Calderon calls on Mexico to 'close ranks' against border gangs

Mexican President Felipe Calderon, pictured at a press conference last month, has made fighting drug gangs a cornerstone of his administration. ALFREDO GUERRERO: AFP/Getty Images

Jan. 10, 2008, 9:03AM

Calderon calls on Mexico to 'close ranks' against border gangs

By DUDLEY ALTHAUS
Houston Chronicle Mexico City Bureau

MEXICO CITY — With drug violence raging unchecked along the border with Texas and deep into Mexico's heartland, President Felipe Calderon called Wednesday for the country's security forces and citizens to "close ranks" against its powerful criminal gangs.

"It's indeed possible to win the battle," Calderon said at a meeting with Cabinet ministers involved in law enforcement. "But to achieve that, we must remain united. We must close ranks against criminality."

The president announced that more than $600 million in federal funds would be channeled to local and state governments this year to help improve their police forces.

He called for better training of police at the local, state and federal levels; increased cooperation among the country's police forces; and the creation of a system for citizens to inform on drug gangs operating in their communities.

"Fighting delinquency is now a national priority and a duty," Calderon said.

Bloodshed continues

He has made the crackdown on Mexico's drug gangs a cornerstone of his 13-month-old administration. But while the campaign has scored some notable successes — including the seizure of more than 40 tons of U.S.-bound cocaine and other narcotics — it so far has failed to stanch the bloodshed.

Two federal police officers were killed Tuesday night in an ambush by suspected drug traffickers in Reynosa, on the Rio Grande near McAllen. On Monday, soldiers and police killed three suspected narco-gunmen in Rio Bravo, a small city 12 miles down river from Reynosa.

Despite the dispatch of thousands of police and soldiers to several violence-plagued areas last year, underworld rivalries killed more than 2,500 people across Mexico, about the same as in prior years.

"These events show us that the battle, as we predicted, has not been easy and that much remains to be done," Calderon said.

The Bush administration has proposed giving Mexico $1.4 billion in aid over the next two or three years for additional Mexican military helicopters, drug-sniffing dogs and telecommunications equipment.

Traffickers now control some local governments and receive protection from politicians. Local and state police have ranked high among the casualties in the recent bloodshed.

Much of the violence has occurred in Tamaulipas state, bordering South Texas from Laredo to the Gulf of Mexico.

This is the territory of the Gulf drug-trafficking cartel and the assassins working for it known as the Zetas. Osiel Cardenas, the organization's reputed head, is jailed in Houston awaiting trial on federal narcotics charges. Calderon ordered him extradited to the U.S. last year.

Founded by deserting special forces soldiers, the Zetas served as bodyguards and assassins for cartel bosses, but a few have become kingpins themselves. Officials say the three gunmen killed Monday in Rio Bravo belonged to a gang loyal to Heriberto Lazcano, nicknamed El Lazcas, who in Cardenas' absence has become one of several top cartel chieftains.

"The assassins have assumed control of the criminal organizations, which has spawned greater violence," Genaro Garcia Luna, Calderon's secretary of public security, said at Wednesday Cabinet meeting.

Began at checkpoint

Calderon ordered 3,500 troops and paramilitary federal police to the border after the assassination nearly six weeks ago in Rio Bravo of politician Juan Guajardo. The former mayor and federal lawmaker was gunned down along with four federal agents acting as his bodyguards.

Monday's shootout in Rio Bravo, in which at least 10 policemen and soldiers also were wounded, began when the alleged gunmen flashed their weapons at one of those checkpoints. A firefight ensued, at the checkpoint and again near the municipal police offices.

After the shootout, officials arrested 10 other alleged gunmen — including two men from Detroit and another from Texas — and confiscated a large cache of automatic weapons, grenades and grenade launchers.

