Please visit our YouTube and Facebook pages.

1. Cuba agrees to immigration talks
2. Gov't implementing new requirements
3. GOP to stand against SCOTUS nominee
4. Census count facing Hispanic boycott
5. E-verify use in CO on the rise

1.
Cuba Agrees to Resume Immigration Talks With U.S.
By Mary Beth Sheridan
The Washington Post, June 1, 2009

San Salvador, Cuba -- Cuba has agreed to restart talks with the United States on immigration and has signaled its willingness to cooperate on issues including terrorism, drug trafficking and even mail service, a sign that the island's communist government is warming to President Obama's call for a new relationship after decades of tension, U.S. officials said Sunday.

The breakthrough was announced as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton began a three-day trip to Latin America, where she is expected to face pressure to take further steps to ease the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba.

Clinton said Sunday night that she was "very pleased" with the developments and hoped they would be well received by other Latin American countries. "We've made more progress in four months than has been made in a number of years," she said, "and we need to work together to continue that kind of progress, keeping in mind the legitimate aspirations and the human rights of the people of Cuba."

Obama has promised a "new beginning" with Cuba, and his overtures have included lifting restrictions on visits by Cuban Americans to the island and allowing U.S. telecommunications firms to operate there. But the administration has moved cautiously, mindful of domestic political repercussions. Obama and Clinton have said the United States will not lift its economic embargo until President Raúl Castro's government makes democratic reforms.

The announcement of the talks could take the edge off what was shaping up as a battle over Cuba at a regional meeting of foreign ministers that Clinton is scheduled to attend Tuesday in Honduras. The ministers have been considering readmitting Cuba into the Organization of American States, the main forum for political cooperation in the hemisphere, for the first time since 1962.

The United States has resisted readmitting Cuba, arguing it would violate the OAS charter on democratic principles. But the idea has widespread support in Latin America, where the U.S. embargo is seen as an anachronism and a symbol of Washington's historical dominance in the region. The issue of Cuba's participation in the OAS has put the U.S. government on the spot, especially after Obama pledged at a regional summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April that he would seek "an equal partnership" with Latin American leaders rather than dictating to them.

Cuba offered its olive branch to Washington on Saturday, when the head of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, Jorge Bolaños, formally accepted the U.S. offer to restart talks on legal immigration that were halted in 2003 by the Bush administration, said a senior State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The talks are not expected to change significantly the number of Cubans who legally immigrate each year to the United States -- about 20,000, the official said. But they will be the highest-level contacts between the two governments, and they could lead to dialogue on other topics. The Obama administration is interested in the discussions in part because of the growing problem of Cubans trying to enter illegally, the official said.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR200905...

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

2.
Traveling to Canada, Mexico by land? Get your passport ready; ID requirement starts June 1
By Manuel Valdes
The Associated Press, May 30, 2009

Blaine, WA (AP) -- New rules requiring passports or new high-tech documents to cross the United States' northern and southern borders are taking effect Monday, as some rue the tightening of security and others hail it as long overdue.

The rules are being implemented nearly eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks and long after the 9/11 Commission recommended the changes. They were delayed by complaints from state officials who worried the restrictions would hinder the flow of people and commerce and affect border towns dependent on international crossings.

In 2001 a driver's license and an oral declaration of citizenship were enough to cross the Canadian and Mexican borders; Monday's changes are the last step in a gradual ratcheting up of the rules. Now thousands of Americans are preparing by applying for passports or obtaining special driver's licenses that can also be used to cross the border.

"It's sad," said Steve Saltzman, a 60-year-old dual Canadian-American citizen as he entered the U.S. at the Peace Arch crossing in Blaine, Wash., on Thursday. "This was the longest undefended border in the world. Now all of the sudden it is defended, and not nearly as friendly."

Near the border crossing, local Blaine resident Mike Williams disagreed.

"This concept was past due," said Williams. "Because it's not a safe world and it's becoming more dangerous all the time."

In one Texas border community, long lines were reported at a local courthouse as people rushed to apply for the required documents. But it remains to be seen if the new requirement will cause traffic backups at points of entry and headaches for people unaware of the looming change.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials say they're confident the transition will be smooth.

"Our research indicates approximately 80 percent of the individuals coming in now, U.S. and Canadians, are compliant," and are crossing with proof of citizenship, said Thomas Winkowski, assistant commissioner for field operations at Customs and Border Protection.

The higher noncompliance areas, he said, are primarily U.S. citizens in the southern border region.

Travelers who do not comply with the new requirements will get a warning and be allowed to enter the U.S. after a background check, said Michele James, director of field operations for the northern border that covers Washington state.

"We're going to be very practical and flexible on June 1 and thereafter," James said.

The new rule, which also affects sea crossings, is the final implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, a security measure crafted from recommendations from the 9/11 Commission.

It's part of a gradual boost in security along the northern border that has featured millions of dollars in upgrades and the hiring of hundreds of more customs officers and U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Before the new rule, travelers only needed to show identification, such as a driver's license, and orally declare their citizenship. In 2008, the federal government changed that rule to require proof of citizenship, such as a birth's certificate or a passport.

Winkowski said people expected delays at points of entry in 2008 after proof of citizenship became a requirement, but no serious backlogs appeared.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-border-cro...

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

3.
GOP senators bring race issue to forefront of Sotomayor nomination
Republican lawmakers, toning down their initial criticisms of Limbaugh and Gingrich, who called the high court pick a racist, now question her ability to make fair decisions.
By Peter Wallsten
The Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2009

Washington, DC -- Since the introduction last week of Sonia Sotomayor, Republican senators wary of attacking the first Latino Supreme Court nominee have lashed out at conservatives in their party who branded the would-be justice a racist and have even predicted a smooth confirmation.

