By HUGH RAFFLES
The New York Times
April 2, 2011
THE anti-immigrant sentiment sweeping the country, from draconian laws in Arizona to armed militias along the Mexican border, has taken many Americans by surprise. It shouldn’t — nativism runs deep in the United States. Just ask our non-native animals and plants: they too are commonly labeled as aliens, even though they also provide significant benefits to their new home.
While the vanguard of the anti-immigrant crusade is found among the likes of the Minutemen and the Tea Party, the native species movement is led by environmentalists, conservationists and gardeners. Despite cultural and political differences, both are motivated — in Margaret Thatcher’s infamous phrase — by the fear of being swamped by aliens.
But just as America is a nation built by waves of immigrants, our natural landscape is a shifting mosaic of plant and animal life. Like humans, plants and animals travel, often in ways beyond our knowledge and control. They arrive unannounced, encounter unfamiliar conditions and proceed to remake each other and their surroundings.
Designating some as native and others as alien denies this ecological and genetic dynamism. It draws an arbitrary historical line based as much on aesthetics, morality and politics as on science, a line that creates a mythic time of purity before places were polluted by interlopers.
What’s more, many of the species we now think of as natives may not be especially well suited to being here. They might be, in an ecological sense, temporary residents, no matter how permanent they seem to us.
These “native” species can have serious effects on their environment. Take the mountain pine beetle: thanks to climate change, its population is exploding in the West, devastating hundreds of thousands of square miles of forest.
It’s true that some non-native species have brought with them expensive and well-publicized problems; zebra mussels, nutria and kudzu are prime examples. But even these notorious villains have ecological or economic benefits. Zebra mussels, for example, significantly improve water quality, which increases populations of small fish, invertebrates and seaweeds — and that, in turn, has helped expand the number of larger fish and birds.
Indeed, non-native plants and animals have transformed the American landscape in unmistakably positive ways. Honeybees were introduced from Europe in the 1600s, and new stocks from elsewhere in the world have landed at least eight times since. They succeeded in making themselves indispensable, economically and symbolically. In the process, they made us grateful that they arrived, stayed and found their place.
But the honeybee is a lucky exception. Today, a species’s immigration status often makes it a target for eradication, no matter its effect on the environment. Eucalyptus trees, charged with everything from suffocating birds with their resin to elevating fire risk with their peeling bark, are the targets of large-scale felling.
Yet eucalyptuses are not only majestic trees popular with picnickers, they are one of the few sources of nectar available to northern Californian bees in winter and a vital destination for migrating monarch butterflies.
Or take ice plant, a much-vilified Old World succulent that spreads its thick, candy-colored carpet along the California coast. Concerned that it is crowding out native wildflowers, legions of environmental volunteers rip it from the sandy soil and pile it in slowly moldering heaps along the cliffs.
Yet ice plant, introduced to the West Coast at the beginning of the 20th century to stabilize railroad tracks, is an attractive plant that can also deter erosion of the sandstone bluffs on which it grows.
There are plenty of less controversial examples. Non-native shad, crayfish and mud snails provide food for salmon and other fish. Non-native oysters on the Pacific Coast build reefs that create habitat for crab, mussels and small fish, appearing to increase these animals’ populations.
And in any case, efforts to restore ecosystems to an imagined pristine state almost always fail: once a species begins to thrive in a new environment, there’s little we can do to stop it. Indeed, these efforts are often expensive and can increase rather than relieve environmental harm.
An alternative is to embrace the impurity of our cosmopolitan natural world and, as some biologists are now arguing, to consider the many ways that non-native plants and animals — not just the natives — benefit their environments and our lives.
Last month, along with 161 other immigrants from more than 50 countries, I attended an oath-swearing ceremony in Lower Manhattan and became a citizen of the United States. In a brief speech welcoming us into a world of new rights and responsibilities, the presiding judge emphasized our diversity. It is, he said, the ever-shifting diversity that immigrants like us bring to this country that keeps it dynamic and strong.
These familiar words apply just as meaningfully to our nation’s non-native plants and animals. Like the humans with whose lives they are so entangled, they too are in need of a thoughtful and inclusive response.
Hugh Raffles, an anthropologist at the New School, is the author of “Insectopedia.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03Raffles.html?ref=opinion
Showing posts with label xenophobia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label xenophobia. Show all posts
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
GOP Candidate: Deport Latino Farmworkers, Replace With Inner-City Blacks
By Suzy Khimm
Mother Jones
Tue Mar. 15, 2011
A Republican candidate running for Rep. Chris "Craigslist" Lee's seat in upstate New York isn't doing his scandalized party any favors. Jack Davis, a local businessman vying for the seat, shocked local GOP leaders by suggesting that the area's Hispanic farmworkers should be deported, and that inner city blacks should be bused in to pick the crops instead, as The Buffalo News reports.
Davis made the comments during a February 20 endorsement interview with local Republican Party leaders—and it's not the first time he's floated the idea. In 2008, Davis told another local paper: "We have a huge unemployment problem with black youth in our cities. Put them on buses, take them out there [to the farms] and pay them a decent wage; they will work."
Local Republicans leaders have quickly distanced themselves from Davis' inflammatory comments. "Maybe in 1860 that might have been seen by some as an appropriate comment, but not now," Amherst GOP Chairman Marshall Wood told the Buffalo News. But Davis—who's previously run for the seat as a Democrat—seems determined to continue his bid for the special election in May, casting himself as an anti-trade populist with tea party appeal.
What's next? A state Republican arguing that the physically and mentally disabled should be euthanized or just sent to Siberia? Or that illegal immigrants should be shot from helicopters like "feral hogs"? Oh no—both of those things have already happened.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/gop-candidate-deport-latino-farmworkers-replace-inner-city-blacks
Mother Jones
Tue Mar. 15, 2011
A Republican candidate running for Rep. Chris "Craigslist" Lee's seat in upstate New York isn't doing his scandalized party any favors. Jack Davis, a local businessman vying for the seat, shocked local GOP leaders by suggesting that the area's Hispanic farmworkers should be deported, and that inner city blacks should be bused in to pick the crops instead, as The Buffalo News reports.
Davis made the comments during a February 20 endorsement interview with local Republican Party leaders—and it's not the first time he's floated the idea. In 2008, Davis told another local paper: "We have a huge unemployment problem with black youth in our cities. Put them on buses, take them out there [to the farms] and pay them a decent wage; they will work."
Local Republicans leaders have quickly distanced themselves from Davis' inflammatory comments. "Maybe in 1860 that might have been seen by some as an appropriate comment, but not now," Amherst GOP Chairman Marshall Wood told the Buffalo News. But Davis—who's previously run for the seat as a Democrat—seems determined to continue his bid for the special election in May, casting himself as an anti-trade populist with tea party appeal.
What's next? A state Republican arguing that the physically and mentally disabled should be euthanized or just sent to Siberia? Or that illegal immigrants should be shot from helicopters like "feral hogs"? Oh no—both of those things have already happened.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/gop-candidate-deport-latino-farmworkers-replace-inner-city-blacks
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Political Battle on Illegal Immigration Shifts to States
By JULIA PRESTON
The New York Times
December 31, 2010
Legislative leaders in at least half a dozen states say they will propose bills similar to a controversial law to fight illegal immigration that was adopted by Arizona last spring, even though a federal court has suspended central provisions of that statute.
The efforts, led by Republicans, are part of a wave of state measures coming this year aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.
Legislators have also announced measures to limit access to public colleges and other benefits for illegal immigrants and to punish employers who hire them.
Next week, at least five states plan to begin an unusual coordinated effort to cancel automatic United States citizenship for children born in this country to illegal immigrant parents.
Opponents say that effort would be unconstitutional, arguing that the power to grant citizenship resides with the federal government, not with the states. Still, the chances of passing many of these measures appear better than at any time since 2006, when many states, frustrated with inaction in Washington, began proposing initiatives to curb illegal immigration.
Republicans gained more than 690 seats in state legislatures nationwide in the November midterms, winning their strongest representation at the state level in more than 80 years.
Few people expect movement on immigration issues when Congress reconvenes next week in a divided Washington. Republicans, who will control the House of Representatives, do not support an overhaul of immigration laws that President Obama has promised to continue to push. State lawmakers say it has fallen to them to act.
“The federal government’s failure to enforce our border has functionally turned every state into a border state,” said Randy Terrill, a Republican representative in Oklahoma who has led the drive for anti-illegal immigration laws there. “This is federalism in action,” he said. “The states are stepping in and filling the void left by the federal government.”
But the proposals have already drawn opposition from some business groups. And they are forcing strategic soul-searching within the Republican Party nationwide, with a rising populist base on one side demanding tough immigration measures, and, on the other side, traditional Republican supporters in business and a fast-growing Latino electorate strongly opposing those measures.
In Utah, a state dominated by Republicans, leaders from business, law enforcement, several churches and the Latino community sought to bridge the divide by joining together in November in a compact urging moderation on immigration issues.
Some of the more contentious measures may not go into effect immediately, including Arizona-style bills and those intended to eliminate birthright citizenship for American-born children of illegal immigrants. Latino and immigrant advocate legal organizations are gearing up for a host of court challenges.
Among the states expected to introduce bills similar to Arizona’s are Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
The Arizona law authorized the state and local police to ask about the immigration status of anyone they detained for other reasons, if they had a “reasonable suspicion” that the person was an illegal immigrant.
Acting on a lawsuit filed by the Obama administration, a federal judge stayed central provisions of the law. In November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on an appeal of that stay by Arizona.
“States will push ahead regardless of the Ninth Circuit,” said Kris Kobach, a law professor and politician from Kansas who helped many states devise immigration laws — including Arizona’s. “A lot of people recognize that the district judge’s decision is very much open to dispute.”
In Oklahoma, where Republicans won big majorities in both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office, Mr. Terrill said he would introduce a bill he called “Arizona plus.” In addition to the terms of Arizona’s law, it would allow for the seizure of vehicles and property used to transport or harbor illegal immigrants.
In Georgia, an all-Republican commission of legislators plans to propose measures to enhance enforcement of tough laws already on the books. Georgia will also consider a bill to bar illegal immigrant students from all public universities.
The newly elected governor, Nathan Deal, a Republican, is expected to sign those bills. But the Georgia Farm Bureau, which represents the state’s powerful growers, voted to oppose any measures that would affect immigrant farm workers, most of whom do not have legal status.
In Kansas, Republicans won big majorities in both legislative houses and Sam Brownback, who just retired as a United States senator, was elected governor. Mr. Kobach, the law professor, was elected secretary of state after a campaign in which he vowed to pass a law requiring proof of citizenship for voters.
But the Kansas Chamber of Commerce has voiced its opposition, and Mr. Brownback has said he will focus on reducing unemployment.
The newest initiative is a joint effort among lawmakers from states including Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri and Pennsylvania to pass laws based on a single model that would deny American citizenship to children born in those states to illegal immigrants. The legislators were to announce the campaign in Washington on Wednesday.
A leader of that effort is Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican state representative from Pennsylvania. At a recent news conference, Mr. Metcalfe said his goal was to eliminate “an anchor baby status, in which an illegal alien invader comes into our country and has a child on our soil that is granted citizenship automatically.”
The campaign is certain to run into legal obstacles. Courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment as guaranteeing birthright citizenship. Even among those who seek its repeal, debate has hinged on whether that would require a constitutional amendment, an act of Congress or a decision by the Supreme Court.
Some Republicans argue that the party is risking losing its appeal to Latino voters, the fastest-growing minority voter bloc.
“The Republican Party is divided between those who see that Hispanics are an essential constituency going forward, and those who don’t see that,” said Tamar Jacoby, a Republican who is the president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a business coalition that supports legalization for illegal immigrants.
Latino and immigrant advocate groups are resigned to being on the defensive for the next two years. “These laws are creating resentment within the Latino community that is going to last for decades,” said Tony Yapias, director of Proyecto Latino de Utah in Salt Lake City, an immigrant advocacy group.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01immig.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
The New York Times
December 31, 2010
Legislative leaders in at least half a dozen states say they will propose bills similar to a controversial law to fight illegal immigration that was adopted by Arizona last spring, even though a federal court has suspended central provisions of that statute.
The efforts, led by Republicans, are part of a wave of state measures coming this year aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.
Legislators have also announced measures to limit access to public colleges and other benefits for illegal immigrants and to punish employers who hire them.
Next week, at least five states plan to begin an unusual coordinated effort to cancel automatic United States citizenship for children born in this country to illegal immigrant parents.
Opponents say that effort would be unconstitutional, arguing that the power to grant citizenship resides with the federal government, not with the states. Still, the chances of passing many of these measures appear better than at any time since 2006, when many states, frustrated with inaction in Washington, began proposing initiatives to curb illegal immigration.
Republicans gained more than 690 seats in state legislatures nationwide in the November midterms, winning their strongest representation at the state level in more than 80 years.
Few people expect movement on immigration issues when Congress reconvenes next week in a divided Washington. Republicans, who will control the House of Representatives, do not support an overhaul of immigration laws that President Obama has promised to continue to push. State lawmakers say it has fallen to them to act.
“The federal government’s failure to enforce our border has functionally turned every state into a border state,” said Randy Terrill, a Republican representative in Oklahoma who has led the drive for anti-illegal immigration laws there. “This is federalism in action,” he said. “The states are stepping in and filling the void left by the federal government.”
But the proposals have already drawn opposition from some business groups. And they are forcing strategic soul-searching within the Republican Party nationwide, with a rising populist base on one side demanding tough immigration measures, and, on the other side, traditional Republican supporters in business and a fast-growing Latino electorate strongly opposing those measures.
In Utah, a state dominated by Republicans, leaders from business, law enforcement, several churches and the Latino community sought to bridge the divide by joining together in November in a compact urging moderation on immigration issues.
Some of the more contentious measures may not go into effect immediately, including Arizona-style bills and those intended to eliminate birthright citizenship for American-born children of illegal immigrants. Latino and immigrant advocate legal organizations are gearing up for a host of court challenges.
Among the states expected to introduce bills similar to Arizona’s are Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
The Arizona law authorized the state and local police to ask about the immigration status of anyone they detained for other reasons, if they had a “reasonable suspicion” that the person was an illegal immigrant.
Acting on a lawsuit filed by the Obama administration, a federal judge stayed central provisions of the law. In November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on an appeal of that stay by Arizona.
“States will push ahead regardless of the Ninth Circuit,” said Kris Kobach, a law professor and politician from Kansas who helped many states devise immigration laws — including Arizona’s. “A lot of people recognize that the district judge’s decision is very much open to dispute.”
In Oklahoma, where Republicans won big majorities in both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office, Mr. Terrill said he would introduce a bill he called “Arizona plus.” In addition to the terms of Arizona’s law, it would allow for the seizure of vehicles and property used to transport or harbor illegal immigrants.
In Georgia, an all-Republican commission of legislators plans to propose measures to enhance enforcement of tough laws already on the books. Georgia will also consider a bill to bar illegal immigrant students from all public universities.
The newly elected governor, Nathan Deal, a Republican, is expected to sign those bills. But the Georgia Farm Bureau, which represents the state’s powerful growers, voted to oppose any measures that would affect immigrant farm workers, most of whom do not have legal status.
In Kansas, Republicans won big majorities in both legislative houses and Sam Brownback, who just retired as a United States senator, was elected governor. Mr. Kobach, the law professor, was elected secretary of state after a campaign in which he vowed to pass a law requiring proof of citizenship for voters.
But the Kansas Chamber of Commerce has voiced its opposition, and Mr. Brownback has said he will focus on reducing unemployment.
The newest initiative is a joint effort among lawmakers from states including Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri and Pennsylvania to pass laws based on a single model that would deny American citizenship to children born in those states to illegal immigrants. The legislators were to announce the campaign in Washington on Wednesday.
A leader of that effort is Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican state representative from Pennsylvania. At a recent news conference, Mr. Metcalfe said his goal was to eliminate “an anchor baby status, in which an illegal alien invader comes into our country and has a child on our soil that is granted citizenship automatically.”
The campaign is certain to run into legal obstacles. Courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment as guaranteeing birthright citizenship. Even among those who seek its repeal, debate has hinged on whether that would require a constitutional amendment, an act of Congress or a decision by the Supreme Court.
Some Republicans argue that the party is risking losing its appeal to Latino voters, the fastest-growing minority voter bloc.
“The Republican Party is divided between those who see that Hispanics are an essential constituency going forward, and those who don’t see that,” said Tamar Jacoby, a Republican who is the president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a business coalition that supports legalization for illegal immigrants.
Latino and immigrant advocate groups are resigned to being on the defensive for the next two years. “These laws are creating resentment within the Latino community that is going to last for decades,” said Tony Yapias, director of Proyecto Latino de Utah in Salt Lake City, an immigrant advocacy group.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01immig.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Pa. mayor to take immigration law to Supreme Court
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
The Associate Press
September 10, 2010
HAZLETON, Pa. — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants, dealing another blow to 4-year-old regulations that inspired similar measures around the country. The city's mayor pledged to take the case to the Supreme Court.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
"It is ... not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress," wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee.
Appeals courts are split on whether states and municipalities have the right to enforce laws dealing with immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over a 2007 Arizona law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Hazleton, a northeastern Pennsylvania city of more than 30,000, had sought to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure required prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
Mayor Lou Barletta had pushed the measures in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. The Republican mayor, now mounting his third try for Congress, argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000 and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.
