Immigration Law Blog Posts
 

The Irving school district has lost 656 students since the end of September, and officials attribute the decline to a crackdown on illegal immigrants and the shutting down of aging apartment complexes.

School officials said they don't know exactly why hundreds of students have disappeared since the district hit its peak enrollment of 33,189. But the losses outpace previous years. Last year, Irving schools lost 283 students during the same period.

Superintendent Jack Singley said a city code-enforcement crackdown on declining apartments where many low-income families live may have caused people to leave town. And some immigrants may have left Irving because they feared deportation.

"We're watching our enrollment very carefully," Mr. Singley said. "This probably will be the toughest year to predict future enrollment for many reasons. There are many changes in our community."

School administrators are concerned because they stand to lose state funding, which is based on how many students attend school each day.

The superintendent and principals have tried to assure parents that their children are safe at school. Mr. Singley raised concerns early in the year that deportations were causing parents to go "on the run" and withdraw children from the schools.

"I think the reason is the climate in Irving," school board president Michael Hill said. "If parents are pulling their kids out of school for fear of what they're hearing throughout the city, my concern is: Are the kids in school at all?"

The school district's students are about 73 percent economically disadvantaged and 67 percent Latino this year. Many of them are the children of immigrants.

About 39 percent of students are classified as limited English proficient, the highest in North Texas. The district continues to go through considerable change, losing white students as it gains Hispanics.

Mr. Singley reassured parents in a letter that the school district does not assist law-enforcement officials with deportations.

An LPR may be deemed to have disrupted the "continuous residence" requirement if the LPR travels out of the United States a few times a year, or if an LPR is outside of the country for over six months. If an LPR continuously maintains a residence in the United States but is physically outside of the United States for over a year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may decide that the continuous residence has been abandoned. If an LPR has not properly maintained the continuous physical residence requirement, and the DHS determines that an LPR has abandoned his or her residency, DHS can refuse an LPR back into the United States.

Attention all frequent-flyer residents: Make sure your trips abroad are for short periods of time. Please note that the continuous physical residence requirement is one requirement that must be satisfied to qualify for citizenship. There are other requirements that must be met in order to establish citizenship eligibility. Please contact us if you would like to begin your citizenship process.

The move comes as the agency hires 1,500 additional employees nationwide to deal with a surge in citizenship applications. The increase has caused processing time to triple, to up to 18 months in Texas and nationwide.

The number of naturalization applications nearly doubled, to 1.4 million, in fiscal year 2007, as some legal immigrants tried to meet a July deadline for a fee increase, and others reacted to a crackdown against illegal immigrants that spilled into the legal immigrant community.

"These facilities will enhance the agility and focus to confront the complex national security challenges ahead, provide excellence in customer service, and operate effectively across interoffice and organizational boundaries," agency director Emilio Gonzalez said Wednesday.

Dallas has one of only three regional offices for Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency within the Homeland Security Department that has faced mounting lawsuits over the processing delays.

Those crosscurrents create treacherous political waters for the major presidential candidates in both parties, many of whom have tended to avoid spotlighting the issue. But all the White House contenders have been forced to confront the issue repeatedly under questioning at campaign events and candidate forums.

Some poll respondents, in follow-up interviews, expressed frustration that the candidates have not been more forthright in addressing immigration-related issues.

The poll indicates that illegal immigration is not the most important issue voters have on their minds, but that most people view it as a key concern.

Asked what problem is a top priority for presidential candidates to address, 15 percent said illegal immigration — the fifth most-mentioned topic behind the war in Iraq, the economy, protecting the country from terrorist attack and health care. Asked how much of a problem illegal immigration is, 81 percent of voters said they considered it important, including 27 percent who said it was one of the most pressing problems facing the country.

The poll also makes clear that voters make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants: Asked if illegal immigrants had made a positive or negative contribution to their community, 36 percent said negative (21 percent said positive, 29 percent said the impact was not discernible).

When the same question was asked about legal immigrants, only 12 percent said their impact was negative.

(46 percent said positive, 31 percent said no discernible impact).

When those who said immigrants had a negative impact were asked precisely how, the reasons most often cited were increased crime (30 percent), loss of American jobs (35 percent) and increased cost of social services (19 percent).

Voters are divided about what the best solution is to the problem of illegal immigration, but a strong majority expressed support for a proposal discussed in Congress — part of a package backed by President Bush — that would create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the U.S.

The plan, under which illegal immigrants could become citizens if they have no criminal record, register in the U.S., pay a fine, learn English and meet other requirements, was supported by 64 percent of Democratic voters and 62 percent of Republican voters.

However, that plan died in Congress under fire from critics who called for the U.S. to do more to tighten border security before considering liberalized treatment of illegal immigrants.

Many landowners will see their property bisected by the fence, and many more will lose access to needed water from the river. Small businesses along the border are concerned that they will lose customers if border crossings become less convenient for Mexicans authorized to come to Texas.

Here are excerpts from the article:

More than 150 miles of fencing is to be constructed along the Rio Grande in Texas. Fourteen miles of fence was built in El Paso several years ago.

"We're going to see steel barriers erected on the borders where U.S. and Mexican cities adjoin. These will slow down illegal crossers by minutes, but that will be long enough for agents to turn them back," Chief Hill said.

"In the open areas outside the cities, we'll build a virtual fence that uses radar to detect entry and then key a camera to that point."

Opposition to the fence by politicians, business leaders and border residents has been loud.

"It's one of the few issues around which virtually every group along the border is organized and united," Hidalgo County Judge J.D. Salinas said earlier this year. "No one on the border likes the wall. But Washington isn't listening."

Alien spouses currently in conditional resident status must not forget to remove their conditions on Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions. Such petition should be accompanied with evidence that the alien spouse and U.S. Citizen spouse continue to reside together and have a valid marriage. Supporting documents include utility bills bearing both names, apartment leases showing joint tenancy, joint accounts, and birth certificates of children. The petition to remove the conditions must be filed one year and nine months from the date the alien spouse was granted conditional permanent resident status. Failure to file the petition removing the conditions may result in the termination of the alien spouse's permanent resident status and removal proceedings may be initiated.

If the spouses are divorced before the second anniversary of the date the alien spouse was granted conditional permanent resident status, and the parties cannot file Form I-751 jointly, waivers are available. The alien spouse may be granted the waiver by showing proof that the marriage was entered in good faith, and it would result in extreme hardship if the alien were deported. So if an alien spouse has been granted conditional permanent residence, don't forget to remove your conditions!

Instead, the administration plans to revise the rule to try to meet concerns raised by a federal judge and issue it again by late March, hoping to pass court scrutiny on the second try. The rule would have forced employers to fire workers within 90 days if their Social Security information could not be verified.

The government’s proposal was a response to an indefinite delay to the rule ordered Oct. 10 by the judge, Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court in San Francisco. Judge Breyer found that the government had failed to follow proper procedures in issuing the rule and that it should have completed a survey of its impact on small business.

He also found that the Social Security database the government would use to verify workers’ status was full of errors, so the rule could lead to the dismissal of many thousands of workers who were American citizens or legal immigrants.

In a four-page motion filed Friday, the government, without acknowledging any flaws in the original rule, asked Judge Breyer to suspend the case so the Department of Homeland Security could rewrite the rule and conduct the small-business survey, which it expects to do by March 24. The government said that it wanted to “prevent the waste of judicial resources” and that it was confident the amended rule would “fully address the court’s concerns.”

The rule laid out procedures for employers to follow after receiving a notice from the Social Security Administration, known as a no-match letter, advising that an employee’s identity information did not match the agency’s records.

