5/25/2013 1:58:00 PM
Verde Independent

NEAR CAMP VERDE - A Yavapai County sheriff's deputy who stopped a van for weaving on Interstate 17 discovered the driver allegedly was smuggling nine illegal aliens from Mexico into the United States, a sheriff's spokesman said.

Ricardo Albazan, 26, was northbound, north of the Highway 260 exit when he was stopped Monday at about 4 a.m., said spokesman Dwight D'Evelyn, and Albazan had only a Mexican ID card.

He told the deputy he was headed to Denver, D'Evelyn said. He also admitted that none of his passengers had documentation, and the deputy concluded that Albazan was transporting illegals.

The deputy called an agent from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, who agreed with his assessment, and a jail van was sent to the scene. Before it could arrive, two of the passengers ran from the deputy and escaped into the darkness, D'Evelyn said.

More law enforcement arrived, but they could not locate the two who ran.

The remaining suspects were taken to the Camp Verde jail to wait for ICE to take custody. Albazan was found to have nearly $1,400 on him, and he was identified as the "coyote" in the operation, D'Evelyn said.

ICE will be handling the prosecution of the case.

http://verdenews.com/main.asp?Sectio...rticleID=54379

By ALYSSA NEWCOMB
abc news
May 25, 2013

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys said today they plan to appeal a federal judge's finding that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, helmed by Arpaio, racially profiled Latinos while on immigration patrols.

Complaints of deputies pulling over and singling out people who are dark skinned and speak Spanish to check their immigration status have long been levied against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Tim Casey, the attorney representing Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office said racial profiling has never been a policy of the department, but said deputies may have been given faulty training by federal authorities on immigration enforcement.

"The law clearly says you cannot do that, and this judge has clearly made it known that that is not the law,and ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) taught that, and that is not correct," he said.

Casey said the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office would appeal the judge's ruling in the next 30 days.

The lawsuit was brought against the department by a group of Latinos who alleged they were racially profiled by Arpaio's deputies for the purpose of immigration status checks.

The group did not seek monetary damages in the lawsuit and instead asked for a judge to declare the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had engaged in racial profiling and to order policy changes.

"We were looking for a declaration from the court that these are unconstitutional practices as an important first step in stopping those practices," said Don Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has championed the case.

The 142-page ruling was issued on Friday, more than eight months after a seven-day bench trial was held in the case.

U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow wrote that "the evidence introduced at trial establishes that, in the past, the MCSO has aggressively protected its right to engage in immigration and immigration-related enforcement operations even when it had no accurate legal basis for doing so."

A hearing has been set on June 14 in Phoenix to discuss how to carry out the orders in the ruling.

Arpaio, who will turn 81 in June, is serving his sixth consecutive term as sheriff of Arizona's most populous county, which includes Phoenix.

The self-styled "America's Toughest Sheriff" has made national headlines for everything from putting inmates in pink underwear to creating the nation's first all-female chain gang.

In February, he tapped actor Steven Seagal to lead members of the Arizona sheriff's volunteer posse through a simulated school shooting.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-she...5#.UaFzxpwtodw

Posted on May 25, 2013 by Paul Mirengoff

The Daily Caller reports that Marco Rubio has a history of opposing enforcement of immigtation laws. As Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio blocked efforts to deal with illegal immigration at the state or local Miami level.

According to the Daily Caller, the record shows that Rubio used his power as Speaker to block legislation to tighten enforcement even after such legislation had saied through committee. He even opposed, and thwarted, bipartisan legislation to deport 5,000 illegal immigrant prisoners in Florida jails.


Rubio’s Florida record helps us understand his indifferent attitude towards enforcement in connection with the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill. As we have noted, Rubio’s position on enforcement is, in essence: maybe there are problems with what I hve proposed, but others can fix them.


I think it’s pretty clear that Rubio isn’t backing amnesty and a path to citizenship reluctantly, as the only way we can attain better enforcement. Instead, amnesty and a path to citizenship are his objectives, with the promise of better enforcement just along for the ride.