But several of those same GOP senators said Sunday that they would now make race a focus of the Sotomayor nomination fight -- and they were far less eager to criticize conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for their racially tinged critiques.

Fanning out across network television talk shows, the senators in essence pledged to ask a fundamental question: Can a woman who says her views are shaped by her Puerto Rican heritage and humble beginnings make fair decisions when it comes to all races and social classes?

"We need to know, for example, whether she's going to be a justice for all of us or just a justice for a few of us," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee, speaking on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

Days earlier, Cornyn said in a radio interview that it was "terrible" for conservatives to be attacking Sotomayor as a racist. He did not reiterate those sentiments Sunday and pledged that he and other Republican lawmakers would investigate Sotomayor's past comments and rulings to judge her fairness.

Cornyn's comments were echoed in appearances by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), another member of the panel that will conduct hearings.

McConnell refused to repudiate Limbaugh, Gingrich and other conservatives who have called Sotomayor a racist, telling CNN that they were "entitled to their opinions." He said he had "better things to do than be the speech police over people who are going to have their views about a very important appointment."

Sessions, asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” whether he agreed that Sotomayor was a racist, said he would “not use those words,” but he added: "I think that she is a person who believes that her background can influence her decision. That's what troubles me."

Kyl did not respond directly when asked whether he thought Sotomayor was a racist. "I'm not going to get drawn into characterizations before I have even met her," he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

At issue is a 2001 statement in which Sotomayor expressed hope that a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The senators also promised to question Sotomayor about a recent appellate ruling in which she rejected a discrimination claim by white firefighters in Connecticut.

"By ignoring a genuine constitutional issue about reverse discrimination in the New Haven firefighter case, you know, the comments she made about the quality of her decisions being better than those of a white male -- I mean, we need to go further into her record to see whether this is a trend, or whether these are isolated and explainable events," Cornyn said.

McConnell cited the firefighter case to suggest that Sotomayor might be inclined to side with any underdog no matter what the law might require.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sotomayor-gop1-2009...

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

4.
U.S. census sparks feud over the counting of illegal immigrants
A national Latino clergy group wants 1 million to boycott the count in an effort to press for legalization. But immigrant activists decry the plan.
By Teresa Watanabe
The Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2009

In a high-stakes battle that could affect California's share of federal funding and political representation, immigrant activists are vowing to combat efforts by a national Latino clergy group to persuade 1 million illegal immigrants to boycott the 2010 U.S. census.

The Washington, D.C.-based National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christian Leaders, which says it represents 20,000 Latino churches in 34 states, recently announced that a quarter of its 4 million members were prepared to join the boycott as a way to intensify pressure for legalization and to protect themselves from government scrutiny.

"Before being counted, we need to be legalized," said the Rev. Miguel Rivera, the coalition's chairman and founder.

But the boycott call has infuriated many Latino organizations. La Opinión, in a recent editorial, denounced it as a "dangerous mistake" that "verges on political suicide" while an official with the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials called it "wildly irresponsible."

"This is a phenomenal step backward in the strides we have made to make sure we are equal," said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Latino officials group.

The decennial census, which counts all people regardless of immigration status, is used to allocate federal funds for education, housing, healthcare, transportation and other local needs. By some estimates, every person counted results in $1,000 in federal funds.

The census is also used to apportion the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which are based on a state's population.

According to a study in 2003, California's sizable illegal immigrant population allowed it to gain three House seats it might otherwise not have received. The state's illegal immigrant population also caused Indiana, Michigan and Mississippi to each lose one of their seats and prevented Montana from gaining a seat.

The study by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based research group that promotes immigration restrictions, also argued that the illegal immigrant population skewed the "one man, one vote" principle in elections.

In 2002, the study found, it took almost 100,000 votes to win the typical congressional race in the four states that lost or failed to gain a seat, compared with 35,000 votes to win in immigrant-rich districts in California.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boycott31-2009may31,0,3637804.story

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

5.
Immigration checks rise
More Colorado employers use national system to verify status of new hires
By Bruce Finley
The Denver Post, June 1, 2009

Colorado employers are increasingly trying to weed out illegal workers.

The latest data show the number voluntarily using the national electronic system for verifying immigration status has more than doubled in two years — from 2,065 in May 2007 to 4,690 today.

Yet there are 155,000 employers in Colorado, and most get by simply by asking new hires for an ID, keeping a copy and signing a statement saying they checked.

A state law passed in 2006 requires examination of IDs but not verification, said Mike McArdle, director of the Colorado Division of Labor. Audits have found that, even under the looser standard, several employers might have failed to check adequately, he said.

Colorado employers "need to step up to the plate a little more and be more careful about who they are hiring and what they are doing in the hiring process," he said.

But he and other state officials stop short of recommending use of the federal "e-verify" system because the legislature hasn't required it.

As Congress and President Barack Obama move toward immigration reform, the gap in Colorado between employers that use e-verify and those that don't is replicated nationwide. About 125,700 out of 7 million U.S. employers are signed up. They check about 6 million, or one-tenth, of the nation's new hires a year.

Immigration experts have long argued that a consistent system for checking worker status is essential to prevent illegal immigration. Congress has appropriated $274 million and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has spent $183 million developing e-verify, which lets employers type in a name and Social Security number to find out whether a new hire is eligible for work.

No federal law mandates use of the system, and only Arizona has a law requiring its use.

The acting head of USCIS, which manages e-verify, touts the system as nearly capable of handling checks by all 7 million employers nationwide to verify the status of 60 million new hires a year.

The system "is ready to go" and 96 percent of queries lead to quick confirmation that a worker can be hired, said Michael Aytes, acting deputy director of USCIS, in a recent interview before the opening of a district headquarters in Denver.
. . .
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12491903