The employer would have had to fire an employee who could not provide verifiable information within 90 days, or face the risk of prosecution for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Those immigrants often present fake Social Security numbers when applying for jobs.

Judge Breyer also stopped Social Security from sending out about 141,000 no-match letters, covering more than eight million workers, which contained instructions from Homeland Security about the rule. Social Security sends the letters to clarify workers’ information so it can correctly credit taxes deducted from their wages.

Some businesses welcomed the rule because it clarified what they had to do to avoid immigration raids. But the labor unions cited a report from the inspector general of the Social Security Administration finding that 12.7 million of the records of United States citizens in the agency’s database contained errors that could lead to them being fired.

(Rev. 06/05/07)N printed on the lower right corner of the form) which is now the only version valid for use. In that Nov. 7 announcement, USCIS explained that employers would have 30 days, beginning on the date the Federal Register notice is published, to transition to the revised form. Accordingly, effective Dec. 26, 2007, employers who fail to use the revised form will be subject to applicable penalties.

On Nov. 7, USCIS announced the availability of the revised version of Form I-9 (includes the revision date --

Both the revised form and the "Handbook for Employers, Instructions for Completing the Form I-9" are available online at www.uscis.gov. To order forms, call USCIS toll-free at (800) 870-3676. For forms and information on immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

DEMOCRATS:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton

Supports a guest worker program for immigrants if it does not undermine U.S. workers' wages and favors giving undocumented workers a way to become legal workers. Backed building border wall. Urges development of an employer verification system and higher penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrants.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards

Urges doubling the number of Border Patrol agents, installing surveillance technology to police the border and increasing enforcement against employers who hire illegal immigrants. Supports allowing illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens if they avoid a criminal record, pay a fine and learn English. Against a guest worker program that does not include workplace safeguards.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama

Backs additional personnel, infrastructure and technology to safeguard U.S. borders and ports. Urges reducing application fees and improving speed and accuracy of FBI background checks for immigrants. Supports a program in which illegal immigrants pay fines, learn English, not violate the law and go to the end of the line to become citizens. Backs creating a program for employers to verify an applicant's immigration status.

REPUBLICANS:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Supports building the border fence and maintaining 20,000 Border Patrol agents. Urges issuing a single biometric identification card to foreigners, creating a national database and removing those immigrants who have overstayed their visas. Backs deporting illegal immigrants who commit felonies and requiring immigrants to read, write and speak English. Against providing driver's licenses or similar identification to illegal immigrants.

Arizona Sen. John McCain

Initially supported temporary guest worker program for illegal immigrants but has since shifted his position to emphasize border security first.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

Backs securing the border with a wall, fence or electronic surveillance. Urges creating a biometric documentation program and establishing a verification system. Supports an increase in legal immigration into the United States and opposes compromise on immigration amnesty. Opposes allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson

Against providing any legal status to illegal immigrants and urges bolstering enforcement against them and their employers. Backs cutting off federal funds to cities that try to restrict communications with the Department of Homeland Security about an individual's immigration status. Urges finishing border wall by 2010, expanding Border Patrol to at least 25,000, making English the official U.S. language and improving the immigration process.

Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place.

The number of Hispanics living in the United States grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population, and cracking the list of top 10 names suggests just how pervasively the Latino migration has permeated everyday American culture.

Garcia moved to No. 8 in 2000, up from No. 18, and Rodriguez jumped to No. 9 from 22nd place. The number of Hispanic surnames among the top 25 doubled, to 6.

Demographers pointed to more than one factor in explaining the increase in Hispanic surnames.

Generations ago, immigration officials sometimes arbitrarily Anglicized or simplified names when foreigners arrived from Europe.

And because recent Hispanic and Asian immigrants might consider themselves more identifiable by their physical characteristics than Europeans do, they are less likely to change their surnames, though they often choose Anglicized first names for their children.

The latest surname count also signaled the growing number of Asians in America. The surname Lee ranked No. 22, with the number of Lees about equally divided between whites and Asians. Lee is a familiar name in China and Korea and in all its variations is described as the most common surname in the world.

Smith — which would be even more common if all its variations, like Schmidt and Schmitt, were tallied — is among the names derived from occupations (Miller, which ranks No. 7, is another). Among the most famous early bearers of the name was Capt. John Smith, who helped establish the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown, Va., 400 years ago. As recently as 1950, more Americans were employed as blacksmiths than as psychotherapists.

In 1984, according to the Social Security Administration, nearly 3.4 million Smiths lived in the United States. In 1990, the census counted 2.5 million. By 2000, the Smith population had declined to fewer than 2.4 million. The durability of some of the most common names in American history may also have been perpetuated because slaves either adopted or retained the surnames of their owners. About one in five Smiths are black, as are about one in three Johnsons, Browns, and Joneses and nearly half the people named Williams.

The Census Bureau’s analysis found that some surnames were especially associated with race and ethnicity.

More than 96 percent of Yoders, Kruegers, Muellers, Kochs, Schwartzes, Schmitts and Novaks were white. Nearly 90 percent of the Washingtons were black, as were 75 percent of the Jeffersons, 66 percent of the Bookers, 54 percent of the Banks and 53 percent of the Mosleys.

USCIS has made available a 47 page I-9 handbook for employers. The handbook informs employers about the reasons for the I-9 form and gives instructions for proper completion of the form.

This is a proposed guideline for the use of the terms "undocumented immigrant," "illegal immigrant," and "illegal alien" on Wikipedia.

Eventually, it ought to recommend a term to be used when it is impossible to avoid the use of an adjectival description for people who enter or reside in a country without legal authorization. At the moment, it contains three proposed guidelines, recommending "undocumented immigrant," "illegal immigrant," and "unauthorized immigrant" respectively. When a consensus is reached by Wikipedians on the talk page, one should be kept and all others removed, with the arguments that led to their defeat merged.

Preface

Wikipedia's articles on immigration policy are, at present, extremely inconsistent in their use of terms to describe illegal immigration. A person who enters or resides in a country without legal authorization is sometimes described as an asylum seeker, sometimes as an undocumented immigrant, sometimes as an unauthorized immigrant, sometimes as an unlawful immigrant or illegal immigrant, and sometimes as an illegal alien. A consistent policy is desirable in order to resolve controversies.

The more common terms are all politically charged in the United States, the location of a substantial number of English-language Wikipedia users, and the controversy exists just as much in the offline world as in Wikipedia. Supporters of granting citizenship to people who have entered or reside in the country without legal authorization tend to use the term "undocumented immigrant," while supporters of increased enforcement of immigration laws tend to use the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien." [1]

The issue is less pressing in other English-speaking countries, where the vast majority of immigrants who enter without legal authorization tend to apply for asylum, and are therefore known uncontroversially as "asylum seekers." Unfortunately, this term does not apply to the vast majority of immigrants at issue in the United States.

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Consequently, we need to establish from reliable sources, what the majority of English speakers use globally.

High-tech workers here on federal permits are speaking out – many for the first time – over rules that leave them for years in personal and professional limbo.

After Congress failed to reform immigration laws for the second year in a row, hundreds of the largely India- and China-born workers protested this summer in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. They were frustrated that the divisive debate over illegal immigration had overwhelmed efforts at comprehensive immigration reform.

Legal immigrants who feel squeezed by limits on the number of green cards issued each year are trying to separate their complaints from the protests by illegal immigrants. And high-tech companies that say they can't fill jobs because of a cap on skilled-worker visas have stepped up their long-standing plea for the cap to be raised.