"Hazleton was the first, and became the symbol of hope for many around the country," he said at a news conference after the ruling was released by the appeals court on its website.
"Since I proposed this law more than four years ago, we have seen the growing frustration all across the country," he said, a nod to similar measures in Arizona, Farmers Branch, Texas and Valley Park, Mo.
"This frustration is not going away and it will not go away until the federal government finally secures our borders and cracks down on illegal immigration," he added.
Barletta took no questions but pledged to take the case to the Supreme Court.
"Today's decision by the 3rd Circuit Court is not unexpected. I'm not disillusioned by this ruling," Barletta said. "We knew this would not be the last stop on our journey."
Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007. The laws have never been enforced.
"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat said in a statement.
Hazleton's act was copied by dozens of municipalities around the nation that believe the federal government hasn't done enough to stop illegal immigration.
The crux of the debate has now shifted to Arizona and its strict new law, passed this year, that's also being challenged in court; among other things, it requires police to question the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.
In the Hazleton case, the appeals court said the city's ordinances conflict with federal immigration law and thus are pre-empted. The employment provision could lead to discrimination against "those perceived as foreign," the court said, while the effort to prevent illegal immigrants from living in Hazleton ignores that it is the federal governments' prerogative to decide who stays and who goes.
The city's law, for example, could force out a college student the federal government has declined to remove, or a battered spouse who could be eligible to stay in the United States under protections afforded by Congress, according to the unanimous decision.
Kris Kobach, a law professor and political candidate in Kansas who worked with Hazleton on its ordinance and represented the city at trial, said Thursday that the 3rd Circuit ignored Supreme Court precedent regarding pre-emption.
"It's going to be difficult for this opinion to stand. The court really had to stretch to find a way to agree with the ACLU," said Kobach, who also helped draft Arizona's immigration law.
Hispanic immigrants began settling in large numbers in Hazleton several years ago, lured from New York, Philadelphia and other cities by cheap housing, low crime and jobs in nearby factories and farms. The city, 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, estimates its population increased by more than 10,000 between 2000 and 2006.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkWhluTKRQkgDRIl8zJOqQQSeo-gD9I4LCCG2
The Associate Press
September 10, 2010
HAZLETON, Pa. — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants, dealing another blow to 4-year-old regulations that inspired similar measures around the country. The city's mayor pledged to take the case to the Supreme Court.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
"It is ... not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress," wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee.
Appeals courts are split on whether states and municipalities have the right to enforce laws dealing with immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over a 2007 Arizona law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Hazleton, a northeastern Pennsylvania city of more than 30,000, had sought to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure required prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
Mayor Lou Barletta had pushed the measures in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. The Republican mayor, now mounting his third try for Congress, argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000 and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.
"Hazleton was the first, and became the symbol of hope for many around the country," he said at a news conference after the ruling was released by the appeals court on its website.
"Since I proposed this law more than four years ago, we have seen the growing frustration all across the country," he said, a nod to similar measures in Arizona, Farmers Branch, Texas and Valley Park, Mo.
"This frustration is not going away and it will not go away until the federal government finally secures our borders and cracks down on illegal immigration," he added.
Barletta took no questions but pledged to take the case to the Supreme Court.
"Today's decision by the 3rd Circuit Court is not unexpected. I'm not disillusioned by this ruling," Barletta said. "We knew this would not be the last stop on our journey."
Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007. The laws have never been enforced.
"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat said in a statement.
Hazleton's act was copied by dozens of municipalities around the nation that believe the federal government hasn't done enough to stop illegal immigration.
The crux of the debate has now shifted to Arizona and its strict new law, passed this year, that's also being challenged in court; among other things, it requires police to question the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.
In the Hazleton case, the appeals court said the city's ordinances conflict with federal immigration law and thus are pre-empted. The employment provision could lead to discrimination against "those perceived as foreign," the court said, while the effort to prevent illegal immigrants from living in Hazleton ignores that it is the federal governments' prerogative to decide who stays and who goes.
The city's law, for example, could force out a college student the federal government has declined to remove, or a battered spouse who could be eligible to stay in the United States under protections afforded by Congress, according to the unanimous decision.
Kris Kobach, a law professor and political candidate in Kansas who worked with Hazleton on its ordinance and represented the city at trial, said Thursday that the 3rd Circuit ignored Supreme Court precedent regarding pre-emption.
"It's going to be difficult for this opinion to stand. The court really had to stretch to find a way to agree with the ACLU," said Kobach, who also helped draft Arizona's immigration law.
Hispanic immigrants began settling in large numbers in Hazleton several years ago, lured from New York, Philadelphia and other cities by cheap housing, low crime and jobs in nearby factories and farms. The city, 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, estimates its population increased by more than 10,000 between 2000 and 2006.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkWhluTKRQkgDRIl8zJOqQQSeo-gD9I4LCCG2
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Easy to blame `foreigners'
BY MIRTA OJITO
The Miami Herald
August 29, 2010
Last week in New York, the police arrested a 17-year-old, charging him with robbery and menacing activities as hate crimes. According to police, the youngster, wielding a knife and yelling anti-Mexican slurs, attacked a 15-year-old Mexican boy to steal his iPod.
Earlier this month, a grand jury indicted a 17-year-old on four charges of assault and robbery as hate crimes. The youngster attacked an 18-year-old to steal $10 while hurling anti-Mexican insults.
The attacks are the latest in a wave of crimes this spring and summer against Mexicans in Staten Island, one of the four boroughs of New York, the most diverse city in the nation and one that boasts of a legendary tolerance for newcomers.
After all, this is the city that served as a port of entry to thousands of immigrants -- primarily, but not exclusively, from Europe -- during the late 1800's into the early years of the 20th century. This is also the city that still beckons immigrants with its Statue of Liberty and its implicit promise that if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.
It is now clear that a handful of people from here and there are tolerable for New Yorkers of a certain disposition. An exotic accent, a scarf wrapped around the head, a long tunic, or a dark skin tone add to the flavor and the myth of the city. But too many of one group makes other groups nervous, it seems. In Port Richmond, where 11 Mexican men have been attacked since April, the majority of the students at the local public school were once black. Now, the majority are Latinos; mostly Mexican.
In these times of economic uncertainty -- the stock market continues to plunge, home sales are down and unemployment remains stubbornly high -- it is easy to blame the ``other'' for all that ails the country. Neighbors of the boy most recently arrested in Staten Island told WABC reporters the attack was not motivated by racial hatred but by grim economic realities. ``I don't think it's a hate crime, it's just a recession out there.''
In America, when the pie shrinks, no one wants to cede a piece to a "foreigner'' -- be it a German, Chinese or Mexican. As early as the late 1840's, during the years of the California Gold Rush, laws were passed ordering all foreigners to vacate certain mining areas. For years, Germans were a target (Benjamin Franklin once wrote that Germans were of the "stupid sort''); then, the tide turned against Catholics in general (priests had to hide their collar to walk the streets of Maine, New York and Boston where mobs attacked them or their churches); and Italians were once considered unacceptably dark.
In the early years of the 20th century, as the country was at war and, later, battling the Great Depression, acts of violence against Latinos became almost common place. Between the years 1900-1936, there were 174 incidents of civilian violence toward Mexicans in the United States, most of them in Texas, according to Francisco Arturo Rosales's book, Pobre Raza!: Violence, Justice, and Mobilization Among Mexico Lindo Immigrants, 1900-1936.
Later, between the years of 1954 and 1959, more than 3.7 million Latinos were deported, most of them without due process. The massive round ups and deportations were based on physical appearances. If border patrol officers thought a person "looked Mexican,'' whatever that means, the person was deported to Mexico. Non-Latinos and many non-Mexicans ended up on the other side of the Rio Grande.
Thirty-five years later, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994 gave rise to a 23.5 percent increase of hate crimes against Latinos in the Los Angeles area. In 2000, in Farmingville, New York, two white men stabbed and beat two Mexican day laborers after luring them to a warehouse with promises of work. Three years later, in the same town, five teenagers torched the home of five Mexican immigrants.
And the list goes on: killings or attacks have recently been reported in Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Texas, Utah and, yes, even Florida (in September 30, 2007, Jose Gonzales, a U.S. citizen in Avon Park returned home to find his car and garage destroyed by a fire set by an arsonist who also spray-painted an obscenity against Puerto Rico on the garage walls. No arrests were made).
Lest some of us think we are safe because we are bilingual, educated, non-Mexican and legal residents or even U.S. citizens, consider the case of Pedro Corzo, a 35-year-old Cuban-born regional manager for Del Monte Fresh Produce. In January 9, 2004, Corzo was gunned down in Dateland, Ariz. The killers -- two cousins ages 16 and 24 -- were traveling through remote sections of southern Arizona with the specific intent of killing Mexicans at random.
In the eyes of the new nativists, we are all Mexicans.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/29/1795773/easy-to-blame foreigners.html#ixzz0y0ANVDla
The Miami Herald
August 29, 2010
Last week in New York, the police arrested a 17-year-old, charging him with robbery and menacing activities as hate crimes. According to police, the youngster, wielding a knife and yelling anti-Mexican slurs, attacked a 15-year-old Mexican boy to steal his iPod.
Earlier this month, a grand jury indicted a 17-year-old on four charges of assault and robbery as hate crimes. The youngster attacked an 18-year-old to steal $10 while hurling anti-Mexican insults.
The attacks are the latest in a wave of crimes this spring and summer against Mexicans in Staten Island, one of the four boroughs of New York, the most diverse city in the nation and one that boasts of a legendary tolerance for newcomers.
After all, this is the city that served as a port of entry to thousands of immigrants -- primarily, but not exclusively, from Europe -- during the late 1800's into the early years of the 20th century. This is also the city that still beckons immigrants with its Statue of Liberty and its implicit promise that if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.
It is now clear that a handful of people from here and there are tolerable for New Yorkers of a certain disposition. An exotic accent, a scarf wrapped around the head, a long tunic, or a dark skin tone add to the flavor and the myth of the city. But too many of one group makes other groups nervous, it seems. In Port Richmond, where 11 Mexican men have been attacked since April, the majority of the students at the local public school were once black. Now, the majority are Latinos; mostly Mexican.
In these times of economic uncertainty -- the stock market continues to plunge, home sales are down and unemployment remains stubbornly high -- it is easy to blame the ``other'' for all that ails the country. Neighbors of the boy most recently arrested in Staten Island told WABC reporters the attack was not motivated by racial hatred but by grim economic realities. ``I don't think it's a hate crime, it's just a recession out there.''
In America, when the pie shrinks, no one wants to cede a piece to a "foreigner'' -- be it a German, Chinese or Mexican. As early as the late 1840's, during the years of the California Gold Rush, laws were passed ordering all foreigners to vacate certain mining areas. For years, Germans were a target (Benjamin Franklin once wrote that Germans were of the "stupid sort''); then, the tide turned against Catholics in general (priests had to hide their collar to walk the streets of Maine, New York and Boston where mobs attacked them or their churches); and Italians were once considered unacceptably dark.
In the early years of the 20th century, as the country was at war and, later, battling the Great Depression, acts of violence against Latinos became almost common place. Between the years 1900-1936, there were 174 incidents of civilian violence toward Mexicans in the United States, most of them in Texas, according to Francisco Arturo Rosales's book, Pobre Raza!: Violence, Justice, and Mobilization Among Mexico Lindo Immigrants, 1900-1936.
Later, between the years of 1954 and 1959, more than 3.7 million Latinos were deported, most of them without due process. The massive round ups and deportations were based on physical appearances. If border patrol officers thought a person "looked Mexican,'' whatever that means, the person was deported to Mexico. Non-Latinos and many non-Mexicans ended up on the other side of the Rio Grande.
Thirty-five years later, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994 gave rise to a 23.5 percent increase of hate crimes against Latinos in the Los Angeles area. In 2000, in Farmingville, New York, two white men stabbed and beat two Mexican day laborers after luring them to a warehouse with promises of work. Three years later, in the same town, five teenagers torched the home of five Mexican immigrants.
And the list goes on: killings or attacks have recently been reported in Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Texas, Utah and, yes, even Florida (in September 30, 2007, Jose Gonzales, a U.S. citizen in Avon Park returned home to find his car and garage destroyed by a fire set by an arsonist who also spray-painted an obscenity against Puerto Rico on the garage walls. No arrests were made).
Lest some of us think we are safe because we are bilingual, educated, non-Mexican and legal residents or even U.S. citizens, consider the case of Pedro Corzo, a 35-year-old Cuban-born regional manager for Del Monte Fresh Produce. In January 9, 2004, Corzo was gunned down in Dateland, Ariz. The killers -- two cousins ages 16 and 24 -- were traveling through remote sections of southern Arizona with the specific intent of killing Mexicans at random.
In the eyes of the new nativists, we are all Mexicans.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/29/1795773/easy-to-blame foreigners.html#ixzz0y0ANVDla
Monday, July 19, 2010
Guv: At least 2 state workers behind ‘The List’
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
July 17, 2010 12:15AM
Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and Kristen Cox, director of the Department of Workforce Services, answered questions from reporters Friday about a list containing private data of alleged illegal immigrants living in Utah. The state has identified and placed on leave two employees from the Department of Workforce Services who accessed state data to compile the list of about 1,300 people who were purportedly in the country illegally.
Two employees with the Department of Workforce Services have been put on leave after an investigation revealed that they apparently accessed records on hundreds of Utah residents to compile a list of 1,300 names of people purportedly in the country illegally.
A handful of other DWS workers also may have been part of the effort and are the subject of an ongoing probe.
“This tactic by these rogue employees to go out and single out individuals and their families and, in some cases, falsely accusing people of an illegal status is in fact deplorable and is in fact counterproductive to the issue that ought to be the focus, which is the illegal immigration issue,” Gov. Gary Herbert said at a press conference.
The two workers were escorted from the state office building where they worked and are on administrative leave pending the completion of the full investigation, said Kristen Cox, Department of Workforce Services executive director. She said it is uncertain if their leave would be unpaid.
“We feel very confident that we have identified the core group,” she said. “The people we’ve identified certainly have strong political opinions and have frustration around the issue of immigration. ... If they want to go rogue, they need to quit the department.”
DWS spokesman David Lewis says there are a handful of other employees — somewhere between three and 10 in all — whose behavior has drawn attention and investigators plan to meet with them next week.
“The other people the investigative team will be talking to on Monday are just suspects at this time,” he said. “The data looks like they’ve accessed certain cases quite a few times. They’re in jobs where they might have a reason to access it, but we want to talk to them and find out what their story is.”
Herbert said he plans to turn the findings of the investigation over to the Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff by Monday.
Shurtleff said he has already had “initial discussions” with federal authorities and will meet with them further to determine if anyone should be prosecuted in state or federal court — or both. The release of health information could constitute federal crimes.
“We’re talking serious crimes that could rise to the level of what we would call a felony crime,” Shurtleff said of the release of data.
A group calling itself “Concerned Citizens of the United States” sent the 29-page document to news outlets and law enforcement agencies, demanding that the people on the list be immediately deported.
Herbert said there will be no state probe of the people named on the list, adding that any such investigation would be a decision of the federal government. “That’s their responsibility, not our’s.”
The list consisted of names, addresses, birth dates and phone numbers of about 1,300 people, including 201 children. It also lists places of employment, due dates for pregnant mothers and more than 30 Social Security numbers.
Under Utah law, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in prison or a $1,000 fine, to release protected information; if a record-keeper steals state records it could be a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
But Herbert said it is also against federal law to violate the privacy of the information in the databases. He said that, as the case progresses, it “will lead to charges filed and a prosecution and, I believe, a conviction.”
U.S. Attorney’s spokeswoman Melodie Rydalch said the office will review the state’s case and determine what, if any, federal law enforcement agency should be involved.
“This obviously was a crime,” said state Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City, “and we hope when we get more information things can be fixed.”
Workforce Services administers unemployment benefits, Medicaid, children’s health insurance and food stamps programs. Information on recipients is kept in a massive centralized database that between 1,200 and 1,400 DWS employees can access.
Cox said the department will review its database security and its policy guidance to employees.
There is a whistle-blower defense in the Utah law protecting an individual who violates the law believing he or she is exposing government corruption, and Eli Cawley, co-chairman of the Utah Minuteman Project, said that protection could apply.
“I believe whoever prepared the list is a patriot because they revealed violations of the law” committed by the immigrants, Cawley said, although he said he would not condone the publication of private information of any citizen or legal resident.
The compilation of the list appears to have been a project that spanned months. Cox said the employees didn’t merely just dump a large amount of data into a spreadsheet, but instead manually accessed records based on cases with specific characteristics over an extended period of time.
“These people involved have been very patient, they’ve been very methodical, they’ve been very deliberate,” Herbert said.
Tony Yapias, director of the advocacy group Proyecto Latino de Utah, praised the governor for his quick response and resolution to the issue.
“I think the governor took the first step today to bring back the trust,” he said.
U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said the release of confidential information is “highly disturbing.”
