A US immigration reform bill that would allow 12 million illegal immigrants to become citizens eventually and would create a guest worker program for up to 400,000 low-skilled immigrants each year has won the approval of a Senate panel.

The decision of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday to back the controversial bill 12-6 came as hundreds of thousands of immigration advocates marched nationwide, protesting against a House of Representatives policy to get tough on illegal immigration.

The vote cleared the first major hurdle to the most sweeping changes to immigration laws in two decades, although significant obstacles remain before any measure becomes law.

Its supporters credited the huge public rallies with persuading senators that a comprehensive approach to immigration is in order. The stage has now been set for an election-year battle between the Senate and the House.

The Democrat senator whose proposals formed the basis of the committee's final bill, Edward Kennedy, said: "Americans wanted fairness, and they got it this evening. The demonstrations at the grassroots had a powerful impact. This was a nation-shaking event."

Under the measure, the nation's 12 million undocumented immigrants would be able to apply for citizenship after six more years of residency if they hold stable jobs, pay back taxes and fines, maintain clean criminal records and learn English.

The bill would nearly double the number of border patrol agents in the next five years. It would authorise 400,000 new work visas for foreigners living in the US to work in jobs that employers say Americans don't want. The guest worker program would allow immigrants to work legally in the US for up to six years and apply for citizenship in their fourth year.

The guest worker program has been pushed by the President, George Bush, who warned on Monday against fear-mongering on the divisive issue.

"No one should play on people's fears or try to pit neighbours against each other," Mr Bush said. "No one should pretend that immigrants are a threat to American identity, because immigrants have shaped America's identity."

The vote surprised many observers who expected the Republican-controlled committee to approve a bill that would focus primarily on enforcing the nation's borders. Broad legislation is always difficult in an election year, and many across the country want fewer immigrants in the US, believing that immigrants have been taking jobs from Americans.

In any event, a bruising battle on the Senate floor is expected this week. Even if the Senate approves the bill, any measure that appears to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants faces fierce opposition in the House, which in December passed a bill that would erect a fence along the Mexican border and make it a crime to provide social services to undocumented immigrants.

The Boston Globe; Cox Newspapers

Republican Split on Immigration Reflects Nation's Struggle

Washington's anti-immigration policy: How tough is too tough?

Latin-American news media seemed awestruck by the huge protests that took place in Los Angeles, Chicago and other U.S. cities last weekend, as demonstrators took to the streets to express opposition to the Republicans' proposed new anti-immigration law.

Mexico, it appears, would be most directly affected by the new law. With only a few months remaining in office before federal elections take place in early July, center-right Mexican President Vicente Fox has achieved nothing significant regarding immigration during his six-year term. His administration seemed pleased that yesterday's revision by the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee of the proposed new law eliminated some of its harshest provisions - like criminalizing the 11 million illegal immigrants who are already in the United States. Still, the mood in Mexico remains one of wait-and-see. Will the full Senate approve the committee's revamped version of the bill, which also provides for a guest-worker program for immigrants?

Some 500,000 protesters took part in last Saturday's demonstration, in Los Angeles, against the proposed anti-immigration law

From news coverage in Latin America of the controversial immigration issue:

» The proposed new law, known as the Sensenbrenner Bill, is named after its sponsor, Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the heir to the Kotex fortune. Ecuador's El Comercio noted that, as it is written, for illegal immigrants, his proposal "is the most dreaded of all the post-9/11 laws" that have emerged in the U.S. Congress. In its unwelcoming severity, the paper pointed out, it marks a distinct "before and after point in the history of this country of immigrants." The paper quoted Eduardo Giraldo, the head of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Queens, New York, who said: "In 20 years, we Latinos are going to number some 150 million [in the U.S.] and we'll have economic and political weight...." He called the Bush administration's anti-immigrant fervor "a crusade against us." El Comercio noted that, although Bush and the Catholic church have been strong allies in their campaign against abortion and so-called gay marriage, the church is opposed to the criminalizing of illegal immigrants.

» Mexican President Fox called Bush late last week to discuss immigration and to express his hope that U.S. law-makers would act in a "just and humanitarian" way in addressing the politically hot issue. (EFE/El Nuevo Diario, Nicaragua) Analyzing that high-level, mostly-for-show communication, Carlos Gutiérrez, a Mexican expert in Mexico-U.S. relations, said he doubted the two leaders' phone chat would result in "any concrete announcement about immigration reform that Mexico [would] want," and that he believed Bush had merely used the occasion to press his "obsession about improving security along the [U.S.-Mexico] border."

Mexicans make their way north, toward the Mexico-U.S. border

» Yesterday, a conference on international immigration opened in Mexico City. (La Jornada) Its sponsors are the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. At the gathering, Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez noted that discussions of immigration-related concerns should not focus exclusively on the security theme. Instead, he stressed that they should take into consideration the economic, cultural and ethical aspects of the immigrant's experience, as well as the human rights of immigrants. (Notimex/La Crónica de Hoy) At the conference, Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, speaking for the Vatican, noted that immigration could - or should - be regarded as more of a "resource" than an "obstacle to development." The papal representative argued that "immigration laws must make a distinction between the legal order and the moral order." Calling for laws that are "just," the Catholic official noted that "what is legal is not always just...." (Notimex/Milenio)

» Mexico's Milenio reports that, in response to efforts by the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee to lessen the severity of the Sensenbrenner Bill, the Mexican government is putting forth proposals of its own to better deal with would-be immigrants headed for the United States. The Fox administration wants to try to make sure that "whoever decides to leave [Mexico and head north] does so legally." It is pledging to do more to "combat organizations that are dedicated to the [illegal] trafficking in immigrants," to deal with the violence that has plagued the border region and "to increase sanctions against crimes related to [illegal] immigration." The government also says it will step up development programs in economically strapped regions of Mexico that have yielded the most U.S.-bound immigrants.

» Op-ed columnist Katia D'Artigues Beauregard (El Universal, Mexico) watched the news of last weekend's protests and, citing the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators who turned out around the U.S., asked: "Who's going to stop them?" "When half a million people take to the streets," she noted, "you have to pay attention." Such numbers are important, D'Artigues Beauregard argued, especially as the United States' Hispanic popultion continues to grow. She warned that Washington's policy "against Hispanics," a group that now outnumbers African-Americans in the U.S., could backfire. Law-makers should keep in mind, she suggested, that many Hispanics vote, and that their power as a voting bloc is now strong enough to "change elections."

Posted By: Edward M. Gomez (Email) | March 28 2006 http://sfgate.com

Spanish-language media rally immigrants

GILLIAN FLACCUS

Associated Press  March 28, 2006

LOS ANGELES - The marching orders were clear: Carry American flags and pack the kids, pick up your trash and wear white for peace and for effect.

Many of the 500,000 people who crammed downtown Los Angeles on Saturday to protest legislation that would make criminals out of illegal immigrants learned where, when and even how to demonstrate from the Spanish-language media.

For English-speaking America, the mass protests in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities over the past few days have been surprising for their size and seeming spontaneity.

But they were organized, promoted or publicized for weeks by Spanish-language radio hosts and TV anchors as a demonstration of Hispanic pride and power.

In Milwaukee, where at least 10,000 people rallied last week, one radio station manager called some employers to ask that they not fire protesters for skipping work. In Chicago, a demonstration that drew 100,000 people received coverage on local television more than a week in advance.

"This was a much bigger story for the Latino media," said Felix Gutierrez, a professor at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. "If the mainstream media had been paying better attention, there would not have been the surprise about the turnout."

Adrian Velasco first learned of House legislation to overhaul immigration policy on Los Angeles' Que Buena 105.5 FM. Over two weeks, the 30-year-old illegal immigrant soaked up details about the planned march against the bill from Hispanic TV and radio. On Saturday, he and three friends headed downtown.

"They told all the Hispanic people to go and support these things," Velasco said. "They explained a lot. They said, 'Here's what we're going to do.'"

One of those doing the most talking was El Piolin, a syndicated morning show radio host who is broadcast in 20 cities.

El Piolin, whose real name is Eduardo Sotelo and whose nickname means "Tweety Bird," persuaded colleagues from 11 Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles to talk up the rally on air.

He said he devised the idea of telling protesters to wear white and carry flags to symbolize their peaceful intent and love of the United States. He also urged parents to bring their children to minimize chances of violence and reminded everyone to bring plenty of water and trash bags.