The green card application system is akin to "indentured servitude," said Kim Berry, president of the Programmers' Guild, a group that opposes current work visa laws. "It takes years for the green card sponsorship to happen, and they can't leave, can't ask for a raise unless they want to lose their place in line."

Applications for work-related green cards – limited to 140,000 each year, about 9,800 per sending country – are backlogged so deep that many immigrants must plod along for years, uncertain about their future in the United States and unable to change jobs while they wait for permanent residence.

And immigration officials resorted to a lottery for H1-B work visas this summer when businesses filed – on just the first day the government was accepting applications – double the number that could be considered the whole year. Three years ago, it took 10 months for businesses to fill the annual quota.

More than 1 million foreign nationals were in line for permanent residency in 2006. More than 500,000 came into the U.S. on H1-Bs, and the rest through family connections.

Microsoft Corp. was the third-largest sponsor of H1-B visas in the last federal fiscal year. But it still didn't get all the foreign workers it wanted into the country. The company's government affairs director said this was one motivation for Microsoft to open a new software development center in Canada.

"We currently do 85 percent of our development work in the U.S., and we'd like to continue doing that," said Jack Krumholtz. "But if we can't hire the developers we need ... we're going to have to look to other options to get the work done."

About 8 percent of Mountain View-based Google Inc.'s employees currently work under H1-B visas. This year, the company posted 70 new foreign hires overseas when they couldn't get visas. They'll try again next year.

Smaller companies, which may need only one foreign worker, argue they suffer most under the visa cap because they don't have the flexibility of the giants in the field.

Illegal immigrants may be able to avoid being arrested in Irving if they can provide police with a Mexican identification card, a utility bill or a similar document, the city's mayor said Thursday.

"You have a better chance if you can identify yourself," Mayor Herbert Gears said after meeting with immigration-rights activists. "If you can't identify yourself, you're going to have no chance."

The acceptance of the Mexican ID, known as a matrícula consular, and other documents besides state-issued ID cards comes as activists have encouraged the mayor to help prevent more people from being deported as part of the Criminal Alien Program. Irving officials began using the program in September 2006 and have since turned more than 1,600 arrestees over to federal authorities for deportation.

Mr. Gears explained that if someone is stopped for a traffic violation, that person's chances of avoiding jail will be better with proof of identification. If the police can confirm someone's identity, that person will be issued a citation and let go.

The mayor also agreed to help create an educational campaign to inform people of immigration laws.

Most of the charges faced by the 1,638 illegal immigrants arrested in Irving and placed in federal custody over the last 13 months are misdemeanors, according to a Police Department report released Wednesday.

The department's Immigration Enforcement Report details 3,901 local criminal charges filed against 1,638 illegal immigrants who were held at the city jail where federal officials also filed illegal immigration charges against them between Sept. 1, 2006, and Sept. 30 of this year.

The report was released after a controversy over the department's 24/7 Criminal Alien Program, which allows agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to conduct routine telephone interviews with inmates at the city jail to determine their immigration status.

Hispanic activist Carlos Quintanilla said he and other immigration reform advocates believe the Irving Police Department is engaging in racial profiling because the overwhelming majority of the 1,638 illegal immigrants came from Mexico and other Latin American nations.

Mr. Quintanilla said the program unfairly deports immigrants for misdemeanors. He and other activists are organizing a march and protest in downtown Irving on Saturday afternoon.

"If they had been arrested anywhere else, they would not have been deported," Mr. Quintanilla said. "They're obviously overzealously targeting our community. I think the numbers speak for themselves."

Police Department spokesman David Tull said 14,000 people were arrested in Irving during the same time, but only 1,638 of them were flagged by federal officials for illegal immigration violations.

"Part of being a respectable part of society is to follow the laws, rules and guidelines set out by the community," Officer Tull said. "The more you get away from that, the more chaos there is."

More than 63 percent of the 3,901 criminal charges filed against the 1,638 illegal immigrants were listed as misdemeanors, including outstanding traffic tickets, outstanding warrants, assault, theft, criminal mischief and prostitution.

Another 16 percent were arrested on suspicion of DWI or public intoxication offenses, while almost 12 percent of the charges filed were listed as driving without a license or driving with a suspended or invalid driver's license.

The report shows that 9 percent of the criminal charges filed against the illegal immigrants were listed as felonies, including murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault and illegal drug possession.

Officer Tull said Irving police take traffic offenses very seriously and that the department has seen a dramatic increase in the number of warrants for people who did not pay traffic tickets or comply with court orders.

According to Police Department figures, the number of tickets issued has remained about the same over the past five years, but the number of people with outstanding warrants for nonpayment or failing to comply with court orders has increased from 1 percent in fiscal 2001-02 to 15 percent in 2006-07.

Officer Tull said that the majority of those warrants are for people who gave incorrect or false information to police officers and that perhaps some could be illegal immigrants who provided false names or other information.

But Mr. Quintanilla called the report an example of "backtracking," citing that the figures show that 91 percent of the illegal immigrants who were arrested committed nonviolent crimes.

He said legal immigrants with green cards can only lose their status by being convicted of felonies, not misdemeanors.

Here's a look at the number and types of charges filed by Irving police against 1,638 illegal immigrants arrested in Irving and turned over to federal authorities from Sept. 1, 2006, through Sept. 30 of this year. 

Felony crimes (including murder, aggravated assault, rape and theft)
352
9.0

Driving without a license
341
8.7

Invalid or suspended license
110
2.8

DWI or public intoxication
633
16.2

Other misdemeanors (including outstanding tickets; assault; drug possession and prostitution)
2,465
63.2

Total
3,901

Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against a program that would force employers to verify Social Security numbers and fire workers whose numbers did not match official records.

The federal program developed by the Department of Homeland Security is at the heart of a new crackdown on the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, after Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

But the "no-match letter" program was challenged in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO and other labor groups claiming it was unlawful and hurt all workers, including legal ones affected by errors in the data base.

"The balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs' favor and plaintiffs have raised serious questions," Breyer said in his ruling.

Breyer still has to rule on a permanent injunction, but workers' rights groups celebrated Wednesday's decision.

"This was really about targeting workers rights generally," said Ana Avendano, director of immigrant programs at the AFL-CIO. "The win is about preventing the Bush administration from causing further harm to workers in this country."

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the administration was disappointed with the ruling and added:

"Coupled with the near daily stories about local communities taking immigration matters into their own hands, this ruling serves as another reminder that Congress need to enact comprehensive immigration reform to establish a system that is secure, productive, orderly and fair."

Breyer had already blocked the Social Security Administration from sending out 140,000 letters to employers with 8 million employees whose names did not match their nine-digit identification numbers.

Under the proposed program, employers notified of a "no-match" would have 90 days to confirm that an employee was in the country legally or fire him if not.

Employers also could face fines as well as criminal charges if they did not comply with the program.

The judge also said the threat of a criminal prosecution against an employer "reflects a major change in Department of Homeland Security policy."

Mailing out new no-match letters to employers "would result in irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers," Breyer wrote.

Many North Texans are reacting to Irving's crackdown on illegal immigrants by saying: Darn right, they're breaking the law, and it's about time we sent them packing. Folks on the opposite side counter: This is a harsh overreaction against people who are working, contributing to the economy and paying taxes.

The mood is getting nastier by the day. Fear abounds within the Hispanic community. Latino U.S. citizens, along with legal and illegal immigrants, worry that they could be hunted down and deported. Irving schools have noticed a drop in attendance because some parents, fearing deportation, have gone into hiding with their children.

"They get this notion that someone is going to actually come to school and snatch their children," Irving ISD Superintendent Jack Singley told The Dallas Morning News last week.