“I am deeply concerned about these reports, and assure the public that the U.S. Department of Labor will closely follow and work to support the investigation that has been launched by the state of Utah,” she said. “No one, regardless of race, gender or ethnic background, should fear that by applying for government benefits or programs, he or she is at risk of having personal information revealed. The unauthorized release of such information is against the law, and the perpetrators should be punished.”
http://sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/49941046-90/information-law-list-state.html.csp
The Salt Lake Tribune
July 17, 2010 12:15AM
Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and Kristen Cox, director of the Department of Workforce Services, answered questions from reporters Friday about a list containing private data of alleged illegal immigrants living in Utah. The state has identified and placed on leave two employees from the Department of Workforce Services who accessed state data to compile the list of about 1,300 people who were purportedly in the country illegally.
Two employees with the Department of Workforce Services have been put on leave after an investigation revealed that they apparently accessed records on hundreds of Utah residents to compile a list of 1,300 names of people purportedly in the country illegally.
A handful of other DWS workers also may have been part of the effort and are the subject of an ongoing probe.
“This tactic by these rogue employees to go out and single out individuals and their families and, in some cases, falsely accusing people of an illegal status is in fact deplorable and is in fact counterproductive to the issue that ought to be the focus, which is the illegal immigration issue,” Gov. Gary Herbert said at a press conference.
The two workers were escorted from the state office building where they worked and are on administrative leave pending the completion of the full investigation, said Kristen Cox, Department of Workforce Services executive director. She said it is uncertain if their leave would be unpaid.
“We feel very confident that we have identified the core group,” she said. “The people we’ve identified certainly have strong political opinions and have frustration around the issue of immigration. ... If they want to go rogue, they need to quit the department.”
DWS spokesman David Lewis says there are a handful of other employees — somewhere between three and 10 in all — whose behavior has drawn attention and investigators plan to meet with them next week.
“The other people the investigative team will be talking to on Monday are just suspects at this time,” he said. “The data looks like they’ve accessed certain cases quite a few times. They’re in jobs where they might have a reason to access it, but we want to talk to them and find out what their story is.”
Herbert said he plans to turn the findings of the investigation over to the Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff by Monday.
Shurtleff said he has already had “initial discussions” with federal authorities and will meet with them further to determine if anyone should be prosecuted in state or federal court — or both. The release of health information could constitute federal crimes.
“We’re talking serious crimes that could rise to the level of what we would call a felony crime,” Shurtleff said of the release of data.
A group calling itself “Concerned Citizens of the United States” sent the 29-page document to news outlets and law enforcement agencies, demanding that the people on the list be immediately deported.
Herbert said there will be no state probe of the people named on the list, adding that any such investigation would be a decision of the federal government. “That’s their responsibility, not our’s.”
The list consisted of names, addresses, birth dates and phone numbers of about 1,300 people, including 201 children. It also lists places of employment, due dates for pregnant mothers and more than 30 Social Security numbers.
Under Utah law, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in prison or a $1,000 fine, to release protected information; if a record-keeper steals state records it could be a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
But Herbert said it is also against federal law to violate the privacy of the information in the databases. He said that, as the case progresses, it “will lead to charges filed and a prosecution and, I believe, a conviction.”
U.S. Attorney’s spokeswoman Melodie Rydalch said the office will review the state’s case and determine what, if any, federal law enforcement agency should be involved.
“This obviously was a crime,” said state Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City, “and we hope when we get more information things can be fixed.”
Workforce Services administers unemployment benefits, Medicaid, children’s health insurance and food stamps programs. Information on recipients is kept in a massive centralized database that between 1,200 and 1,400 DWS employees can access.
Cox said the department will review its database security and its policy guidance to employees.
There is a whistle-blower defense in the Utah law protecting an individual who violates the law believing he or she is exposing government corruption, and Eli Cawley, co-chairman of the Utah Minuteman Project, said that protection could apply.
“I believe whoever prepared the list is a patriot because they revealed violations of the law” committed by the immigrants, Cawley said, although he said he would not condone the publication of private information of any citizen or legal resident.
The compilation of the list appears to have been a project that spanned months. Cox said the employees didn’t merely just dump a large amount of data into a spreadsheet, but instead manually accessed records based on cases with specific characteristics over an extended period of time.
“These people involved have been very patient, they’ve been very methodical, they’ve been very deliberate,” Herbert said.
Tony Yapias, director of the advocacy group Proyecto Latino de Utah, praised the governor for his quick response and resolution to the issue.
“I think the governor took the first step today to bring back the trust,” he said.
U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said the release of confidential information is “highly disturbing.”
“I am deeply concerned about these reports, and assure the public that the U.S. Department of Labor will closely follow and work to support the investigation that has been launched by the state of Utah,” she said. “No one, regardless of race, gender or ethnic background, should fear that by applying for government benefits or programs, he or she is at risk of having personal information revealed. The unauthorized release of such information is against the law, and the perpetrators should be punished.”
http://sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/49941046-90/information-law-list-state.html.csp
Friday, July 16, 2010
‘Immigrant’ List Sets Off Fears
By KIRK JOHNSON
The New York Times
July 14, 2010
SALT LAKE CITY — A list of 1,300 Utah residents described as illegal immigrants has sown fear among some Hispanics here, and prompted an investigation into its origins and dissemination.
Each page of the list is headed with the words “Illegal Immigrants” and each entry contains details about the individuals listed — from their address and telephone number to their date of birth and, in the case of pregnant women, their due dates. The letter was received by law enforcement and media outlets on Monday and Tuesday. A spokeswoman for Gov. Gary R. Herbert said Wednesday that an investigation was under way to see if state employees might have been involved in releasing the private information.
A memorandum accompanying the list said it was from Concerned Citizens of the United States. It urged immediate deportation proceedings against the people listed, as well as publication of their names by the news media.
The memo said an earlier version of the list had been sent to federal immigration officials in April. It promised that more names would be forthcoming, and promised authorities, “We will be listening and watching.”
“We are not violent, nor do we support violence,” the letter said.
A spokeswoman for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed that the agency had received a letter from the group, dated in early April.
The list came at a time of increased tension over illegal immigration, both in Utah and in the country, two weeks before neighboring Arizona enacts a tough new law aimed at fighting illegal immigration. The federal government has sued Arizona over the law. Here in Salt Lake City, a group of state lawmakers is drafting a bill patterned after it.
Several people on the list expressed anxiety that their personal information had been released, and said they were concerned about their safety and that of their families. Some of those on the list said the heightened pressure could force them from the country.
One Guatemalan man, who spoke only on condition that he be identified as Monzon, admitted that he was in the country illegally. He said he had tried hard to keep off lists of all sorts, essentially by being the best American he could — paying his taxes and staying out of debt.
“I have always tried to keep my record clean,” he said.
But he struck a fatalistic note that might please the letter writers: “It might just be time to reflect and think if the time has come to leave,” he said.
A woman who identified herself as Liset said she was from Mexico and in the United States illegally. She said that her 2-year-old son was born in the United States, but that she had filed papers to give him Mexican citizenship as well.
“If something were to happen he will go with me to Mexico,” she said. She said she believed her personal information on the list came from her application for Medicaid. As for what it was like having reporters call, reading from a sheaf of papers containing large and small details about her life, she said, “I find it strange that you know so many things.”
Angie Welling, a spokeswoman for Governor Herbert, a Republican, said that the release of the material was significant, but that the specificity of detail was even more troubling.
“Any release of private information of this nature, especially the depth and breadth of it, is concerning,” Ms. Welling said. “The governor wants to be sure that a state agency wasn’t involved, and if it was, to make sure it doesn’t happen again, and to get to the bottom of who was responsible.”
Improper release of information from state records is a misdemeanor. The medical information on the list, however, from the notations about pregnancies, could potentially elevate the criminal implications far beyond that, to felony charges and lengthy prison sentences, for violation of federal medical privacy laws.
Proyecto Latino de Utah, one of the most prominent immigrant advocacy organizations in the state, received many frantic calls on Wednesday. People had heard about the list, but because no major news organization has actually published its full contents, the callers mainly wanted to know one thing: Am I on it?
“Nine missed calls this morning,” said Tony YapÃas, the group’s director, glancing at his cellphone in an interview in his office. Most of the callers, he said, were not on the list.
One woman said that not knowing what could unfold next was the worst thing. “What’s going to happen?” she asked.
Mr. YapÃas, the former director of the state’s Office of Hispanic Affairs, said he was convinced that the list had come from the State Department of Workforce Services, an agency that combines resources for job seekers, employers and people seeking assistance like food stamps or Medicaid. The list includes information that other agencies might collect, he said, but Workforce Services’ application form includes a question that other information-laden agencies like the Division of Motor Vehicles, for example, would not ever ask: “Is anyone in your home currently pregnant?”
Ms. Welling at the governor’s office said that the state’s Department of Technology Services was leading the investigation, looking into whether a digital trail might been left behind if state computers were used to prepare the list. She said that Workforce Services, in particular, was doing its own investigation, which she called “extensive.”
She said that to her knowledge no state agency had started any investigations of individuals based on the list.
A spokesman the Department of Workforce Services, Dave Lewis, said a team of information specialists was looking for patterns — whether the computer formatting would provide clues about the document’s origin or creation and whether there had been any unusual activity in people accessing that information inside the agency.
For people who found themselves named and workers in Utah’s government alike, the result was a real-life version of the old childhood game of “Telephone.” Information had leaked out from somewhere. Where? Was it accurate? Who had compiled it? Who now had copies of the list and where might the chain of whispers go from here? Would the leakers be found?
Dabrali Jimenez and Lillian Polanco contributed reporting from New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/15utah.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=immigrant%20list&st=cse
The New York Times
July 14, 2010
SALT LAKE CITY — A list of 1,300 Utah residents described as illegal immigrants has sown fear among some Hispanics here, and prompted an investigation into its origins and dissemination.
Each page of the list is headed with the words “Illegal Immigrants” and each entry contains details about the individuals listed — from their address and telephone number to their date of birth and, in the case of pregnant women, their due dates. The letter was received by law enforcement and media outlets on Monday and Tuesday. A spokeswoman for Gov. Gary R. Herbert said Wednesday that an investigation was under way to see if state employees might have been involved in releasing the private information.
A memorandum accompanying the list said it was from Concerned Citizens of the United States. It urged immediate deportation proceedings against the people listed, as well as publication of their names by the news media.
The memo said an earlier version of the list had been sent to federal immigration officials in April. It promised that more names would be forthcoming, and promised authorities, “We will be listening and watching.”
“We are not violent, nor do we support violence,” the letter said.
A spokeswoman for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed that the agency had received a letter from the group, dated in early April.
The list came at a time of increased tension over illegal immigration, both in Utah and in the country, two weeks before neighboring Arizona enacts a tough new law aimed at fighting illegal immigration. The federal government has sued Arizona over the law. Here in Salt Lake City, a group of state lawmakers is drafting a bill patterned after it.
Several people on the list expressed anxiety that their personal information had been released, and said they were concerned about their safety and that of their families. Some of those on the list said the heightened pressure could force them from the country.
One Guatemalan man, who spoke only on condition that he be identified as Monzon, admitted that he was in the country illegally. He said he had tried hard to keep off lists of all sorts, essentially by being the best American he could — paying his taxes and staying out of debt.
“I have always tried to keep my record clean,” he said.
But he struck a fatalistic note that might please the letter writers: “It might just be time to reflect and think if the time has come to leave,” he said.
A woman who identified herself as Liset said she was from Mexico and in the United States illegally. She said that her 2-year-old son was born in the United States, but that she had filed papers to give him Mexican citizenship as well.
“If something were to happen he will go with me to Mexico,” she said. She said she believed her personal information on the list came from her application for Medicaid. As for what it was like having reporters call, reading from a sheaf of papers containing large and small details about her life, she said, “I find it strange that you know so many things.”
Angie Welling, a spokeswoman for Governor Herbert, a Republican, said that the release of the material was significant, but that the specificity of detail was even more troubling.
“Any release of private information of this nature, especially the depth and breadth of it, is concerning,” Ms. Welling said. “The governor wants to be sure that a state agency wasn’t involved, and if it was, to make sure it doesn’t happen again, and to get to the bottom of who was responsible.”
Improper release of information from state records is a misdemeanor. The medical information on the list, however, from the notations about pregnancies, could potentially elevate the criminal implications far beyond that, to felony charges and lengthy prison sentences, for violation of federal medical privacy laws.
Proyecto Latino de Utah, one of the most prominent immigrant advocacy organizations in the state, received many frantic calls on Wednesday. People had heard about the list, but because no major news organization has actually published its full contents, the callers mainly wanted to know one thing: Am I on it?
“Nine missed calls this morning,” said Tony YapÃas, the group’s director, glancing at his cellphone in an interview in his office. Most of the callers, he said, were not on the list.
One woman said that not knowing what could unfold next was the worst thing. “What’s going to happen?” she asked.
Mr. YapÃas, the former director of the state’s Office of Hispanic Affairs, said he was convinced that the list had come from the State Department of Workforce Services, an agency that combines resources for job seekers, employers and people seeking assistance like food stamps or Medicaid. The list includes information that other agencies might collect, he said, but Workforce Services’ application form includes a question that other information-laden agencies like the Division of Motor Vehicles, for example, would not ever ask: “Is anyone in your home currently pregnant?”
Ms. Welling at the governor’s office said that the state’s Department of Technology Services was leading the investigation, looking into whether a digital trail might been left behind if state computers were used to prepare the list. She said that Workforce Services, in particular, was doing its own investigation, which she called “extensive.”
She said that to her knowledge no state agency had started any investigations of individuals based on the list.
A spokesman the Department of Workforce Services, Dave Lewis, said a team of information specialists was looking for patterns — whether the computer formatting would provide clues about the document’s origin or creation and whether there had been any unusual activity in people accessing that information inside the agency.
For people who found themselves named and workers in Utah’s government alike, the result was a real-life version of the old childhood game of “Telephone.” Information had leaked out from somewhere. Where? Was it accurate? Who had compiled it? Who now had copies of the list and where might the chain of whispers go from here? Would the leakers be found?
Dabrali Jimenez and Lillian Polanco contributed reporting from New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/15utah.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=immigrant%20list&st=cse
Friday, May 14, 2010
The choice for Americans: Arizona or San Francisco?
By Russell Pearce
Nogales International
Published Wednesday, May 12, 2010
I am state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.
Maybe liberals ought to read the Constitution, case law or even just the bill itself before citing incorrect information. Fear mongering and misinformation are opponents’ only tools against this common-sense legislation.
Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law, removes excuses and concerns about states' inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal “sanctuary” policies.
Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. Illegal was already illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and have failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law yet we have them all over the United States.
Paul Kantner of the 1960s rock band Jefferson Airplane once remarked, “San Francisco is 49 square miles surrounded by reality.” When I first heard that San Francisco was planning to boycott Arizona over the SB 1070 legislation that I introduced, this description seemed fitting. However, when neighboring Oakland's city council voted 7-0 to boycott Arizona last Tuesday, and president pro tem of the California state Senate Derrell Steinberg announced a campaign in the legislature to boycott us, it became clear that San Francisco is merely ahead of the California crazy curve.
Why did I propose SB 1070? I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state. I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowing, and budgets strained. Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals. The murder of Robert Krentz, whose family had been ranching in Arizona since 1907, by illegal alien drug dealers was the final straw for many Arizonans.
There are dozens and dozens of other citizens of our state who have been murdered by illegal aliens. Currently, 95 illegal aliens are in Maricopa County jail for murder.
Most of the hysterical critics of the bill do not even know what is in it. All SB 1070 does is allow Arizona law enforcement officials to detain illegal aliens under state law. The law does not allow police to stop suspected illegal aliens unless they have already come across them through normal “lawful conduct” such as a traffic stop, and explicitly prohibits racial profiling.
Federal jurisdiction
Aside from the unfounded accusation of racial profiling, the chief complaint about the bill is that it infringes on federal jurisdiction by enforcing laws. However, there is a long legal precedent going back to 1976 that allows states to pass legislation to discourage illegal immigration so long as it does not conflict with federal law. SB 1070 was specifically designed to mirror federal immigration law to avoid such a conflict.
For all their newfound respect for the authority of federal immigration law, the open borders advocates who oppose SB 1070 have no problems with “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco that explicitly obstruct federal immigration authorities to protect illegal aliens.
In 2008, San Francisco began a campaign to encourage illegal aliens to take advantage of the city's public services. The results were tragic. A few months after the campaign, Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien and member of the MS 13 gang, murdered San Francisco resident Tony Bologna and his two sons who he mistook for rival gang members. Ramos had a lengthy criminal record including a felony assault on a pregnant woman. He was arrested on gang and weapons charges and promptly released just three months before the murder. Not once did San Francisco report him to immigration authorities.
Politicians like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put the interests of illegal aliens before the safety of American citizens, not unlike Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and others. Our law is already working. One can just scan the newspapers and see dozens of headlines like: “Illegal immigrants leaving Arizona over new law: Tough, controversial new legislation scares many in underground workforce out of state."
In contrast, American citizens are leaving California. For the last four years, more Americans have left the state than have moved in. In criticizing the SB 1070, President Barack Obama said, "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others." There is nothing irresponsible about enforcing our law, but President Obama is right in that this is only necessary because the federal government does not do its job.
Attrition by enforcement
The solution is not “comprehensive immigration reform,” a euphemism for amnesty. This will only encourage more illegal immigration. Making illegal aliens legal does nothing to change the social and fiscal costs they impose on Arizona or the nation as a whole. In fact, the Heritage Foundation's research puts the cost of amnesty at over $2.5 trillion.
The federal government simply needs to enforce its immigration laws by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, securing our borders, and deporting illegal alien criminals. That’s attrition by enforcement.
