1. Obama scales back deportations
2. Bilingual ballots ordered
3. Groups sue to halt SC law
4. Boycotts over AL law
5. Farmers question E-Verify

1.
Barack Obama's immigration gamble
By Josh Gerstein
Politico (DC), October 12, 2011

Amid impassioned demands from Latinos to revamp immigration policy, President Barack Obama found a way to act alone, without relying on an unwilling Congress.

His administration’s solution — scaling back deportations of illegal immigrants who appear to pose little criminal threat — could pay huge political dividends for the president with a key voting bloc in the 2012 election.

Immigration advocates say the new policy, which Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended last week, has stoked huge expectations in immigrant communities that deportations of mostly law-abiding illegal immigrants will end immediately. Those hopes could turn to disappointment if the process bogs down in bureaucracy and inconsistency.

Critics say the policy smacks of presidential politics and will waste federal money by suspending deportation cases that already are completed. They also argue there’s no way to predict who poses a threat to public safety, so some individuals allowed to stay in the U.S. could go on to commit serious crimes.

They hint at dire outcomes, reminiscent, perhaps, of the Willie Horton ads in the 1988 presidential campaign. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, then the Democratic nominee, was blamed for the state’s weekend furlough program that made it possible for a convicted murderer to commit rape when he didn’t return to prison after his furlough.

“What happens when aliens in these removal proceedings, their cases are dropped and they then go on to commit very serious crimes or kill someone in a traffic accident?” said Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State who has advised legislators in states seeking to toughen treatment of illegal immigrants. “These will have been avoidable deaths, and the Obama administration will have, for political reasons, put Americans in danger.”

Kobach said the policy inevitably will overlook potential threats. “Bureaucrats are going to define who will be a real danger,” he said. “Five of the 9/11 hijackers became unlawfully present in the United States, and none of those five had committed any crimes in the United States. But they went on to conduct a terror attack against the United States.”

At a House hearing last Tuesday, Republicans blasted the administration’s move as “administrative amnesty” and an end run around Congress.

Jan Ting, a Justice Department immigration official under President George H.W. Bush, told POLITICO the president’s initiative is “blatantly political. … He’s trying to ensure the turnout of Latino voters.”

In August, under heavy pressure from Latino supporters frustrated with Obama’s unfulfilled promises to revamp immigration law, the administration announced plans to review about 300,000 pending deportation cases and suspend or dismiss those deemed “low priority.”

Napolitano said the review would ensure that any future deportations “constitute our highest priorities” and her staff would refocus limited resources on “removal of aliens who pose a threat to public safety.” Her agency late last month underscored this new focus by arresting nearly 3,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records.

Shortly after the review was announced, she acknowledged that halting some deportations could spark political blowback. But she noted that Congress provides only enough money to deport about 400,000 people each year, and there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. The new policy, she said, is less risky than the one she inherited.

“I think the risk is greater if we don’t have the ability or facilities to even pick up those who’ve committed crimes and move them into deportation proceedings,” Napolitano said in response to a question from POLITICO. “You had illegal immigrants who committed crimes. Some of them very serious crimes — murder, rape, armed robbery. And they’d complete their sentences, and they’d be released back into the community as if nothing had happened. There was no way to systemically put a flag on them and say, ‘They’re not getting out. They’re going right … into removal.’”

At a recent online forum hosted by Latino websites, Obama stressed his support for overhauling immigration law and for narrower measures such as the DREAM Act, which would offer a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children and now attend college or serve in the military. The administration has advocated both changes, but the legislation has stalled in Congress.

As an alternative, Obama told his audience, his administration is focusing its enforcement on serious criminals and not college students.

“We are doing everything we can administratively, but the fact of the matter is these are laws on the books that I have to enforce,” Obama said. “What we can do is to prioritize enforcement, since there are limited enforcement resources, and say we’re not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who’s been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the DREAM Act passed.”

“Wherever we can provide some administrative certainty,” he told Spanish-language news outlets in August, “the better off we’re going to be.”

The announcement of the immigration review during the dog-days of summer drew only modest attention in the English-language press, but it was huge news in the Spanish-speaking community.

“This came out with a big splash,” said Angela Kelley, an immigration policy expert at the liberal Center for American Progress. “If you watched Spanish-language press that day, the announcement wasn’t the first five or seven or nine minutes of [TV news], it was like the first 14 minutes.”

“All eyes are on this administration, especially in the Latino community,” Kelley added.

But she and other immigrant rights advocates noted that officials have yet to issue public guidelines for the review or explain how it will unfold.
. . .
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65509.html

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

2.
Bilingual voting ballots ordered in 25 states
By Hope Yen
The Associated Press, October 12, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the run-up to the 2012 elections, the federal government is ordering that 248 counties and other political jurisdictions provide bilingual ballots to Hispanics and other minorities who speak little or no English.

That number is down from a decade ago following the 2000 census, which covered 296 counties in 30 states. In all, more than 1 in 18 jurisdictions must now provide foreign-language assistance in pre-election publicity, voter registration, early voting and absentee applications as well as Election Day balloting.

The latest requirements, mandated under the Voting Rights Act, partly reflect second and third generations of racial and ethnic minorities who are now reporting higher levels of proficiency in English than their parents. Still, analysts cite a greater potential for resistance from localities that face tighter budgets, new laws requiring voter IDs at polls and increased anti-immigration sentiment.

Effective this week, Hispanics who don't speak English proficiently will be entitled to Spanish-language election material in urban areas of political battleground states including Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Utah, as well as the entire states of California, Florida and Texas. For the first time, people from India will get election material in their native language, in voting precincts in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, due to their fast population growth.

More American Indian tribal languages will be made available in many parts of Alaska, Arizona and Mississippi, while Vietnamese and Taiwanese will get their own voting assistance in several new areas, including parts of Washington state, Texas, Massachusetts and California. Asian Bangladeshi must be provided for the first time in Hamtramck, Mich, which neighbors Detroit.

"We would like to be in a society where everyone has equal opportunities to vote, but that's not the reality we're living in today," said James Thomas Tucker, a former Justice Department attorney who is now a voting rights lawyer in Las Vegas. Tucker said the law has been key in the election of new Hispanic and Asian officials in many places, even as he noted that a vocal English-only language movement and new budget constraints on local governments could stir fresh tensions.

"Some jurisdictions will see pushback," he said.
. . .
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hfsAlHXMpJfgbQXfUMHHEQ...

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

3.
Groups sue to halt South Carolina's new immigration law
Reuters, October 12, 2011

A coalition of civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday to block South Carolina's new immigration law, the latest court challenge against a state crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The suit contends the law is unconstitutional, invites racial profiling and interferes with federal law, according to a statement by the coalition, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

South Carolina's law, set to take effect on January 1, requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest for another reason and suspect may be in the country illegally.

Under the new law, employers in South Carolina will be required to use the federal E-Verify system to check the citizenship status of employees and job applicants. Penalties for knowingly employing illegal immigrants will include suspension and revocation of a business license by the state.
. . .
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/us-immigration-southcarolina-i...

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

4.
Boycotts over Alabama immigration law
The Associated Press, October 12, 2011

ALBERTVILLE, Ala. — Along Main Street in this small Alabama town, the Mexican restaurant was closed, lights were out at a Hispanic-owned grocery store and even a bank catering to Spanish speakers was dark. Nearby, the usual hum of a chicken processing plant was silent.

Businesses dependent on immigrant labor were shuttered Wednesday as workers took the day off to protest the state’s strict new immigration law.

The work stoppage appeared largest in northeast Alabama, the hub of the state’s $2.7 billion poultry industry, but metropolitan areas were also affected. At least a half-dozen chicken processing plants closed or scaled back operations because employees, many of whom are Hispanic, didn’t show up for work or told managers in advance they wanted to join the sick-out to show disapproval of the law upheld by a federal judge two weeks ago.

“We want the mayor, the governor, this judge to know we are part of the economy of Alabama,” said Mexican immigrant Mireya Bonilla, who manages the supermarket La Orquidea, or “The Orchid,” in Albertville.

The town of about 19,000 people has one of the highest concentrations of Hispanics in the state. Out of 4.7 million people in Alabama, there are an estimated 185,000 Hispanics, most of them of Mexican origin.

It wasn’t clear exactly how many workers participated in the protest, but the parking lot was virtually empty at a Wayne Farms poultry plant, which employs about 850 people in Albertville. All along Main Street, Hispanic businesses were closed.

Jose Contreras shut down his restaurant and store, a move he said cost him about $2,500.

“We closed because we need to open the eyes of the people who are operating this state,” said Contreras, originally from the Dominican Republican and a U.S. citizen. “It’s an example of if the law pushes too much what will happen.”

Since the law was upheld, many frightened Hispanics have hid in their homes or fled. Some construction workers, roofers and field hands have stopped showing up and schools have reported high absentee rates among Hispanic students. Officials said even more students were absent Wednesday, apparently because of the protest.

The Obama administration has asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to at least temporarily block enforcement of the law, arguing in court documents Wednesday that the statute oversteps the state’s authority and could lead to the discrimination of legal residents. The appeals court has not indicated when it may rule on the administration’s request for a preliminary injunction.

The law allows police to detain people indefinitely if they are suspected of being in the country illegally and requires schools to check the status of new students when they enroll.
. . .
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65835.html

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

5.
Farmers say stricter immigrant screening could hurt their businesses
By Michael Matza
The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 13, 2011

BIGLERVILLE, Pa. - Toiling methodically in a vast green orchard, Saintasia Elysee reaches into the branches of dwarf apple trees and pulls out rosy winesaps. Her husband, Kenol Laurent, drives a tractor that lifts the heavy bins of harvested fruit.

The next day at Hollabaugh Bros. Farm, they were picking pears.

Haitian immigrants, Elysee and Laurent keep a home in the Caribbean nation and return annually to rural Adams County, Pa., for the summer and fall harvests. About 25 other immigrant workers, mostly from Haiti and Mexico, also come back year after year, laboring about five months for $15 to $20 an hour.

Kay Hollabaugh, who keeps the books for the 500-acre farm, said she complies with the federal law on immigrant employment. She fills out the required paperwork. She inspects their identity documentation. And unless a visa, driver's license, Social Security card, birth certificate, or other acceptable ID is obviously bogus, she accepts it.

"But we are not police. We are not psychics," she said. "There are people who make a good living falsifying documents" that look real.

She hopes all are legally authorized to work, she said. "But I don't know that."

Though some farmers privately admit as much, Hollabaugh, 55, is among a few speaking out now as lawmakers propose stricter screening through "E-Verify" - a government-run, Internet-based system that cross-checks names and Social Security numbers and spits out mismatches. Employees then have eight working days to settle the discrepancy or be fired.

The system has been available to employers since 1996; an estimated 3 percent of the nation's 6.5 million businesses use it, with 1,000 joining every week. Now, E-Verify proponents want to make it mandatory for all employers.

The impact on any industry heavily reliant on unskilled labor - from manufacturing to hospitality - could be significant. But agriculture in particular would be hit, said Nelson Carrasquillo, of El Comite de Apoyo a Los Trabajadores Agricolas, a farmworker support group in Glassboro, N.J., and Kennett Square, Pa.

From the tomato and vegetable farms of South Jersey to the mushroom houses of Kennett Square to the "apple capital" of Biglerville, uncounted thousands of immigrant pickers - some documented, some not - have long kept the machinery of farms in the region running.

Quite simply, farmers fear the loss of at least a portion of their experienced workforce and the potential dearth of nonimmigrant labor to replace it.

Family-owned since 1955, Hollabaugh's farm is 100 miles north of Washington. There, congressional Republicans led by Lamar Smith of Texas are putting their weight behind the Legal Workforce Act, H.R. 2885, which would mandate universal participation in E-Verify.

It would be "an important safeguard for American workers who continue to lose jobs and wages to illegal aliens," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit group that opposes illegal immigration.

"U.S. employers need to be able to hire with certainty," the American Council on International Personnel wrote in a memo supporting E-Verify.

President Barack Obama also expressed support for it, but only in conjunction with reforms that would create a path for undocumented immigrants to gain legal status.

E-Verify's opponents contend the system will destroy agribusiness by driving up costs, shrinking the workforce, and wreaking havoc on food production.

When Hollabaugh hears a legislator say E-Verify will save American jobs for Americans, "I just want to throttle him," she said. "There are no domestic workers who want to do this work."

Although farmhands do menial labor, she said, skills that experienced migrants have cannot be duplicated by just any cross-section of the unemployed. Don't get her started on the common suggestion to hire paroled ex-prisoners.

"The insinuation that just anybody can do this work is not true," Hollabaugh said, and when a harvest hits, "we don't have time" for training.

About 20 states require E-Verify for some or all employers.
. . .
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/13/3204607/farmers-say-stricter-immigr...