SICK PERSONS IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACE HARSH TREATMENT

The situation with persons caught up by ICE in immigration detention is beyond belief, like something horrible in Dostoevsky or Kafka.

Nina Bernstein describes many horrible events in today's The New York Times.

Writes Bernstein:

"The Obama administration has vowed to overhaul immigration detention, a haphazard network of privately run jails, federal centers and county cells where the government holds non citizens while it tries to deport them.

"But as the administration moves to increase oversight within the agency, the documents show how officials — some still in key positions — used their role as overseers to cover up evidence of mistreatment, deflect scrutiny by the news media or prepare exculpatory public statements after gathering facts that pointed to substandard care or abuse.

"As one man lay dying of head injuries suffered in a New Jersey immigration jail in 2007, for example, a spokesman for the federal agency told The Times that he could learn nothing about the case from government authorities. In fact, the records show, the spokesman had alerted those officials to the reporter’s inquiry, and they conferred at length about sending the man back to Africa to avoid embarrassing publicity."

I hope that Pres. Obama takes decisive action in reforming the antiquated and medieval practices in the Immigration Service. But I must say so far, Obama has seemed to put immigration on the back burner. He has dissed Latinos by sending in U.S. troops to be based in Colombia, and he has shown no inclination to review the failed Bush policy to the Castro brothers and Cuba. Furthermore, he has let Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security which includes ICE, continue with the harsh policy of immigration raids on workers suspected of being without proper documents.

STOP HARASSING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

There were at least three stories in today's The New York Times, not counting the NYT editorial, on immigration policy.

Julia Preston reports on the fearful state of many people in Waukegan who are either undocumented immigrants themselves or citizen relatives of such immigrants. It is not a happy picture. What must it be to live in a constant state of fear? Fear that you will be stopped for a traffic violation and then turned over to the immigration authorities at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Fear that the ICE police will raid your work place and discover you are "illegal." Fear if you are an eight-year-old that your father or mother will not come home after work because they have been placed "in deportation proceedings." Put all this fear in context by contrasting it with the harsh and uncaring attitude of some of those children of immigrants who came to the U.S. long ago who now want to see all Mexicans and Latinos evicted and deported.

Preston quotes the mayor of Waukegan on his mean and intolerant views toward immigrants:

"“Do I believe in closing the borders?” Mr. Hyde said. “Do I believe in putting troops down there? You bet your life. Illegal is illegal, and that’s the end of the conversation, really.”"

Then there is the report by Diane Cardwell on another mayor's more realistic approach, Michael Bloomberg of New York City. Bloomberg considers immigrants part of the success of New York City.

“Take a look behind me,” Mr. Bloomberg said, referring to the collection of largely immigrant families he had invited to sit onstage. “This is what makes America great,” he added, holding his arms aloft, his voice rising. “This is New York City. This is freedom. This is compassion and democracy and opportunity.”

"Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg practically began his address by jabbing a sly elbow toward some of the presidential candidates, criticizing those who had suddenly “embraced xenophobia.”

“Keeping New York City and America at the front of the pack begins with an openness to new energy, meaning immigration, and new ideas, meaning innovation,” he said. “That’s how I built my business, and that’s the approach we’ve brought to a city government that was insular and provincial, and married to the conventional.”

Then the NYT opined in its lead editorial that Democratic candidates need to come out with proposals on immigration reform that are realistic and humane towards the 12 million or so of immigrants lacking documents.

"Except for Mr. McCain, the Republican candidates have skirted the issue or, worse, embraced the restrictionist approach known as “attrition.” That amounts to relentlessly tightening the screws in workplaces and homes until illegal immigrants magically, voluntarily disappear.

"Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick.

"Worst of all, it’s weak on law and order. It is a free pass to the violent criminals we urgently need to hunt down and deport. Attrition means waiting until we stumble across bad people hiding in the vast illegal immigrant haystack. Comprehensive reform, by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, shrinks the haystack.

"Fred Thompson has been perhaps the most vocal defender of attrition. But on Wednesday, the newly restrictionist Mike Huckabee one-upped him by signing the “No Amnesty” pledge of the nativist group NumbersUSA, formally committing to the principle that all 12 million illegal immigrants must be expelled. Americans, naturally, have no earthly idea how he would accomplish that."

The NYT editorial goes on to criticize Democrats too, in their case for approaching immigration reform from too timorous a position. The Democrats all show "eggshell timidity" on immigration:
"Now, attrition is threatening to become a bipartisan disaster. The SAVE Act, an enforcement-only bill, was introduced last year by a Democrat, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and the notoriously restrictionist Republicans Brian Bilbray and Tom Tancredo. It is gaining sponsors.

"The Republican stance on immigration leaves an opening that opponents could drive a truck through. The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue."