If states understand states’ rights and our constitutional duty and responsibility to our citizens this legislation in Arizona will be a model for states across the nation and the federal government and it will end illegal immigration to America, but President Obama is looking toward San Francisco instead.
(Pearce is a state senator from Mesa.)
Copyright © 2010 Nogales International
Nogales International
Published Wednesday, May 12, 2010
I am state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.
Maybe liberals ought to read the Constitution, case law or even just the bill itself before citing incorrect information. Fear mongering and misinformation are opponents’ only tools against this common-sense legislation.
Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law, removes excuses and concerns about states' inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal “sanctuary” policies.
Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. Illegal was already illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and have failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law yet we have them all over the United States.
Paul Kantner of the 1960s rock band Jefferson Airplane once remarked, “San Francisco is 49 square miles surrounded by reality.” When I first heard that San Francisco was planning to boycott Arizona over the SB 1070 legislation that I introduced, this description seemed fitting. However, when neighboring Oakland's city council voted 7-0 to boycott Arizona last Tuesday, and president pro tem of the California state Senate Derrell Steinberg announced a campaign in the legislature to boycott us, it became clear that San Francisco is merely ahead of the California crazy curve.
Why did I propose SB 1070? I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state. I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowing, and budgets strained. Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals. The murder of Robert Krentz, whose family had been ranching in Arizona since 1907, by illegal alien drug dealers was the final straw for many Arizonans.
There are dozens and dozens of other citizens of our state who have been murdered by illegal aliens. Currently, 95 illegal aliens are in Maricopa County jail for murder.
Most of the hysterical critics of the bill do not even know what is in it. All SB 1070 does is allow Arizona law enforcement officials to detain illegal aliens under state law. The law does not allow police to stop suspected illegal aliens unless they have already come across them through normal “lawful conduct” such as a traffic stop, and explicitly prohibits racial profiling.
Federal jurisdiction
Aside from the unfounded accusation of racial profiling, the chief complaint about the bill is that it infringes on federal jurisdiction by enforcing laws. However, there is a long legal precedent going back to 1976 that allows states to pass legislation to discourage illegal immigration so long as it does not conflict with federal law. SB 1070 was specifically designed to mirror federal immigration law to avoid such a conflict.
For all their newfound respect for the authority of federal immigration law, the open borders advocates who oppose SB 1070 have no problems with “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco that explicitly obstruct federal immigration authorities to protect illegal aliens.
In 2008, San Francisco began a campaign to encourage illegal aliens to take advantage of the city's public services. The results were tragic. A few months after the campaign, Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien and member of the MS 13 gang, murdered San Francisco resident Tony Bologna and his two sons who he mistook for rival gang members. Ramos had a lengthy criminal record including a felony assault on a pregnant woman. He was arrested on gang and weapons charges and promptly released just three months before the murder. Not once did San Francisco report him to immigration authorities.
Politicians like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put the interests of illegal aliens before the safety of American citizens, not unlike Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and others. Our law is already working. One can just scan the newspapers and see dozens of headlines like: “Illegal immigrants leaving Arizona over new law: Tough, controversial new legislation scares many in underground workforce out of state."
In contrast, American citizens are leaving California. For the last four years, more Americans have left the state than have moved in. In criticizing the SB 1070, President Barack Obama said, "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others." There is nothing irresponsible about enforcing our law, but President Obama is right in that this is only necessary because the federal government does not do its job.
Attrition by enforcement
The solution is not “comprehensive immigration reform,” a euphemism for amnesty. This will only encourage more illegal immigration. Making illegal aliens legal does nothing to change the social and fiscal costs they impose on Arizona or the nation as a whole. In fact, the Heritage Foundation's research puts the cost of amnesty at over $2.5 trillion.
The federal government simply needs to enforce its immigration laws by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, securing our borders, and deporting illegal alien criminals. That’s attrition by enforcement.
If states understand states’ rights and our constitutional duty and responsibility to our citizens this legislation in Arizona will be a model for states across the nation and the federal government and it will end illegal immigration to America, but President Obama is looking toward San Francisco instead.
(Pearce is a state senator from Mesa.)
Copyright © 2010 Nogales International
Sunday, April 25, 2010
U.S.’s Toughest Immigration Law Is Signed in Arizona
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
The New York Times
April 23, 2010
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.
The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.
Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.”
The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally.
Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”
As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.”
The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August. Court challenges were expected immediately.
Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”
While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.
Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.
President George W. Bush had attempted comprehensive reform but failed when his own party split over the issue. Once again, Republicans facing primary challenges from the right, including Ms. Brewer and Senator John McCain, have come under tremendous pressure to support the Arizona law, known as SB 1070.
Mr. McCain, locked in a primary with a challenger campaigning on immigration, only came out in support of the law hours before the State Senate passed it Monday afternoon.
Governor Brewer, even after the Senate passed the bill, had been silent on whether she would sign it. Though she was widely expected to, given her primary challenge, she refused to state her position even at a dinner on Thursday for a Hispanic social service organization, Chicanos Por La Causa, where several audience members called out “Veto!”
Among other things, the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vetoed similar legislation repeatedly as a Democratic governor of the state before being appointed Homeland Security secretary by Mr. Obama.
The law opens a deep fissure in Arizona, with a majority of the thousands of callers to the governor’s office urging her to reject it.
In the days leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat, called for a convention boycott of his state.
The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues, has several provisions.
It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007, the last time a federal effort to reform immigration law collapsed. Last year, there were a record number of laws enacted (222) and resolutions (131) in 48 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The prospect of plunging into a national immigration debate is being increasingly talked about on Capitol Hill, spurred in part by recent statements by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader, that he intends to bring legislation to the Senate floor after Memorial Day.
But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could also energize conservative voters.
It could also take time from other Democratic priorities, including an energy measure that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has described as her flagship issue.
Mr. Reid declined Thursday to say that immigration would take precedence over an energy measure. But he called it an imperative: “The system is broken,” he said.
Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, have said that the House would be willing to take up immigration policy only if the Senate produces a bill first.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
The New York Times
April 23, 2010
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.
The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.
Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.”
The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally.
Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”
As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.”
The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August. Court challenges were expected immediately.
Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”
While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.
Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.
President George W. Bush had attempted comprehensive reform but failed when his own party split over the issue. Once again, Republicans facing primary challenges from the right, including Ms. Brewer and Senator John McCain, have come under tremendous pressure to support the Arizona law, known as SB 1070.
Mr. McCain, locked in a primary with a challenger campaigning on immigration, only came out in support of the law hours before the State Senate passed it Monday afternoon.
Governor Brewer, even after the Senate passed the bill, had been silent on whether she would sign it. Though she was widely expected to, given her primary challenge, she refused to state her position even at a dinner on Thursday for a Hispanic social service organization, Chicanos Por La Causa, where several audience members called out “Veto!”
Among other things, the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vetoed similar legislation repeatedly as a Democratic governor of the state before being appointed Homeland Security secretary by Mr. Obama.
The law opens a deep fissure in Arizona, with a majority of the thousands of callers to the governor’s office urging her to reject it.
In the days leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat, called for a convention boycott of his state.
The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues, has several provisions.
It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.
States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007, the last time a federal effort to reform immigration law collapsed. Last year, there were a record number of laws enacted (222) and resolutions (131) in 48 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The prospect of plunging into a national immigration debate is being increasingly talked about on Capitol Hill, spurred in part by recent statements by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader, that he intends to bring legislation to the Senate floor after Memorial Day.
But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could also energize conservative voters.
It could also take time from other Democratic priorities, including an energy measure that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has described as her flagship issue.
Mr. Reid declined Thursday to say that immigration would take precedence over an energy measure. But he called it an imperative: “The system is broken,” he said.
Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, have said that the House would be willing to take up immigration policy only if the Senate produces a bill first.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Mass Deportation Of illegal Immigrants Cost $2.6 trillion over ten years
By Moses Apsan, Esq.
March 20, 2010
This weekend tens of thousands of people from all walks of life are traveling to Washington D.C. to voice their opinion on comprehensive immigration reform. Religious, fraternal, vocational groups, white, black, latinos and orientals all banding together to force congress to fix our broken immigration laws. Yet, even while the country is bleeding with the suffering of these immigrants, anti-immigrant groups have "alternative" solutions for resolving the immigration problem. Many of these groups camouflage themselves in logic, using numbers to prove their point. Yet, in reality it's all a subterfuge for mass deportation and a dislike for people that are different.
Take NumbersUSA.com as an example. They promote a concept they call "Attrition Through Enforcement," which is nothing different than the way bullies treated weaker students in intermediate school. The purpose is to treat illegal immigrants as a non-persons take away their self respect and eventually their ability to earn money to feed their family.
As they explain it: "The principle behind Attrition Through Enforcement is that living illegally in the United States will become more difficult and less satisfying over time when the government – at ALL LEVELS – enforces all of the laws already on the books. The goal is to make it extremely difficult for unauthorized persons to live and work in the United States. There is no need for taxpayers to watch the government spend billions of their dollars to round up and deport illegal aliens; they will buy their own bus or plane tickets back home if they can no longer earn a living here."
Yet in reality what they are talking about is deporting anyone found illegal in the U.S. Matters not if they are not criminals, but hard working, tax paying families. These enforcement-only proponents believe that it's their duty to get illegal immigrant out of "their" county.
I guess, they are blind to the myriad of studies concluding that immigrants benefits our culture and economy. Just yesterday study was released by the Center for American Progress (CAP) that establishes that the enforcement-only approach these restrictionist groups ad-nauseam advocate isn’t sustainable in the long-term. The study estimates that a strategy aimed at deporting the nation’s population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for “every man, woman, and child in this country.”
It is indisputable that the price tag for a policy of deportation, whether through " Attrition Through Enforcement" as advocated by NumbersUSA.com or by the more aggressive approach of Maricopa Sheriff’ Joe Arpaio of Arizona, who recently deputized 900 officers to search, hunt and deport for illegal immigrants, is prohibitive. Just the mechanics of conducting a "Nazi" type roundup in such a massive scale is implausible at best. It would require an exceptional deployment of limited resources. This in turn would exacerbate current problems plaguing our overcrowded detention system. Immigration courts would be overwhelmed and would likely result in widespread human rights and due process violations. Not to forget the effect a mass deportation strategy would cripple our delicate economic growth.
These groups, such as NumbersUSA.com insist that they do not advocate a policy of mass deportation, but rather what they euphemistically call “attrition through enforcement” strategy. A strategy that is clearly intended to wear down the person through consistent increased deportations, detentions, and anti-immigrant ordinances. These groups believe, that if they can keep the "torture " up long enough , many immigrants will choose to self-deport at minimal cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
This is their fantasy, studies, such as CAP has make it empirically clear that increased enforcement will not push most immigrants back to their home countries, rather it only forces to hide even deeper in ours.
If the U.S. opted for a more limited program of deportation, the cost associated with any such mass deportation program would be astronomical. CAP estimates that it costs about $23,148 for each person deported. In 2008 ICE deported 349,041immigrants. Using CAP's estimate the cost to government was approximately $8,07,068 formats year alone.
Eventually enlightened anti-immigration groups would determine that they do not want undocumented immigrants to leave. In research released in January, UCLA, professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce U.S. GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years. Hinojosa-Ojeda also confirmed that if undocumented immigrants were put on an earned path to legalization as part of a comprehensive immigration reform law, it would result in some additional $1.5 trillion in our gross domestic product over 10 years.
I guess NumbersUSA should go back to elementary school and re-learn their basic math or perhaps, change their name to BlundersUSA.
http://news.jornal.us/article-4716.Mass-Deportation-Of-illegal-Immigrants-Cost-26-trillion-over-ten-years-Immigration-Reform-Solution.html
March 20, 2010
This weekend tens of thousands of people from all walks of life are traveling to Washington D.C. to voice their opinion on comprehensive immigration reform. Religious, fraternal, vocational groups, white, black, latinos and orientals all banding together to force congress to fix our broken immigration laws. Yet, even while the country is bleeding with the suffering of these immigrants, anti-immigrant groups have "alternative" solutions for resolving the immigration problem. Many of these groups camouflage themselves in logic, using numbers to prove their point. Yet, in reality it's all a subterfuge for mass deportation and a dislike for people that are different.
Take NumbersUSA.com as an example. They promote a concept they call "Attrition Through Enforcement," which is nothing different than the way bullies treated weaker students in intermediate school. The purpose is to treat illegal immigrants as a non-persons take away their self respect and eventually their ability to earn money to feed their family.
As they explain it: "The principle behind Attrition Through Enforcement is that living illegally in the United States will become more difficult and less satisfying over time when the government – at ALL LEVELS – enforces all of the laws already on the books. The goal is to make it extremely difficult for unauthorized persons to live and work in the United States. There is no need for taxpayers to watch the government spend billions of their dollars to round up and deport illegal aliens; they will buy their own bus or plane tickets back home if they can no longer earn a living here."
Yet in reality what they are talking about is deporting anyone found illegal in the U.S. Matters not if they are not criminals, but hard working, tax paying families. These enforcement-only proponents believe that it's their duty to get illegal immigrant out of "their" county.
I guess, they are blind to the myriad of studies concluding that immigrants benefits our culture and economy. Just yesterday study was released by the Center for American Progress (CAP) that establishes that the enforcement-only approach these restrictionist groups ad-nauseam advocate isn’t sustainable in the long-term. The study estimates that a strategy aimed at deporting the nation’s population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for “every man, woman, and child in this country.”
It is indisputable that the price tag for a policy of deportation, whether through " Attrition Through Enforcement" as advocated by NumbersUSA.com or by the more aggressive approach of Maricopa Sheriff’ Joe Arpaio of Arizona, who recently deputized 900 officers to search, hunt and deport for illegal immigrants, is prohibitive. Just the mechanics of conducting a "Nazi" type roundup in such a massive scale is implausible at best. It would require an exceptional deployment of limited resources. This in turn would exacerbate current problems plaguing our overcrowded detention system. Immigration courts would be overwhelmed and would likely result in widespread human rights and due process violations. Not to forget the effect a mass deportation strategy would cripple our delicate economic growth.
These groups, such as NumbersUSA.com insist that they do not advocate a policy of mass deportation, but rather what they euphemistically call “attrition through enforcement” strategy. A strategy that is clearly intended to wear down the person through consistent increased deportations, detentions, and anti-immigrant ordinances. These groups believe, that if they can keep the "torture " up long enough , many immigrants will choose to self-deport at minimal cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
This is their fantasy, studies, such as CAP has make it empirically clear that increased enforcement will not push most immigrants back to their home countries, rather it only forces to hide even deeper in ours.
If the U.S. opted for a more limited program of deportation, the cost associated with any such mass deportation program would be astronomical. CAP estimates that it costs about $23,148 for each person deported. In 2008 ICE deported 349,041immigrants. Using CAP's estimate the cost to government was approximately $8,07,068 formats year alone.
Eventually enlightened anti-immigration groups would determine that they do not want undocumented immigrants to leave. In research released in January, UCLA, professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce U.S. GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years. Hinojosa-Ojeda also confirmed that if undocumented immigrants were put on an earned path to legalization as part of a comprehensive immigration reform law, it would result in some additional $1.5 trillion in our gross domestic product over 10 years.
I guess NumbersUSA should go back to elementary school and re-learn their basic math or perhaps, change their name to BlundersUSA.
http://news.jornal.us/article-4716.Mass-Deportation-Of-illegal-Immigrants-Cost-26-trillion-over-ten-years-Immigration-Reform-Solution.html
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
In Jury Selection for Hate Crime, a Struggle to Find Tolerance
By MANNY FERNANDEZ
The New York Times
March 8, 2010
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. — Over the last several days, Justice Robert W. Doyle has heard the typical excuses from potential jurors. One woman mentioned her husband’s medical problems. Another woman complained about her back.
But other prospective jurors, seeking to be excused, have brought up larger issues in the judge’s Long Island courtroom.
A young woman said that her father, a mechanic, has a “huge opinion about illegal immigration,” and that his views on the subject have “become my opinions as well.” A man told Justice Doyle that his house was broken into by illegal immigrants while he was sleeping, a fact that he said would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.
And there were those who took a different view, like the bank worker who said that because her husband is of Mexican and Italian descent, she might have difficulty being fair. And the woman who explained that most of the clients in her job are illegal Latino immigrants.
“I don’t think that because of that they should be killed,” she told Justice Doyle.
The prospective jurors were being asked to sit in judgment in the case involving the killing of Marcelo Lucero, a 37-year-old Ecuadorean immigrant stabbed to death in November 2008 in Patchogue, more than an hour’s drive from Manhattan.
Mr. Lucero was attacked by seven teenagers who, the police said, had made a sport out of assaulting Hispanic men, calling it “beaner hopping.” Mr. Lucero’s death prompted widespread outrage and exposed racial tensions in Patchogue, where a number of Latinos came forward after the attack to describe muggings and assaults that had them living in fear.
Now, as Jeffrey Conroy, 19, becomes the first defendant to go on trial in the case, jury selection has proven difficult, in part because of the views on Latino immigration held by some prospective jurors in Suffolk County.
Last week, after three days of jury selection, about 130 men and women were questioned by the judge, the prosecutor and Mr. Conroy’s defense lawyer here in State Supreme Court. Only five were selected; the rest were excused. On Monday, jury selection continued as another roughly 130 were brought in, and more than a dozen were excused by the end of the day.