No matter where you stand in the illegal-immigration debate, this state of affairs should be unsettling. No one wins when children are on the streets instead of in the classroom. Federal law requires schools to educate children regardless of immigration status. A climate of fear, whether prompted by police action or unsubstantiated rumor, can only disrupt learning and ultimately wastes taxpayer dollars.

The crackdown in Irving – along with Farmers Branch and dozens of other communities across the country – is a reaction to a more profound problem. Local governments are getting involved in immigration enforcement because Washington is too timid to confront it.

Congress has repeatedly failed to tackle the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, a hot potato that few politicians want to handle before the November 2008 elections. Having lost patience, local governments increasingly are intervening, even though immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.

This is an abysmal state of affairs. Members of Congress are fooling themselves if they think immigration reform will somehow get easier the longer they delay it.

We think it's pathetic that Irving schoolchildren are being kept home out of fear. But what's even more pathetic is the fear – of voter reprisal – that is preventing Congress from doing its job.

Farmers in and around Northern California are starting to feel the pinch from tighter border security and visa requirements, NBC11's Daniel Garza reported Monday. Some farmers told Garza they expect some of their fields to remain unpicked. Some said they believe their fields will end up filled with rotting produce.

WATCH VIDEO: Bay Area Farmers: 'Not Enough Workers' | VIEW IMAGES: Farmers' Fears: Too Few Workers

The Bush administration has learned of the possible loss of millions of dollars for thousands of farmers throughout the country, and is attempting to loosen visa requirements for workers. However, farmers told Garza the attempt is "too little too late."

The president has blamed Congress for failing to come up with acceptable new immigration laws. Experts expect the impact on agribusiness to affect Americans' pocketbooks, Garza said.


Working in the fields is a hard job that few will do, according to Pete Aiello of Uesugi Farms in Gilroy. "We'll have guys out in the field as early as 5 o'clock in the morning and the last guys won't leave the field until six or seven o'clock at night," said Uesugi.

Growers said not only is the supply of workers getting smaller, but the federal guest worker program known as the H-2A Visa is too time-consuming.

"When you submit an application often times they can't turn it around for two or three months and by then half our harvest season is gone," Aiello said.

A White House spokesman said it is important for the farm sector to have access to labor.

"I'm really happy the government is about to raise an eyebrow about the situation," Aiello said. "Unfortunately by the time they actually sit down and put their noses to the grind stone and try to implement something, that could be years down the road before it's finally done."

Demonstrators demanding a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants rallied Tuesday, hoping to spur Congress to act before the presidential race takes over the political landscape.

The owner of JJ&F Food Store, John Garcia, said in the long run consumers will feel the impact of fewer farm workers.

"The supply is going to be down," said Garcia. "Demand is going to be up. It's going to increase. It's going to increase a lot."

Spanish speaking in the United States is widespread and accepted by most Americans. But a third who experience this language difference are troubled by it -- and they have distinctly more negative attitudes about immigrants and Hispanics generally.

Just 10 percent of Americans concede any personal prejudice against Hispanics -- far fewer than the number who, in previous polls, have self-reported prejudice on the basis of race, against overweight people, or against Arabs and Muslims.

Nonetheless, among the nearly eight in 10 who hear others who speak mainly in Spanish, a third say it bothers them.

All told, 78 percent in this ABC News "Good Morning America" poll say they often or sometimes come into contact with people in this country who speak mainly Spanish rather than English -- including 55 percent who encounter it "often."

Being bothered by Spanish isn't affected by how often people hear it, meaning other factors are at play. People bothered by Spanish, instead, are those who are more apt to call for stricter immigration rules and to have negative views on immigration generally, particularly on illegal immigration. (This survey, it should be noted, was done in English.)

Immigration

Immigration remains a political challenge; reform efforts fell flat last spring and the public remains of two minds on enforcement. On one hand, just two in 10 say the government is doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country; on the other, most, 58 percent, favor a path to citizenship for those here now -- a program giving illegal immigrants the right to legal status if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.

People who are bothered by interactions with Spanish speakers are decidedly more negative about immigration policy. In this group, 92 percent think the government isn't doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out; that drops to 55 percent of those who are not bothered by Spanish speakers. Support for a path to legal status, similarly, is 19 points higher among people who don't mind Spanish than it is among those who do.

Among other groups, support for tighter borders peaks among non-urban and older Americans, and in the Midwest and South; it's lowest among young adults, Democrats and better-educated Americans. Support for a legal status program is highest among young adults.

Legal vs. Illegal

Broadly, Americans don't have a problem with immigrants in general -- rather with illegal immigrants. Most, 54 percent, say illegal immigrants do more to hurt than to help the country. But 59 percent say the opposite about legal immigrants -- that they do more to help the country than hurt it.

Again, sensitivity to language is associated with these attitudes, especially on illegal immigrants. Among people who are bothered by Spanish speaking, 79 percent say illegal immigrants mainly hurt the country. Among those who don't mind the language difference, vastly fewer -- 39 percent -- agree.

On legal immigrants, the gap in attitudes among those bothered and not bothered by language is both narrower and lower -- 39 to 21 percent -- but still significant.

Partisan differences exist here as well. Majorities of Republicans (55 percent) and independents (60 percent) say illegal immigrants do more to hurt the country than help; Democrats split on this question, 47 percent to 44 percent.

But when it comes to legal immigrants, majorities across the political spectrum see more help than hurt.

Prejudice

As noted, asked to honestly assess their feelings of prejudice against Hispanics, one in 10 concedes harboring at least some such feelings. In ABC News polls in past years, six percent have self-reported prejudice against Jews, 27 percent against Muslims, 25 percent against Arabs, 35 percent against overweight people ("negative feelings" rather than prejudice), and 34 percent have reported "some racist feelings."

Self-reported prejudice rises to 22 percent among people bothered by hearing people who speak mainly Spanish. It's also a bit higher among Republicans (15 percent) than among Democrats or independents.

Looking at it the other way, among people who concede some prejudice toward Hispanics, 73 percent are bothered by contact with Spanish speakers. Among those who do not reporting feelings of prejudice, far fewer -- 28 percent -- are bothered by Spanish. 

There may be a farmworker provision attached to another bill and presented to Congress before the end of the year, but that is very tenuous at this point.

Since the House is set at 435 seats, changes in population never increase the total number of seats. The changes only redistribute the seats. So if the population of Texas increases more than the population of New York, Texas could gain and seat and New York could lose one.

The point of the article is that increasing numbers of illegal aliens in some states could cause those states to gain seats in the House of Representatives, even though the aliens cannot vote. Here are excerpts:

U.S. states with large numbers of undocumented immigrants could receive additional seats in Congress after the 2010 census is conducted.

A University of Connecticut study concluded Arizona, Texas and Florida could all see their House delegations increase due to rising populations that include sizable numbers of illegal immigrants.

Although they can’t vote, such aliens are included in the census. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News predicted Tuesday the pending 2010 headcount could be the subject of a political fight as Democrats and Republicans jockey for position before House seats are reallocated.

The Connecticut study also predicted California and New Jersey would likely keep their current number of seats while states with fewer immigrants, including New York, Illinois and Ohio, will lose a seat or two.

Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back.

His wife faces deportation to Guatemala -- her home country that she hasn't seen since 1989. He also doesn't know what would happen to his young son, Eduardo Jr., if that happens.

"I like being in uniform and serving my country, but if she goes back I'm going to have to give it all up and just get out and take care of my son and get a job," he said.

"Defending the country that's trying to kick my family out is a thought that always runs through my mind."