"I was talking about how we need to be united to demonstrate that we're not bad guys and we're not criminals," said Sotelo, 35, who crossed into the United States as a teenager and became legal in 1996.

In Milwaukee, the Spanish-language station WDDW 104.7 made a point of publicizing the House legislation and the protest against it on its morning and drive-time shows two weeks ahead of time.

Operations manager Armando Ulloa said his goal was at least 10,000 people - and police estimated that was what the rally attracted. After the march, Ulloa said, he called some employers and asked them to be lenient on protesters who missed their shifts.

In Los Angeles, 10 prime-time Spanish-language news anchors filmed a promotion urging demonstrators to show respect, said Julio Cesar Ortiz, a television reporter who covers immigration.

"The Spanish media said, 'Do it in a proper way. Do it in a way where's there's pride behind it when you're done,'" Ortiz said.

Telemundo Chicago, a Spanish-language TV station, began its coverage blitz 1 1/2 weeks before a recent rally, though there was no urging that viewers attend, said news director Esteban Creste.

"We just told them what was going on," Creste said. "While we were not trying to mobilize people, it might have prompted people to decide to go there."

Associated Press Writers Emily Fredrix in Milwaukee and Carla K. Johnson in Chicago contributed to this report.

Bush tells Americans immigrants are not a threat
Mon Mar 27, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, warned the U.S. Congress against fearmongering on Monday as the Senate tackled immigration reform, an issue that has split his Republican party and spurred huge protests.

"The immigration debate should be conducted in a civil and dignified way," Bush said, pushing his own proposals at a swearing-in ceremony for 30 new American citizens.

With his job approval rating at the lowest of his presidency, Bush faces a new test of his political strength on the divisive immigration issue.

"No one should play on people's fears or try to pit neighbors against each other," he said. "No one should pretend that immigrants are a threat to American identity, because Americans have shaped America's identity."

The public is divided between those who favor curbing illegal immigration with tighter border security and tougher enforcement and those who say it is essential to bring some 12 million illegal workers out of the shadows with a comprehensive overhaul.

Bush has stuck to his three-part plan -- border security, stronger enforcement and a temporary worker proposal, a legal way to fill the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also opened its hearings to craft broad bipartisan legislation that would tighten border security and make it a criminal misdemeanor to be in the country illegally. It too would establish a temporary worker program and provide a way for some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country to legalize their status.

Immigrant groups, labor unions and some business groups are pushing for broad immigration reform that would give some undocumented workers a way to earn permanent status and eventual citizenship. But some conservative Republicans, who normally back Bush, say that would be a form of amnesty and would reward people for illegal behavior.

Tough new proposals from some members of Congress making it a felony to be in the United States illegally, cracking down on employers and others who help illegal immigrants and plans to build a fence along part of the border with Mexico, sparked hundreds of thousands of mostly Hispanic demonstrators to protest in Los Angeles and other cities.

"Completing a comprehensive bill is not going to be easy," Bush said. "It will require all of us in Washington to make tough choices and make compromises."

No crime to help immigrants

Senate committee bill tosses felony provision for aiding illegal aliens and gives means for green card

BY GLENN THRUSH AND PETER CLARK
Newsday Washington Bureau

March 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee rammed through a sweeping immigration reform bill Monday, rejecting a House measure making it a crime to assist undocumented aliens, while creating a way for millions of illegal immigrants to stay here legally.

Yet as the committee was deliberating, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) cast doubt on the entire effort, threatening to block the bill from ever reaching the Senate floor if a majority of the Senate's 55 Republican senators don't agree to it.

Frist, a potential 2008 presidential candidate who has courted conservatives, reiterated his threat to introduce his own stripped-down version, which doesn't include the temporary worker or felony provisions.

"If the bill doesn't have majority support, we'll introduce my bill," said Frist, who refused to say if he supported the compromise hammered out by Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Monday.

"I don't want to be pinned down," said Frist, who had set a Monday deadline for passage of the bill and predicts his chamber will pass some form of the bill "within two weeks."

Specter, who sped through the all-day committee hearing like an auctioneer with an overloaded docket, predicted his bill would pass. Asked about Republican support for the measure, he said, "It's not a majority of the majority, but it's close."

In the day's most significant action, the committee voted 12-6 to approve an amendment co-sponsored by Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to allow undocumented workers living in the United States to remain while they apply for a green card.

The measure, which conservatives have criticized as back-door amnesty, allows illegal workers to remain in the country if they pay a $1,000 fine, prove they are learning English and settle their back-tax bills.

The committee rejected a Republican amendment to require immigrants to return to their home countries as a condition of applying for permanent residency.

"It rewards illegal immigrants and will be considered an amnesty by Americans," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). "It will encourage further disrespect for our laws and will undercut our efforts to shore up homeland security."

As the legislators debated, hundreds of pro-immigrant demonstrators picketed on the Capitol grounds, echoing massive protests elsewhere during the past week.

"But even if we win today, it's only one step," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the Washington-based National Immigration Forum, speaking to the crowd on the Capitol's West Lawn. "Immigrants pay a lot in taxes and don't get a lot back."

President George W. Bush, who attended a naturalization ceremony in Washington, didn't comment on the Senate bill, but said, "America is stronger and more dynamic when we welcome new citizens."

The committee voted 10-7 to throw out the House provision making it a felony for charitable groups and clergy to provide food, shelter and other assistance to undocumented immigrants, an issue that helped spur demonstrations and drew condemnation from Catholic leaders.

Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), a co-sponsor of the House bill, said he had no problem rolling back the felony clause. "I support the amendment because it takes away the phony issue the Catholic bishops created," he told Newsday. "Even without this amendment, no priest or nun would have been prosecuted. But if this makes them happy, fine."

The judiciary committee's bill also creates:

- 12,000 new border patrol positions during the next five years, bringing the total to 23,000.

- a program for 400,000 guest workers living outside the country, an initiative pushed by the Bush administration.

- a pilot program proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to allow 1.5 million undocumented agricultural immigrants to obtain five-year temporary visas.

- new penalties for people who build tunnels under the border or allow tunnels to be built on their property.

Jewish Group Advocating For Immigrants

New York Jewish Week - NY, USA

James D. Besser - Washington Correspondent

The Jewish community has a new point person in what is shaping up to be the most explosive political issue of the year.

Gideon Aronoff, the incoming president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, is taking over the 125-year-old immigrant rights group as the debate over differing House and Senate immigration reform bills is turning into a major flashpoint for this year’s congressional midterm elections and the 2008 presidential race.

The debate has touched off a political storm from right-wing activists, many of whom have broken with President George W. Bush by supporting a harsh House-passed bill that would criminalize illegal immigration — but it has also sparked demonstrations across the country demanding a less punitive approach.

Aronoff, a veteran of the Soviet Jewry and the immigrant rights movements who until recently served as the Jewish group’s Washington director, said Jewish interests in the intensifying fight are clear, despite the fact that Jewish immigrants and refugees, who come into this country legally in relatively small numbers, are not a factor.

“Some have argued that because of that, we should just sit on the sidelines,” he said. “But I argue that we have a series of community interests that mandate that we be part of the struggle to find a just and sensible result.”

On a broad level, he said, Jews have both a religious and historic obligation to make sure America remains a welcoming place. On a practical level, supporting progressive immigration legislation is vital for building and maintaining relations with the other ethnic communities that are coming into their own in 21st-century America.

“If we’re going to develop our Jewish community ties with the Latino community, with the Asian community, we have to be sensitive to issues of great concern to them,” he said. And that means using the Jewish community’s considerable political muscle and savvy to oppose punitive immigration measures.

But Jewish security is at risk, too, as the nation stands on the brink of one of its periodic spasms of anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner agitation.

“We are facing a situation again when the country is changing, and that makes people anxious,” he said. “And the Jewish community, historically, has done badly when the populace was anxious. But today, we are in a position where our strength and our relative security give us an opportunity to bring a strong moral voice to the discussion.”

Other Jewish leaders say politicians are using anxiety over lost jobs and a changing job market to stir up and tap anger against illegal immigrants — a mode of demagoguery that could spill over to affect other vulnerable groups.

“It’s this year’s gay marriage issue,” said a top Capitol Hill staffer. “It’s playing with primal emotions about foreigners, which is always dangerous for our community.”