Once the jury is seated, Mr. Conroy’s defense may be complicated by the fact that four of the seven teenagers have pleaded guilty and may testify against him. But something larger may be at play: the treatment of immigrants in Suffolk County and the allegations that have been raised that some residents there are biased against them.
At times, the jury selection had the feel of a call-in show on talk radio, as men and women sounded off on illegal immigration, hate crimes, their ethnic background and the American dream. Most of the comments made by potential jurors came in response to questions asked by Justice Doyle in a third-floor courtroom of the criminal courthouse in Riverhead, as Mr. Conroy sat motionless in a dark suit at a table next to his lawyer.
Mr. Conroy is accused of second-degree murder as a hate crime, among other charges, in Mr. Lucero’s death, as well as attempted assault as a hate crime in episodes involving other Hispanic men. He has pleaded not guilty. The other two defendants have pleaded not guilty to a hate crime and other charges and are awaiting trial.
Justice Doyle has said that some of the witnesses who will testify in the trial are illegal immigrants, and the potential witnesses he has named in court include three Hispanic men whom prosecutors say some or all of the young men also attempted to attack. Mr. Lucero, who worked at a dry cleaning store, had lived in the United States for 16 years at the time he was stabbed.
Several potential jurors were let go because they said they had strong views on illegal immigration and would be unable to be fair and impartial. Others were excused because they said they had Hispanic family members, or were Hispanic themselves, and would side with the victim and his family. And still others said they had followed the case in the news, and had already formed an opinion about Mr. Conroy’s guilt or innocence.
On Monday, a Riverhead man in his early 20s told the judge that he grew up in a racist environment in Pennsylvania and felt that he could not be fair. Another man said that a neighbor has been verbally abusing his son’s family for several years because his daughter-in-law is Puerto Rican and Peruvian. Justice Doyle asked him if this would affect his ability to be fair.
“It could,” said the man, who declined to elaborate after being excused.
Those who raised illegal immigration as a factor in their ability to serve chose their words carefully, so as not to condone the crimes for which Mr. Conroy stands accused.
One man, a school bus driver, said his Teamsters union had taken a stand on what he described as a lack of a federal immigration policy, and because some witnesses might be illegal immigrants, this would be a problem for him. Before he was released, the man said that what he has and what he has earned was gained legally, not illegally. “I’m the old-fashioned way,” he told Justice Doyle.
The majority of potential jurors, including the school bus driver, have been white men and women of all ages. Only a handful have been Hispanic, black or Asian.
The economic and social impact that Latino immigration and Hispanic day laborers have had on communities in Suffolk County has long been a polarizing issue. A report released following the death of Mr. Lucero by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors hate groups, found that an environment of racial intolerance fueled dozens of attacks on Latinos in the county in the past decade.
“It is a little bit of a glimpse into the soul of a community,” Bruce Barket, a Long Island defense lawyer and a former Nassau County prosecutor, said of the comments being made in this case so far. “These kinds of issues and these kinds of tensions are always present in the courtroom. Race is probably the most dominant unspoken factor in almost every trial.”
Advocates for immigrants and the brother of Mr. Lucero criticized those who said their feelings on illegal immigration prevented them from being impartial. “We’re not talking about any issues about immigration,” Mr. Lucero’s brother, Joselo Lucero, 35, said in an interview. “We’re talking about justice and human rights. This is totally different.”
Several more days of jury selection are expected. Mr. Conroy’s lawyer, William Keahon, said he was not concerned about how long it was taking to select a jury. “It’s going to take us a couple days longer than unusual, but there’s no doubt that the result will be a fair and impartial jury to both sides,” he said.
There were times during the jury selection process when illegal immigration did not seem to be such a daunting issue. Last week, Megan O’Donnell, an assistant district attorney, asked prospective jurors sitting in the jury box if the victim’s immigration status mattered to them, and all assured her that it did not matter.
Carla Panetta, 60, a Patchogue mother of four and grandmother of six, was among a large group of prospective jurors that Justice Doyle excused at the end of the day on Thursday. Outside the courthouse, she said that illegal immigration had no bearing on the case, and that even though her 14-year-old grandson is Hispanic, she would have had no problem being objective. She criticized those prospective jurors who said they could not be fair because of their views on illegal immigration.
“I don’t care whether the man was legal, illegal, white, black, purple or green,” she said outside the courthouse. “There was a murder. It almost seemed like the poor victim was the one going on trial.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/nyregion/09patchogue.html?hpw
The New York Times
March 8, 2010
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. — Over the last several days, Justice Robert W. Doyle has heard the typical excuses from potential jurors. One woman mentioned her husband’s medical problems. Another woman complained about her back.
But other prospective jurors, seeking to be excused, have brought up larger issues in the judge’s Long Island courtroom.
A young woman said that her father, a mechanic, has a “huge opinion about illegal immigration,” and that his views on the subject have “become my opinions as well.” A man told Justice Doyle that his house was broken into by illegal immigrants while he was sleeping, a fact that he said would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.
And there were those who took a different view, like the bank worker who said that because her husband is of Mexican and Italian descent, she might have difficulty being fair. And the woman who explained that most of the clients in her job are illegal Latino immigrants.
“I don’t think that because of that they should be killed,” she told Justice Doyle.
The prospective jurors were being asked to sit in judgment in the case involving the killing of Marcelo Lucero, a 37-year-old Ecuadorean immigrant stabbed to death in November 2008 in Patchogue, more than an hour’s drive from Manhattan.
Mr. Lucero was attacked by seven teenagers who, the police said, had made a sport out of assaulting Hispanic men, calling it “beaner hopping.” Mr. Lucero’s death prompted widespread outrage and exposed racial tensions in Patchogue, where a number of Latinos came forward after the attack to describe muggings and assaults that had them living in fear.
Now, as Jeffrey Conroy, 19, becomes the first defendant to go on trial in the case, jury selection has proven difficult, in part because of the views on Latino immigration held by some prospective jurors in Suffolk County.
Last week, after three days of jury selection, about 130 men and women were questioned by the judge, the prosecutor and Mr. Conroy’s defense lawyer here in State Supreme Court. Only five were selected; the rest were excused. On Monday, jury selection continued as another roughly 130 were brought in, and more than a dozen were excused by the end of the day.
Once the jury is seated, Mr. Conroy’s defense may be complicated by the fact that four of the seven teenagers have pleaded guilty and may testify against him. But something larger may be at play: the treatment of immigrants in Suffolk County and the allegations that have been raised that some residents there are biased against them.
At times, the jury selection had the feel of a call-in show on talk radio, as men and women sounded off on illegal immigration, hate crimes, their ethnic background and the American dream. Most of the comments made by potential jurors came in response to questions asked by Justice Doyle in a third-floor courtroom of the criminal courthouse in Riverhead, as Mr. Conroy sat motionless in a dark suit at a table next to his lawyer.
Mr. Conroy is accused of second-degree murder as a hate crime, among other charges, in Mr. Lucero’s death, as well as attempted assault as a hate crime in episodes involving other Hispanic men. He has pleaded not guilty. The other two defendants have pleaded not guilty to a hate crime and other charges and are awaiting trial.
Justice Doyle has said that some of the witnesses who will testify in the trial are illegal immigrants, and the potential witnesses he has named in court include three Hispanic men whom prosecutors say some or all of the young men also attempted to attack. Mr. Lucero, who worked at a dry cleaning store, had lived in the United States for 16 years at the time he was stabbed.
Several potential jurors were let go because they said they had strong views on illegal immigration and would be unable to be fair and impartial. Others were excused because they said they had Hispanic family members, or were Hispanic themselves, and would side with the victim and his family. And still others said they had followed the case in the news, and had already formed an opinion about Mr. Conroy’s guilt or innocence.
On Monday, a Riverhead man in his early 20s told the judge that he grew up in a racist environment in Pennsylvania and felt that he could not be fair. Another man said that a neighbor has been verbally abusing his son’s family for several years because his daughter-in-law is Puerto Rican and Peruvian. Justice Doyle asked him if this would affect his ability to be fair.
“It could,” said the man, who declined to elaborate after being excused.
Those who raised illegal immigration as a factor in their ability to serve chose their words carefully, so as not to condone the crimes for which Mr. Conroy stands accused.
One man, a school bus driver, said his Teamsters union had taken a stand on what he described as a lack of a federal immigration policy, and because some witnesses might be illegal immigrants, this would be a problem for him. Before he was released, the man said that what he has and what he has earned was gained legally, not illegally. “I’m the old-fashioned way,” he told Justice Doyle.
The majority of potential jurors, including the school bus driver, have been white men and women of all ages. Only a handful have been Hispanic, black or Asian.
The economic and social impact that Latino immigration and Hispanic day laborers have had on communities in Suffolk County has long been a polarizing issue. A report released following the death of Mr. Lucero by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors hate groups, found that an environment of racial intolerance fueled dozens of attacks on Latinos in the county in the past decade.
“It is a little bit of a glimpse into the soul of a community,” Bruce Barket, a Long Island defense lawyer and a former Nassau County prosecutor, said of the comments being made in this case so far. “These kinds of issues and these kinds of tensions are always present in the courtroom. Race is probably the most dominant unspoken factor in almost every trial.”
Advocates for immigrants and the brother of Mr. Lucero criticized those who said their feelings on illegal immigration prevented them from being impartial. “We’re not talking about any issues about immigration,” Mr. Lucero’s brother, Joselo Lucero, 35, said in an interview. “We’re talking about justice and human rights. This is totally different.”
Several more days of jury selection are expected. Mr. Conroy’s lawyer, William Keahon, said he was not concerned about how long it was taking to select a jury. “It’s going to take us a couple days longer than unusual, but there’s no doubt that the result will be a fair and impartial jury to both sides,” he said.
There were times during the jury selection process when illegal immigration did not seem to be such a daunting issue. Last week, Megan O’Donnell, an assistant district attorney, asked prospective jurors sitting in the jury box if the victim’s immigration status mattered to them, and all assured her that it did not matter.
Carla Panetta, 60, a Patchogue mother of four and grandmother of six, was among a large group of prospective jurors that Justice Doyle excused at the end of the day on Thursday. Outside the courthouse, she said that illegal immigration had no bearing on the case, and that even though her 14-year-old grandson is Hispanic, she would have had no problem being objective. She criticized those prospective jurors who said they could not be fair because of their views on illegal immigration.
“I don’t care whether the man was legal, illegal, white, black, purple or green,” she said outside the courthouse. “There was a murder. It almost seemed like the poor victim was the one going on trial.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/nyregion/09patchogue.html?hpw
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Hispanics in the crosshairs
By William C. Kashatus
The Philadelphia Inquirer
January 25, 2010
On July 12, 2008, six white teenagers confronted Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala, a 25-year-old father of three and an illegal immigrant from Mexico, in an alley in Shenandoah, Pa. Screaming racial slurs at him, the teens viciously kicked and beat him. He died in intensive care two days later.
Two of the six assailants - 17-year-old Brandon Piekarsky and 18-year-old Derrick Donchak - were acquitted of the most serious charges by a Schuylkill County jury, but they were charged with federal hate crimes last month. They could receive life in prison if convicted.
What makes the Shenandoah case even more disturbing is that three of the borough's police officers have been charged with obstructing the investigation into Ramirez's death. Police Chief Matthew Nestor, Lt. William Moyer, and Officer Jason Hayes are accused of helping the defendants dispose of crucial evidence, including the shoes used to deliver the final, fatal kick to Ramirez's head.
The Shenandoah case is not an isolated incident. It's part of a frightening national pattern of anti-Latino hate crimes in the United States, which has paralleled growing resentment of illegal immigrants. Hate crimes against Latinos have surged 40 percent nationwide since 2003, according to recent FBI statistics. (The statistics are thought to undercount total hate crimes, but nevertheless indicate real trends.)
Of the 1,347 victims attacked in this country because of their ethnicity or national origin in 2008, 62 percent were Hispanic. Though the most common offense was intimidation, there were at least nine murders and nonnegligent manslaughters. And convictions were rare.
Many of the hate crimes take place in towns like Shenandoah, where there has been a significant increase in the Latino population over the last decade, and where Hispanics are competing with white workers for jobs in a struggling economy.
Some of the towns are famous for having adopted harsh anti-immigrant ordinances. Hazleton, Pa., for example, approved an ordinance in 2006 making it illegal for individuals and businesses to aid undocumented workers, punishing landlords who rent or lease to them, suspending the licenses of businesses that hire them, and making English the city's official language. Similar measures targeting Hispanics have been passed in Riverside, N.J.; Palm Bay, Fla.; and San Bernardino, Calif. The measures echo the community-driven Repatriation Movement of the 1930s, which forced Mexicans to return to their native country.
Other towns have been hotbeds of white supremacist activity. Hemet, Calif., for example, was the scene of a vicious hate crime in November, when four reputed white supremacist gang members knocked a Latino man unconscious and then repeatedly stomped on him and kicked him in the head. The victim suffered permanent brain damage and has been placed in a long-term-care facility.
The same month, in Patchogue, N.Y., seven teens, six of them white, decided to "go fight a Mexican." They ended up attacking an Ecuadorean immigrant, who died of a fatal stab wound.
According to investigators, both attacks were random, unprovoked, and motivated purely by racial hatred.
Still other American towns have struggled with cases of racial intimidation. In Avon Park, Fla., Jose Gonzales, a U.S. citizen and mechanic, had his car and garage destroyed by an arsonist who spray-painted "F- Puerto Rico" on his house in September 2007. The first documented anti-Latino attack of 2009 occurred on New Year's Day, when a Vallejo, Calif., motorist was arrested for gunning his vehicle toward a crowd of Latino day laborers.
Latinos are inevitably the most convenient targets for such hate crimes. Illegal immigration is still a hot-button issue, and many of the most fervent immigration opponents are either unable or unwilling to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
Underlying this disturbing trend is the reality that the white establishment that once dominated education, business, and politics in this country is in decline. Latinos, meanwhile, are the fastest-growing segment of the population.
Instead of resenting Latinos, the white mainstream must learn to share power with them and other minority groups. It's the only way we can move forward as a nation and capitalize on the social, economic, and political benefits of our diversity.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/82575012.html
The Philadelphia Inquirer
January 25, 2010
On July 12, 2008, six white teenagers confronted Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala, a 25-year-old father of three and an illegal immigrant from Mexico, in an alley in Shenandoah, Pa. Screaming racial slurs at him, the teens viciously kicked and beat him. He died in intensive care two days later.
Two of the six assailants - 17-year-old Brandon Piekarsky and 18-year-old Derrick Donchak - were acquitted of the most serious charges by a Schuylkill County jury, but they were charged with federal hate crimes last month. They could receive life in prison if convicted.
What makes the Shenandoah case even more disturbing is that three of the borough's police officers have been charged with obstructing the investigation into Ramirez's death. Police Chief Matthew Nestor, Lt. William Moyer, and Officer Jason Hayes are accused of helping the defendants dispose of crucial evidence, including the shoes used to deliver the final, fatal kick to Ramirez's head.
The Shenandoah case is not an isolated incident. It's part of a frightening national pattern of anti-Latino hate crimes in the United States, which has paralleled growing resentment of illegal immigrants. Hate crimes against Latinos have surged 40 percent nationwide since 2003, according to recent FBI statistics. (The statistics are thought to undercount total hate crimes, but nevertheless indicate real trends.)
Of the 1,347 victims attacked in this country because of their ethnicity or national origin in 2008, 62 percent were Hispanic. Though the most common offense was intimidation, there were at least nine murders and nonnegligent manslaughters. And convictions were rare.
Many of the hate crimes take place in towns like Shenandoah, where there has been a significant increase in the Latino population over the last decade, and where Hispanics are competing with white workers for jobs in a struggling economy.
Some of the towns are famous for having adopted harsh anti-immigrant ordinances. Hazleton, Pa., for example, approved an ordinance in 2006 making it illegal for individuals and businesses to aid undocumented workers, punishing landlords who rent or lease to them, suspending the licenses of businesses that hire them, and making English the city's official language. Similar measures targeting Hispanics have been passed in Riverside, N.J.; Palm Bay, Fla.; and San Bernardino, Calif. The measures echo the community-driven Repatriation Movement of the 1930s, which forced Mexicans to return to their native country.
Other towns have been hotbeds of white supremacist activity. Hemet, Calif., for example, was the scene of a vicious hate crime in November, when four reputed white supremacist gang members knocked a Latino man unconscious and then repeatedly stomped on him and kicked him in the head. The victim suffered permanent brain damage and has been placed in a long-term-care facility.
The same month, in Patchogue, N.Y., seven teens, six of them white, decided to "go fight a Mexican." They ended up attacking an Ecuadorean immigrant, who died of a fatal stab wound.
According to investigators, both attacks were random, unprovoked, and motivated purely by racial hatred.
Still other American towns have struggled with cases of racial intimidation. In Avon Park, Fla., Jose Gonzales, a U.S. citizen and mechanic, had his car and garage destroyed by an arsonist who spray-painted "F- Puerto Rico" on his house in September 2007. The first documented anti-Latino attack of 2009 occurred on New Year's Day, when a Vallejo, Calif., motorist was arrested for gunning his vehicle toward a crowd of Latino day laborers.