The U.S. military does not have a policy to deal with such cases. Each is handled case-by-case, not by the military, but by immigration authorities. The government doesn't have numbers on how many military members are in predicaments similar to Gonzalez's.

Immigration officials also said marrying a U.S. citizen does not mean the spouse is automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship or permanent legal status.

Article Correction
An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Eduardo Gonzalez's immigration status when he entered the United States as a boy. He and his family entered the country legally. Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, a member of the U.S. Army Reserves who teaches immigration law at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, said she believes there should be an overall policy dealing with the potential deportation of family members of active duty military members.

"You got to understand. When you're in a combat zone, you need to be focusing all of your energies on fighting the enemy. You can't be worried that your loved ones back home could be shipped off to a foreign country where you're never going to see them again," she said.

Stock also said the government is conflicted about how to treat such cases. On the one hand, the government is supposed to be providing military families with assistance, housing and other forms of benefits while their spouses are overseas. On the other hand, the same government is trying to deport the very same people.

"What's happening right now is, because of the dysfunction and complexity of our immigration laws, we've got people fighting overseas who are facing the impossible situation of having family members facing deportation back home," she said.

In Gonzalez's case, his wife, Mildred, came to the United States with her mother in 1989 when she was 5 years old. They were granted political asylum because of their status as war refugees from Guatemala.

In September 2000, Mildred's mother applied for legalization and included her daughter in that application. Her mother was granted legal status in July 2004, according to Gonzalez.

However, six weeks earlier, Gonzalez and Mildred got married, canceling Mildred's ability to apply for legal status through her mother because she was no longer an unmarried daughter under the age of 21. As a result, her legal status still remains in jeopardy.

A judge in June granted her a one-year extension to remain in the United States. If her legal status does not change by June 8, 2008, she will have 60 days to voluntarily leave the country or face deportation.

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

Gonzalez said that type of response is unjustified. "I'm trying to make his country better -- my country better -- and it should be her country too."

"I understand the laws have to be followed and guidelines and a system must be maintained, but on the other token, there are times when the situation is just out of their reach," Gonzalez said.

His wife, Mildred, added, "We didn't come here to break the law. We just want to feel safe and have a home just like everybody else."

U.S. Army Sgt. Emmanuel Woko, a member of the Army's 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division who faces his third tour in Iraq, understands just how Gonzalez and his family feel. His wife and children could be sent back to Nigeria.

"My heart is bleeding on the thought that my wife could be deported back to Nigeria while I am deployed in Iraq," he said. "I am extremely distressed and distracted by the thought."

That's a sentiment echoed by Gonzalez: "We are not asking for anything. We are just asking for our families to stay with us."

Adopting children from all over the world has steadily increased in the past decade. Over 20,000 inter-country adoptions are taking place per year in addition to the more than 200,000 foreign-adopted children already living in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is proud to play a key role in the inter-country adoption process.

Prospective adoptive parents are encouraged to familiarize themselves with inter-country adoption processes before they begin filing applications for a particular child. A good place to start is with the booklet, The Immigration of Adopted and Prospective Adopted Children.

Prospective adoptive parents may find the services of an adoption agency helpful for guidance and assistance with the immigration of orphans and adopted children. While USCIS cannot recommend specific agencies, we strongly advise prospective adoptive parents to seek out a reputable agency with established foreign adoption experience and/or competent legal representation in their efforts to bring foreign-born orphans into the United States. One place to start looking for an agency is through the adoption advocacy community.

There are two legal ways to bring an adopted child into the country. Please review the differences, as they are important to your successful adoption.

• Immigration/Adoption of child based on 2-years residence through submitting Form I-130: If you adopt a child before the child turns 16 (or 18, as described below), and you live with the child for two years as the child’s primary caregiver, then you may file an I-130 petition for an alien relative. The petition may be filed after the 16th (or 18th if a sibling) birthday, and the two years may culminate after the 16th (or 18th) birthday. (Please note that, generally, all qualifying criteria must be established BEFORE the child may enter the U.S.)
• Immigration/Adoption of an orphan through submitting Form I-600: If you adopt or intend to adopt a child who meets the legal definition of an orphan, you may petition for that child at any time prior to the child’s 16th (or 18th, as described below) birthday, even if the adoption takes place subsequently (and in certain cases, the adoption does not occur until the child comes to the U.S.).

If you are interested in adopting a child from a particular country, we suggest that you consult the Department of State Website web pages addressing Country-Specific Adoption and Important Notices.

These materials alert prospective adoptive parents to conditions that may develop or already exist in foreign adoption cases. International adoption is essentially a private legal matter between a private individual (or couple) who wishes to adopt, and a foreign court, which operates under that country's laws and regulations. U.S. authorities cannot intervene on behalf of prospective parents with the courts in the country where the adoption takes place. The adoption of a foreign-born orphan does not automatically guarantee the child's eligibility to immigrate to the United States. Also, the adoptive parent needs to be aware of U.S. immigration law and legal regulatory procedures. An orphan cannot legally immigrate to the United States without USCIS processing.

Adopting Older Children - “Aging Out” of Eligibility to Immigrate Through Adoption.

If you are considering adopting an older child, you should be aware of the age limits on eligibility for adoptions and immigration, regardless of whether or not your state laws permit the adoption of older children (or even adults).

U.S. law allows the adoption and immigration of children who are under 16 years of age, with two exceptions:

• Biological siblings of a child adopted by the same parents may be adopted if under 18 years of age; and
• Orphans over the age of 16 may be adopted, as long as the I-600 petition was filed on their behalf before their 16th birthday (or in the case of an orphan who is the sibling of a child adopted by the same parents, before their 18th birthday).

I have posted before about Irving's participation in the Criminal Alien Program, in which the Irving police call the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement department pretty much any time they detain a Latino without proper immigration paperwork. This has resulted in illegal aliens being deported because they committed traffic violations, regardless of the positive contributions they may have made to the community in the years they lived here.

The editorial is so good, I'm going to take the liberty of publishing it in its entirety. Please don't tell  the Dallas Morning News...

When the Irving City Council adopted the Criminal Alien Program earlier this year, it was in response to the mounting pressure from the community and a council member to participate in the federal program 287g, an immigration enforcement section of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

The majority of the City Council wanted no part of 287g ,and neither did Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd, partly because city jailers would come under the supervision of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and partly because ICE wants the city to underwrite the cost of implementing the program. The minority community wanted no part of 287g because it gave wide discretion for police officers to pick people off the streets who looked suspiciously Hispanic and maybe undocumented.

Long before the City Council formally adopted the Criminal Alien Program, Chief Boyd established a working relationship with ICE, whose district offices were in Irving and whose nearby agents were invited on a regular basis to make a sweep of Irving jails. ICE did identify criminal illegal aliens and had them deported.

When a resolution came before the city council to adopt the Criminal Alien Program, it did so with the support of the minority leadership of Irving, including those Hispanics outside of Irving who are now organizing protests denouncing the program.

The Criminal Alien Program was seen as a better alternative to 287g. It rid our communities of criminal illegal aliens who were drug dealers and other felons preying on our community.

So why did it turn sour?

ICE moved its office from Irving to Dallas, and the agents who had regularly entered Irving jails were no longer available to make on-site visits. Face-to-face interviews switched to telephone interviews. The procedure now had jailers deciding when to call ICE for a telephone interview with a detainee.

If a jailer can't establish identity, call ICE.

That's the rub.

When it was reported that ICE was now deporting 300 people a month (mostly Hispanic), suspicions were aroused. And rightly so. Individuals were turned over to ICE for traffic violations and failure to provide proper identification, in some cases for public intoxication.