Although Jewish immigrants and refugees will not be affected by legislation that has sparked the current furor, Aronoff said he doesn’t see any signs that Jewish interest in true immigration reform is slackening.

“In fact, we see the community rallying around the cause of just, compassionate and realistic immigration reform,” he said.

Thirty-two Jewish community groups joined HIAS in a letter to the Senate calling for just that, he said. “And HIAS has over 75 Jewish community partners who joined in a broad statement on refugee and immigration policy. So we see a real consensus among the key voices in Jewish life to stay in the debate.”

Other Jewish leaders note that a continuing Jewish presence in the immigrant rights mainstream is critical to offset the growing involvement of radical groups like International ANSWER — the antiwar, anti-Israel group.

Aronoff, 42, was born in New York but raised in East Lansing, Mich. He has a bachelor’s from Brandeis and a law degree from Cornell. But instead of the corporate route, he chose to work with Jewish human rights groups, starting with the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews.

“My experience in the Soviet Jewry movement taught me how essential it is that there be a path to freedom and an escape hatch for victims of persecution,” he said. “That was the core lesson of the Soviet Jewry movement, and it’s one I see in action every day at HIAS.”

The group he now leads, he said, “recognizes that violating the immigration laws is wrong,” but also believes that an enforcement-only approach — or, worse, criminalizing both illegal immigration and assisting illegal immigrants —does not serve American or Jewish values.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12279

Associated Press
Poll Shows Growing Fear Among Immigrants
By PETER PRENGAMAN , 03.28.2006

A majority of people who described themselves as legal immigrants for a poll released Tuesday said they believe anti-immigration sentiment is growing and are alarmed by the tone of the debate over reform.

Just under one-third of them said Congress and President Bush are doing a good job on the issue.

The findings come as the U.S. Senate considers immigration reform proposals, including legislation approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that would clear the way for 11 million illegal aliens to seek U.S. citizenship.

Lawmakers are also considering legislation that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally, impose new penalties on employers who hire illegals and build more fences along the U.S.-Mexican border.

The poll was conducted by the firm Bendixen & Associates between Feb. 24 and March 21. Researchers said they interviewed 800 people who described themselves as legal immigrants in 47 states and who were reached by random digit dialing in communities with large numbers of immigrants. The said the margin of error was plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

When told about reform proposals in Congress, 68 percent of poll respondents said they supported temporary work permits for illegal immigrants and a way for them to apply for residency after learning English and paying a fine.

That seems to conflict with arguments by some lawmakers who argue that a legalization program would be unfair to legal residents who played by the rules.

"Nobody comes here to get on welfare," said Perias Pillay, 43, who was 18 when he immigrated legally from Malaysia. He joined a massive immigration rally in Los Angeles. "They come here to work, and as long as we need workers we should let them come."

The immigration debate has sparked rallies around the nation by immigrant rights supporters, including the weekend rally in Los Angeles that drew an estimated 500,000 people. On Tuesday, hundreds of students in California and Texas staged a second day of school walkouts in protest.

The poll was commissioned by New America Media, a nonprofit San Francisco-based umbrella organization for more than 700 ethnic media outlets. Co-sponsors included the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning research group, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, an umbrella civil rights organization.

More than 60 percent of those interviewed said they were alarmed by the tone of the immigration reform debate. Sixty-seven percent said they believed anti-immigration sentiment was growing.

Asked about lawmakers' handling of immigration issues, 32 percent of those surveyed said Congress and President Bush were doing a good job. Democrats received the highest approval with 38 percent; Republicans garnered 22 percent.

On jobs, 81 percent of those surveyed said illegal immigrants accept low-end jobs that Americans don't want, and 73 percent said illegal immigrants aided the economy by supplying low-cost labor.

Delia Adene, 48, who immigrated legally from Mexico and joined the Los Angeles rally, said she was worried about the rhetoric.

"I feel like people see us as criminals now because we want to help our families," Adene said. "We do need more control of the border, but politicians need to talk about this with human justice in mind."

Illegal Immigrants Expanding Footprint

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press March 28, 2006

Less than half fit the profile of young men sneaking across the border to find jobs and send money back home to their families. Today, most bring their families with them, according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington.

"There's about 6.5 million adults who are in families, either couples or couples with children, and there's another 2 million children," said Jeffrey Passel, a senior research associate at the center. "The vast majority of this population is families."

Immigration has become a national issue as the Senate debates legislation that would tighten border security while enabling illegal immigrants to eventually become citizens.

One reason for the sudden broader interest: These immigrants now live in more cities and states than ever.

In 1990, almost half lived in California, the Pew analysis said. By 2004, California's share had dropped to about a quarter, even though the state's illegal population had grown from 1.6 million to about 2.4 million.

They are moving to states like North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio and Georgia, as they seek jobs and establish communities. North Carolina has nearly 16 times the number of illegal immigrants it had in 1990, the Pew analysis said. The state had 390,000 in 2004, the most recent state numbers available.

"It's not a regional issue anymore," said Randy Capps, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "It's a national issue."

The Pew center estimates there are as many as 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, though researchers acknowledge that they are difficult to count. Other organizations have put the number at 11 million, but all agree the total is rising quickly.

About a quarter of them arrive in the United States legally and simply overstay their visas, Passel said.

"We have about 30 million people per year come here on temporary visas, either tourists or visitors for business," he said. "With 30 million folks coming here a year, a very small percent who stay adds up over the years."

Adult men make up the largest share of illegal immigrants, followed by adult women and then children.

Many families include relatives of differing immigration status. Nearly two-thirds of the children were born in the United States, making them U.S. citizens.

Illegal workers make up about 5 percent of the U.S. labor force. More than nine in 10 males illegally here are in that labor force, compared with 83 percent of men born in the United States.

Illegal immigrants tend to be younger than American workers, which helps explain why they are more likely to hold jobs, researchers said.

Female illegal immigrants, however, were less likely to work than their American counterparts, perhaps because most have young children, the Pew analysis said.

Illegal immigrants are concentrated in construction, agriculture and cleaning jobs. They make up 36 percent of all insulation workers, 29 percent of agricultural workers and 29 percent of roofers.

The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates restricting immigration, recently issued a report saying that immigrants compete for jobs with less-educated Americans, especially high-school dropouts.

About half of adult illegal immigrants have not graduated high school, the Pew analysis found. About a third have less than a ninth-grade education.

About a quarter of illegal immigrants have at least some college, with 15 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree.

WASHINGTON With Republicans deeply divided, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Monday to legalize the United States' 11 million illegal immigrants and ultimately to grant them citizenship, provided that they hold jobs, pass criminal background checks, learn English and pay fines and back taxes.

The panel also voted to create a vast temporary worker program that would allow roughly 400,000 foreigners to come to the United States to work each year and would put them on a path to citizenship as well.

The legislation, which the committee sent to the full Senate on a 12-to-6 vote, represents the most sweeping effort by Congress in decades to grant legal status to illegal immigrants. If passed, it would create the largest guest worker program since the bracero program brought 4.6 million Mexican agricultural workers into the country between 1942 and 1960.

Any legislation that passes the Senate will have to be reconciled with the tough border security bill passed in December by the Republican-controlled House, which defied President Bush's call for a temporary worker plan.

The Senate panel's plan, which also includes provisions to strengthen border security, was quickly hailed by Democrats, a handful of Republicans and business leaders, as well as by the immigrant advocacy organizations and church groups that have sent tens of thousands of supporters of immigrant rights into the streets of a number of cities to push for such legislation in recent days.

But even as hundreds of religious leaders rallied on the grounds of the Capitol on Monday, chanting "Let them stay! Let them stay!," the plan was fiercely attacked by conservative Republicans who called it nothing more than an offer of amnesty for lawbreakers. It remained unclear Monday night whether Senator Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, would allow the bill to go for a vote this week on the floor or would substitute his own bill, which focuses on border security. His aides have said that Frist, who has said he wants a vote on immigration this week, would be reluctant to move forward with legislation that did not have the backing of a majority of the Republicans on the committee.

Only 4 of the 10 Republicans on the committee supported the bill. They were the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Sam Brownback of Kansas. All eight Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the legislation.

The rift among Republicans on the committee reflects the deep divisions in the party as business groups push to legalize their workers and conservatives battle to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Specter acknowledged the difficulties ahead, saying, "We are making the best of a difficult situation." But he said he believed that the legislation would ultimately pass the Senate and would encourage the millions of illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows.