The hard-line Rubio took on immigratiion when he ran for the Senate is an outlier in Rubio’s history on the subject. That’s a polite way of saying that this position was, in all likelihood, fraudulent — a cynical attempt tp appeal to conservatives in his long-shot race against Charlie Crist.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...8Power+Line%29

Little-noticed Schumer immigration amendment wins support from NAACP


By Kevin Bogardus - 05/25/13 06:00 AM ET

A little-noticed amendment from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is winning support from the NAACP and other civil rights groups that have been cool to the underlying immigration reform bill.
The civil rights groups have worried the Senate immigration bill would make it tougher for people from Africa and the Caribbean to immigrate to the country.

Schumer’s amendment, added by voice vote during the panel’s weeks-long mark up, would make nationals of African and Caribbean countries that use U.S. trade benefits eligible for nonimmigrant visas. That could allow more people from those regions to immigrate to the U.S. The NAACP wants to change the Senate bill approved by the Judiciary Committee this week in a 13-5 vote, but it has called Schumer’s amendment “a healthy step forward.”
“It doesn't fully solve our problem but it's a helpful step forward,” Hilary Shelton, the NAACP Washington bureau director, told The Hill.
“We lobbied for an opportunity to make up for the deficit of losing diversity visas. ... This is one of the tools that have been put in the place. We were very happy to see that,” he said.
The change could also buy goodwill from the Congressional Black Caucus, a key group in the House.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), co-chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus’s (CBC) immigration reform taskforce, said the caucus was evaluating Schumer’s measure but said it was “a very significant step in the right direction.”
“A comprehensive immigration bill must provide an adequate vehicle to insure people from all over the world, including from Africa and the Caribbean, can have access to the American dream. The Schumer amendment appears to address that concern,” Jeffries said.
The CBC, NAACP and other groups have been upset over the Senate bill’s elimination of the “diversity visa” program, which African and Caribbean immigrants often used to get to the U.S.
Diversity visas total about 55,000 per year and are made available to countries that have low U.S. immigration rates and are awarded via a lottery. Nationals from Bahrain to Samoa can apply, but several of the visas are given to African and Caribbean immigrants each year.
The Senate bill has sought to replace the program with a merit-based visa program, where immigrants would earn points towards getting a visa based on their education, family relations and other data. The new program would make 120,000 visas available per year, and could rise to a ceiling of 250,000, depending on demand and unemployment here in the United States.
Civil rights advocates haven't been convinced that merit-based visas were a suitable replacement for diversity visas. But Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said Schumer’s amendment made “significant progress” after the loss of diversity visas.
Henderson described the measure from Schumer as “a sophisticated response.”
“You can examine the Schumer proposal with empirical evidence and see that we have made significant progress in regrouping from the loss of diversity visas,” Henderson said.
Jeffries said the CBC didn’t work directly with Schumer on the amendment but that their concerns were made known to several senators.
The measure would allow nationals of countries that benefit from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) eligible for E nonimmigrant visas.
African countries eligible under AGOA include Angola, Cameroon and Senegal. Aruba, the Bahamas, Jamaica and several other Caribbean nations are listed as “beneficiary countries” for CBERA.
Not everyone is on board with Schumer’s amendment. Bertha Lewis, president of the Black Institute, said other countries, not just from Africa and the Caribbean, use diversity visas.
“We welcome them welcoming these black immigrants but this is not a zero-sum game,” Lewis said. “Why create these false schisms between immigrants from different countries? You don't need to get rid of diversity visas.”
Diversity visas are also in danger in the House.
House Republicans have targeted the diversity program for elimination. This week, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) introduced legislation that would boost the number of visas for high-skilled workers — long desired by Silicon Valley — but end diversity visas.
Henderson said the Senate bill could go further on stopping profiling of immigrants based on their national origin and religion. In addition, the bill doesn't allow same-sex couples to sponsor partners for green cards.
“The Senate bill is a significant step forward but it is not without its problems,” Henderson said.
Jeffries said the House negotiators working on their own immigration reform bill know the CBC’s concerns about diversity visas.
“It is our hope that those concerns will be addressed in the work product that the House produces and to the extent that it is not, we'll comment further at the appropriate time,” Jeffries said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...#ixzz2UKsY2MKl