Traffic citations are nothing new. What changed is that now there are consequences for these traffic violations in Irving. ICE is in the picture under the Criminal Alien Program.

What didn't change were the old practices for processing individuals to determine identification. No identification? You speak Spanish? Call ICE. Irving police say this procedure applies to everyone without regard to race. Maybe.

What the demonstrations and shouting matches did was call to our attention that there are flaws in the Criminal Alien Program.

Now that the shouting has stopped, it is time for the mayor, the police chief and the minority leadership in Irving to come up with workable guidelines for the program palatable to all sides.

For example, at what point should jailers call in ICE, especially when they detain Spanish speakers with limited English speaking ability? Entering the United States is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, so why equate one with the other?

Most traffic violations – driving without a license or public intoxication – are all class C misdemeanors. It is certainly less serious than a felony. So maybe felonies should be the triggering mechanism to call in ICE. Failure to show proof of identity is cause for being taken to jail for fingerprinting. But if fingerprinting brings up no criminal record or outstanding warrants, does calling ICE have to be the next step?

These are all important questions for the mayor, police chief and minority leadership in Irving to consider.

There is no indication that the City Council is going to rescind the Criminal Alien Program, even though fear of police is spreading throughout Irving's Hispanic community. Stories of random police stops to check IDs are beginning to surface.

It's time for Irving to take back its city and regain control of a program gone bad. A solution-based dialogue is an important first step.

René Castilla is executive dean of North Lake College South Irving Center and chairman of the Mayor's Human Relations Advisory Committee. His e-mail address is castilla@dcccd.edu.

The ban further delayed the start of a rule, which establishes steps an employer must follow after receiving a notice from the Social Security Administration, known as a no-match letter, reporting that an employee’s identity information does not match the agency’s records. According to the rule, originally scheduled to take effect Sept. 14, if the employee cannot clarify the mismatch within 90 days, the employer would be required to fire the worker or risk prosecution for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Those immigrants often provide false Social Security numbers when applying for jobs.

“It is clear to me at this point there would be irreparable harm to the plaintiffs,” Judge Breyer commented at the end of the hearing, rejecting the government’s main argument. “It just seems to me looking at it that this is a potentially enormous burden on the employer,” the judge said, adding that he would issue a ruling within 10 days.

The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and several San Francisco labor organizations. They were joined by the United States Chamber of Commerce and several national small business associations.

In court documents, the business groups argued that the impact of the rule in terms of hiring and training office workers to comply with the new procedures and deadlines, and firing employees whose discrepancies were not resolved in time, would be “substantial, immediate and irreparable.”

The labor organizations said that Social Security’s records contained many errors that could lead to legal workers, including American citizens, being unjustly fired under the new rule.

The government countered that the rule did not represent any departure from current immigration laws or impose any new burdens on employers, but was designed to help employers by clarifying past confusion about what they had to do to comply with the law.

Businesses across San Luis Obispo County are closely watching a federal court decision expected Monday that could lead to greater workplace enforcement of illegal immigration.

The decision involves the legality of a new U.S. Department of Homeland Security rule that focuses on a company’s responsibility in verifying employment eligibility, based on letters that the Social Security Administration sends out.

“The rule has a lot of people fearful because there are many employers on the Central Coast that have received those letters in the past,” said Richard Quandt, president of the Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. “They assume they will receive them again.”

At issue are new responsibilities that businesses would have to assume to verify the legal status of their workers. Failure to do so could subject a business to fines or even criminal charges, should an investigation be done and the firm be found to have knowingly employed workers without legal residency.

For nearly three decades, the Social Security Administration has contacted employees when their name and Social Security number do not match. Employers with more than 10 employees with mismatches also get a letter, also known as the “no-match” notification.

Until now, employers were recommended to not take any adverse action against an employee based solely on the letter.

But the nature of the letters is set to change as the government puts a greater onus on employers.

In August, Homeland Security announced that no-match letters would now be accompanied by notices from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the largest investigative arm of the department. Outlining what it calls a “safe harbor” for employers, the ICE insert identifies the necessary steps that will protect employers from civil fines or criminal charges.

Homeland Security clearly states that receiving a no-match letter and not following the guidelines could be construed as knowingly employing illegal immigrants.

However, a lawsuit filed in late August by several labor union groups, including the AFL-CIO, halted distribution of the letters, which was set to begin in mid-September. The suit claims that the rules would violate workers’ rights and unfairly burden employers.

A judge with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California then issued a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking the Social Security Administration from sending the letters with the inserts. The order is in effect until Monday, when another federal judge will decide how to proceed.

“It’s important for employers to know we have dramatically increased enforcement, and are increasingly relying on criminal prosecution of businesses, as opposed to fining them, as we have done in the past,” said Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for ICE.

Indeed, work-site enforcement targeting illegal immigrants is up substantially in the last two years. Criminal prosecutions nationally have jumped from 25 in 2002 to 176 in 2005 to 742 in the first seven months of 2007. Felony charges that can be brought include harboring illegal immigrants, which carries a potential 10-year prison sentence, and money laundering, which can mean a potential 20-year prison term.

Homeland Security has also announced that in the near future, the penalty for this offense will increase by about 25 percent. Currently, the fines range from $275 to $2,200 per worker for the first violation and increase for additional violations.

“We have discovered that fines are not effective; many people consider that the cost of doing business,” Kice said. “People should know we are also ready to seize a business’s assets, as we have done in a recent case.”

California businesses are set to receive most of the letters that are going to about 140,000 employers. The Social Security Administration has posted on its Web site that it intends to send out 35,675 no-match letters to California employers this year for the 2006 tax year. That’s nearly three times more than the next highest-scrutinized state, Texas. County-specific data are not available.

County employers—across industries such as agriculture, construction, lodging, restaurants and health care — are confused and concerned about the rules and the extent to which they will be enforced.

“There is a fair amount of misunderstanding among employers about this rule,” said Carl Borden, associate counsel with the California Farm Bureau Federation in Sacramento. He has been making presentations over the past month about the rule to agriculturalists throughout California, including a stop in Paso Robles.

“Merely failing to follow the rules doesn’t in and of itself put them in jeopardy. But following it does protect them in the future,” Borden said.

Borden explained that fear is one of the intended goals of the new rule.

“Regardless of how the court case turns, I’m sure we are going to see some high-profile enforcement actions,” he said. “Part of that will be to scare all employers into thinking that they better follow the safe-harbor steps.”

In announcing the rules, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff acknowledged that the agency would “rely on a lot of self-policing” like with the tax code.

That’s because the Social Security Administration is prohibited from sharing private data with other governmental agencies such as Homeland Security. No-match related fines and charges are anticipated to arise if there are employer audits or raids, Borden said. The letter is evidence of “constructive knowledge of an employee’s lack of work authorization.”

“There are some real enforcement issues with this,” he said. “A lot of what it comes down to is deterrence.”

That “puts the employer in the position of being the policemen,” said Karen Ross, president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers.

Dana Merrill, president of Mesa Vineyard Management in Templeton, has attended four different presentations on the rule, and says he is still somewhat hazy on what is going to happen when the safe harbor timeline expires. His company employs about 150 people and hires an additional 200 workers through labor contractors during peak periods.

“I think employers want to do the right thing, but we’re not clear what that is,” said Merrill, who has received no-match letters in the past. “We are hearing some pretty scary stories about what could happen to employers if we don’t follow the steps, but I don’t know if we’ll get sued if we fire people.”

Ross said that this is a common worry because employers must operate within strict parameters to avoid the potential of discrimination lawsuits. Homeland Security recommends employee termination if a Social Security mismatch can’t be cleared up or the employee’s employment eligibility is not re-verified within 93 days.

But the existing Social Security guidelines — which remain unchanged—specifically state that employers should not use the letter alone “to take any adverse action against an employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing or discriminating against an employee.”

“We have gotten so many calls and questions,” Ross said. “Employers are scared. They are not sure how to act, and they are worried that employees will be scared away from the job.”

We had to tell this good-hearted military man that the United States has been embarrassingly slow to admit any Iraqi citizens into our country, including those who risked their lives by helping our military. This year alone, Switzerland has accepted thousands of Iraqi refugees, while the United States has accepted only a few hundred, almost all of those in the past two months.

However, there may be something that can be done for these people. Depending on the exact situations and the eligibilities, they may be able to enter the U.S. as Special Immigrants. Translators for the U.S. Armed Forces may be eligible to enter the United States, and are protected under the National Defense Authorization Act.  To benefit from this act they must demonstrate the following:

• National of Iraq or Afghanistan;
• worked directly with U.S. Armed Forces as a translator for a period of at least 12 months;
• obtained a favorable written recommendation from a general or flag officer in the chain of command;
• cleared a background check and screening as determined by the general or flag officer before filing the petition; and
• they are otherwise admissible except for 212(a)(4) (public charge)

They must file their petitions on form I-360.  The biggest hurdle to overcome is that there are only 50 visas available per year. Spouse and children may accompany or follow to join if the principal applicant is approved.

Whether you're a legal or illegal immigrant or an American citizen, it can be helpful to know how best to avoid being stopped by the police for any reason.

First and foremost, know and obey all traffic laws. The best source for learning the rights and responsibilities of Texas drivers is the Texas Drivers Handbook, available free from the Web site of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Obviously the police will, and should, stop any driver who runs a red light, speeds, doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or commits some other major traffic violation. But police look for other, less obvious, driving errors also. They are trained to do this in order to get drunk drivers off the road, but it's a good idea for each of us to know what activities might catch the eye of a patrol officer.

There are preventive steps you can take to avoid being stopped. Many of these steps will help you avoid making the driving mistakes that might lead a police officer to decide to pull you over.

Let's assume you are about to drive a car. If you are at all uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the car you are driving, you are much more likely to make mistakes or drive erratically. And if you are not driving well, you are more likely to get stopped by a police officer.

If you are driving a car you are not used to—a friend’s car, a car you just bought, or a car you have not driven in awhile—it is important that you take a moment to remind yourself where everything is before you start to drive: emergency brake, transmission, turn signals, windshield wipers, headlights, high beams, hazard lights, and so on. To get an overall feel for the car, just grip the steering wheel and put your foot on the brake. Also make sure that the seat and steering wheel are adjusted properly for you.

Taking a few seconds to do this is especially important if you are used to driving a car with a different kind of transmission. If, say, you are driving an automatic when you are accustomed to a manual, spending a minute or two to familiarize yourself with the car can make the difference between getting where you are going safely and slamming on the brake in a frantic search for a non-existent clutch.

Also make sure everything on the outside of your vehicle is in working order and that your vehicle registration tags are current. Police officers often use a minor vehicle infraction like broken taillights or expired registration tags as a reason to stop a vehicle. Things like broken taillights are especially likely to get you pulled over at night when they can be easily seen.

Before you start driving, know where you are going, how to get there, and how to get back home. Getting lost and trying to find the right road will inevitably lead to errors in your driving.

If the unfortunate occurs, and you are stopped, know your rights and what to expect when you are pulled over.

If you have any questions about these matters, please contact Kraft & Associates.

Obviously there are two schools of thought on this subject. One is that any person here illegally should be found and deported. The other is that a city has no business trying to enforce a federal law, and it's disruptive to the community and to the lives of individuals for good, hard-working people to be deported just because they got traffic tickets.

Here are excerpts from the Dallas Morning News article:

Angered over a record number of recent deportations in Irving, more than 1,000 protesters waved U.S. flags and chanted "We are America" as they rallied Wednesday night at City Hall.

Demonstrators called for Irving officials to put a moratorium on turning over suspected illegal immigrants to federal officials until immigration laws are reformed nationally. They also urged people to call Mayor Herbert Gears and ask him to stop deporting people from the city's jail.

"We need to raise our voice and we need to ask for changes about the things we don't like here," said Hector Flores, a leader in Irving's Hispanic community.

A few people who support the deportations carried signs in favor of the illegal immigration enforcement.

"Our compassion starts at home, and our charity starts at home," said Sue Richardson, a longtime Irving resident and vice president of the Greater Irving Republican Club.

At the heart of the contention is Irving police's use of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Criminal Alien Program. The plan provides for round-the-clock communication with federal authorities and is designed to detain illegal immigrants who have been accused of a crime. It's the latest tool being used by local governments in the absence of a federal overhaul of immigration laws.

"It does not deal with illegal aliens; it deals with criminal illegal aliens," said Irving City Council member Tom Spink.

Tensions over the practice have simmered for months among residents, officials and City Council colleagues. But the program has recently become a lightning rod for controversy with publicity about the growing number of people Irving police hand over to federal officials for deportation each month.

Opponents say police are overzealous. Supporters believe the program is the perfect answer to a national problem. And some residents and council members say police still aren't going far enough to combat illegal immigration.

Irving police have turned over at least 1,600 people to Immigration and Customs Enforcement since June 2006. In response, Mexican Consul Enrique Hubbard Urrea last week warned immigrants from his country to avoid Irving. And community leader Carlos Quintanilla said he would organize a boycott of Irving businesses if the city persisted.

Opponents of the program say Irving police are unfairly targeting Hispanics. They say that many Hispanics have become afraid of police and that families are being torn apart as parents are deported thousands of miles from their children.

"This isn't justice," said Deyla Reyes, a Northlake College student. "We need to stop this. These people have come here to work. We cannot support this program."

Many people at the rally accused Irving police of racial profiling and turning Hispanics over for deportation because of minor traffic infractions.

"We're not just hurting people driving without driver's licenses," said Luis DeLaGarza, a political consultant who helped organize the rally. "We are hurting the economy in Irving. We need to have immigration reform."

Mr. Gears said a major part of the problem isn't Irving's policy. Instead, it's lack of knowledge of the law. He said many people – including natural-born citizens and legal immigrants – aren't aware of consequences that come with traffic citations, which can include license suspension. And many minorities, he said, wrongly assume that police officers who ask for identification are trying to prove citizenship.

Mr. Gears said he has overseen investigations into every complaint about the program but has found no wrongdoing or malice on the department's part.

The Senate voted this past week to ban (again) Mexican trucks from U.S. highways.  By a 74-24 vote, the Senate approved a proposal by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) prohibiting the Department of Transportation from spending money on its pilot program  to give Mexican trucks greater access to the United States

A poor illegal immigrant who goes to the John Peter Smith Hospital emergency room in Fort Worth gets the same care at the same price as any other indigent resident.

The Rev. Sergio Diaz is working to expand health care services available for illegal immigrants in Tarrant County.

But the same person who goes to a JPS clinic for nonemergency treatment is often faced with a hefty bill. Unlike other large urban public hospital systems in Texas, JPS excludes illegal immigrants from its charity program that provides preventive healthcare.

Trying to balance politics, medicine and money, the Tarrant County Hospital Board of Managers will debate and possibly decide Tuesday whether to spend millions to provide free or low-cost nonemergency medical care to thousands of illegal immigrants.