"We do not want to create a fugitive class in America," Specter said after the vote. "We do not want to create an underclass in America."

"I think this represents a reasonable accommodation," he said, referring to the divergent views on the panel. "It's not a majority of the majority, but it's a good number."

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Monday night that President Bush was "pleased to see the Senate moving forward on legislation." Bush has repeatedly called for a temporary worker program that would legalize the nation's illegal immigrants, though he has said such a plan must not include amnesty.

"It is a difficult issue that will require compromise and tough choices, but the important thing at this point is that the process is moving forward," McClellan said.

Lawmakers central to the immigration debate acknowledged that the televised images of tens of thousands of demonstrators, waving flags and fliers, marching in opposition to tough immigration legislation helped persuade the panel to find a bipartisan compromise.

"All of those people who were demonstrating were not necessarily here illegally," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who sponsored the legalization measures with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Kennedy described the people who would benefit from the bill as "our neighbors," adding: "They're churchgoers. They're the shop owners down the street. They're the people we know."

The protesters were rallying in opposition to the security bill passed by the House. The House bill would, among other things, make it a federal crime to live in this country illegally, turning the millions of illegal immigrants here into felons, ineligible to win any legal status. (Currently, living in this country without authorization is a violation of civil immigration law, not criminal law.)

The legislation passed by the Judiciary Committee on Monday also emphasized border security and would nearly double the number of Border Patrol agents over the next five years, criminalize the construction of tunnels into the United States from another country and speed the deportation of illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico. But it also softened some of the tougher elements in the House legislation.

Addressing one of the most contentious issues, the panel voted to eliminate the provisions that would criminalize immigrants for living here illegally and made an amendment to protect groups and individuals from being prosecuted for offering humanitarian assistance to illegal immigrants.

Conservatives on the committee warned that the plan would generate a groundswell of opposition among ordinary Americans who had been demanding tighter controls at the border and an end to the waves of illegal immigration.

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said the Judiciary panel "let the American people down by passing out a blanket amnesty bill."

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, said the foreign workers would take American jobs during a recession. "Get ready for a real tough time," Kyl said, "when American workers come to your office and say, 'How did you let this happen?' "

Under the proposal, participants in the temporary worker program would have to work for six years before they could apply for a green card. Any worker who remained unemployed for 60 days or longer during those six years would be forced to leave the country. (Employers could petition for permanent residency on behalf of their employees six months after the worker entered into the program.)

The legalization plan for the nation's illegal immigrants would require those without documents to work in the United States for six years before they could apply for permanent residency. They could apply for citizenship five years after that. Immigrants would have to pay a fine, back taxes and learn English.

Graham called it an 11-year journey to citizenship.

"To me that's not amnesty," he said. "That is working for the right over an 11-year period to become a citizen. It is not a blanket pardon."

"The president believes and most of us here believe that the 11 million undocumented people are also workers," Graham said. "We couldn't get by as a nation without those workers and without those people."

Protests Go On in Several Cities as Panel Acts

PRINCETON, New Jersey 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.

In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.

First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration - especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President George W. Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays - and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should - and low- skilled immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came." Unfortunately, low-skilled immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.

We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a "modest role" in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low- skilled immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: The disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of America's social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.

But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?

Realistically, America will need to reduce the inflow of low-skilled immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests - legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care - is simply immoral.

Meanwhile, Bush's plan for a "guest worker" program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who'd love to have a low-wage work force that couldn't vote. Not only is it deeply un- American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.

What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I'd still be careful. Whatever the bill's intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice - that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.

America needs to do something about immigration, and soon. But I'd rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays America's moral and democratic principles.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Immigrant Killings  -- Ga. town tries to protect immigrants

By GIOVANNA DELL'ORTO
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER Thursday, March 30, 2006

TIFTON, Ga. -- A friendly dog on a leash, a small padlock on the front door, and dark towels over taped-up windows are all that stand between Luis Ortiz and his fear that burglars will again break into his dilapidated mobile home and beat him to within an inch of his life.

The 43-year-old Mexican immigrant was beaten with a bat in his sleep one night last September. He suffered a broken jaw, his teeth were smashed and his hands were mangled.

It was one of at least four brutal robberies at immigrant homes in the Tifton area that night that left six people dead, including Ortiz's cousin, and six injured.

"I stay up nights, wondering if it'll happen again and I've nothing to defend me," Ortiz said in Spanish, sitting on a patched-up sofa in the same trailer where he and his cousin were attacked, with crime-scene tape still rolled up in the dirt outside. "Police told me to buy a gun, but I don't have an ID."

The fear is shared by many of the thousands of Hispanic immigrants, especially the illegal ones, who have flocked to southern Georgia to pick cotton, peaches, peanuts and cotton. Criminals tend to prey on illegal immigrants because the victims are often too scared of being deported to call the police, and because many have no bank accounts and carry lots of cash.

Across the country, immigrants are often preyed on by criminals. But the brutality of the September attacks - with the victims beaten, shot and, in at least one case, raped - shocked this farm town of 15,000 into doing more to help the newcomers, most of whom are from Mexico.

"They're here to stay, and now it's the point where we have to get along," Tifton Police Chief Jim Smith said.

The effort to help Tifton's illegal immigrants comes amid a debate on Capitol Hill - and in the streets across the country - over whether to crack down on the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants or help them become U.S. citizens.

It is often difficult to prosecute crimes against immigrants because they are afraid to contact police. So to win the trust of immigrants, Tifton officers have stepped up patrols in trailer parks, where most of the laborers live.

Also, immigrants who can speak both English and Spanish are being selected to serve as police liaisons in their neighborhoods who can immediately report crimes or other trouble. Only a couple of Tifton's 50 police officers speak a little Spanish, the chief said.

In addition, the police chief has been recruiting young Hispanics to work as clerks or become officers, like the two U.S.-born Amaya brothers, who will enter the police academy in May. They, their Salvadoran parents and seven siblings live a few mobile homes down a pothole-filled road from Ortiz.

"Everybody stayed locked up for two weeks for fear of going outside," said Balmori Amaya, 20. "Lots of people here bust their butts to work to send money home. We just don't understand why they'd do that to us."

Four people - two men and two women from neighboring Colquitt County - have been arrested on murder and other charges in the killings. They are believed to be part of a larger group responsible for similar home invasions, Tift County District Attorney Paul Bowden said.

He said he will wait for state investigators' final report before determining whether to pursue the death penalty.

All four are black, stirring speculation that the attacks were racially motivated. Police say there is no evidence of that, but the U.S. Justice Department sent peacemakers to help ease tensions around this town, situated about 170 miles south of Atlanta.

Tereso Rodriguez, who still lives in the rickety trailer where robbers beat him, his wife and three of his children a few nights before the lethal attacks on Sept. 30, said he wonders if he was the victim of a hate crime.

"Sometimes I think it was some kind of racism," Rodriguez said. "If it were only stealing, there'd be no need to hit us so much."

For his part, Ortiz is determined to stick it out in the U.S., where he moved seven years ago from Mexico.

"I've to help my family. They can't help me," he said.

Immigrants to Be Proud Of

Immigrants to Be Proud Of

Bill allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition advances

LINCOLN (AP) — Nebraska would become the 10th state in the country to grant tuition breaks to illegal immigrants under a bill advanced Wednesday in the Legislature.

The measure has to clear two more rounds of debate before it heads to Gov. Dave Heineman where it would likely be vetoed. Heineman said Sunday at a gubernatorial debate that he does not support the idea.

It takes 30 votes to override a veto. The bill advanced on a 30-5 vote.

Bill introducer, Sen. DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln, said she thought the votes in favor of the measure were “pretty solid.”

The proposal would allow illegal immigrants who graduated from high school in Nebraska and who are pursuing or promise to pursue legal status to pay in-state tuition at the state’s colleges and universities. They would also have to have lived in the state at least three years.

Under current law, children of illegal immigrants must pay out-of-state tuition.

The tuition break would be substantial for a student who choses to attend the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This year, in-state undergraduate tuition is $4,530 compared with $13,440 for out-of-state. The savings equate to about $36,000 over four years.

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents supports the measure, with those in favor saying making it easier for the children of illegal immigrants to attend college is in the state’s best interest.

The tuition break provides an incentive to the students to remain in high school, get an education, and eventually contribute to society and the economy of the state, Schimek said. Not educating them costs even more, she said.