Boat filled with drugs washes ashore in Manhattan Beach

Saturday, May 25, 2013
A small boat containing nearly a ton of drugs washed ashore in Manhattan Beach on Saturday, May 25, 2013. (KABC Photo)

MANHATTAN BEACH, Calif. (KABC) -- Two men were arrested after a boat filled with nearly a ton of drugs washed up on the shores of Manhattan Beach.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials spotted the vessel at about 4 a.m. moving along the coast. Border Patrol official Jaime Ruiz said about an hour later, authorities spotted the boat on the beach near 44th Street and Ocean Avenue.
Authorities say the boat contained approximately 1,800 pounds of drugs, including marijuana. Also found on board were two life vests, water bottles and fuel cans.
Several law enforcement agencies were on the scene investigating, including the FBI, DEA and Border Patrol.
The identities of the two men were not immediately released. Authorities say they were discovered hiding in some bushes about 800 yards from where the boat was found.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9115974

Posted: May 24, 2013 5:28 PM PST
Story by 13 On Your Side Newsroom


OCOTILLO, Calif. – Border Patrol agents teamed up with other law enforcement agencies to rescue four illegal immigrants who got lost, one of whom was dehydrated and in need of medical help.

The four men—who had illegally entered the U.S.—were near Plaster City when they got lost.

One of them called 911 at around 4:33 pm on Thursday to ask for help.

A helicopter rescue team found one of the men, airlifted him and gave him medical aid for dehydration.

Border Patrol agents detained the others.

The four men, who were between the ages of 22 and 38, were taken into custody and transported to the El Centro Border Patrol Station for processing for being illegally present in the United States.

http://www.kswt.com/story/22420349/b...-in-the-desert

By Stanley Kurtz
May 25, 2013 1:47 PM

Senator Marco Rubio appeared on a special edition of the Hannity show last night on behalf of the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill, otherwise known as Schumer-Rubio. His case for the bill was unpersuasive and, at times, incoherent. You can see substantial portions of the show in three online videos.

An example of the fundamental problem comes at around 9:30–9:50 into the first video, where Rubio responds to the claim that the border security provisions of the bill are too weak and too dependent on the actions of unwilling enforcers to be trusted. Here’s my transcription of Rubio’s reply:

“The problem is that people do not trust this administration and the federal government in general to do the law. So it’s pretty straightforward and I tell this to people all the time. If we can figure out a way to write a bill that ensures that the border will be secured, I believe immigration reform will happen. If we cannot do that or fail to do that, I do not believe immigration reform can or should happen. And so really, this issue at the end of the day is about getting that part of it right.”

This was the first of several times in the broadcast that Rubio distanced himself from his own bill, refusing to defend its security provisions and at least appearing to claim instead that, as it stands at the moment, the bill is unsatisfactory and undeserving of support. Yet Rubio has been defending the bill far and wide, even appearing in an ad on its behalf–an ad that touts the bill’s security provisions. If he’s filmed this ad for the bill, he ought to be able to defend its security provisions. If he can’t defend the security provisions as they now stand, why did he consent to be included in the ad?

A second important passage comes around 2:16–3:30 into the second video. Here’s my transcription:

“Hannity: OK, so [border security] has been the biggest area of criticism. Are you working on changing that aspect of it? Rubio: Yes, absolutely. What I’ve told people all the time, and that’s why we have a committee process. You know, in the past, certainly before I got to the Senate, what would happen is that people would go to a room, they’d come up with a bill, they’d draw it up, and then it was a take it or leave proposition. I’m not sure that’s the way it’s supposed to work. I think the way this works is, you have a group of people, or maybe an individual senator or congressman write up a bill as a starting point, but then you have 92 other colleagues in the case of this issue that have their own ideas that come from their own experience, and have their own ways that they want to see this improved. And so we’re in the process of doing that. It’s in the committee now, the judiciary committee, where it’s going to have many more days of hearings, and then it’s got to go to the floor process, not to mention the House.”

