd say 90 percent are not in favor of this proposal," Rep. Richardson told our sister publication MetroWest Daily News. "It's definitely made me think the whole concept."

Critics say the right to vote should only be given to U.S. citizens.

"I absolutely disagree [with Rep. Richardson's idea]," said Helena S. Marques, director of the Immigrants' Assistance Center of New Bedford. "I believe, however, that we must find a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. And then, they can become U.S. citizens and vote."

Paulo Pinto, executive director of the Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers (MAPS), headquartered in Cambridge, agrees.

"It's not appropriate," he said. "We need to follow the Constitution and help them [illegal residents] become documented."

Both Marques and Pinto fear that proposals like Richardson's may in the end do more harm than good.

"It can trigger a lot of negative energy and put fuel into the fire," said Marques. "Especially now. The economy is bad and people are blaming immigrants. What we need is comprehensive immigration reform."

Pinto said legislators should not put the "carriage before the horse."

"There is already so much anti-immigrant sentiment, we don't want to create more fear," he said. "We must instead push the immigration reform agenda. The undocumented have a lot more other concerns than voting. They live in fear of being caught. They want to become documented so they don't have to live underground and be subject to abuse or neglect."

Eva A. Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said the voting issue is not a priority for the group, as it has a full agenda - such as backing in-state public college tuition rates for non-citizens and domestic violence prevention programs. The group doesn't support offering voting rights to illegal immigrants, she said.

"When it comes to voting rights with undocumented immigrants, that's where we draw the line," said Millona.
. . .
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=2677&Nav_Sec=71827

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

5.
Illegal Immigration: Cherokee limits its licenses
Residents who want to start a business must prove their legal status.
By Nancy Badertscher
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 20, 2009

Cherokee County has become the latest metro Atlanta county to limit business licenses to legal residents.

The county began on April 13 requiring applicants for business licenses and renewals to sign an affidavit, saying they are in the U.S. legally.

At least two other jurisdictions —- Cobb and Gwinnett counties —- have imposed similar requirements based on the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act. That law, which was passed by the state Legislature in 2006, prohibits taxpayer funds from going to illegal workers.

Buzz Ahrens, chairman of the Cherokee County Commission, said the county didn’t have much option. “The state Legislature said it would cut off all funding if we didn’t do it,” he said.

Elise Shore, regional counsel with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said not all legal experts agree that the law was meant to apply to business licenses.

Like the state law, “this is trying to send a message to the immigrant community that they’re not welcome,” Shore said.

She said the mandate of the affidavit also creates “a more regulatory environment, a more difficult environment for businesses.”

D.A. King, a Marietta opponent of illegal immigration, applauded Cherokee’s decision to “partially” comply with the 2006 law by requiring the affidavit.

“I hope they will do all that is necessary to gain full compliance,” said King, who sued Cobb County in 2008 before the county starting requiring business license applicants to show they are legal residents.
. . .
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/04/20/immigration0...