“If these sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are going to stay in Nebraska ... then it is to the advantage of all of our citizens they have the opportunity for an education,” she said.

Getting more students to attend college would bolster enrollment and increase revenues to colleges and universities, Schimek said.

How they voted

Nebraska lawmakers voted 30-5 on Wednesday to give first-round approval to a bill (LB239) that would allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Nebraska colleges and universities. The measure needed 25 votes to advance. A “yes” vote was to advance the bill.

* Senators voting yes: 30, including Matt Connealy, Decatur; Ray Janssen, Nickerson; Mike Mines, Blair.
* Senators voting no: 5.
* Present, not voting: 11, including Carol Hudkins, Malcolm.
* Excused: 3, including Chris Langemeier, Schuyler; Dwite Pedersen, Elkhorn.

Stance on Immigration Defines U.S.

The immigration reform debate is going full blast in Washington, but the mayor of New York, the nation's quintessential immigrant city, is still undecided about which of the competing bills being discussed in Congress he supports. Or so it seems.

Mayor Bloomberg has not taken a public position on this issue that directly affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers. Yet he said on Monday that he would make his stand clear in the coming weeks. With more than 40% of city residents foreign-born - an estimated 500,000 of them undocumented - Bloomberg's silence on a matter of such urgency is difficult to understand.

But immigrant workers, their families and advocates, and many New Yorkers who value the contribution of immigrants - documented or not - to our city are not waiting for the mayor. On Saturday, they will make their stand crystal-clear with a march over the Brooklyn Bridge organized with the help of Latino religious and immigrant leaders.

"We invite everybody to join us in the Great Walk in Solidarity with Immigrants," said state Sen. Rubén Díaz (D-South Bronx), who also is an evangelical pastor and the coordinator of the protest. "There is a great deal of enthusiasm, and we expect thousands of people."

Marchers will gather at the Brooklyn side of the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday at 11 a.m. They will cross the bridge and proceed toward the Immigration Building at 26 Federal Plaza.

And judging by the enormous crowds - more than 500,000 people in Los Angeles alone - that have come out in recent weeks in more than a dozen major U.S. cities to protest the infamous, repressive Sensenbrenner/King bill, Saturday's march from Brooklyn to lower Manhattan should mobilize many thousands of concerned and outraged New Yorkers.

The outrage is because of the tone the debate has taken in Washington. Immigrants feel that their hard work is not respected, their contribution to American society is not appreciated and their moral character is being questioned by a group of politicians who, for electoral or racist reasons, are trying to use national security as an excuse to unfairly persecute and punish them.

"More has to be done to enlighten our federal representatives about the contributions Hispanics make every day to this country, and how our plight as immigrants is just as important to the present and future greatness of this country as the immigrants who came before us," said Brooklyn Assemblyman Félix Ortiz, who participated in recent rallies in Chicago, Los Angeles and Phoenix.

The fact is that immigration reform is an issue of fundamental importance for the nation. Like it or not, immigrant workers are vital for a healthy and growing economy, which is why a guest worker program - with a path towards permanent residency and eventual citizenship - makes as much sense for the country itself as for the immigrant workers who would benefit from it.

No one should doubt that when a new immigration reform law is finally signed by President Bush, its impact on U.S. economy will be enormous. But much more important is what the form it takes - repressive or fair and comprehensive - will reveal about the moral fiber and the character of this nation founded and built by immigrants.

"We deserve to be heard," Ortiz said, "not only for our benefit, but to ensure that the legacy of this nation's democracy continues to be known for its openness, freedom and responsiveness."

Originally published on March 30, 2006 www.nydailynews.com

2 Cities, 2 Approaches to Immigrants

THEY marched across the Brooklyn Bridge by the thousands on Saturday, carrying signs, pushing baby carriages, waving flags, enjoying the April warmth. A typical demonstration in New York — a week late.

The first major demonstration in the old melting pot against proposed immigration legislation took place a week after a protest in Los Angeles. And the turnout, though large, was modest compared with the more than half a million who marched in Los Angeles and the tens of thousands who marched in other cities recently.

New York, which likes to think it is different even when it isn't, sometimes really is. In many ways, Los Angeles and New York City are similar. From 35 percent to 38 percent of each metropolitan region is foreign-born.

But California, which shares a border with Mexico and has more undocumented immigrants than New York does, harbors a longstanding unease about immigrants. New York considers immigrants central to its vitality.

Joseph Salvo, director of the City Planning Department's population division, has pointed out that immigrants compensate for population losses. "If we didn't have immigration, I don't know where we'd be," he said last year when he and a colleague issued a report on the city's diversity.

That's another main contrast: New York's immigrants make up an international stew while Los Angeles's immigrants are largely Mexican — citizens and noncitizens who share a history and a culture and have become a political force.

No immigrant group dominates in New York. The largest segment of the city's 3.2 million foreign-born is Dominican, with an estimated 369,000 people, followed by Chinese (261,500). There are Jamaicans, Guyanese, Mexicans, Ecuadoreans, Haitians, Trinidadians, Koreans, Filipinos, Irish, Colombians, Russians — to name just some.

The city's Puerto Ricans — 789,000 in the 2000 census — are citizens, so they would not be affected by the proposed legislation.

"Here, you can't have a strategy where you get one dominant group to guarantee 500,000 people because we're so diverse," said Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition. "You almost have to do what they did in the Mexican community in Los Angeles, with 10 different communities."

What they did in Los Angeles was mobilize, encouraged by Spanish-speaking radio personalities, labor leaders and Roman Catholic clergy. Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles vehemently attacked a House bill that would make it a federal crime to offer aid to illegal immigrants and pledged a campaign of civil disobedience if it became law.

Cardinal Edward M. Egan of the Archdiocese of New York has not spoken out on the subject, though an archdiocese spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, said yesterday that in a recent news release the cardinal urged Congress to address immigration reform in a "fair and humane" way.

CARDINAL Mahony's remarks drew national attention, and Los Angeles's Latino radio hosts — who play an influential role not mirrored in New York — drew crowds, using the airwaves to encourage listeners to demonstrate.

Poor, illegal immigrants don't have an easy time in New York, where many cope with low wages and crowded, substandard housing. Some encounter bias, especially beyond the city, in eastern Long Island.

But clearly the political climate in New York is more accepting than it is in California. The mayor of Los Angeles and California's governor are generally supportive of immigrants, but statewide ballot initiatives have outlawed affirmative action in public universities and bilingual education in public schools and the public voted to cut off state-financed services to illegal immigrants.

New York's policies and politics are so immigrant-friendly that if former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani runs for president, he'll have to explain his pro-immigrant record to Republican hard-liners.

"New York is a lot more friendly to immigrants, while out there they've mobilized to fight battles," said Nancy Rosas, a California native, at the Brooklyn end of New York's demonstration as she passed Irish and Salvadoran construction workers on a break, cheering on the marchers.

Most of the protesters probably did not realize that, as David B. Caruso of The Associated Press wrote, they marched from a Brooklyn neighborhood settled by the Dutch across a bridge designed by a German immigrant and rallied near Chinatown in an area that once held Irish slums.

Along the way, as they crossed the bridge built by Irish, Italian and German immigrant workers, they got a great view of the Statue of Liberty.

---

Protest Crosses Bridge Over Troubled Issue
More Than 20,000 Demand Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in United States

By Michelle García
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 2, 2006; A09

NEW YORK, April 1 -- Within sight of the Statue of Liberty, thousands of young families, teenagers and activists walked across the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday demanding an end to second-class citizenship and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The demonstration, which drew more than 20,000 participants, was the latest in a series of protests that have sounded across the nation. The peaceful crowd that turned out reflected New York's cultural mosaic. Chinese immigrants chanted in Spanish while indigenous dancers in feathered headdresses burned sage. Korean folk musicians ushered a crowd that included a clan of women who cried: "Like Martin Luther King, we have a dream."

"My dream is to have equality for people who come to work," said Alejandra Garcia, 47, a Mexican-born green-card holder. "The United States is becoming richer because of the work of immigrants."

Her son, who is in the United States illegally, attends college and has hopes of becoming a psychiatrist. "But he won't be able to work," Garcia said. She said that without a policy change, he will remain confined to the underground economy.