At this point, Rubio almost sounds as though he’s no longer backing the bill as it stands, as though he’s withdrawn his endorsement and will restore it only on condition that the border security provisions are substantially tightened in a Senate committee or in the House. Then Hannity puts a question:

“Hannity: Wouldn’t you have a better, easier time selling this especially to conservatives that are concerned about a second, third, fourth wave of illegal immigration coming into the country, if you just secure the border first. Doesn’t the law now mandate that? Rubio: Yeah, the fundamental problem is–the law does mandate that we secure our border–the fundamental problem we’re having with that, however, is that we have eleven-and-a-half to eleven million people in this country illegally….” Rubio goes on to explain that it’s in America’s best interests to bring those illegal immigrants out of the shadows.

So Rubio first implies that he agrees with critics of the bill’s border security provisions, and that he will only support a substantially amended bill. Yet when Hannity presses him on the need to secure the border unequivocally before offering amnesty, Rubio explains that amnesty can’t be held hostage to security.

As it stands, Rubio’s Hannity performance is puzzling and incoherent. Either he has declined to publicly defend the security provisions of a bill that he himself has formally endorsed, repeatedly backed in public, and continues to back, or he has implicitly withdrawn support for the bill. Does he support his own bill or not? If not, what changes does Rubio believe are required to the security provisions? Why leave this up to 92 other senators? If Rubio agrees that the security provisions need strengthening, he should tell us what he proposes. It’s fine for a senator to say that he’s open to negotiation with his colleagues on a bill that he nonetheless strongly supports in its current form. It’s something else to serve as the key public pitchman for a bill and then turn around and say it shouldn’t pass without unspecified changes to be proposed by someone else.

Don’t miss Paul Mirengoff’s comments on this aspect of Rubio’s performance in “Marco Rubio’s Embarrassing Appearance On Fox, Part Two.” Rubio did more did more dancing around security issues in the second half of the show, when he was questioned by a panel of immigration experts. Unfortunately, the third web video does not include the first two questioners, who were the toughest, Congressman Louie Gohmert and a sheriff who’s an expert on border security.

There were plenty of other problems with Rubio’s responses. When someone asked him whether we should reform entitlements before opening the doors to a flood of new citizens, Rubio agreed that our entitlement system is on a path to disaster but added that we’re headed for disaster with or without immigration reform. How does the fact that we’re going broke anyway make it a good idea to vastly increase the pressure on our entitlement system?

The issue of assimilation barely came up last night, and when Rubio finally mentioned it, he equated assimilation with citizenship. Unfortunately, citizenship does not guarantee assimilation, as I’ve explained elsewhere. It was also odd to see Rubio deny at one point that the Gang of Eight Bill even includes a path to citizenship, while holding out citizenship as the key to assimilation just a few moments later (see the third video).

The bottom line is that we have no business even considering amnesty before our border security system, entitlement system, and assimilation system have all been reformed. Nothing Rubio said last night on Hannity successfully rebutted this claim, while much that he said tended to support it, against the thrust of his own bill. If this is the best case supporters of Schumer-Rubio can make to conservatives, then there is no serious conservative case for this bill.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...migration-bill

By Ina Ronquillo

CREATED May. 24, 2013

PHOENIX (AP) - A group supporting Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is asking a judge to let its lawsuit seeking to end a recall effort against the sheriff move forward in court.

Citizens To Protect Fair Election Results is asking the judge to declare the signatures gathered so far in the recall effort invalid.

Recall organizers have asked that the lawsuit be dismissed because they say it is without legal merit and is a tool to try to intimidate Arpaio critics and mislead voters.

The pro-Arpaio group argues in its lawsuit that the Arizona Constitution prohibits the circulation of recall petitions against an official until he or she has held office for six months.