The Rev. Sergio Diaz of Iglesia San Miguel, an Episcopal church in Fort Worth, said he has been fighting for this issue because of the damage caused by inadequate health care. He said members of his church – many of them illegal immigrants – can't get preventive health care and that some have died from complications from treatable diseases such as diabetes.

"This touches my heart because most of my people are immigrants," said Mr. Diaz, a member of Allied Communities of Tarrant. "I've seen a lot of people suffering."

Health care has become a major part of the national debate about illegal immigration, and the costs even led Dallas County officials to send bills to Mexico and other countries demanding payment for some of its expenses at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

The debate has also been simmering for more than a year in Tarrant County, where Allied Communities of Tarrant, a coalition of churches and social-justice activists, has pushed for the expansion of charity care. At the same time, a local conservative group favoring a crackdown on illegal immigration has been urging the board to retain the existing policy.

Dennis Killy, a member of the Tarrant Alliance for Responsible Government, said expanding cheap health care to illegal immigrants is an insult to citizens and to those who came to the United States legally. It simply rewards those who ignore federal law, he said.

"Where does it end?" Mr. Killy said. "When do we stop paying our tax money for something we're getting nothing for?"

Mr. Killy said he believes a significant majority of board members support his group's position and would not change the JPS policy. Officials with Allied Communities of Tarrant said they think it's going to be a closer vote.

Three board members, Erma C. Johnson Hadley, Dan Serna and Ronnie W. Coulson, all declined to comment on how they might vote.

"It's my obligation to leave my mind open," Mr. Serna said.

Mrs. Johnson Hadley, board chairwoman, said this is a difficult decision that generates strong opinions and mixed emotions among many people. She said she met with Sen. John Cornyn and told him that this is something that needs to be addressed in Washington.

"We feel somewhat put out that we're having to deal with a federal issue," she said.

People supporting a tougher stance on illegal immigration see this as a critical financial issue. They worry that a change in policy will cost taxpayers dearly.

The cost of this possible expansion, however, depends on who's adding the numbers.

The hospital district hired Phase 2 Consulting of Austin to conduct a study, which was released in July.

Estimating the number of illegal immigrants in Tarrant County at 107,000, the study calculated that expanding the charity program would cost the hospital district an additional $41.3 million right now. That number would increase to $114.4 million by 2017, according to the study.

Allied Communities of Tarrant conducted its own study in February that came to a dramatically different conclusion. Quoting 18th-century literary figure Samuel Johnson and a passage from the Bible's book of Leviticus in the introduction, the alternative study estimated the cost to be between $2 million and $4.2 million added to the hospital district's $600 million-plus budget.

Parkland officials estimated their cost for nonemergency care for illegal immigrants was $22.4 million in the past year – about halfway between the two Tarrant County estimates.

Patricia Gaffney, a member of Allied Communities of Tarrant who helped research and write the report, challenged some of the basic assumptions of the Phase 2 study. She said that study projects a 56 percent increase in Tarrant County's illegal immigrant population in the next decade even though federal reports show that illegal immigration is decreasing.

Ms. Gaffney also said the Phase 2 study overestimates the number of illegal immigrants who would use the service. Many are wary of government programs because of their immigration status, she said.

Mr. Killy said he is more likely to believe an independent, third-party report than one created by a group advocating for one side of the issue.

Dave McElwee, another member of Tarrant Alliance for Responsible Government, said that aside from the immediate cost, he also worries about the message that expanded health care would send.

"I think there ought to be programs for the indigent but not for those in the country illegally," he said. "All this does is act as a magnet for other illegals." 

If the board votes Tuesday to expand health care, it's not clear how quickly such a change would be implemented, JPS senior vice president Robert Earley said. He said the board and Tarrant County Commissioners have already approved the 2007-08 budget, and no funds are set aside for additional health care costs for illegal immigrants.

This is the second time this issue has come up for Tarrant County. For part of 2004, the board opened up all its programs to illegal immigrants. JPS officials were uncertain about whether a new state law allowed or mandated them to provide nonemergency charity services to illegal immigrants. Mr. Early said a ruling by the Texas attorney general and statements of intent from the sponsor clarified that the law didn't require the expansion.

At the time, JPS officials said the expanded program cost them up to $4 million for six months. Mr. Earley said the participation was probably limited three years ago because the program wasn't actively promoted by the hospital district and there were questions about how long it would last.

The board voted in August 2004 to make immigration status a factor for the JPS charity nonemergency care.

Officials with Allied Communities of Tarrant and the Texas Hospital Association also said most urban public hospitals in the state don't limit health care service because of immigration status, but neither had conducted a comprehensive study.

Dr. Ron Anderson, chief executive of Parkland Memorial Hospital, which does not exempt illegal immigrants from its charity programs, said the decision by JPS did not affect his system.

But he said that it makes sense to get all low-income residents preventive health care in neighborhood clinics. When he came to Parkland in 1982, the system had no clinics and about 182,000 emergency-room visits annually.

Since then, the system opened neighborhood clinics countywide, and the emergency-room visits fell to 145,000 even though the population has nearly doubled.

"The truth is, if you don't provide this care in the clinic, you'll provide this service in the emergency room," Dr. Anderson said.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would be the first Hispanic U.S. president, said, "I object to the dehumanizing of people that want to be part of the American dream."

He and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd are the two fluent Spanish speakers in the Democratic field.

"The politics of fear are the most dangerous politics in our country, and those people who deal with fear and frighten the American people on this issue ought to be dealt with accordingly," Dodd said at the University of Miami debate, billed as a discussion of issues crucial to Hispanic voters.

Hispanics are the country's biggest and fastest-growing minority group, accounting for about 15 percent of the population and at least 14 million potential voters in 2008.

President George W. Bush won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, but Democrats see a growing opportunity to win over Hispanics alienated by the hard-line Republican stance on immigration.

Efforts at a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws collapsed in the U.S. Congress amid a bitter debate on the future of undocumented workers and illegal immigrants in the United States, many of whom are Hispanic.

The Democrats condemned a bill passed last year by the then Republican-led House of Representatives but never approved by the full Congress that cracked down on illegal aliens and boosted border security efforts.

Richardson lampooned plans to build a fence along the Mexican border to protect against illegal immigration.

"If you're going to build a 12-foot wall, you know what's going to happen? A bunch of 13-foot ladders," Richardson said.

But Clinton, Obama and Dodd defended their votes to build a wall, included in a Senate immigration bill not passed by the full Congress, as a necessary part of greater border security.

"We've got to secure our borders. That has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform," Clinton said.

The questions were asked in Spanish and the candidates heard English translations through earpieces. All the candidates answered in English and were translated for the Spanish-language audience.

Richardson complained about the restrictions on speaking in Spanish.

"I'm very proud to be the first major Latino candidate to run for president," said Richardson, adding he was "disappointed" that 43 million Latinos would not "hear one of their own speak Spanish."

While there very well may be economic self-interests at play in these protests, the Teamsters say their primary concern is the safety aspect of allowing Mexican trucks onto U.S. highways.

The U.S. plans to grant permission to approximately 100 Mexican trucking companies by the end of 2007. This is part of a one-year pilot program intended to discover whether it would be safe to eventually allow all Mexican trucking companies into the United States.

Despite assurances from the U.S. government that all Mexican trucks will be inspected for drugs and for illegal immigrants, that the trucks will meet safety regulations, and that the drivers will be well-trained, there is considerable uncertainty among many Americans.

Because the main highway from Mexico into the U.S. runs through the Texas cities of Laredo, San Antonio, Austin, Waco, Dallas, and Fort Worth, we may find out fairly soon whether Texas drivers will be exposed to unusual dangers from the Mexican trucks.