Marchers waved flags of birth countries along with the Stars and Stripes. Many in the crowd were U.S. citizens or green-card holders but said their families included undocumented immigrants. Some said they felt duty-bound to march because they were once illegal immigrants.

Advocacy groups representing Haitian, Chinese and Mexican immigrants, among others, organized the protest under the umbrella of the International Immigrants Foundation in opposition to legislation approved by the House that would make illegal entry a felony and calls for the construction of a fence along a portion of the southern U.S. border.

Many stroller-pushing parents and teenagers said the march into Manhattan was their first demonstration. Despite heavy promotion in religious and immigrant media, the protest drew a small fraction of the city's 2.8 million foreign-born population and attracted a far smaller turnout than the 500,000-strong march in Los Angeles last week. A much smaller crowd of fewer than 1,000 protested in Costa Mesa, Calif., on Saturday.

While some of the banners pledged love for the United States, protesters leveled criticism at President Bush with placards and chants in Spanish of "Listen Bush, we have joined the struggle."

David Kim, 26, a naturalized citizen, leaned against the bridge. Kim, a librarian, was 12 when his family immigrated. He calls the pending legislation xenophobic and racist.

"I believe the same logic and system by which people are discriminated against based on race and sexuality is working against the poor immigrant," he said.

Frank Zhang, 52, a sidewalk portraitist in Times Square, skipped the afternoon tourist crowd to join in the march. The Chinese-born immigrant said he cherishes the ideals that laid the foundation of his adopted country.

"I like democracy, I like freedom," he said, then reflected on the legislation in Congress: "I don't like that this law makes us all criminals."

---

Immigration Bill Protests Hit N.Y.

Winston Graces of Ecuador was one of the thousands protesting an immigration reform bill in New York on April, 2006. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) (AP) "We have to speak, legal or illegal. We have to speak about this issue."

(CBS/AP) NEW YORK, April 1, 2006 - A mile-long line of demonstrators marched across the
Brooklyn Bridge Saturday, waving flags from more than a dozen countries as they demonstrated against possible immigration reform in Congress.

Heralded by a cacophony of trumpets, whistles and drums, the crowd of mostly Latin Americans gathered in downtown Brooklyn and trudged a path laden with symbols of the city's immigrant strength on their way to a plaza in lower Manhattan.

The marchers mustered in a neighborhood settled by the Dutch, crossed a bridge designed by a German, and finished in a square at the edge of Chinatown in an area that once held the Irish slums glamorized in the 2002 film "Gangs of New York."

On the way, they passed a French statue (the Statue of Liberty), hot dog carts run by Middle Easterners, taxis driven by Russians and police officers speaking Chinese.

More than 10,000 people flooded Foley Square, turning it into a sea of colorful banners and echoing noise. The crowd came dressed in the colors of Mexico, Uruguay and Ecuador, but just as many draped themselves in red, white and blue.

"If you hurt immigrants you are hurting America," read a sign held by one marcher. "We are your economy," said another.

Another marcher, a woman from Mexico who spoke no English, carried a sign reading, "I cleaned up ground zero."

There were demonstrations across the country this week against legislation already approved in the House, which would make it a felony to be in the U.S. without the proper immigration paperwork.

Competing legislation under consideration in the Senate would take an opposite approach and give the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. a chance at citizenship.

"We came to say that we're here," said George Criollo, who arrived in New York a decade ago from Cuenca, Ecuador. "We have to speak, legal or illegal. We have to speak about this issue."

Criollo, who said his family was in the United States illegally, feared that legislation could lead to his deportation or jailing. In the House, legislation already has passed that would set penalties for anyone who knowingly assists or encourages illegal immigrants to remain in the country.

This is one of dozens of protests, work stoppages and school walkouts taking place across the country this week.

The protests follow a two-day summit in Cancun, Mexico, where President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper debated the immigration issue.

Mr. Bush favors a proposal that would legalize an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S. through "guest worker" programs.

With Fox at his side Mr. Bush explained his view of the so-called guest worker program, CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer reports.

"We don't want people sneaking into our country that are going to do jobs that Americans won't do. We want them coming in in an orderly way which will take pressure off of both our borders," Mr. Bush said.

While both Mr. Bush and Fox support temporary guest-worker programs for Mexican migrants in the U.S, but the measure has met strong resistance by some key U.S. lawmakers.

Mr. Bush has urged U.S. lawmakers to tread cautiously to avoid further inflaming passions on this divisive issue. But Democratic Party chief Howard Dean on Friday accused the president and Republicans of exploiting the immigration issue for political gain by scapegoating Hispanics.

The debate over immigration reform is causing a major split within the Republican Party.

On Thursday, House conservatives criticized President Bush, accused the Senate of fouling the air, said prisoners rather than illegal farm workers should pick America's crops and denounced the use of Mexican flags by protesters in a vehement attack on legislation to liberalize U.S. immigration laws.

"I say let the prisoners pick the fruits," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, one of more than a dozen Republicans who took turns condemning a Senate bill that offers an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants an opportunity for citizenship.

"Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter A," said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, referring to a guest worker provision in the Senate measure.

Despite the tough immigration debate back home, the president says he's optimistic that Congress will pass a bill on the politically charged issue.

The House has passed legislation to tighten border security, while the Senate approach also includes provisions to regulate the flow of temporary workers into the country and control the legal fate of millions of illegal immigrants already here. Mr. Bush has broadly endorsed the Senate approach, saying he wants a comprehensive bill.

Under Mr. Bush's leadership, the Republicans have made dramatic inroads among Hispanic voters, and party strategists fret that the immigration debate could jeopardize their gains.

Next week critics of the bill are expected to try to strip out the guest worker provision and roll back the measures relating to the 11 million illegal immigrants already here.
 

---

New York Mayor presides over a city where almost half the population came to the U.S. as immigrants

N.Y. Mayor Seeks New Ways to Tighten Immigration

By SEWELL CHAN  Published: April 1, 2006 The New York Times

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday offered some of his most explicit views so far on the national immigration debate, calling for much tighter border controls, more generous visa policies for foreign scientists and the granting of permanent residency — though not necessarily citizenship — to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in this country.

The mayor, who has seized on ideas from both the right and the left on immigration matters, spoke favorably for the first time about erecting a "physical wall" along the borders with Mexico and Canada or using technologies like sensors to detect the movements of migrants across borders.

"I have said from Day 1, get control of the borders," the mayor said in a radio call-in program on WABC. "People say, 'All right, I want control of the borders, but I don't want a wall.' Well, that's O.K. Just tell me what else works. And nobody's come up with an idea."

Later, speaking about illegal immigrants, he said: "Legalize them, close the border and be serious about closing the border. And people say, 'Oh, you know, the wall — you can always climb over it.' Well, if 3,000 come through one little point on the border every day and you build a wall so only 10 climb the wall, I would argue that if you get it down to a hundred, if you get it down to a thousand, you'd be successful by that standard."

Just as Mr. Bloomberg's call for legalizing illegal immigrants has placed him at odds with conservative Republicans, so his call for tighter border controls could alienate liberal Democrats, who make up much of the city's electorate.

Moisés Pérez, executive director of Alianza Dominicana, a nonprofit group that provides social services in Manhattan and the Bronx, applauded Mr. Bloomberg's condemnation of criminalizing illegal immigrants and his recognition of their economic contributions, but said the idea of a wall was absurd. "Why not build a wall around the entire country?" he asked.

Deborah J. Notkin, a Manhattan lawyer who is president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which supports gradual legalization of illegal immigrants, said that a fence along the border would not work and would cost far more to monitor than the entire current budget for Customs and border enforcement.

"The drug traffickers can dig tunnels, the smugglers can get boats and we cannot have a Berlin Wall-type structure become our symbol, and substitute itself for the Statue of Liberty," she said.

On the radio show, Mr. Bloomberg called for raising the number of H-1B visas, which allow skilled professionals sponsored by their employers to work temporarily in the United States.

"We are killing ourselves, hurting universities and hospitals and research in this country," he said. "We're losing the battle. Our science is going overseas."

The mayor also ridiculed rules that bar employers from inquiring about immigration status and said it was difficult for many employers to verify applicants' identification documents.

"Let's say they don't speak a word of English, O.K.?" he asked. "So that's a good tip, maybe, that the guy wasn't born here. Maybe you should check. Unh-unh. Can't check any more for that person than you check for the person who speaks the king's English."