The Tuesday attack on the police patrol in Reynosa — the federal police are patrolling that and other cities in pickups — was retaliation for the Rio Bravo gunfight, officials said.

dudley.althaus@chron.com

---

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus10jan10,1,6914927.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

From the Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court shows support for voter ID law

Some justices are skeptical of a lawsuit challenging Indiana's stringent photo identification measure. They see no proof of discrimination.

By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 10, 2008

WASHINGTON — For a second time this week, a liberal challenge to a disputed state law floundered in the Supreme Court because lawyers could not show hard evidence that anyone had been harmed by the statute.

At issue Wednesday was Indiana's election law, the strictest in the nation, which requires voters to show an official photo identification, such as a driver's license or a passport, before casting a ballot.

Democrats challenged the law as a voting rights violation, contending the Republican-backed measure would deter thousands of poor, minority or elderly voters from casting a ballot.

But they filed their lawsuit in 2005, before the law had gone into effect and without naming any people who said they would be prevented from voting by the photo identification rule. That led to a round of skeptical questions from the court's conservatives, including how the law might have hurt voters.

"You want us to invalidate a statute on the grounds that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?" Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked near the end of the hourlong arguments.

Led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the high court has been increasingly unwilling to strike down state laws or regulations based on broad, hypothetical complaints. Roberts has insisted on real plaintiffs who cite specific problems.

The same theme was on display Monday when the court heard a challenge to lethal injections in a Kentucky death penalty case.

Defense lawyers insisted that the method of carrying out executions should be struck down as unconstitutional because, if done wrong, the condemned person might suffer searing pain. But the lawyer arguing the case had to admit there was no evidence that the method had been done wrong in Kentucky, which has not carried out an execution since 1998.

During Wednesday's arguments, Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether the Democrats' challenge should be thrown out because no voters were cited in the lawsuit.

Roberts, who grew up in northern Indiana, noted the ruling of the trial judge who had upheld Indiana's law. "You had not come up with a single instance of somebody who was denied the right to vote because they didn't have a photo ID," Roberts told Washington lawyer Paul M. Smith, who represented the Indiana Democrats.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. also expressed skepticism in his questioning of Smith.

There appeared to be five votes to uphold Indiana's law, counting Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing during the arguments but who reliably votes with the conservatives.

Voting rights experts have called the Indiana case the most important election law dispute in the high court since the Bush vs. Gore case that decided the presidential election in 2000.

Republicans have pressed for stricter voter identification laws in states across the nation. They say the laws are needed to prevent fraudulent votes from noncitizens and in the name of dead people.

Democrats say the GOP's targeting of voter fraud is a fraud, since Republicans have been unable to point to cases of ballots being cast in the name of a still-registered dead person. An easier way to vote fraudulently is by mail, Democrats say, but the photo identification law does not affect people who vote by mail.

If the high court upholds Indiana's law, it should clear up legal doubts about other, less-stringent voter identification measures in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan and Florida. A victory for Indiana also could encourage states to adopt similar laws.

Democrats say they fear the restrictions could dissuade a small percentage of legal voters -- perhaps 1% or 2% of the electorate -- from casting a ballot. And that, they say, might tip the balance in close races for Congress, legislatures or even president.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Indiana law was unfair and should be struck down. She said indigent people were not likely to have a valid driver's license, and they were not going to be able to go to a courthouse to get an identification card.

Ginsburg said Indiana election officials in Marion County said 32 legal voters had their ballots rejected in November because they did not furnish proof of their identities.

"That's not hypothetical. That's real," she said.

The 32 voters were not plaintiffs in the lawsuit, she said, but "it isn't mere speculation that there are going to be many people whose vote will not count."

How many remains the subject of dispute.

Smith, the Democrats' lawyer, estimated that 400,000 Indiana residents did not have a valid driver's license, and perhaps half of them might have difficulty furnishing a birth certificate to county officials.

Thomas Fisher, the state's lawyer, disputed that the 32 voters from Marion County were treated poorly.