Recall organizers contend a state law specifies that the six-month period doesn't apply to incumbents.

http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/208841731.html

By: Mercedes White/Deseret News
Originally published: May 25, 2013 - 5:00 am

One provision of the Senate’s 844-page immigration reform bill is the provision that for the first time, the U.S. government would voluntarily provide a free lawyer to an immigrant in deportation proceedings. Currently, the bill only provides lawyers to certain subgroups: the mentally disabled, children and "particularly vulnerable."

This provision, according to Slate writer Mark Noferi, is perhaps the most groundbreaking part of the bill. Though the right isn't guaranteed for everyone, "the seeds are there for the broader right to counsel for detained immigrants that criminal defendants have received for 50 years," Noferi wrote.

"Congress should provide (legal representation)," he said. "Immigrants who are detained and awaiting hearings cannot adequately represent themselves while jailed. And while other parts of immigration reform are hugely controversial, providing lawyers to detainees would be a surprisingly easy sell politically, if history is a guide."

A study by Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit examined the scope of what he calls the “immigrant representation crisis.” He cites data suggesting that while some detainees are able to hire legal representation to find someone to help them for free, 84 percent have to go it alone.

Stuck in remote detention facilities with a life in America at stake, detainees must argue a deportation hearing on their own — in English, far from family who might find documents or witnesses, against trained government lawyers interpreting complex statutes, wrote Noferi.

Given these circumstances, Noferi says it should come as no surprise that Katzmann’s study found 97 percent of detainees without lawyers lost their cases, while 74 percent of immigrants who were detained and had counsel succeeded.

An argument against this proposal is the cost to taxpayers. Noferi counters that providing legal representation for detainees may actually be the most financially responsible thing the government can do. "The lawyers most likely pay for themselves by increasing the efficiency of immigration courts, reducing time spent in costly detention and lowering the cost of caring for children separated from their parents. Detention of one immigrant costs nearly $60,000 per year — about the cost of one lawyer, who could help hundreds escape detention and fight deportation. That’s money much better spent."

http://ktar.com/22/1636890/No-more-d...representation

Key senators tightly control immigration debate

By DAVID ESPO | Associated Press – 2 hrs 34 mins ago


View Photo
Associated Press/Jacquelyn Martin, File - FILE - In this March 18, 2013, file photo, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, holds a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee about immigrant women and immigration reform …more on Capitol Hill in Washington. For all the soothing words she heard from fellow Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hirono never had a chance to win a relatively modest change to far-reaching immigration legislation. Instead, the hidden hand of the bipartisan Gang of Eight reached out and rejected her attempt to create an immigration preference for close relatives of citizens with an extreme hardship _ the same force that had already derailed dozens other proposals deemed to violate the delicate trade-offs made by the bill’s bipartisan authors. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File) less