Meanwhile, he said, forgers "set up tables in the streets. You can buy a green card and a Social Security card, a combination for $50."

---

Mayor Attacks 2 Main Ideas on Immigrants

By SEWELL CHAN March 31, 2006 New York Times

Wading into the national immigration debate, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said this week that two major proposals under discussion in Washington — criminalization of illegal immigration and a temporary worker program championed by President Bush — were unrealistic, shortsighted and a distraction from more pressing issues, like better border control and verification of job applicants' documents.

The mayor, a Republican, all but endorsed amnesty for illegal immigrants, a position that is anathema to most Republican leaders in Washington.

"We're not going to deport 12 million people, so let's stop this fiction," the mayor said in an interview taped on Monday and telecast last evening on CNN. "Let's give them permanent status."

The mayor expressed a similar view on Monday morning, during a news conference on Staten Island, when he said large-scale deportations were impossible and added: "We've got to figure out what to do, whether we can engage them and get the value of them being here. They're already here. They do a lot of jobs that a lot of other people don't seem to want to take."

At the news conference, the mayor said, "I'm not going to focus on any one plan, whether it's the president's, or the McCain-Kennedy one, or any of the others."

He made similar statements last year during his campaign for re-election.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would make it a federal crime to remain in this country illegally — it is now a violation of civil immigration law — while the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill, proposed by Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and John McCain of Arizona, that would eventually allow an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants to work toward citizenship.

Mr. Bloomberg has recently spoken up on several issues, like gun control, on which he is at odds with most of his fellow Republicans. While he has repeatedly spurned the notion of running for higher office, some of his aides have persisted in urging him to do so.

In the CNN interview, Mr. Bloomberg said a guest-worker or temporary-worker program would not work.

"Are you going to leave after six years?" he asked. "Come on. That's just postponing the problems for the next generation, the next Congress."

The interview with Mr. Bloomberg was taped while he rode the No. 7 subway line, which goes through neighborhoods in Queens, like Jackson Heights, that are among the most heavily populated by immigrants.

The mayor said of legalizing immigrants: "It may very well be rewarding lawbreaking. But let's get real. I mean, you know, we don't live in a perfect world."

Mr. Bloomberg, according to the CNN report, spoke in favor of tighter controls at the borders with Mexico and Canada; a technological system for employers to verify identification documents; and generous visa policies for doctors, engineers and other skilled professionals.

Mr. Bloomberg has long been seen as supporting immigrants' rights. In September 2003, he signed an executive order that generally prohibited city agencies, including the police, from asking people about their immigration status and from sharing such information with federal agencies. He has also expanded translation services in the city's schools and in Medicaid and welfare offices.

"He's been pretty consistent in his views on undocumented immigrants," said Chung-Wha Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, an alliance of 150 organizations. "He's very practical. He rightly recognizes that because the federal government hasn't done its job, it creates an additional burden for state and local governments as they try to carry out their job."

Even so, Councilman Kendall B. Stewart, a Brooklyn Democrat who is chairman of the City Council's Committee on Immigration, called for the mayor to support amnesty explicitly.

"I think he should say that so that at least all of us in New York City know that he's on the immigrants' side," said Mr. Stewart, who immigrated to the United States in 1973 from St. Vincent and the Grenadines. "You can't say that you support the immigrants and not stand up for them and say exactly how you want to support them."

---

American Dreams, Foreign Flags

By LINDA CHAVEZ

Pittsburg, Tex. March 30, 2006 New York Times

HUNDREDS of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators took to the streets in Denver, Los Angeles, Phoenix and dozens of other cities in the last week to protest harsh legislation passed by the House that would make felons of the 12 million illegal aliens living in the United States — along with anyone who provides them with shelter, food or other services. It didn't take long for a bipartisan majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee to get the message and take a softer tack.

On Monday, four Republicans joined all eight committee Democrats to vote down the controversial penalties. Their proposal also calls for admitting more legal immigrants and temporary workers, allowing illegal aliens already in the country to remain here and earn citizenship if they pay a fine, learn English and study American civics.

The Senate bill has a long way to go before becoming law, however. Despite their victory in this round, supporters of comprehensive immigration reform must be careful in their tactics, including what symbols they embrace. Although American flags were widely visible among the crowd of a half-million in downtown Los Angeles (organizers had asked marchers to bring them), reports indicated that they were outnumbered by those of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and other countries. And if history is any guide, those foreign banners could spur an anti-immigrant reaction.

That's what happened in 1994, when 70,000 people marched in Los Angeles, many waving Mexican flags, to show their distaste for Proposition 187, a California ballot initiative that denied social services to illegal aliens and their children. Initially favored by more than 70 percent of voters, the measure was losing steam as the election approached, with a poll a week before the election showing it ahead by only 1 point. But that sea of green, white and red Mexican flags flooding the streets just before the election signaled to many Californians that those demanding equal treatment were more attached to their native country than to the United States. The proposition scored a surprisingly strong 59 percent of the vote, although the courts eventually declared it unconstitutional.

Similar dynamics are playing out today. For all the talk of national security and the economic costs of immigration, the underlying issue driving the current anti-immigrant frenzy is a deep suspicion that this latest group of newcomers won't do what others have before them did: learn English and embrace American identity.

Unfortunately, many Latino leaders play right into the hands of those who claim they are different from the Germans, Italians, Poles, Jews, Irish and others who came here in another era. With shouts of "Sí, se puede!" (Yes, we can!) — an old United Farm Workers rallying cry — and signs announcing "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us," the demonstrators are likely to turn off more Americans than they win over. And the sight of thousands of angry Hispanic students from California to Virginia pouring out of schools to join protest marches will only reinforce stereotypes that Latinos care little about education.

Instead of presenting themselves as an aggrieved, foreign presence, immigration advocates ought to be explaining how similar Latinos are to other Americans in their values, aspirations and achievements. It's an easy case to make.

Mexican-born men, for example, are more likely to be in the labor force than any other racial or ethnic group, according to the Census Bureau. Nearly half of Latino immigrants own their own homes. While most immigrants from Latin America, especially Mexico and Central America, lag in educational attainment, their children are far more likely to stay in school: according to research by the Pew Hispanic Center, 80 percent of second-generation Latinos graduate from high school. Almost half of second-generation Latinos ages 25 to 44 have attended college, and those who graduate earn more on average than non-Hispanic white workers.

Latino immigrants are also starting their own businesses at a rapid pace. The Census Bureau reported that entrepreneurship among Latinos is increasing at a rate three times faster than that of other Americans. Americans of Hispanic descent now own 1.6 million businesses generating $222 billion annually; and while Census data didn't distinguish between immigrants and American-born Hispanics, it suggested that much of this growth occurred in heavily immigrant communities.

Like every generation of immigrants before them, Latinos start out on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, but they don't stay there. They are learning English as quickly as their predecessors, perhaps more quickly thanks to television (a majority of third-generation Latinos speak only English). They are intermarrying at faster rates than earlier ethnic groups, too, with about one-third of married American-born Latinos having a non-Hispanic spouse.

These facts, if they were more widely known, would go a long way to calming fears about Latino immigration. If Latino advocates hope to influence the outcome of the Senate debate on immigration over the next two weeks, they would do well to spread the word — and trade their ancestral flags for the Stars and Stripes.

Linda Chavez, chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Sterling, Va., was the director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights under President Ronald Reagan.

---

Immigrants, Yes; Immigration, Maybe
Poll Finds No Consensus on What to Do About Those Who Are Here Illegally

By D'Vera Cohn Washington Post Staff Writer March 31, 2006; B02

People who live in the Washington area have a better opinion of immigrants than most Americans do but share the nation's ambivalence about whether those who are here illegally should be allowed to stay, according to a poll released yesterday.

The poll found that U.S. residents have growing concerns about the impact of immigration but increasingly positive attitudes about immigrants. Overall, though, it found that immigration issues do not top most people's lists of the nation's biggest problems. In the Washington area, traffic and crime ranked far higher.

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center and the Pew Hispanic Center commissioned the poll in an effort to influence heated debate over immigration legislation before the Senate. Legislation passed by the House emphasizes increased border security, but proposals in the Senate would create a temporary guest-worker program or a path to citizenship for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

The national poll of 2,000 adults, taken between Feb. 8 and March 7, found that a growing majority of Americans hold positive views of immigrants as individuals, but a growing majority also believe they are more burden than asset to the country. There was no clear agreement on what to do about illegal immigrants: 32 percent want to let them stay permanently; 32 percent would create a temporary-worker program; and 27 percent would deport them all.