"For all we know, those may have been fraudulent ballots," he told Ginsburg.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the Bush administration, urged the court to uphold the Indiana law, but also to allow new lawsuits from individuals.

He called the pending lawsuit a "kind of grab-bag challenge" that did not focus on voters or real problems.

One election law expert questioned the wisdom of opening the door to lawsuits from people who say they were barred from voting.

This "would create more litigation at exactly the wrong time, just before or just after an election," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. He said it would undercut the public's confidence in the election and the judges who had to decide the disputes.

The high court will rule in the Indiana case, Crawford vs. Marion County, by late June.

david.savage@latimes.com

---

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help

Wednesday, 01/09/08 Immigration woes continue Customers are scarce, churches almost empty By Janell Ross and Eric Miller Gannett Tennessee and Robertson County Times A once growing Hispanic population is Springfield is now in sharp decline after immigration raids last month spread fear throughout the city. Some estimate that 1,000 Hispanic residents have fled the city in fear or went into hiding after the raids. Now the effects are witnessed in churches, felt by business owners, and piled up on roadsides. Jose Linares, 47, an elder of the Iglesia Adventista Del Septimo Dia, says his church has been hit hard by the fear gripping the Hispanic community. “We have 120 members, but many of them left,” Linares said. “That’s going to have a tremendous impact on our church. We have a mortgage. We have a place to worship and we are paying for it. We don’t have half the members that we used to have.” The impact on local churches was immediate, according to Rev. Tomas Bielawa, who ministers to the Hispanic congregation at Springfield’s Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church. On the day of the raid on the fake ID operation, about 200 people attended the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe at the church, a special date for Mexican Catholics in particular. Last year, the same celebration drew about 450, said Bielawa. “You have to understand that if you are a Mexican and you only go to church one time a year, this is it, you go that day,” he said. The sudden decline in the Hispanic population has hurt several businesses, some to the point of closing. Elias Quijada, the owner of E&D Auto Repair, who is from El Salvador, said he has been forced to look for other work after running his shop for about a year. “It’s been several days since I’ve gotten clients and that’s why I have to close my shop,” Quijada said in Spanish. “I was starting to have a lot of clients and they’re gone.” He said he will try to reopen his shop in a few weeks when everything calms down. “I’ve been a resident since 1985 and I’ve never seen anything as big as this personally,” Quijada said. As business owners who cater to Hispanics are left reeling, so are those who rent to them. Springfield landlord James Huffine said he’ll lose $5,000 this month in cleaning, hauling and lost rent after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested members of five families last month who lived in his apartment units. Huffine said his tenants showed him work identification and paycheck stubs issued by Electrolux, Robertson County’s largest employer, and he believed they were here legally. “I don’t think people ought to be here illegally, but these raids, sweeping up people in the dead of night, it just doesn’t seem right or productive,” he said, motioning to the tangled mess at the edge of the road. “I know a lot of people think we need to get all the illegals out of here, but you’ve got to look at stuff like this. Look at what those raids have done to this entire town.” The events leading up to ICE’s roundup began on Dec. 5 when a Nashville television station aired a story about Electrolux Home Products. It detailed hiring practices the station said allowed illegal immigrants into the work force. The Electrolux Springfield plant employs about 3,500 people and produces electric and gas stoves. In a statement, the company said it depends on a staffing company to identify employees and gather information about their legal right to work in the United States. The staffing company is Randstad, which did not return phone calls seeking comment. Then, typically within weeks, the employee is subjected to a second round of identity checks, according to a statement issued by Tony Evans, an Electrolux spokesman. Evans did not specify when Electrolux began doing that. But sometime between the Dec. 5 television report and a visit from ICE one week later, the company began reviewing paperwork. As many as 800 workers lost or walked away from Electrolux jobs, said Tommy Vallejos, executive director of HOPE, a Tennessee immigrant advocacy group. “There are people who are so afraid, they have not collected their final paycheck,” Vallejos said. Norma Linda, 23, who did not give her last name, was among them. She came to Tennessee illegally nearly five years ago from a farm in Oaxaca, Mexico. For the last three years, she worked on an Electrolux line installing stove components, presenting a Mexican government-issued ID and an expired visa to get the job, she said. When word spread on the floor that employees were being questioned about their ability to work in the United States, Norma Linda made a decision. When her break time came, she left and never went back. The ICE arrests began Dec. 12, with two people accused of selling identification to illegal immigrants who primarily used it to get jobs at Electrolux. Agents also arrested 14 suspected illegal immigrants, said Temple Black, a New Orleans-based ICE spokesman. On Dec. 19, four suspected illegal immigrants were arrested at the Springfield Electrolux facility, and by the end of the day Dec. 20, 11 more were arrested at homes and apartments in and around Springfield. Since then, fear remains and the full impact on the community has yet to be seen. However, County Mayor Howard Bradley said the change is already noticeable. He blames faulty immigration policy for allowing the community to build its economy, at least in part, with illegal labor only to have it yanked away. “There is a noticeable absence, you just do not see many Hispanic people on the street,” he said. “The only thing that isn’t clear at this point is the long-term impact this may have on Robertson County.” Enforcement may become even more strict this year, when a new state law allows government agencies to report employers suspected of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Those caught twice in three years will lose their business license. Regardless of what happens, members of the Hispanic community say they aren’t going away. “We’re here to stay,” Linares, who plans to rebuild his church’s congregation, said. “We are going to keep gathering at the same place, trying to get more members, trying to get ahead of it all.”