WASHINGTON (AP) — For all the soothing words she heard from fellow Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii never had a chance to win a relatively modest change to far-reaching immigration legislation.
Instead, the hidden hand of the Gang of Eight reached out and rejected her attempt to create an immigration preference for close relatives of citizens with an extreme hardship — the same force that had already derailed dozens of other proposals deemed to violate the delicate trade-offs made by the bill's authors.
The gang — the four Republicans and four Democrats who forged the plan— held together "amazingly well under the circumstances," said one member of the Judiciary Committee who was not part of the group. "It's a very complex bill," added Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
The legislation that now goes to the Senate floor creates a 13-year road to citizenship for the estimated 11.5 million immigrants living in the United States unlawfully, establishes a new program to allow low-skilled workers into the country and sharply expands the number of visas for highly skilled workers.
It also mandates a costly new effort to secure U.S. borders against future illegal crossings and remakes the existing system for legal immigration.
Beneath the surface lie dozens of difficult political bargains meant to balance the interests of members of the self-appointed Gang of Eight and various constituencies now welded into a coalition for the bill.
Fixing the precise standards for certifying that the U.S.-Mexican border is secure enough to permit other features of the bill to take effect was one. Setting the requirements, and rights, for those illegally in the country who will apply for "registered provisional immigrant status" was another.
Only four of the eight senators, two from each political party, are on the Judiciary Committee, but aides to all met privately in advance to review roughly 300 proposed amendments. Officials said there were few disagreements among the staff about which would have violated the basic bipartisan agreement and thus needed to be fended off at all costs.
The lawmakers themselves discussed a small number in meetings held either in the office of Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., or John McCain, R-Ariz.
Even though immigration legislation is a top priority for President Barack Obama, the White House was held at arms' length. Administration officials were consulted about the feasibility of quickly establishing a nationwide biometric system to track immigrants, for example, but were not invited to the meetings.
It was only by accident that the public might have learned of the gang's power.
Speaking into a microphone that he evidently did not realize would pick up his voice, Schumer asked an aide during one vote, "Do our Republicans have a pass on this one?"
In fact, for days, the two GOP Gang of Eight members on the committee, Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, wound up opposing changes they might otherwise have supported — far more often than was the case with the Democrats, Schumer and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Among them were numerous attempts by other Republicans to toughen border security requirements before legalization can begin or to otherwise make provisional legal status harder to obtain.
Still other proposals were reshaped to meet the conditions of the Gang of Eight, including one by Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Cornyn of Texas, one the Democratic committee chairman, the other the Senate's second-ranking Republican.
They wanted to change a provision providing $1.5 billion to deploy "additional fencing in high-risk border sectors," proposing instead that the money go to "fencing, infrastructure and technology." Officials said that ran afoul of the wishes of Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the Gang of Eight, who had made construction of the fence a priority.
In the end, a compromise emerged, with $1 billion to be spent exclusively on fencing and $500 million available for that purpose or other infrastructure or technology.
In addition to Rubio, the gang members not on the Judiciary Committee are McCain and Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado.
The knowledge that the Gang of Eight would object caused some proposals to wither without a vote.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., prepared two gun-related amendments, but he had only one of them debated and withdrew it without a vote he was certain to lose.
On the other hand, amendments that the Gang of Eight decided didn't threaten their measure or might strengthen it rose or fell based on other factors. The phasing in of the biometric system, a Republican suggestion, was a key one.
Hirono deferred on several of her proposals but chose a different course on a proposal to let U.S. citizens suffering from extreme hardship petition for a sibling or adult married child to immigrate.
"This is a tiny change and would be utilized only in the most sympathetic cases," she said. She noted that as drafted, the legislation eliminated an existing preference for siblings eager to follow family members to the United States, a category that historically has tended to benefit immigrants from Asian nations.
"I understand that my amendment is in conflict with the agreement that the Gang of Eight reached on this bill," she said, adding, "If they were not part of the Gang of Eight, I believe they would support this limited amendment."
In the debate that followed, two nongang Democrats on the committee, Sens. Al Franken of Minnesota and Chris Coons of Deleware, said they would support Hirono.
But Graham said an issue of overriding importance to him had been the bill's establishment of a new system for legal immigration. "What I'm trying to do is have a family component within a merit-based immigration system, not turn immigration into chain migration family-based immigration.... And I will continue to insist on that for my participation," he added.
Schumer and Durbin quickly closed ranks, saying they would oppose Hirono's proposal reluctantly.
In a gesture to Graham and Flake, Durbin said the two Republicans had "stood by the agreement when it wasn't easy politically. I feel duty-bound to do the same thing at this moment."
Graham said he understood the vote was tough for Democrats. "Sen. Flake and I have been voting for six days" against proposals they might otherwise have favored, "so glad to have you on board," he said.
Laughter filled the committee room.
Moments later, Hirono's amendment was rejected 11-7, another in an unbroken series of victories for the Gang of Eight.
http://news.yahoo.com/key-senators-tightly-control-immigration-debate-135139591.html

Menendez: Immigration bill doesn’t have enough votes to pass Senate

By Jonathan Easley - 05/24/13 04:46 PM ET

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Friday that the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill doesn’t have enough votes to pass the Senate.