In the Washington area, where a separate survey was taken of 800 residents, most people believe immigrants are more asset than burden, in contrast with the national view. But opinion also is divided here: 37 percent would let illegal immigrants stay; 28 percent would create a temporary-worker option; and 21 percent would require them to leave.

"People are worried about the cost of immigration, but at the same time they view immigrants with some admiration," said Gabriel Escobar, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center. "That's what sets up the ambivalence."

The Washington area's more welcoming attitude toward immigrants stems in part from its high incomes, high education levels and good economy, all of which the survey linked to greater likelihood of support for immigrants. Escobar said the region's diverse and spread-out immigration, in contrast with regions where most immigrants are poor and crowded into a few places, also helps build backing for the foreign born.

The poll found that two-thirds of Americans support creating a database of workers that employers could check to determine whether a job applicant is legal, and three-quarters support requiring all job seekers to have a new kind of government-issued identification card. A smaller share -- but still a majority -- of Washington residents support both ideas, which civil liberties groups strongly oppose.

The regional poll found that 54 percent of residents favored government-supported day labor centers, such as the one that opened recently in Herndon, and 35 percent opposed them. Reflecting the same attitude found by the poll, a conference of government officials from 10 local Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions expressed its backing for such centers as a tool to manage the crowds of immigrants who gather in public places to seek day work.

Meeting yesterday at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the officials pledged to ask Congress to reject legislation that punishes illegal immigrants and aim for a measure that helps more of them gain legal status. "We need to be humane, not punitive," said George L. Leventhal (D-At Large), president of the Montgomery County Council.

Washington area residents agree with the rest of the country that the best way to stem illegal immigration is to punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Half endorsed that view. A third said the Border Patrol should be expanded. Fewer than 10 percent favor building more fences on the border, which is a major provision of the House-passed immigration bill.

People who live in greater Washington -- a region that stretches from southern Maryland to eastern West Virginia and where one in six residents is an immigrant -- are more likely to say that immigrants accept jobs other U.S. residents won't, that they pay their share of taxes, and that they are not on welfare.

Ilryong Moon, a Fairfax County School Board member who was born in South Korea, said the survey's findings about the region echo his own experience.

"They are a part of this vibrant economy, and they also provide opportunities for residents in Fairfax County to enjoy an enriching cultural life," he said. "That is a very valuable experience for our children as they grow in this very global society."

Staff writer Karin Brulliard contributed to this report.

---

New York Times Published March 30, 2006
To the Editor:

Re "Bill to Broaden Immigration Law Gains in Senate" (front page, March 28):

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
(Emma Lazarus)

We are, and always have been, a nation of immigrants. On balance, those who come to this country have contributed far more than they have taken from it, and they bring with them the forces of change that cause us to grow as individuals, communities and a nation.

While we struggle with the problem of finding a just solution of controlling our borders, it might be helpful to try to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have immigrated to our shores.

Like us, they must accept the challenges of daily life. Unlike us, they must learn a new language, adapt to new customs and deal with our bias.

Charles R. Cronin Jr.
Lawrence, N.Y., March 28, 2006

•

To the Editor:

It is worth noting that Americans seldom look back with pride on the moments in history when we have restricted the flow of immigrants to this country or intruded upon the rights of any individual, full citizen or not.

Our most notable and admirable historical moments have come when we expand our tent, include others and accept the contributions of a wider range of people, including those new to our country.

America is at its best when it finds ways to tap fully into its human resources. Remembering this in uncertain times can be difficult, but it is necessary if we are to avoid mistakes we have made in the past.

Putnam Goodwin-Boyd
Florence, Mass., March 28, 2006

•

To the Editor:

My grandparents migrated here from Lithuania at the turn of the last century, fleeing persecution.

They came here legally. They passed health tests. My grandfather immediately and totally embraced his country. Everyone had to speak English and learned it. My grandfather was always walking around saying, "God bless America — where else can you hold two jobs?"

Today, there are still immigrants like my grandfather who come here legally and who totally accept the United States, but there are millions with questionable backgrounds who are here to exploit. They are also closing off jobs that Americans need; the construction industry is a prime example.

I am typical of the way many Americans feel about illegal immigrants. God bless the legal immigrants; deport the illegals.

Barbara Gordon
New York, March 28, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Underlying the push for legalizing undocumented workers in one way or another has always been the claim that "Americans won't do those jobs."

If you can convince me, I might support a guest worker or temporary green card solution, or even the proposal to allow some people to earn entry onto the path to citizenship.

But to do that, two things must be done:

First, create a meaningful minimum wage that will apply across the board, from strawberry pickers to kitchen help (and I will gladly pay more, then, for berries and meals); and enforce existing laws against hiring undocumented workers, and let's just see what happens to our economy then!

Nathalie Guyol
Waxahachie, Tex., March 27, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Re "It Isn't Amnesty" (editorial, March 29):

I don't understand how this new immigration bill will do anything but increase illegal immigration.

It is now against the law for employers to hire illegal immigrants, but they do. It is illegal for anyone to use false documents, but they do.

Illegal immigrants did not follow the laws when they came here. Why should we expect them to follow the laws now? Who will check that they buy health and car insurance, pay taxes and learn English?

As long as employers don't go to jail for hiring illegal immigrants and these immigrants are given free education and health care, nothing will change.

Isn't this new legislation just another effort to legitimize illegal behavior?

Carol Wheeler
Katy, Tex., March 29, 2006

•

To the Editor:

You boldly state that the Senate bill "isn't amnesty."

Let's see: millions of people break the laws of the United States and are allowed to stay in the country and become citizens provided that they pay a paltry $2,000 fine and learn rudimentary English.

Notably, there is no penalty or mention of what happens to those who choose not to take the pathway to citizenship: they simply stay in the country indefinitely.

Why not secure the border first and leave the treatment of illegal immigrants until the time that the security problem has been solved? It is as if Congress is in a sinking boat and arguing about where to sail next rather than repairing the leak.

Bradley W. Johnson
Hinsdale, Ill., March 29, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Whatever subtle word games The Times and the Senate choose to play, if the Senate's disastrous immigration bill becomes law, impoverished villages across the world will buzz with one word: amnesty!

Hundreds of millions of people will relearn the lesson of the 1986 amnesty, which is that if you come to America illegally and keep out of sight, sooner or later they will make you legal.

In 1986, there were three million. This time, there are about 12 million. How many next time?

John Brock
Staten Island, March 29, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman ("North of the Border," column, March 27) tells an important part of the story of undocumented workers. But essential things are left unsaid when President Bush grandly says they take "jobs that Americans won't do."

They will not only work for wages that most Americans understand not to be living wages, but they are also willing to live 12 or 15 to an apartment, sharing dangerous spaces with poor or no heat and dreadful or nonexistent sanitary facilities.

Where I live, they pay top dollar for apartments, to landlords who take advantage of the "need" of middle-class people for cheap labor to clean their homes, mow their lawns and take care of their children.

These men and women are willing to live thousands of miles away from parents, children, siblings and a culture and language they understand to provide for their families.

A few years ago, my husband and I volunteered in a local church program teaching English to mostly undocumented workers. Our students were wonderful people, and we were proud of their progress. These are the people we would fine, prosecute and send home?

My grandparents, immigrants from a different time, are surely spinning in their graves over the treatment of this new wave of the tired and poor yearning to breathe free.

Marylyn Rosenblum
Katonah, N.Y., March 28, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman wrote about the problems associated with immigration. It seems to me that an obvious way to reduce the number of people who are willing to risk their lives to come to this country to get work is to raise the standard of living in Mexico.

So why not a Marshall Plan for Mexico?

Marita Poulson
American Falls, Idaho
March 28, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Re "North of the Border," by Paul Krugman:

What the facts of immigration ignore are the facts that cannot be measured.

Immigrants, legal and illegal, represent the self-selected few who have the unmeasurable courage, skills and talent to overcome what for most of us would be insurmountable obstacles, obstacles in getting here, staying here and eventually becoming successful.

As our history testifies, the benefits of this inflow, despite recurring social resistance to each new wave, are not immediately apparent but take one or more generations to appear. And we, the current and future native-born, end up all the better for it.

Stuart Cooke
New York, March 29, 2006

---