Elias Quijada owns E&D Body shop in Springfield and has been essentially put out of business by ICE raids which has caused all his workers to disappear out of fear of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Quijada's son David, background, has been helping his father. (JOHN PARTIPILO/Gannett Tennessean) Elias Quijada who is the owner of E&D body shop in Springfield, locks up his store for the day. All of his workers Hispanic workers had disappeared or are in hiding after all the ICE raid in Springfield. Quijada is looking for work because he can't maintain his business. (JOHN PARTIPILO/Gannett Tennessean) TODAY'S TOP STORIES: Tennessee Government: General Assembly: Abortion limits bill gets Senate committee's OK 112 Comments Real estate: Developer raises stakes for condos 7 Comments Tennessee Faith & Values: Studios now ask, 'Is it Christian enough?' 4 Comments Nashville, TN based gift company seeking Product Manager LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERDiamond Healthcare Corporation, a All Top Jobs

Email story | Print | Email headlines

License ban drives home point

Monday, January 07, 2008

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is probably right on the law in ruling to prohibit illegal immigrants from obtaining state driver's licenses. A valid license can open the doors to many things in America -- voting, jobs, housing, credit and government services among them.

But Mr. Cox's decision won't do anything to stop illegal immigration. The likely effect will be more unlicensed, untrained and uninsured drivers on Michigan roads. Illegal immigration is a federal issue. It needs a comprehensive federal solution. The small tinkerings Michigan and other states are implementing to deal with immigration are like trying to treat a broken bone by applying a Band-Aid.

Until last week's ruling, Michigan was among eight states that granted licenses to illegal immigrants. The rationale for doing so varies, but it has been touted as a way to encourage illegals to come out of the shadows, get proper training and carry the appropriate insurance. Unlicensed and uninsured drivers are more likely to flee the scene of an accident.

Mr. Cox's opinion came at the request of Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, who wanted to know if Michigan should continue the practice of licensing illegals. It overrules a 1996 opinion from former Attorney General Frank Kelley, who had said denial of licenses may violate the U.S. Constitution.

Michigan law allows the Secretary of State to issue driver's licenses only to residents of the state. Mr. Cox said regarding an illegal immigrant as a permanent resident is "inconsistent with federal law." His opinion is considered legally binding, unless reversed in court.

A driver's license isn't validation of citizenship. It's simply evidence of passing a driving test. That said, however, a driver's license is generally accepted as legal identification. Making it easy for people here illegally to obtain one does nothing to discourage others from following in their footsteps.

An estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants flow into the United States annually. The country can't continue to absorb unchecked numbers of people. But illegal immigration is too big a problem to solve at the state and local levels. Comprehensive immigration reform that balances border security and workplace enforcement with practical ways to deal with the estimated 12 million current illegal immigrants is required. A path to citizenship for many of those already here illegally must be part of any solution. Most voters recognize that it is impractical to round up and deport 12 million people. The country does not have the manpower, money or will to do that. There is no perfect solution. But doing nothing at the national level won't make the problem go away.

©2008 Grand Rapids Press © 2008 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.

Abused immigrant spouses may face deportation

Abused immigrant spouses may face deportation
U.S. rethinks its policy of letting them remain here in certain cases.
By Susan Ferriss, Sacramento Bee

January 7, 2008

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is re-examining a longtime policy to let immigrant spouses remain here when their abusive U.S. citizen or permanent-resident spouses refuse to help them obtain legal status.

Ana Bertha Arellano, who runs her own Sacramento restaurant and cleans offices all night as a janitor, fears a change in that policy would destroy the safe life she's been struggling to build for herself and her children.

Without that protection, Arellano could end up deported by the same U.S. officials who agreed to shelter her from abuse six years ago and legally stay here on a special provisional visa.



"I have my own health insurance. I don't take any aid for anything. I don't want anything else but a chance to have some stability for my family," said Arellano, 37, one of the thousands of immigrants, many mothers of U.S.-born children, who could be affected if the policy shifts.

Arellano's story, like many, begins with marriage to a husband she loved and with whom she had two children, both born here. But her husband, a permanent resident of the United States, never filed papers to sponsor her for permanent residency, she said.

After they were married, she said he told her to cross the border from Mexico illegally in 1997, saying he would submit their application once she got here.

Instead, she said, he used her undocumented status to prevent her from complaining about his subsequent beatings and verbal taunts.

Arellano, who agreed to tell her story publicly, thought she had no alternatives until she found a lawyer who helped her apply in 2001 for a temporary Violence Against Women Act visa.

With affidavits and other evidence, she proved to an immigration official that her husband had abused her and failed to sponsor her for a green card, and that her marriage had been in good faith and she was of good moral character.

She was granted a Violence Against Women Act visa and a work permit so she could support herself and her children by working legally. She started her own business and got health insurance through her janitor job, and based on that success used her temporary visa to petition, without her husband, for permanent residency - a green card.

When Arellano applied six months ago, she felt optimistic. With a green card, she would be able to travel freely and seek U.S. citizenship. With the temporary Violence Against Women Act visa, she can't travel to see her mother back in Mexico, she can't apply for citizenship, and the visa, she feared, could be revoked at any time.

Today, Arellano's fear is approaching panic. With the new policy pending, her green-card request has been put on hold at the Sacramento office of Citizenship and Immigration Services, a branch of Homeland Security.

Although the agency declined to reveal details, it is considering whether to reject green-card petitions for immigrant abuse survivors if they entered the United States in the past illegally, according to Sharon Rummery, San Francisco-based spokeswoman for Citizenship Services.

Immigration-rights advocates suspect the policy is under consideration to bring it into line with other immigration laws, which have been tightened since the mid-1990s and make it harder for someone to obtain a green card if they ever entered the United States illegally.

But victims of domestic abuse, whose spouses deliberately refused to sponsor them for legal status, continued to fall into a special group - at least until now.

"In this climate, everything is being interpreted really restrictively," said Sacramento immigration attorney Marien Sorensen, referring to the mounting public pressure to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Sorensen has four clients, including Arellano, whose bids to move up from Violence Against Women Act visas to green cards are on hold. She has represented dozens of immigrants in the past who have made this transition to green cards with ease.

Since 1994, more than 30,670 immigrants married to U.S. spouses have been granted Violence Against Women Act visas. Across the country, lawyers and others representing these immigrants are reporting that green-card bids are in limbo, said Ellen Kemp, coordinator of the National Lawyers Guild's Immigration Project in Boston.

"It's beyond me why someone would try to prevent full independence and full integration into society of domestic abuse survivors," Kemp said.
Officials already have rejected their green-card bids in some cities, she added.
In the San Jose office of Citizenship Services, a woman too afraid to give her name said she was rejected last summer, has appealed the decision and is terrified that if her appeal fails, she will be ordered to leave the country.
The abuse this woman suffered was so bad, said her attorney, Mary Dutcher, that her U.S. citizen husband is incarcerated.

Beth Hassett, executive director of Women Escaping a Violent Environment, which counsels battered women in Sacramento County, predicted that a hard-line policy will cause immigrant women to remain in violent relationships if coming forward leaves them vulnerable to deportation.

She said counselors often hear of abusive husbands threatening immigrant wives by saying they'll turn them over to immigration authorities. "They lie about whether they've applied for them to get green cards, so the women don't even know what their status is," she said.

"In this area, with so many immigrants, a new policy like this could have a big impact," she said.
The possibility that Citizenship Services could start ordering abused immigrants out of the country also has angered some key figures in Congress.

One of them, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairs a House subcommittee on immigration and border security.
Congress set the policy to provide Violence Against Women Act visas in 1994 and allow abused immigrants to seek green cards, Lofgren said, and Citizenship Services doesn't have the right to re-interpret that policy.

"They're the bureaucrats, not the lawmakers," she said.

If Homeland Security is trying to get tough on illegal immigrants, she said, this isn't the way to do it.

"We're against illegal immigration," she said, referring to Congress. "But we're against domestic abuse and murder, too."

Lofgren and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., both wrote to Citizenship Services, warning that if immigrant spouses and their children are forced to leave the United States, they would no longer be protected by U.S. court restraining orders against their violent spouses.

Lyn Kirkconnell, a Catholic Charities legal aid worker in Stockton, said two of her clients' green-card bids are on hold. She has represented women from Asia, the Middle East, Russia, Mexico, Australia and Great Britain.

"They can't go back to where they could be easily victimized by their abusers," she said. "We need clarification on this."

Sat January 5, 2008

Employers may pay price for not embracing changes

By Devona Walker
Staff Writer

The Department of Homeland Security significantly stepped up immigration enforcement efforts in 2007.

But illegal immigration opponents say it must do a better job of targeting the lure of illegal immigration: The availability of work.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement made nearly four times as many workplace arrests as it did in 2006. Of those 4,900 arrests, 864 people were charged with a crime, more than 500 of which involved document fraud and identity theft in an attempt to appear to be legal residents.

The number of employers or managers arrested for hiring illegal immigrants was fewer than 100, however.

"When you have more than 500,000 illegals entering this country every year, you are not going to cut off the incentive until you start drying up employment. Employment is the No. 1 reason illegal immigrants come here,” said Bryan Griffith, spokesman for the Center for Immigration Studies, which is opposed to illegal immigration. "You can have as much border enforcement or random arresting of illegal immigrants as you want. But if you are able to cut off that incentive, they will most likely self-deport or not enter at all.”

Worksite enforcement

The federal immigration agency also ramped up other enforcement teams. For instance, Fugitive Operations Teams — which focus on finding illegal immigrants who already have been asked to leave the country, have criminal convictions in other countries or are fugitives — arrested more than 30,000 illegal immigrants nationally, doubling its 2006 numbers.

In north Texas and Oklahoma, those teams arrested 1,600, which also doubled 2006 numbers. Of those arrested, 699 were fugitives and 168 were illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. Nearly 1,100 of those arrested in Oklahoma and north Texas have been deported to their countries of origin.

A raid in Oklahoma City in early September, involving the federal program Operation Community Shield with cooperation of state and local officials, netted 65 alleged immigrant gang members.

However, workplace raids targeting employers present an additional burden on the immigration agency. Experts say it is easier to round up illegal immigrants in the workplace than it is to prove that employers knowingly hired illegal immigrants. Workplace arrests are made at a ratio of about 50 employees to one employer.

Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration research group, says arresting employers is more difficult and time consuming, but the government must improve this ratio to change behavior.

"They want to change the calculations that employers make. If the risk is too small, they will behave exactly the way they've been behaving,” Papademetriou said.

Experts say both sides of the immigration debate estimate at least a million companies employ more than 7 million unauthorized workers. Only 17 companies faced criminal fines or other forfeitures this year.

"It's easy to arrest and remove illegal resident persons. It's very difficult to try to have conspiracy and other charges thrown at employers. The law as it is written protects employers,” Papademetriou said. "Employers are not required to find out if the documents are legal, but whether on their face they look legal.”

Experts say the Department of Homeland Security's most effective worksite enforcement tool is still being litigated in court. The proposal is for no-match letters to go out to employers with workers whose names do not match their Social Security numbers. Employers would have 90 days to fix the discrepancy or terminate the worker.

"These no-match letters would be such a critical tool in the arsenal for immigration enforcement,” Papademetriou said.

‘Could have done more'

Papademetriou thinks employers, for political and ideological reasons, will stay on the government's radar.

"This administration is trying to reclaim credibility in terms of immigration enforcement,” Papademetriou said. "The business community was a very, very weak actor during the attempt to pass immigration reform. They could have done more. Now, it is time for employers to pay the price for not helping with immigration reform.”

Low employer arrest numbers also show the need to make programs like E-Verify mandatory, said Center for Immigration Studies senior policy analyst Jessica Vaughan.

"What it shows too is how difficult it is to prove employers are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants,” Vaughan said. "This is one great argument for mandatory participation in E-Verify.”

E-Verify is a free, Internet-based system that provides an automated link to federal databases to help employers determine employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers. It is currently mandatory only in Arizona.

"Workplace enforcement efforts are important,” Vaughan said. "But I don't think it takes criminal charges to send that message home.”

Some local employers are obviously already feeling the pain. A few years ago, Sulphur saddle maker Billy Cook lost his entire staff to an immigration raid, about 51 employees.

Dozens of federal agents came, seized company documents, confiscated computers and took his employees into custody. Cook pleaded guilty to conspiracy and faces up to 25 years in prison and $150,000 in fines.

Authorities allege from 2000 through 2005, Cook supplied false data to the Social Security Administration on his workers.

‘Only people willing to work'

Other small-business owners have escaped the long arm of immigration enforcement. But often say they have no idea if all their workers are authorized.

"People don't want to work anymore. They want to collect the check, but they don't want to work for it,” said Bill Paul, who owns a small oil company in between Stratford and Pauls Valley.

"The country pretty much opens the borders to the only people willing to work, then they tell me it's illegal for me to hire them. I've been having a real hard time getting my head around the whole thing.”

Immigration agency officials say it is in the midst of reinventing itself and giving Americans a reason to believe they are serious about enforcing immigration laws.

"Make a quick reference between the old INS and ICE. ICE has significantly more teeth,” said Carl Rusnok, regional spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Under the old INS, employers were essentially fined for hiring unauthorized workers. It was considered the cost of doing business, Rusnok said.

"A significant difference in the way the old INS worked and the way ICE works is that we don't just go after illegal aliens but the employers who knowingly hire them,” Rusnok said. "It's one thing to have a fine. It's quite another thing to know you are going to jail.”

As part of ramped-up enforcement, it has launched 13 programs under the umbrella ICE ACCESS, involving increased cooperation with local law enforcement agencies. This includes the 287(g) Program cross-training local law agencies to enforce immigration law. The Tulsa County Sheriff's Department participates in this program.

Bosses use ICE to chill a union drive

By Milt Neidenberg

Published Jan 5, 2008 8:36 AM

Just two weeks before a union representation election in the midst of the holiday season, online grocery delivery giant Fresh Direct shocked its 2,000 employees. The company demanded that workers produce documents like Social Security cards to update records for an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency/Homeland Security (ICE) inspection.

Most vulnerable were the 900 warehouse workers slated to vote. Overwhelmingly Latina and women of color, they work in 12- to 18-hour shifts with forced overtime, for a starting wage of $7.50. Standing in near freezing temperatures in the refrigerated warehouse, they price, pack and load boxes, some heavy with canned goods, onto delivery trucks. Many who had been on the payroll since the company was formed had signed union cards and looked forward to an election that would lead to decent wages, working conditions and a sense of security and dignity.

It looked like a winnable election for the union. Then in came the federal agents—ICE, armed and dangerous—ordering the workers to produce proof of their legality. It was reported that at least 100 workers quit, and supervisors suspended dozens of workers who couldn’t produce paperwork.

Sandy Pope, president of Local 805 Teamsters, one of the unions on the ballot, described the mayhem: “Some people just walked out the door. They were sobbing [as they carried] garbage bags of clothes from their lockers.” Fearful that they would be arrested and separated from their children and families, they didn’t wait to pick up their checks.

In spite of the brutal repression by ICE and though it was riddled with unfair labor practices orchestrated by Fresh Direct, the election the National Labor Relations Board set for December 22-23 stayed on schedule as if nothing had happened. The other union on the ballot competing with the Teamsters was the United Food and Commercial Workers. The NLRB should have postponed the election and called for hearings.

The NLRB’s “speak no evil” policy eloquently points out the erosion of protections workers had under the National Labor Relations Act, a law won by the blood and sacrifices of the workers during the struggles of the 1930s Depression.

Immediately following the sham election, there was no surprise when Fresh Direct management boasted that 80 percent of plant employees voted “no union.” They did not mention that only 530 of 900 eligible workers showed up. Three hundred and seventy members wisely decided not to show up as the ICE agents threatened to arrest them. And even under a flawed election, over 100 members voted for the union. As of Jan. 1, none of the locals on the ballot have issued public statements.

A week prior to the election, the New York City Central Labor Council held a press conference on the steps of City Hall targeting the ICE raids on Fresh Direct workers. It was co-chaired by CLC director Ed Ott and Labor Council on Latin American Advancement President Sonia Ivany. The turnout of about 100—mainly union officials, politicians and clergy—pointed out the widespread union busting and the corporations’ collusion with the state’s repressive agencies that target immigrant workers.

Ott’s opening remarks charged that the ICE raid on Fresh Direct was part of a national pattern and “no coincidence, comes now in the middle of an NLRB election.” He blamed the federal government and Fresh Direct complicity in interfering with the workers’ right to have a union. Other speakers reinforced this theme, spotlighting the conduct of Fresh Direct and ICE.

There was, however, no action proposal put forward calling for a fight back to stem the tidal wave of attacks on the labor movement and the broad-based attack on 12 million hard-working immigrants.

With the nation embroiled in imperialist wars and class warfare and national oppression on the rise, wouldn’t it be reasonable to begin discussing a campaign to shut down the country for one day—a one-day national work strike. The tactic is already being used abroad, especially in some European countries.

In their own insidious way, the banks and corporations in their own class interests are already shutting down on the poor and the workers. Look at the foreclosures and the destruction of desperately needed public housing in New Orleans.

Plant closings and layoffs shut out the workers from the means of production and subsistence. Poverty and hunger shut off the masses from economic and personal security. Decent education is denied youth of color and 47 million are shut out of elementary health care. Prisons are packed with workers of many nationalities shut out by bars of isolation and repression. The very future of the planet is threatened by corporate polluters.

Isn’t it time for working people to shut down work for one day in their own class interests?

---

Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php