The bill won approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 13-5 vote, but Menendez said it lacks the 60 votes necessary to clear the Senate — despite the bill's four Republican co-sponsors.

“We don’t currently have 60 votes identified in the Senate,” Menendez said in an interview with Univision. “We need to add more votes on the floor. That means that the community in your state, in every state, should be contacting your state’s two U.S. Senators saying that they want comprehensive immigration reform, that they are going to judge their political future based on this vote.”

Supporters of the bill are pushing for a strong bipartisan vote of 70 or more to put pressure on the House to take up the legislation.

In addition to the four GOP co-sponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) voted for the bill in committee, though he has not committed his support in the floor vote.

Menendez said he was “optimistic” that the bipartisan coalition could cobble together the super-majority the bill will need to get through the Senate. The New Jersey Democrat said he expected a lengthy debate period, likely starting when Congress reconvenes the week of June 10 and potentially stretching to the Fourth of July break.

“I believe that in those three weeks we can get the necessary votes and we will have the community,” he said. “We are expecting that and working for that.”

The Hill reported on Friday that the “Gang of Eight” plans to meet daily when the bill is up for debate to discuss where lawmakers stand on proposed amendments.

Menendez said the bill would need a strong showing in the Senate “so we can put pressure on the House” to act. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the “Gang of Eight” bill does not have the votes to make it out of his chamber.

“I don’t know why he said that without looking at the votes, without looking at his own Republican colleagues who will support it,” Menendez said. “But we want to push this bill forward with the most positive votes we can find, more than 60, the 60 we need to be able to pass it here in the Senate, so we can put pressure on the House.”

“Speaker Boehner, will have to decide how he will proceed," Menendez continued. "But I want to have a good vote in the Senate so we send the message that the Republicans and the Democrats are together in favor of immigration reform.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...to-pass-senate

75,000 Indians to be deported from Saudi Arabia: UP, Kerala to be hit hard


PTI [ Updated 25 May 2013, 16:47:42 ]


PRINT

FONT SIZE




Jeddah, May 25: With thousands of Indians set to return from Saudi Arabia due to the ‘Nitaqat’ law, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid has said state governments have been “forewarned” so that the situation does not become “unmanageable”.
Khurshid arrived on Friday to hold talks with Saudi Arabia’s leadership on the controversial ‘Nitaqat’ law, energy security and counter-terrorism cooperation.

Khurshid was received at the airport by Deputy Foreign Minister Abdul Aziz Bin Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz. Khurshid will meet Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal.

The visit comes at a time when a number of Indians are leaving Saudi Arabia as a result of the country’s Nitaqat programme, which is meant to regularise foreign workers.

The ‘Nitaqat’ law makes it mandatory for local companies to hire one Saudi national for every 10 migrant workers.

There has been widespread perception that the new policy will lead to denial of job opportunities for a large number of Indians working there.

Those who fail to find another job or a sponsor has to go back. As a result of this law, a number of people who were working without valid work permits and runaways have come under the scanner.

Once the grace period time till July 3 ends, all those expatriates who are found Saudi Arabia without valid papers will be jailed and heavily penalised.

“In terms of the logistics and the effort involved, it obviously is a challenge,” Khurshid said but added that it was not something which could not be met.

“The issue is that we have three months of grace period during which whatever needs to be done has to be done and the numbers are very large.

He said people who come back will have to be rehabilitated.

“We will have to with some efforts, in terms of state governments, to provide them with rehabilitation, quick rehabilitation. Some of them are not as comfortable as people might imagine.

“So I think they will require some hand holding when they get back home. State governments have been forewarned about this that they will have to do some hand holding,” he said.

He said state governments have been informed because all these people coming back have to get emergency certificates.

“They can’t be given unless the district authorities to which they belong, verify and give us verified information so that emergency certificates can be given.

“We are in touch with the state governments not only to ensure that they are quick in giving us response for verification but also make arrangements for number of people who finally arrive so that it does not develop into an unmanageable issue.

“We have kept them informed and obviously we will have to work with many other authorities including aviation authorities to get all these people come back quickly,” Khurshid said.