Latinos are inevitably the most convenient targets for such hate crimes. Illegal immigration is still a hot-button issue, and many of the most fervent immigration opponents are either unable or unwilling to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
Underlying this disturbing trend is the reality that the white establishment that once dominated education, business, and politics in this country is in decline. Latinos, meanwhile, are the fastest-growing segment of the population.
Instead of resenting Latinos, the white mainstream must learn to share power with them and other minority groups. It's the only way we can move forward as a nation and capitalize on the social, economic, and political benefits of our diversity.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/82575012.html
Friday, November 13, 2009
Dobbs quits to 'go beyond' CNN role
Michael Calderone
Politico.Com
November 11, 2009
Veteran CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, whose populist views on the perils of immigration and his repeated questioning of President Barack Obama’s birthplace made him a controversial figure on a network that has traditionally eschewed opinion, announced Wednesday night that he is resigning.
While Dobbs will continue his radio show, he gave no indication of whether he will stay in television—it’s been rumored that he could end up on Fox. Dobbs said on his show “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” that he’s now “considering a number of options and directions,” and that CNN president Jon Klein has released him from his contract, which is not up until 2011. He has been with CNN for 30 years.
“Over the past six months, it’s become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us,” Dobbs said. “And some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond my role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving, as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day. And to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.”
While CNN executives boast of a non-partisan line-up in prime-time, Dobbs has remained an opinionated presence at the network. Earlier this year, there was a push from management for Dobbs to tone down his personal views and do a more straight newscast, thus fitting in with the network’s stated mission to provide a non-partisan alternative to MSNBC and Fox in the evening. But Dobbs continued to stray from the network’s goals this past summer by repeatedly calling into question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, despite documentation provided by the White House that he was.
Klein said in a statement that Dobbs “has now decided to carry the banner of advocacy journalism elsewhere.”
“Lou Dobbs is a valued founding member of the CNN family,” Klein said. “For decades, Lou fearlessly and tirelessly pursued some of the most important and complex stories of our time, often well ahead of the pack. All of us will miss his appetite for big ideas, the megawatt smile and larger than life presence he brought to our newsroom, and we’re grateful to have known and worked with him over the years.”
Indeed, Dobbs has been at CNN since Ted Turner first had the idea of a 24-hours news network, and through the years, performed various on-air and executive roles for the network. He oversaw the network’s business programming for two decades, beginning in 1980. Dobbs later hosted “The Money Line News Hour” before launching “Lou Dobbs Tonight” in June 2003.
“I’m the last of the original anchors here on CNN, and am proud to have had the privilege of helping to build the world’s first news network,” Dobbs said in announcing his departure. “I am grateful for the many opportunities that CNN has given me over these many years, I’ve tried to reciprocate with the full measure of my ability and my energy.”
Dobbs said he wants to remain committed to issues that he’s most passionate about, including the plight of the middle class, health care, job creation, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and immigration.
Dobbs argued stridently for tougher immigration laws, and often focused in his show on reports linking "illegal aliens" to crimes. In the past, Dobbs has talked about a "reconquista," where Mexicans crossing the border might reconquer part of the United States that used to belong to the country, including California and New Mexico.
"Lou Dobbs is almost single-handedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country," Fox's Geraldo Rivera said two weeks ago.
The liberal watchdog group Media Matters—along with other organizations—sponsored a “Drop Dobbs” campaign aimed at getting the controversial host off the air.
“For too long, CNN provided Lou Dobbs with its stamp of approval as he pursued a dangerous, one-sided and all too often false conspiracy tinged crusade against immigrants,” Media Matters’s president, Eric Burns said in a statement after the announcement that he was leaving CNN. “This is a happy day for all those who care about this nation of immigrants and believe in the power of media to elevate the political discourse.”
Dobbs was not particularly popular within CNN, which has been struggling to compete with Fox and MSNBC. "I think it's safe to say that he won't be missed among the rank-and-file employees at the network," said a CNN staffer. "The Dobbs show has existed in its own little universe for the last several years, in many ways cut off from the rest of the editorial process at CNN. Most people will be left wondering what this means for the primetime lineup and whether Klein can now deliver on his 'down the middle' mantra."
Dobbs, who considers himself as an independent with a strong populist streak, didn’t mention any groups by name that have criticized him. But in his farewell, Dobbs noted that major issues today are “defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion.”
“Thanks for being with us,” Dobb said in signing off his final show. “As they say, 'I'll see you next on the radio.'"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29426.html
Politico.Com
November 11, 2009
Veteran CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, whose populist views on the perils of immigration and his repeated questioning of President Barack Obama’s birthplace made him a controversial figure on a network that has traditionally eschewed opinion, announced Wednesday night that he is resigning.
While Dobbs will continue his radio show, he gave no indication of whether he will stay in television—it’s been rumored that he could end up on Fox. Dobbs said on his show “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” that he’s now “considering a number of options and directions,” and that CNN president Jon Klein has released him from his contract, which is not up until 2011. He has been with CNN for 30 years.
“Over the past six months, it’s become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us,” Dobbs said. “And some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond my role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving, as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day. And to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.”
While CNN executives boast of a non-partisan line-up in prime-time, Dobbs has remained an opinionated presence at the network. Earlier this year, there was a push from management for Dobbs to tone down his personal views and do a more straight newscast, thus fitting in with the network’s stated mission to provide a non-partisan alternative to MSNBC and Fox in the evening. But Dobbs continued to stray from the network’s goals this past summer by repeatedly calling into question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, despite documentation provided by the White House that he was.
Klein said in a statement that Dobbs “has now decided to carry the banner of advocacy journalism elsewhere.”
“Lou Dobbs is a valued founding member of the CNN family,” Klein said. “For decades, Lou fearlessly and tirelessly pursued some of the most important and complex stories of our time, often well ahead of the pack. All of us will miss his appetite for big ideas, the megawatt smile and larger than life presence he brought to our newsroom, and we’re grateful to have known and worked with him over the years.”
Indeed, Dobbs has been at CNN since Ted Turner first had the idea of a 24-hours news network, and through the years, performed various on-air and executive roles for the network. He oversaw the network’s business programming for two decades, beginning in 1980. Dobbs later hosted “The Money Line News Hour” before launching “Lou Dobbs Tonight” in June 2003.
“I’m the last of the original anchors here on CNN, and am proud to have had the privilege of helping to build the world’s first news network,” Dobbs said in announcing his departure. “I am grateful for the many opportunities that CNN has given me over these many years, I’ve tried to reciprocate with the full measure of my ability and my energy.”
Dobbs said he wants to remain committed to issues that he’s most passionate about, including the plight of the middle class, health care, job creation, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and immigration.
Dobbs argued stridently for tougher immigration laws, and often focused in his show on reports linking "illegal aliens" to crimes. In the past, Dobbs has talked about a "reconquista," where Mexicans crossing the border might reconquer part of the United States that used to belong to the country, including California and New Mexico.
"Lou Dobbs is almost single-handedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country," Fox's Geraldo Rivera said two weeks ago.
The liberal watchdog group Media Matters—along with other organizations—sponsored a “Drop Dobbs” campaign aimed at getting the controversial host off the air.
“For too long, CNN provided Lou Dobbs with its stamp of approval as he pursued a dangerous, one-sided and all too often false conspiracy tinged crusade against immigrants,” Media Matters’s president, Eric Burns said in a statement after the announcement that he was leaving CNN. “This is a happy day for all those who care about this nation of immigrants and believe in the power of media to elevate the political discourse.”
Dobbs was not particularly popular within CNN, which has been struggling to compete with Fox and MSNBC. "I think it's safe to say that he won't be missed among the rank-and-file employees at the network," said a CNN staffer. "The Dobbs show has existed in its own little universe for the last several years, in many ways cut off from the rest of the editorial process at CNN. Most people will be left wondering what this means for the primetime lineup and whether Klein can now deliver on his 'down the middle' mantra."
Dobbs, who considers himself as an independent with a strong populist streak, didn’t mention any groups by name that have criticized him. But in his farewell, Dobbs noted that major issues today are “defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion.”
“Thanks for being with us,” Dobb said in signing off his final show. “As they say, 'I'll see you next on the radio.'"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29426.html
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Kennewick declines to ban illegal immigrants
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 21, 2009
KENNEWICK, Wash. -- Citing lack of authority, the Kennewick City Council declined Tuesday to ban illegal immigrants from the city limits.
The Tri-City Herald reports the council was responding to a request by resident Loren Nichols, who asked the council last month to evict illegal immigrants from the city.
City Attorney Lisa Beaton told the council that immigration is a federal issue, beyond the city's legal reach.
"We have no authority to prosecute criminal violations of (that) act," Beaton said.
She added that for the city to do that, the state would have to change laws allowing city police to arrest someone without having observed the violation.
Kennewick, like many Eastern Washington cities, has a significant Latino population, who initially came to the area to work in the region's agricultural industry. The bulk of farm workers in the area continue to be Latinos.
At the meeting, councilman Steve Young said banning illegal immigrants would raise constitutional issues.
"It is unconstitutional to chase anybody based on race or nationality. This has gone on long enough," he said.
Nichols didn't buy it.
"This council doesn't have the will. They just have excuses for not doing the right thing," he said. "Illegal aliens don't have rights. That's the bottom line."
Nichols was not allowed to speak at the Tuesday night meeting. His proposal to the council did have support from at least one council member - Bob Parks.
Parks has said he is concerned about illegal immigrants in the Tri-Cities area and would support an English-only language policy in the city.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_kennewick_immigrants.html
October 21, 2009
KENNEWICK, Wash. -- Citing lack of authority, the Kennewick City Council declined Tuesday to ban illegal immigrants from the city limits.
The Tri-City Herald reports the council was responding to a request by resident Loren Nichols, who asked the council last month to evict illegal immigrants from the city.
City Attorney Lisa Beaton told the council that immigration is a federal issue, beyond the city's legal reach.
"We have no authority to prosecute criminal violations of (that) act," Beaton said.
She added that for the city to do that, the state would have to change laws allowing city police to arrest someone without having observed the violation.
Kennewick, like many Eastern Washington cities, has a significant Latino population, who initially came to the area to work in the region's agricultural industry. The bulk of farm workers in the area continue to be Latinos.
At the meeting, councilman Steve Young said banning illegal immigrants would raise constitutional issues.
"It is unconstitutional to chase anybody based on race or nationality. This has gone on long enough," he said.
Nichols didn't buy it.
"This council doesn't have the will. They just have excuses for not doing the right thing," he said. "Illegal aliens don't have rights. That's the bottom line."
Nichols was not allowed to speak at the Tuesday night meeting. His proposal to the council did have support from at least one council member - Bob Parks.
Parks has said he is concerned about illegal immigrants in the Tri-Cities area and would support an English-only language policy in the city.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_kennewick_immigrants.html
Sunday, October 25, 2009
In Dallas, Tickets for Not Speaking English
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 25, 2009
DALLAS (AP) — Dallas police officers have improperly cited drivers for not being able to speak English 38 times in the past three years, Chief David Kunkle said Friday.
The discovery came after a woman was pulled over earlier this month for making an illegal U-turn and was given a ticket for being a “non-English-speaking driver.”
Chief Kunkle said the citations were disappointing for Dallas, a city where Hispanics make up 44 percent of the more than one million residents and where many other residents are Southeast Asian refugees.
“I was, I guess, surprised and stunned,” the chief said of the ticketing. “We are a very diverse community.”
Chief Kunkle said his department’s computer system for citations had a pull-down menu that included a law requiring drivers of commercial vehicles to speak English. He said he believed that federal law had been misapplied to local drivers of private vehicles.
At least six officers wrote the citations, including one who wrote five of them, Chief Kunkle said at a news conference. The officers and their commanders are under investigation, and the Dallas police also plan to look beyond the last three years to see whether other citations turn up, he said.
On Oct. 2, Ernestina Mondragon was pulled over by Officer Gary Bromley, a rookie who was still under supervised training. Officer Bromley gave Ms. Mondragon a ticket for not speaking English, along with a citation for making an illegal U-turn and failing to carry her driver’s license.
“I wanted to tell him,” Ms. Mondragon said in Spanish on Friday. “I couldn’t talk back to him out of respect.”
Ms. Mondragon was driving her 11-year-old daughter to school when Officer Bromley stopped her. She had forgotten her purse with her license in it while darting out the door that morning after her daughter missed the school bus.
“I felt humiliated, sad,” she said. “I wanted to cry, but I couldn’t. The anger wouldn’t let me.”
During the exchange between her and the officer, Ms. Mondragon said, she had used the limited English words and phrases she knew.
“He asked me if I spoke English,” she said. “I said I speak a little and understand it.”
Ms. Mondragon said court staff members had seemed puzzled by the charge. The court ultimately dismissed the “non-English-speaking” ticket and driver’s license citation after Ms. Mondragon presented her license.
Chief Kunkle said the outcome of the other 37 citations for not speaking English was unclear.
Ms. Mondragon said that she had been surprised to hear that others were also cited and that she was glad she said something so the ticketing could stop. She said she and her family were considering a lawsuit.
From now on, the Dallas police will not give commercial drivers tickets for being unable to speak English, Chief Kunkle said, adding that was a job for other law enforcement agencies.
As part of their training, Dallas police recruits hear from various minorities in the city, Chief Kunkle said.
Texas offers the written part of its driver’s license test in Spanish, said Tom Vinger, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/us/25dallas.html?_r=1&ref=us
October 25, 2009
DALLAS (AP) — Dallas police officers have improperly cited drivers for not being able to speak English 38 times in the past three years, Chief David Kunkle said Friday.
The discovery came after a woman was pulled over earlier this month for making an illegal U-turn and was given a ticket for being a “non-English-speaking driver.”
Chief Kunkle said the citations were disappointing for Dallas, a city where Hispanics make up 44 percent of the more than one million residents and where many other residents are Southeast Asian refugees.
“I was, I guess, surprised and stunned,” the chief said of the ticketing. “We are a very diverse community.”
Chief Kunkle said his department’s computer system for citations had a pull-down menu that included a law requiring drivers of commercial vehicles to speak English. He said he believed that federal law had been misapplied to local drivers of private vehicles.
At least six officers wrote the citations, including one who wrote five of them, Chief Kunkle said at a news conference. The officers and their commanders are under investigation, and the Dallas police also plan to look beyond the last three years to see whether other citations turn up, he said.
On Oct. 2, Ernestina Mondragon was pulled over by Officer Gary Bromley, a rookie who was still under supervised training. Officer Bromley gave Ms. Mondragon a ticket for not speaking English, along with a citation for making an illegal U-turn and failing to carry her driver’s license.
“I wanted to tell him,” Ms. Mondragon said in Spanish on Friday. “I couldn’t talk back to him out of respect.”
Ms. Mondragon was driving her 11-year-old daughter to school when Officer Bromley stopped her. She had forgotten her purse with her license in it while darting out the door that morning after her daughter missed the school bus.
“I felt humiliated, sad,” she said. “I wanted to cry, but I couldn’t. The anger wouldn’t let me.”
During the exchange between her and the officer, Ms. Mondragon said, she had used the limited English words and phrases she knew.
“He asked me if I spoke English,” she said. “I said I speak a little and understand it.”
Ms. Mondragon said court staff members had seemed puzzled by the charge. The court ultimately dismissed the “non-English-speaking” ticket and driver’s license citation after Ms. Mondragon presented her license.
Chief Kunkle said the outcome of the other 37 citations for not speaking English was unclear.
Ms. Mondragon said that she had been surprised to hear that others were also cited and that she was glad she said something so the ticketing could stop. She said she and her family were considering a lawsuit.
From now on, the Dallas police will not give commercial drivers tickets for being unable to speak English, Chief Kunkle said, adding that was a job for other law enforcement agencies.
As part of their training, Dallas police recruits hear from various minorities in the city, Chief Kunkle said.
Texas offers the written part of its driver’s license test in Spanish, said Tom Vinger, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/us/25dallas.html?_r=1&ref=us
Friday, July 10, 2009
FAIR distorts truth on immigration
Donna Lipinski
Warrenton, Virginia
Letter to the Editor
The Star Exponent
July 8, 2009
It’s time for FAIR to wake up and realize that its age-old tactics of attacking immigrants through the means of empty rhetoric and meaningless numbers will never make us a stronger, safer, more peaceful or more productive country.
The majority of Americans already understand that. In poll after poll, there’s increasing support for a fair, common sense plan to fix our broken immigration system. Americans understand that by regularizing the status of undocumented workers, we will increase government tax revenues by bringing more workers into the system; that workers with legal status earn more and spend more; and that deporting 10 million undocumented immigrants will cost $41.2 billion annually ($206 billion over 5 years) and that their deportation will represent a loss of 1.8 trillion in annual spending.
I’ve seen the consequences of our failed system.
As an immigration lawyer for over 21 years, I’ve witnessed the toll our broken laws have on ranchers when they can’t find U.S. workers to harvest their crops; when long-time undocumented immigrants lose their homes or businesses when they are deported; when families are torn apart and become homeless when the breadwinner is deported following a raid.
People say undocumented immigrants should just get in line and follow the rules. I agree, but we must first create those legal channels and then those rules can be followed. Americans overwhelmingly agree that undocumented immigrants should be given an opportunity to apply for legal status if they register, pay taxes and learn English.
Donna Lipinski
Warrenton
http://www.starexponent.com/cse/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/fair_distorts_truth_on_immigration/38995/
Warrenton, Virginia
Letter to the Editor
The Star Exponent
July 8, 2009
It’s time for FAIR to wake up and realize that its age-old tactics of attacking immigrants through the means of empty rhetoric and meaningless numbers will never make us a stronger, safer, more peaceful or more productive country.
The majority of Americans already understand that. In poll after poll, there’s increasing support for a fair, common sense plan to fix our broken immigration system. Americans understand that by regularizing the status of undocumented workers, we will increase government tax revenues by bringing more workers into the system; that workers with legal status earn more and spend more; and that deporting 10 million undocumented immigrants will cost $41.2 billion annually ($206 billion over 5 years) and that their deportation will represent a loss of 1.8 trillion in annual spending.
I’ve seen the consequences of our failed system.
As an immigration lawyer for over 21 years, I’ve witnessed the toll our broken laws have on ranchers when they can’t find U.S. workers to harvest their crops; when long-time undocumented immigrants lose their homes or businesses when they are deported; when families are torn apart and become homeless when the breadwinner is deported following a raid.
People say undocumented immigrants should just get in line and follow the rules. I agree, but we must first create those legal channels and then those rules can be followed. Americans overwhelmingly agree that undocumented immigrants should be given an opportunity to apply for legal status if they register, pay taxes and learn English.
Donna Lipinski
Warrenton
http://www.starexponent.com/cse/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/fair_distorts_truth_on_immigration/38995/
Monday, June 1, 2009
Survivor: I pretended to be dead
KOMO News - Seattle, Washington
by KOMO Staff & News Services
SEATTLE -- Investigators in Arizona have released a tape of the 911 call made during the deadly home invasion robbery that claimed the lives of a man and his 9-year-old girl.
Shawna Forde of Everett, Wash. and Jason Bush, who is wanted on a murder in Wenatchee, Wash., are two of the three charged in the killings. Albert Gaxiola of Arizona is the third accused in the shooting deaths of 29-year-old Raul Flores and his daughter, 9-year-old Brisenia Flores, at their home in Arivaca, Ariz., a town 10 miles north of the Mexican border.
Brisenia Flores' mother, Gina Flores, was also home at the time when two men and a woman posing as police officers forced their way into the home in the middle of the night on May 30. Gina Flores was also shot, but she survived and called 911 when the trio left the house for several moments.
Flores: They shot me and I pretended like I was dead. My daughter was crying. They shot her, too.
Operator: Are they still there, the people who, that shot them?
Flores: They're coming back in! They're coming back in! (Gun shots are heard in the background.)
Gina Flores said when the intruders returned, she fought back with a handgun her husband kept inside the house. Detectives believe Gina Flores' decision may have saved her life.
Flores: I was asleep and I can't even move. I've been shot.
Operator: OK, where were you shot?
Flores: I think I was shot in the leg. I'm not sure, ma'am. I'm numb. It hurts.
Operator: Are you armed?
Flores: Yeah.
Flores: They shot my husband, and they shot my daughter and they shot me! OK, oh, my God! I can't believe this is happening!
Operator: Where in the house are you?
Flores: I'm in the kitchen.
Operator: Are you with your husband and your daughter?
Flores: No, I don't even want to look at them.
Forde, Bush and Gaxiola have all been charged with two counts of first-degree murder two counts each of first-degree murder and other charges in Pima County, Ariz.
Investigators believe the killings were premeditated by thieves looking for drugs and money.
They allege Forde masterminded the home invasion robbery, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described as "evil" and "heinous."
"The husband who was murdered has a history of being involved in narcotics and there was an anticipation that there would be a considerable amount of cash at this location as well as the possibility of drugs," Dupnik said.
Forde is the executive director of the Minutemen American Defense, an anti-immigration group. The group's Web site, which was taken down after Forde's arrest, said Forde had been living recently in Arizona. It also named Bush, who goes by the nickname "Gunny," as the group's operations director.
Forde was once associated with the better known and larger Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
The Minutemen American Defense Web site has been replaced by a statement attributed to officers of Forde's group. The message disassociates the group from Forde and Bush.
"MAD is not responsible for the independent actions or the private agenda by Shawna Forde and her cohorts that is not a part of MAD's normal operating procedures," the message read. "Shawna acted totally on her own person agenda and has caused a lot of pain embarrassment and humiliation to the total Minutemen movement and fellow members of MAD."
Bush has also been charged in the 1997 stabbing death of Hector Lopez Partida, a homeless man, in Chelan County, Wash.
An informant told Wenatchee police that Bush bragged about killing "a Mexican" behind a store and that Bush had ties to white supremacist groups, according to court documents. Prosecutors said Bush was linked to the death through DNA evidence.
http://www.komonews.com/news/48296962.html
by KOMO Staff & News Services
SEATTLE -- Investigators in Arizona have released a tape of the 911 call made during the deadly home invasion robbery that claimed the lives of a man and his 9-year-old girl.
Shawna Forde of Everett, Wash. and Jason Bush, who is wanted on a murder in Wenatchee, Wash., are two of the three charged in the killings. Albert Gaxiola of Arizona is the third accused in the shooting deaths of 29-year-old Raul Flores and his daughter, 9-year-old Brisenia Flores, at their home in Arivaca, Ariz., a town 10 miles north of the Mexican border.
Brisenia Flores' mother, Gina Flores, was also home at the time when two men and a woman posing as police officers forced their way into the home in the middle of the night on May 30. Gina Flores was also shot, but she survived and called 911 when the trio left the house for several moments.
Flores: They shot me and I pretended like I was dead. My daughter was crying. They shot her, too.
Operator: Are they still there, the people who, that shot them?
Flores: They're coming back in! They're coming back in! (Gun shots are heard in the background.)
Gina Flores said when the intruders returned, she fought back with a handgun her husband kept inside the house. Detectives believe Gina Flores' decision may have saved her life.
Flores: I was asleep and I can't even move. I've been shot.
Operator: OK, where were you shot?
Flores: I think I was shot in the leg. I'm not sure, ma'am. I'm numb. It hurts.
Operator: Are you armed?
Flores: Yeah.
Flores: They shot my husband, and they shot my daughter and they shot me! OK, oh, my God! I can't believe this is happening!
Operator: Where in the house are you?
Flores: I'm in the kitchen.
Operator: Are you with your husband and your daughter?
Flores: No, I don't even want to look at them.
Forde, Bush and Gaxiola have all been charged with two counts of first-degree murder two counts each of first-degree murder and other charges in Pima County, Ariz.
Investigators believe the killings were premeditated by thieves looking for drugs and money.
They allege Forde masterminded the home invasion robbery, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described as "evil" and "heinous."
"The husband who was murdered has a history of being involved in narcotics and there was an anticipation that there would be a considerable amount of cash at this location as well as the possibility of drugs," Dupnik said.
Forde is the executive director of the Minutemen American Defense, an anti-immigration group. The group's Web site, which was taken down after Forde's arrest, said Forde had been living recently in Arizona. It also named Bush, who goes by the nickname "Gunny," as the group's operations director.
Forde was once associated with the better known and larger Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
The Minutemen American Defense Web site has been replaced by a statement attributed to officers of Forde's group. The message disassociates the group from Forde and Bush.
"MAD is not responsible for the independent actions or the private agenda by Shawna Forde and her cohorts that is not a part of MAD's normal operating procedures," the message read. "Shawna acted totally on her own person agenda and has caused a lot of pain embarrassment and humiliation to the total Minutemen movement and fellow members of MAD."
Bush has also been charged in the 1997 stabbing death of Hector Lopez Partida, a homeless man, in Chelan County, Wash.
An informant told Wenatchee police that Bush bragged about killing "a Mexican" behind a store and that Bush had ties to white supremacist groups, according to court documents. Prosecutors said Bush was linked to the death through DNA evidence.
http://www.komonews.com/news/48296962.html
Friday, April 3, 2009
Shootings in Binghamton, N.Y., 'truly an American tragedy'
13 are slain at a crowded immigration services center. The gunman also killed himself, authorities believe. Evidence may point to Jiverly Wong or Jiverly Voong, formerly of Southern California.
By Geraldine Baum and Anna Gorman
April 3, 2009
From the Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Los Angeles and Binghamton, N.Y. — For immigrants in chilly Binghamton, the doorway to America opens through the friendly building on Front Street. But Friday, the American Civic Assn. -- a place crowded with recent arrivals taking English classes and citizenship exams -- became a killing zone.
A gunman barricaded the back door of the immigration services center with a car, thwarting escape, then entered through the front door. Opening fire, he killed 13 people and seriously wounded four others before apparently committing suicide.
Binghamton Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said the gunman gave no warning. "I don't think there was any conversation," he said.
As the gunman entered the building, he killed one receptionist and shot another in the stomach. She pretended to be dead, hiding under a table and waiting for a chance to call 911, while he moved down the hall. In a nearby room he opened fire on a group taking a citizenship class.
Police arrived less than two minutes after receiving the receptionist's call at 10:31 a.m., Zikuski said. Amid the carnage, they found a body believed to be the shooter's, along with two handguns, body armor, ammunition and a magazine. He apparently shot himself.
"We have no idea what the motive is," Zikuski said, but added that the shooter was "no stranger to the Civic Assn."
An anonymous law enforcement source told the Associated Press that the gunman had an identification card that said he was Jiverly Voong, 42. Authorities searched his home in nearby Johnson City on Friday and confiscated computer hard drives, a rifle case and luggage.
A second law enforcement official said the two handguns found with the body were registered to Jiverly Wong, another name the man used. He once lived in Southern California.
Paulus Lukas, human resources manager for Kikka Sushi in Inglewood, said Jiverly Wong worked for the company as a deliveryman for nearly seven years, until July 2007. Kikka Sushi is a caterer serving supermarkets and corporate and school cafeterias.
Wong was a good worker, Lukas said, but quiet. It was only in talking to co-workers Friday afternoon, Lukas said, that he learned Wong was Vietnamese.
When the staff at Kikka heard about the shootings, Lukas said, "we didn't really think this person could do such a thing. He was really good at doing his job -- we respected him for that. He's never late, he's always punctual. And when he finishes his job, he goes home. He doesn't complain, he doesn't argue with people. He gets along."
The only blemish he could recall was that Wong sometimes drove the company van too fast. But after being reprimanded, Lukas said, he improved his driving.
He said that Wong earned $9 an hour by the end of his employment, and that he never formally quit but just failed to show up for work one day, leaving co-workers speculating about what might have happened. In early 2008, Lukas said, Wong called to ask that his W-2 forms be sent to an address in New York state.
Binghamton Mayor Matthew Ryan, who described Friday as "the most tragic day in Binghamton history," said the gunman reportedly had been laid off from his job nearby at IBM. "I believe he was trying to get assistance [at the center] for obtaining employment," Ryan said.
"The word was he lost his job and was pretty distraught. . . . If the story checks out, it's obvious that he was very concerned about being unemployed and not dealing with it well."
An IBM employee said Jiverly Wong did not work at IBM.
After the shooting, the SWAT team removed 37 people from the building, four of them critically injured; 26 of them had taken shelter in a boiler room. Many were immigrants who spoke little or no English.
As officers sought to determine who might be a shooter, they led some people from the building in flex cuffs, but they were ruled out as suspects, authorities said.
Binghamton is a town of about 46,000 people, located at the junction of two rivers some 140 miles northwest of Manhattan. Ryan described it as "a very proud city," with 30 languages spoken at local schools and a long history of welcoming immigrants -- from Europe in the past and from Asia more recently. About 1 person in 4 is nonwhite, according to a demographic estimate.
The city's main street features old four-story brick buildings in the classic style of the industrial Northeast, with a sprinkling of ethnic restaurants and food marts and a nearby Martin Luther King memorial promenade. The Binghamton area is the birthplace of IBM, which has suffered job cuts in recent years.
"We really celebrate all the cultures here," Ryan said. "Because there has always been a strong immigrant population here, I just think it's been somewhat of a natural fit."
New York Gov. David Paterson noted that Friday's violence followed other mass gun slayings in the last month. He cited the case of a man who fatally shot 10 people in Alabama before killing himself, and the Oakland slayings of four police officers.
"When are we going to be able to curb the kind of violence that is so fraught and so rapid that we can't even keep track of the incidents?" the governor said.
President Obama issued this statement: "Michelle and I were shocked and deeply saddened to learn about the act of senseless violence in Binghamton, N.Y., today. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families and the people of Binghamton. We don't yet know all the facts, but my administration is actively monitoring the situation and the vice president is in touch with Gov. Paterson and local officials to track developments."
The shooting resonated with groups that work with immigrants in Los Angeles and around the nation.
"Everyone who works with the immigrant community is heartbroken," said Judy London, directing attorney of the immigrant rights project at Public Counsel in Los Angeles. "Any time a tragedy happens in a workplace that is similar to yours, it hits close to home."
Ali Noorani -- executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group in Washington, D.C. -- said he urged people to resist using the shooting for political purposes in the immigration debate. Any workplace shooting is horrific, he said, but this was especially tragic because it occurred at a place that gives hope to newcomers to the country.
"This is truly an American tragedy in that these were people who were looking to become the newest of our American communities," Noorani said. "So many people come to this country fleeing persecution or violence, and here they were studying to become citizens -- only to become victims of violence."
Ryan said a family center had been set up in Binghamton where people could find out about relatives.
"By process of elimination, families are probably starting to realize they lost a loved one," he said.
The mayor called the American Civic Assn. "a mainstay of our community." The group assists immigrants and refugees with resettlement, citizenship, family reunification, interpretation and translation. Many of its clients have fled war and conflict in other countries and have been working to build new lives in the U.S., according to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a network of organizations serving immigrants and refugees.
The network said the Binghamton group was one of its partner agencies. The network issued a statement saying that it was "shocked and saddened by the shooting" and announcing that it had established a fund to help the community.
"Our hearts go out to the victims, their families and the Binghamton community," the statement said. "We know the entire community of Binghamton will rally around the American Civic Assn., the people it serves and, in particular, the victims and their families."
Every pew was filled Friday evening at a candlelight vigil for the victims at Redeemer Lutheran Church.
Among those in attendance was Greg Jenkins, a disaster coordinator for the Broome County Council of Churches, who said the area had a long history of welcoming immigrants -- Asians, Italians, Poles, Bosnians.
The victims "were trying to do it the right way, becoming American citizens," he said, shaking his head as he gripped a candle.
Kasim Kopuz, an imam who runs the mosque in Johnson City, said the missing included a 56-year-old Iraqi woman and a Pakistani woman in her 20s, both of whom attended English classes at the immigrant service center.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-binghamton-shooting-hosta-2009apr04,0,956695.story
By Geraldine Baum and Anna Gorman
April 3, 2009
From the Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Los Angeles and Binghamton, N.Y. — For immigrants in chilly Binghamton, the doorway to America opens through the friendly building on Front Street. But Friday, the American Civic Assn. -- a place crowded with recent arrivals taking English classes and citizenship exams -- became a killing zone.
A gunman barricaded the back door of the immigration services center with a car, thwarting escape, then entered through the front door. Opening fire, he killed 13 people and seriously wounded four others before apparently committing suicide.
Binghamton Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said the gunman gave no warning. "I don't think there was any conversation," he said.
As the gunman entered the building, he killed one receptionist and shot another in the stomach. She pretended to be dead, hiding under a table and waiting for a chance to call 911, while he moved down the hall. In a nearby room he opened fire on a group taking a citizenship class.
Police arrived less than two minutes after receiving the receptionist's call at 10:31 a.m., Zikuski said. Amid the carnage, they found a body believed to be the shooter's, along with two handguns, body armor, ammunition and a magazine. He apparently shot himself.
"We have no idea what the motive is," Zikuski said, but added that the shooter was "no stranger to the Civic Assn."
An anonymous law enforcement source told the Associated Press that the gunman had an identification card that said he was Jiverly Voong, 42. Authorities searched his home in nearby Johnson City on Friday and confiscated computer hard drives, a rifle case and luggage.
A second law enforcement official said the two handguns found with the body were registered to Jiverly Wong, another name the man used. He once lived in Southern California.
Paulus Lukas, human resources manager for Kikka Sushi in Inglewood, said Jiverly Wong worked for the company as a deliveryman for nearly seven years, until July 2007. Kikka Sushi is a caterer serving supermarkets and corporate and school cafeterias.
Wong was a good worker, Lukas said, but quiet. It was only in talking to co-workers Friday afternoon, Lukas said, that he learned Wong was Vietnamese.
When the staff at Kikka heard about the shootings, Lukas said, "we didn't really think this person could do such a thing. He was really good at doing his job -- we respected him for that. He's never late, he's always punctual. And when he finishes his job, he goes home. He doesn't complain, he doesn't argue with people. He gets along."
The only blemish he could recall was that Wong sometimes drove the company van too fast. But after being reprimanded, Lukas said, he improved his driving.
He said that Wong earned $9 an hour by the end of his employment, and that he never formally quit but just failed to show up for work one day, leaving co-workers speculating about what might have happened. In early 2008, Lukas said, Wong called to ask that his W-2 forms be sent to an address in New York state.
Binghamton Mayor Matthew Ryan, who described Friday as "the most tragic day in Binghamton history," said the gunman reportedly had been laid off from his job nearby at IBM. "I believe he was trying to get assistance [at the center] for obtaining employment," Ryan said.
