Please visit our YouTube and Facebook pages.

1. House approves extending benefits
2. U.S. DNA collection draws ire
3. Visa waiver program draws protests
4. DHS Sec.-select faces questions
5. Fed. judge dismisses suit

1.
House Votes to Expand Child Health Insurance
By Shailagh Murray and Ceci Connolly
The Washington Post, January 15, 2009; Page A06

The House easily approved an expansion of government health coverage for low-income children yesterday, a top priority for President-elect Barack Obama and the first in a series of stalled measures expected to move quickly through the Democratic Congress as President Bush leaves office.

Obama hailed the 289 to 139 vote and nudged the Senate to act with the "same sense of urgency so that it can be one of the first measures I sign into law when I am president."

The president-elect vowed as a candidate to provide health coverage to every child, and the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, is a major step toward that goal. "In this moment of crisis, ensuring that every child in America has access to affordable health care is not just good economic policy, but a moral obligation we hold as parents and citizens," Obama said.

The House legislation would cost nearly $33 billion over 4 1/2 years and would be funded in part by a cigarette tax increase of 61 cents to $1 per pack. Bush vetoed two similar bills in 2007, objecting to the tax increase and the expansion of government health care. The Senate Finance Committee will take up a similar measure today, with floor action expected to begin next week.

On Friday, the House passed two bills aimed at closing the pay gap between men and women. Both measures are opposed by Bush and supported by Obama, and both have been long stuck in the Senate because of formidable Republican opposition. With their new, much larger margin of at least 58 votes, Senate Democratic leaders hope to approve the measures in the coming weeks.

Other GOP-blocked initiatives that could move quickly would lift restrictions on federal stem cell research, a step Obama could take administratively after his inauguration, and would grant full congressional voting rights to the District of Columbia's delegate.

The House bill would provide health insurance to an additional 4.1 million children and parents, including legal immigrant children and pregnant women, who currently must wait five years before becoming eligible for the program. A total of 11 million individuals could now receive coverage.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a champion of the equal-pay and children's health measures, called the bills a signal of the House's commitment to taking care of "women and children first," saying Democratic leaders are especially eager to rush the health bill into law.

"At a time of economic crisis, nothing could be more essential than ensuring that children of hard-working families receive the quality health care that they deserve," Pelosi said.

In a policy statement, House Republicans outlined their objections, chiefly that the measure would place a new burden on states already struggling to meet soaring Medicaid costs and would permit states to enroll children from households with incomes of up to $80,000.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR200901...

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

2.
U.S. to collect DNA samples from arrested immigrants
By Jeremy Roebuck
The Monitor (McAllen, TX), January 13, 2009

Immigrant and civil rights groups have condemned a new U.S. Justice Department policy requiring federal agencies to collect DNA samples from all those they detain or arrest.

The regulation - which took effect Friday - expands a national database of individual genetic markers that previously included only those convicted of federal and some state crimes.

Law enforcement officials say compiling more DNA records will help them match suspects with forensic evidence found at crime scenes.

But for the thousands of illegal immigrants detained on civil violations each year, the expansion threatens to lump them in with more violent criminals, said Kathleen Walker, an El Paso-based immigration attorney and the immediate past president of the national American Immigration Lawyers Association.

"To sit there and paint that population with the same brush as violent criminals is extremely disturbing," she said. "Throwing DNA testing into a civil field (like immigration) is wrong and unconstitutional."

Federal legislators authorized the new policy in 2005, citing the growing effectiveness of DNA evidence in investigating crime.

The DNA plan was included as an amendment to that year's reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Officials compare the collection of such genetic samples to fingerprint records, which have been taken from all detainees and stored in state and federal databases for years.

All 50 states currently allow DNA to be taken from convicted state offenders, and 13 take samples from those suspected of violent offenses before their arrest. Much of the information has been added to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System since its creation in 1994.

The CODIS database currently houses records on 6 million individuals. The new collection parameters would add an additional 1.2 million each year, according to Justice Department estimates.

"It's not something where every agency will be ready to go immediately," department spokesman Evan Peterson said. But once it happens, "federal law enforcement will have the most up-to-date technology to use when investigating crime."

The sheer logistics of collecting and cataloguing samples could prove overwhelming - especially in the Rio Grande Valley, where thousands of immigrants are detained each year on suspicion of illegally crossing the border.

In the last fiscal year alone, federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against more than 25,000 immigrants in the judicial district stretching from Houston to the Rio Grande Valley, according to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan group that tracks federal prosecutions and enforcement actions.

That number does not include individuals apprehended and deported back to their home countries without being charged with a crime - a group that would also be required to submit their DNA under the new policy.
. . .
http://www.themonitor.com/news/dna_22026___article.html/federal_samples....

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

3.
US travel groups criticise new entry regulations
Travel groups in the United States fear that the new entry regulations will put travellers off from the visiting the country.
By Charles Starmer-Smith
The Telegraph (U.K.), January 13, 2009

The US Travel Association, the Washington-based non-profit organisation which represents all sectors of the travel industry, aims is to promote and facilitate increased travel to and within the United States.

But it warned today that the new Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) forms, which replace the I-94W forms used by countries with a visa-waiver agreement, have been poorly communicated and do not take into account those people who are not computer-literate. The forms must be completed by British travellers at least 72 hours before departure.

“America’s travel community supports the ESTA for its potential to improve security and increase convenience for travellers from visa waiver countries,” said Roger Dow, president and chief executive of the US Travel Association. “However, we are concerned that many of those who must comply with ESTA are not aware of it, do not fully understand what it is, or may be turned away at airports for non-compliance if the new requirements are fully enforced.

The Foreign Office warned last week that passengers arriving in the US faced the possibility of being turned away by American immigration officials if they had not completed the online application, but US authorities appear to have granted a period of grace so far.
. . .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4229366/US-travel-groups-cr...

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

4.
Napolitano to face immigration questions
Easy Senate confirmation expected as secretary of Homeland Security
By Daniel Gonzalez
The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), January 15, 2009

During her Senate confirmation hearing today to lead the Department of Homeland Security, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will likely face criticism that she has been lax on immigration enforcement.

In her defense, she will be able to point to two major accomplishments: She was the first governor to call for National Guard troops to help shore up the porous U.S.-Mexican border, and she signed the toughest state law punishing employers of illegal immigrants.

Still, there is more to those decisions than meets the eye. And Napolitano's maneuvering on the issues may offer a glimpse of how she would approach immigration and border security as head of Homeland Security.

As a first-term governor, Napolitano opposed putting troops on the border until her re-election rolled around, and she reluctantly signed the sanctions law under pressure. Republicans say both moves were designed to give her political cover.

"Although supporters have tried to portray Napolitano as a centrist, her record shows she is anything but a centrist," U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said shortly after Napolitano was named as President-elect Barack Obama's choice to head the department.

Smith, who sits on the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, said, "(Napolitano) opposed or weakened measures to enforce immigration laws."

Napolitano, who is expected to be confirmed easily, said she is ready to defend her immigration record. She said she had "good meetings" with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking Republican on the committee, which will handle Napolitano's confirmation hearing.

"I will lay out exactly what we've done on immigration and why and why some of the things that are broadcast as allegedly tough on immigration are really not good choices for us," Napolitano said.

National Guard

Beginning in January 2003, as tighter border security in California and Texas turned Arizona into the main gateway for illegal immigration, some Republican state lawmakers began pushing a bill that called for National Guard troops along the border.

Napolitano, who became governor in 2003, vehemently opposed the measure, arguing that border security was the job of the federal government and that putting the Arizona National Guard there would strain troops during a time of war.

In January 2006, however, Napolitano reversed her stance, stunning both Republicans and Democrats. During her State of the State address, Napolitano said she wanted to send National Guard troops to help support the Border Patrol with one condition: The federal government would have to pay for it.

Some Republicans viewed Napolitano's change of heart as election-year posturing. They tried to force her hand by submitting a bill that allocated $10 million in state money to pay for National Guard troops on the border.

The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the bill, but Napolitano vetoed it in March 2006. She argued the bill usurped her authority to command National Guard troops.

In April 2006, Republicans introduced a comprehensive immigration bill that included measures aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration, including state money to send the National Guard to the border.

That same month, President George W. Bush announced plans to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border, including in Arizona, for a two-year mission to support the Border Patrol.

Despite Bush's plan, the Legislature passed the bill of immigration enforcement. Napolitano vetoed that bill, calling the package "unconstitutional and ill-conceived."

In June 2006, the first National Guard troops began arriving in Arizona under Bush's plan, drawing praise from Napolitano. In May 2007, Napolitano criticized Bush for pulling off the border about half the 6,000 National Guard troops midway into their two-year mission. Last March, she criticized the Bush administration again for failing to keep Guard troops along the border until a border fence is completed.

Former Republican state Rep. John Allen, who sponsored one of the National Guard bills vetoed by Napolitano, says that the way the governor has handled the border issue shows she is "a very shrewd politician."

"It was a brilliant move," Allen said. "Like everything she does, it has all the elements of success without really doing anything."
. . .
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/01/15/200901...

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

5.
Suit against migrant smuggling law dismissed
By Michael Kiefer
The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), January 15, 2009

A federal judge in Phoenix on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Maricopa County attorney's policy of charging undocumented immigrants as conspirators with the people who smuggled them into the state.

In a class-action suit filed in 2006, a coalition of activist groups led by Somos America/We Are America maintained that immigration control is the responsibility of federal, not state or county government, and that County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio could not pre-empt federal law with their interpretation of a state law prohibiting human smuggling. The suit also called the policy unconstitutional.

But U.S. District Court Judge Robert Broomfield dismissed the suit, ruling that if he were to grant a judgment to Somos America, it would adversely affect many state prosecutions. That, he said - agreeing with the position of the County Attorney's Office - would contradict existing case law.

Peter Schey of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the lead attorney in the case, said that the relevant case law should not affect cases to be tried in the future and that Broomfield's ruling "was stretching it too far to give immunity to county prosecutors."

Schey had not yet spoken to the case plaintiffs - Somos America co-chairman Hector Yturralde was not yet aware of the dismissal when contacted by the Republic - but he thought there were grounds for appeal.
. . .
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/01/15/20090...