TIM RUSSERT WOULD BLAME DEMOCRATS FOR DEATH OF IMMIGRATION BILL

Tim Russert was on Brian Williams NBC News tonight pontificating on how the voters are going to punish the Democrats for failing to come through on the immigration bill that died today in the Senate. Timmy was his usual bloviating self. According to Fr. Tim, the Congress has done nothing, absolutely nothing. Another example, he says, there is a looming Social Security crisis and Congress has done nothing.

This is a lot of bull, the same type of baloney that we have been accustomed to receive from Russert. He would like nothing better than to blame the Democrats. We all know who killed the immigration bill in the Senate. It is the Republicans who fear dark skin and foreign languages. I also blame Bush for allowing harsh proposals to become part of the immigration bill, like the increased criminal penalties for overstaying a visa, or mandatory jail for failing to return to one's home country, or for entering the country without documents.

And as to the looming crisis in Social Security, if there is any crisis, again the blame falls on Bush and the Republicans for spending billions on this unjust and immoral war and occupation in Iraq. I have a solution that would put Social Security on a firm footing for the next 500 years. END THE STUPID WAR IN IRAQ.

Tim Russert is up to his old tricks. Try to appear non-partisan by blaming the Democrats as well as the Republicans who are the real malefactors. Sorry, Timmy, we're on to you. This time, we recognize your Russert baloney for what it really is.

IMMIGRATION BILL DIES IN SENATE

Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post today that the immigration bill in the Senate has come to a sudden dead stop. The Senate refused to end debate, thus making the prospect of immigration reform as proposed dead on arrival.

"The most dramatic overhaul of the nation's immigration laws in a generation was trounced this morning by a bipartisan filibuster, with the political right and left overwhelming a coalition of Republicans and Democrats who had been seeking compromise on one of the most difficult social and economic issues facing the country.

"The 46-53 tally fell dramatically short of the 60 votes needed to overcome opponents' dilatory tactics and parliamentary maneuvers that have dogged the bill for weeks.

"The failure marked the second time in a month the bill was pulled from the Senate floor, and this time, Democratic leaders of the Senate indicated it would not be back.

"The vote was a major defeat for President Bush, dealt largely by members of his own party. The president made a last-ditch round of phone calls this morning to senators in an attempt to rescue the bill, but with his poll numbers at record lows, his appeals proved fruitless. Bush has now lost what is likely to be the last, best chance at a major domestic accomplishment for his second term."

This is good news. I am unequivocally against the Senate bill because of the excessive emphasis on enforcement, the proposed building of a hated wall along the Mexican Border, the increased penalties for violating harsh immigration rules.

I want AMNESTY for all of the undocumented immigrants, nothing less. This present bill is too mean, too harsh, too destructive of our undocumented Latinos and other foreign-speaking immigrants who have come to the United States to make a better life for themselves and for their families.

IMMIGRATION BILL TOO HARD ON FAMILIES OF IMMIGRANTS

The Senate has voted to take up again the immigration bill. This is a bad idea. The provisions of the bill under the Kennedy-Kyl compromise are too harsh on immigrants. For example, the bill awards permanent residency on a point system without enough regard for allowing family members of green card holders to be admitted. If the bill passes into law, the United States will see its immigrant population consisting of educated single males, holding masters and Ph.D.s, but with their families stuck in their home countries.

DEFEAT UNFAIR UNJUST IMMIGRATION BILL

The more I look at the provisions of the immigration bill being considered in the U.S. Senate - S.1348- the more I want Bush's immigration "reform" to be defeated. It is grossly unfair to immigrants, especially the 12 million undocumenteds already in the U.S.

One, it continues to fund the hated wall along the Arizona border. Not only is this wall a serious impediment to wildlife and an environmental disaster, it makes people throughout all Latin America hate Americans and view the U.S. as exclusionary and racist. The U.S. is not building a wall along the Canadian border. It should not build a wall along the Mexican border.

Second, it forces the 12 million undocumenteds to jump through hoops if they want to become legal permanent residents. They must pay fines/application fees of at least $5,000, the head of the family must return to his/her country of origin to make official application, and there will be a long waiting period. These provisions are excessive. Let the undocumenteds already in the U.S. remain here without having to return to their countries. Let's not stigmatize the process of becoming permanent residents. Let's give everyone already here the chance to become citizens, and let's expedited and simplify the whole process.

Third, the temporary guest worker problem will force workers to return to their countries of origin after every two-year period and remain there for at least one year. Furthermore, after a total of six years working in the United States, workers are barred from returning. This is unfair to the workers. It removes any hope of becoming permanent residents or citizens. It treats foreign workers as worthless cogs who have no rights to stay in the U.S. or to put down roots.

For all the above reasons - the hated wall, the return to country of origin, the barring of any citizenship rights from temporary workers - this immigration bill is a nasty bill that is is inimical to immigrants, especially those already in the U.S. without documents. Work to defeat Bush's immigration bill.

NYC AS EXAMPLE OF OPEN IMMIGRATION

Nina Bernstein writes in yesterday's New York Times that the new immigration bill if passed and signed into law could drastically change the composition of immigrants living in New York City.

"The proposed law certainly would not end the flow of legal immigration to New York. But it could profoundly alter the currents that have long fed the city’s mom and pop entrepreneurship, its kaleidoscopic diversity, and family networks that nurture and help assimilate newcomers. "

"More of the city’s newcomers, compared with immigrants in other parts of the country, continue to gain entry through the very family visas that the pending bill would restrict or abolish — and that would be replaced with a point system based on skills and education.

"New York was front and center when Congress refashioned America’s immigration system in 1965, replacing quotas based on race and national origin with a system centered on reunifying families. This time, with heated debate focused on illegal immigrants who cross the Mexican border and settle mainly in the West and South, New York’s experience has received less attention."

In other words, the diversity of races, cultures and nationalities now found in New York came about because the immigration system allowed family members of those who gained legal permanent residency to immigrate, obtain a "green card," and achieve that same status for themselves. New York City thus has a high ratio of legal to illegal immigrants, as the NY Times story reports.

But under the new proposed bill, family ties would mean little in deciding who can immigrate to the U.S. Instead, the new bill puts emphasis on a candidate's education and job proficiency and skills.

"“I love what I have now, and everything I have now, I work on it,” said Steven Lai, 46, whose immigration at 23 depended not only on his mother’s sponsorship, but on a long line of male forebears who endured 20-year family separations and exclusion from citizenship as they labored in the United States, first building railroads in 19th-century California. “Family is more important than everything else,” said Mr. Lai whose mother, Oilhang, 66, helps in the store.


"Under the proposed point system, Mr. Lai would have been locked out. The measure aims to reduce chain migration — the practice of one immigrant sponsoring others — and to make room for those the federal government selects as the world’s best, brightest and most easily assimilated. It would end preferences for the adult children and siblings of United States citizens, and eliminate a citizen’s right to sponsor parents. Instead, the government would admit foreigners who scored highest on a scale that values advanced degrees, skills approved by the Department of Labor, and fluency in English, much more than family ties. Only those admitted on points could sponsor their spouse and minor children."

In effect, under the current system, we have "open borders," at least to most close relatives of those already here with a green card. The resultant ethnic mix is what makes New York City so interesting and vibrant. There are various clusters and neighborhoods of Pakistanis, Italians, Irish, Russians and Poles. There are Ghanaians, Kenyans, Koreans and Chinese. In New York City, there is no rule, written or unwritten, that says, speak English. Many immigrants never want to speak a language other than their native language. But look at the second generation. The children all talk English with a New York accent.

And consider the economic effect of such open immigration. New York City is booming because of its immigrants.

"Yet immigrants like Mr. Lai, who learned English and locksmith skills at night school and opened his business 18 years ago with family savings, have been a vital economic engine for the city, said Gary Gerstle, a historian of immigration who teaches at Vanderbilt University. The city’s record, he and others say, casts doubt on the dichotomy being drawn in the debate between family ties and other factors that might lead to economic success.


"“The way that New York has come back is one of the great American success stories of the last 40 years, and immigrants are absolutely central to it,” Professor Gerstle said. “Mom and pop stores in New York have been a very dynamic force in the making of American society, and I would not want to see that possibility foreclosed.”"

This is what I would like to see for all American cities. Not the monochromatic dullness of everyone being from Northern Europe and everyone speaking English. But the vibrancy and diversity of language and culture and color as in NYC.

This is why I am for open borders. Mr. Bush, tear down that fence. Let America be open to every immigrant, no matter how poor, no matter what race, no matter what language. Therefore we need to defeat this new harsh immigration bill that would put up more barriers to open immigration by limiting family sponsorship of new immigrants.

DEFEAT THE FLAWED IMMIGRATION BILL

I believe everyone should have the right to go anywhere he wants to find a job and build a decent life. I don't believe in borders. No country should have the right to physically prevent a person from entering and leaving freely.

But I am totally against the new immigration bill. For one thing, it proposes building more walls between the U.S. and Mexico. The United States is going to join Israel and East Germany in constructing a wall to keep people out and in some cases in. This would be a wall, hated by those on the other side, and its symbolism of U.S. exceptionalism cannot be missed by the millions of people in South and Latin America who would interpret it as American disdain of those who speak another language or who have darker skin.

Secondly, the immigration bill requires that people in the U.S. without documents jump through nigh impossible hoops to obtain permanent residency and a "green card." They must pay fines, the head of household must return to his/her country of origin to make the initial application, and they must wait too long a time for the process to come to fruition.

Thirdly, the bill allows for temporary guest workers, but after every period of two years, the worker must return to his country and wait one full year before returning and securing another temporary work permit. Furthermore six years of working in the U.S. is the maximum. This plan is unworkable. If a person works for six years in the U.S., it would be cruel to say that he/she could never return. The result would be to raise up an inferior class of workers who have little rights and little hope of acquiring property or possessions in the United States.

For all of these reasons, I hope congress defeats this defective attempt at immigration reform.