"The word was he lost his job and was pretty distraught. . . . If the story checks out, it's obvious that he was very concerned about being unemployed and not dealing with it well."
An IBM employee said Jiverly Wong did not work at IBM.
After the shooting, the SWAT team removed 37 people from the building, four of them critically injured; 26 of them had taken shelter in a boiler room. Many were immigrants who spoke little or no English.
As officers sought to determine who might be a shooter, they led some people from the building in flex cuffs, but they were ruled out as suspects, authorities said.
Binghamton is a town of about 46,000 people, located at the junction of two rivers some 140 miles northwest of Manhattan. Ryan described it as "a very proud city," with 30 languages spoken at local schools and a long history of welcoming immigrants -- from Europe in the past and from Asia more recently. About 1 person in 4 is nonwhite, according to a demographic estimate.
The city's main street features old four-story brick buildings in the classic style of the industrial Northeast, with a sprinkling of ethnic restaurants and food marts and a nearby Martin Luther King memorial promenade. The Binghamton area is the birthplace of IBM, which has suffered job cuts in recent years.
"We really celebrate all the cultures here," Ryan said. "Because there has always been a strong immigrant population here, I just think it's been somewhat of a natural fit."
New York Gov. David Paterson noted that Friday's violence followed other mass gun slayings in the last month. He cited the case of a man who fatally shot 10 people in Alabama before killing himself, and the Oakland slayings of four police officers.
"When are we going to be able to curb the kind of violence that is so fraught and so rapid that we can't even keep track of the incidents?" the governor said.
President Obama issued this statement: "Michelle and I were shocked and deeply saddened to learn about the act of senseless violence in Binghamton, N.Y., today. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families and the people of Binghamton. We don't yet know all the facts, but my administration is actively monitoring the situation and the vice president is in touch with Gov. Paterson and local officials to track developments."
The shooting resonated with groups that work with immigrants in Los Angeles and around the nation.
"Everyone who works with the immigrant community is heartbroken," said Judy London, directing attorney of the immigrant rights project at Public Counsel in Los Angeles. "Any time a tragedy happens in a workplace that is similar to yours, it hits close to home."
Ali Noorani -- executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group in Washington, D.C. -- said he urged people to resist using the shooting for political purposes in the immigration debate. Any workplace shooting is horrific, he said, but this was especially tragic because it occurred at a place that gives hope to newcomers to the country.
"This is truly an American tragedy in that these were people who were looking to become the newest of our American communities," Noorani said. "So many people come to this country fleeing persecution or violence, and here they were studying to become citizens -- only to become victims of violence."
Ryan said a family center had been set up in Binghamton where people could find out about relatives.
"By process of elimination, families are probably starting to realize they lost a loved one," he said.
The mayor called the American Civic Assn. "a mainstay of our community." The group assists immigrants and refugees with resettlement, citizenship, family reunification, interpretation and translation. Many of its clients have fled war and conflict in other countries and have been working to build new lives in the U.S., according to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a network of organizations serving immigrants and refugees.
The network said the Binghamton group was one of its partner agencies. The network issued a statement saying that it was "shocked and saddened by the shooting" and announcing that it had established a fund to help the community.
"Our hearts go out to the victims, their families and the Binghamton community," the statement said. "We know the entire community of Binghamton will rally around the American Civic Assn., the people it serves and, in particular, the victims and their families."
Every pew was filled Friday evening at a candlelight vigil for the victims at Redeemer Lutheran Church.
Among those in attendance was Greg Jenkins, a disaster coordinator for the Broome County Council of Churches, who said the area had a long history of welcoming immigrants -- Asians, Italians, Poles, Bosnians.
The victims "were trying to do it the right way, becoming American citizens," he said, shaking his head as he gripped a candle.
Kasim Kopuz, an imam who runs the mosque in Johnson City, said the missing included a 56-year-old Iraqi woman and a Pakistani woman in her 20s, both of whom attended English classes at the immigrant service center.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-binghamton-shooting-hosta-2009apr04,0,956695.story
Shootings in Binghamton, N.Y., 'truly an American tragedy'
13 are slain at a crowded immigration services center. The gunman also killed himself, authorities believe. Evidence may point to Jiverly Wong or Jiverly Voong, formerly of Southern California.
By Geraldine Baum and Anna Gorman
From the Los Angeles Times
April 3, 2009
Reporting from Los Angeles and Binghamton, N.Y. — For immigrants in chilly Binghamton, the doorway to America opens through the friendly building on Front Street. But Friday, the American Civic Assn. -- a place crowded with recent arrivals taking English classes and citizenship exams -- became a killing zone.
A gunman barricaded the back door of the immigration services center with a car, thwarting escape, then entered through the front door. Opening fire, he killed 13 people and seriously wounded four others before apparently committing suicide.
Binghamton Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said the gunman gave no warning. "I don't think there was any conversation," he said.
As the gunman entered the building, he killed one receptionist and shot another in the stomach. She pretended to be dead, hiding under a table and waiting for a chance to call 911, while he moved down the hall. In a nearby room he opened fire on a group taking a citizenship class.
Police arrived less than two minutes after receiving the receptionist's call at 10:31 a.m., Zikuski said. Amid the carnage, they found a body believed to be the shooter's, along with two handguns, body armor, ammunition and a magazine. He apparently shot himself.
"We have no idea what the motive is," Zikuski said, but added that the shooter was "no stranger to the Civic Assn."
An anonymous law enforcement source told the Associated Press that the gunman had an identification card that said he was Jiverly Voong, 42. Authorities searched his home in nearby Johnson City on Friday and confiscated computer hard drives, a rifle case and luggage.
A second law enforcement official said the two handguns found with the body were registered to Jiverly Wong, another name the man used. He once lived in Southern California.
Paulus Lukas, human resources manager for Kikka Sushi in Inglewood, said Jiverly Wong worked for the company as a deliveryman for nearly seven years, until July 2007. Kikka Sushi is a caterer serving supermarkets and corporate and school cafeterias.
Wong was a good worker, Lukas said, but quiet. It was only in talking to co-workers Friday afternoon, Lukas said, that he learned Wong was Vietnamese.
When the staff at Kikka heard about the shootings, Lukas said, "we didn't really think this person could do such a thing. He was really good at doing his job -- we respected him for that. He's never late, he's always punctual. And when he finishes his job, he goes home. He doesn't complain, he doesn't argue with people. He gets along."
The only blemish he could recall was that Wong sometimes drove the company van too fast. But after being reprimanded, Lukas said, he improved his driving.
He said that Wong earned $9 an hour by the end of his employment, and that he never formally quit but just failed to show up for work one day, leaving co-workers speculating about what might have happened. In early 2008, Lukas said, Wong called to ask that his W-2 forms be sent to an address in New York state.
Binghamton Mayor Matthew Ryan, who described Friday as "the most tragic day in Binghamton history," said the gunman reportedly had been laid off from his job nearby at IBM. "I believe he was trying to get assistance [at the center] for obtaining employment," Ryan said.
"The word was he lost his job and was pretty distraught. . . . If the story checks out, it's obvious that he was very concerned about being unemployed and not dealing with it well."
An IBM employee said Jiverly Wong did not work at IBM.
After the shooting, the SWAT team removed 37 people from the building, four of them critically injured; 26 of them had taken shelter in a boiler room. Many were immigrants who spoke little or no English.
As officers sought to determine who might be a shooter, they led some people from the building in flex cuffs, but they were ruled out as suspects, authorities said.
Binghamton is a town of about 46,000 people, located at the junction of two rivers some 140 miles northwest of Manhattan. Ryan described it as "a very proud city," with 30 languages spoken at local schools and a long history of welcoming immigrants -- from Europe in the past and from Asia more recently. About 1 person in 4 is nonwhite, according to a demographic estimate.
The city's main street features old four-story brick buildings in the classic style of the industrial Northeast, with a sprinkling of ethnic restaurants and food marts and a nearby Martin Luther King memorial promenade. The Binghamton area is the birthplace of IBM, which has suffered job cuts in recent years.
"We really celebrate all the cultures here," Ryan said. "Because there has always been a strong immigrant population here, I just think it's been somewhat of a natural fit."
New York Gov. David Paterson noted that Friday's violence followed other mass gun slayings in the last month. He cited the case of a man who fatally shot 10 people in Alabama before killing himself, and the Oakland slayings of four police officers.
"When are we going to be able to curb the kind of violence that is so fraught and so rapid that we can't even keep track of the incidents?" the governor said.
President Obama issued this statement: "Michelle and I were shocked and deeply saddened to learn about the act of senseless violence in Binghamton, N.Y., today. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families and the people of Binghamton. We don't yet know all the facts, but my administration is actively monitoring the situation and the vice president is in touch with Gov. Paterson and local officials to track developments."
The shooting resonated with groups that work with immigrants in Los Angeles and around the nation.
"Everyone who works with the immigrant community is heartbroken," said Judy London, directing attorney of the immigrant rights project at Public Counsel in Los Angeles. "Any time a tragedy happens in a workplace that is similar to yours, it hits close to home."
Ali Noorani -- executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group in Washington, D.C. -- said he urged people to resist using the shooting for political purposes in the immigration debate. Any workplace shooting is horrific, he said, but this was especially tragic because it occurred at a place that gives hope to newcomers to the country.
"This is truly an American tragedy in that these were people who were looking to become the newest of our American communities," Noorani said. "So many people come to this country fleeing persecution or violence, and here they were studying to become citizens -- only to become victims of violence."
Ryan said a family center had been set up in Binghamton where people could find out about relatives.
"By process of elimination, families are probably starting to realize they lost a loved one," he said.
The mayor called the American Civic Assn. "a mainstay of our community." The group assists immigrants and refugees with resettlement, citizenship, family reunification, interpretation and translation. Many of its clients have fled war and conflict in other countries and have been working to build new lives in the U.S., according to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a network of organizations serving immigrants and refugees.
The network said the Binghamton group was one of its partner agencies. The network issued a statement saying that it was "shocked and saddened by the shooting" and announcing that it had established a fund to help the community.
"Our hearts go out to the victims, their families and the Binghamton community," the statement said. "We know the entire community of Binghamton will rally around the American Civic Assn., the people it serves and, in particular, the victims and their families."
Every pew was filled Friday evening at a candlelight vigil for the victims at Redeemer Lutheran Church.
Among those in attendance was Greg Jenkins, a disaster coordinator for the Broome County Council of Churches, who said the area had a long history of welcoming immigrants -- Asians, Italians, Poles, Bosnians.
The victims "were trying to do it the right way, becoming American citizens," he said, shaking his head as he gripped a candle.
Kasim Kopuz, an imam who runs the mosque in Johnson City, said the missing included a 56-year-old Iraqi woman and a Pakistani woman in her 20s, both of whom attended English classes at the immigrant service center.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-binghamton-shooting-hosta-2009apr04,0,956695.story
By Geraldine Baum and Anna Gorman
From the Los Angeles Times
April 3, 2009
Reporting from Los Angeles and Binghamton, N.Y. — For immigrants in chilly Binghamton, the doorway to America opens through the friendly building on Front Street. But Friday, the American Civic Assn. -- a place crowded with recent arrivals taking English classes and citizenship exams -- became a killing zone.
A gunman barricaded the back door of the immigration services center with a car, thwarting escape, then entered through the front door. Opening fire, he killed 13 people and seriously wounded four others before apparently committing suicide.
Binghamton Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said the gunman gave no warning. "I don't think there was any conversation," he said.
As the gunman entered the building, he killed one receptionist and shot another in the stomach. She pretended to be dead, hiding under a table and waiting for a chance to call 911, while he moved down the hall. In a nearby room he opened fire on a group taking a citizenship class.
Police arrived less than two minutes after receiving the receptionist's call at 10:31 a.m., Zikuski said. Amid the carnage, they found a body believed to be the shooter's, along with two handguns, body armor, ammunition and a magazine. He apparently shot himself.
"We have no idea what the motive is," Zikuski said, but added that the shooter was "no stranger to the Civic Assn."
An anonymous law enforcement source told the Associated Press that the gunman had an identification card that said he was Jiverly Voong, 42. Authorities searched his home in nearby Johnson City on Friday and confiscated computer hard drives, a rifle case and luggage.
A second law enforcement official said the two handguns found with the body were registered to Jiverly Wong, another name the man used. He once lived in Southern California.
Paulus Lukas, human resources manager for Kikka Sushi in Inglewood, said Jiverly Wong worked for the company as a deliveryman for nearly seven years, until July 2007. Kikka Sushi is a caterer serving supermarkets and corporate and school cafeterias.
Wong was a good worker, Lukas said, but quiet. It was only in talking to co-workers Friday afternoon, Lukas said, that he learned Wong was Vietnamese.
When the staff at Kikka heard about the shootings, Lukas said, "we didn't really think this person could do such a thing. He was really good at doing his job -- we respected him for that. He's never late, he's always punctual. And when he finishes his job, he goes home. He doesn't complain, he doesn't argue with people. He gets along."
The only blemish he could recall was that Wong sometimes drove the company van too fast. But after being reprimanded, Lukas said, he improved his driving.
He said that Wong earned $9 an hour by the end of his employment, and that he never formally quit but just failed to show up for work one day, leaving co-workers speculating about what might have happened. In early 2008, Lukas said, Wong called to ask that his W-2 forms be sent to an address in New York state.
Binghamton Mayor Matthew Ryan, who described Friday as "the most tragic day in Binghamton history," said the gunman reportedly had been laid off from his job nearby at IBM. "I believe he was trying to get assistance [at the center] for obtaining employment," Ryan said.
"The word was he lost his job and was pretty distraught. . . . If the story checks out, it's obvious that he was very concerned about being unemployed and not dealing with it well."
An IBM employee said Jiverly Wong did not work at IBM.
After the shooting, the SWAT team removed 37 people from the building, four of them critically injured; 26 of them had taken shelter in a boiler room. Many were immigrants who spoke little or no English.
As officers sought to determine who might be a shooter, they led some people from the building in flex cuffs, but they were ruled out as suspects, authorities said.
Binghamton is a town of about 46,000 people, located at the junction of two rivers some 140 miles northwest of Manhattan. Ryan described it as "a very proud city," with 30 languages spoken at local schools and a long history of welcoming immigrants -- from Europe in the past and from Asia more recently. About 1 person in 4 is nonwhite, according to a demographic estimate.
The city's main street features old four-story brick buildings in the classic style of the industrial Northeast, with a sprinkling of ethnic restaurants and food marts and a nearby Martin Luther King memorial promenade. The Binghamton area is the birthplace of IBM, which has suffered job cuts in recent years.
"We really celebrate all the cultures here," Ryan said. "Because there has always been a strong immigrant population here, I just think it's been somewhat of a natural fit."
New York Gov. David Paterson noted that Friday's violence followed other mass gun slayings in the last month. He cited the case of a man who fatally shot 10 people in Alabama before killing himself, and the Oakland slayings of four police officers.
"When are we going to be able to curb the kind of violence that is so fraught and so rapid that we can't even keep track of the incidents?" the governor said.
President Obama issued this statement: "Michelle and I were shocked and deeply saddened to learn about the act of senseless violence in Binghamton, N.Y., today. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families and the people of Binghamton. We don't yet know all the facts, but my administration is actively monitoring the situation and the vice president is in touch with Gov. Paterson and local officials to track developments."
The shooting resonated with groups that work with immigrants in Los Angeles and around the nation.
"Everyone who works with the immigrant community is heartbroken," said Judy London, directing attorney of the immigrant rights project at Public Counsel in Los Angeles. "Any time a tragedy happens in a workplace that is similar to yours, it hits close to home."
Ali Noorani -- executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group in Washington, D.C. -- said he urged people to resist using the shooting for political purposes in the immigration debate. Any workplace shooting is horrific, he said, but this was especially tragic because it occurred at a place that gives hope to newcomers to the country.
"This is truly an American tragedy in that these were people who were looking to become the newest of our American communities," Noorani said. "So many people come to this country fleeing persecution or violence, and here they were studying to become citizens -- only to become victims of violence."
Ryan said a family center had been set up in Binghamton where people could find out about relatives.
"By process of elimination, families are probably starting to realize they lost a loved one," he said.
The mayor called the American Civic Assn. "a mainstay of our community." The group assists immigrants and refugees with resettlement, citizenship, family reunification, interpretation and translation. Many of its clients have fled war and conflict in other countries and have been working to build new lives in the U.S., according to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a network of organizations serving immigrants and refugees.
The network said the Binghamton group was one of its partner agencies. The network issued a statement saying that it was "shocked and saddened by the shooting" and announcing that it had established a fund to help the community.
"Our hearts go out to the victims, their families and the Binghamton community," the statement said. "We know the entire community of Binghamton will rally around the American Civic Assn., the people it serves and, in particular, the victims and their families."
Every pew was filled Friday evening at a candlelight vigil for the victims at Redeemer Lutheran Church.
Among those in attendance was Greg Jenkins, a disaster coordinator for the Broome County Council of Churches, who said the area had a long history of welcoming immigrants -- Asians, Italians, Poles, Bosnians.
The victims "were trying to do it the right way, becoming American citizens," he said, shaking his head as he gripped a candle.
Kasim Kopuz, an imam who runs the mosque in Johnson City, said the missing included a 56-year-old Iraqi woman and a Pakistani woman in her 20s, both of whom attended English classes at the immigrant service center.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-binghamton-shooting-hosta-2009apr04,0,956695.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)