“In terms of the number of people who are getting exit permits (issued by Saudi authorities), it is 500 a day at present,” he said.

“That would not within three months address all the people who have registered and those who will continue to get registered. We have made some suggestions and I will also talk about what can be done,” he said.

Khurshid said that contrary to perceptions, there are more people from Uttar Pradesh than Kerala who are being affected by the Saudi law.

“This whole thing started by people from Kerala being extremely worried. But as the numbers tumble out, we find that Uttar Pradesh has much larger numbers than Kerala. So we have to deal with people right across.”

As per official figures, off the total processed applications of 56,734, there are 21, 331 people from Uttar Pradesh as against 3,610 from Kerala.

As of May 20, 75,000 Indians have registered with the Indian Embassy in Riyadh and the Consulate in Jeddah to be processed and be send back. There are nearly three million Indians in Saudi Arabia.

Nearly 57,000 applications have been processed but it is estimated that many more will approach the Embassy in the coming days.

The Saudi government was implementing the Nitaqat law to cut unemployment in the country. Nearly three million Indians are currently working in Saudi Arabia.

Khurshid is also carrying a personal letter from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for Saudi king Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. 　
　
　
http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/75000-indians-to-be-deported-from-saudi-arabia-up-kerala-to-b-11832.html

Published: Friday, May 24, 2013 3:53 PM EDT
Tribune Staff Reports
Huron Daily Tribune

UPPER THUMB — Federal officials are remaining mum about a visit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents made to two different dairy operations this week in Huron County.

“On Wednesday, special agents with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations executed federal search warrants at Parisville Dairy LLC and Dunganstown Dairy LLC as part of an on-going criminal investigation,” stated Khaalid Walls, ICE public affairs officer. “Because this investigation is ongoing, we would not be able to elaborate.”

Huron County Sheriff Kelly J. Hanson said his office assisted federal agents at the scene, but he didn’t want to comment on the situation because his agency didn’t coordinate the activities.

He did note, however, that the local sheriff’s office has been to the Parisville Dairy operation in the past in regard to illegal immigrants.

Parisville Dairy is located at 3657 Parisville Road, Ruth. Dunganstown Dairy is located at 5301 Dodge Road, Cass City.

http://www.michigansthumb.com/articl...0479172579.txt

Hamilton man sentenced to time served, may face deportation after kidnapping 17-year-old niece

By Brendan McGrath/The Times of Trenton
on May 24, 2013 at 8:29 PM


HAMILTON — A township man was sentenced to time served today, amounting to 894 days in jail, and may face deportation in the kidnapping of his 17-year-old niece in 2011, the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office said.

Sergio Sarceno Cano allegedly bound his niece’s wrists, legs and mouth with duct tape and stole $400 from her, before transporting her around at gun point, according to Casey DeBlasio, spokeswoman for the Prosecutor’s Office. His niece, who had been living with him at the time of the incident, did not appear in court for the sentencing.

The girl left a note asking for help in the bathroom of a Nottingham Way Burger King, prosecutors said in a 2011 hearing. She was rescued after an employee saw it and called police. This also led to Cano’s arrest.

In a plea deal, Cano pleaded guilty on March 28 to third-degree weapons possession and terroristic threats, and will now deal with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The federal agency placed a detainer on him because of his status as an undocumented immigrant. He may face deportation to Guatemala.

“The plea was a compromise, it was in the best interest of all parties,” said Robin Lord, Cano’s attorney.

Court documents report two different dates of birth for Sarceno Cano, one placing his age at 33 and the other at 34.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2...d_to_time.html

Posted 5/24/2013
One of Laura's recent tweets:

Laura Ingraham ‏@IngrahamAngle6h
WE MUST PRIMARY ANY "CONSERVATIVE" WHO SUPPORTS THIS: "W/ amdmts, Sen immig bill soars past 1,000 pgs" http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/with-amendments-senate-immigration-bill-soars-past-1000-pages/article/2530469 …


https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle