Nation S Immigration

Re "A silly sting," editorial, March 6 To say that city of Orange authorities have better things to do than enforce federal immigration laws is simply not true. Arresting these people and getting them out of our country should be the job of all of our law enforcement agencies. To say that we should not arrest them because they will be back is illogical. They are breaking the law and stealing jobs from legal persons. By working for nonliving wages, illegal immigrants have taken over whole job sectors that were filled by people who used to do the work for a living wage.

It was no surprise to learn last week that Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., will seek reelection. The 79-year-old sheriff has shrugged off lawsuits, investigations and allegations that he practices unconstitutional policing that routinely violates the rights of Latinos. Arpaio regards all of that as a political campaign led by those who seek to use him "as the whipping boy for a national and international problem. " So why not run? In one sense, Arpaio is right. Congress' failure to provide a comprehensive fix to the nation's irrational immigration system has fueled widespread frustration among Republicans and Democrats alike.

The nation's immigration chief declared the government's alien amnesty program an unqualified success, but Democrats on a House committee assailed his "miserly" opposition to its extension. Alan C. Nelson, commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, told members of a House immigration subcommittee that applications from aliens, including those filed under a separate seasonal agricultural worker program, are approaching 1.5 million, "a very dramatic total."

Among Republican presidential candidates, it's been demagoguery as usual. Why have a substantive debate when you can exchange inflammatory sound bites instead, especially on immigration? But something surprising happened last week far from the campaign trail — on Capitol Hill, of all places. Just when we thought Congress would never act to address the nation's broken immigration system, members of the House made a critical breakthrough, voting overwhelmingly to approve a fix that will make American companies more competitive and the immigration system fairer and more welcoming.

In their 113-year history, the nation's immigration services have never been well run. The Treasury, Commerce, Labor and Justice departments each had control of what is now called the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and none managed the task effectively. Now the newly created Homeland Security Department gets a shot. So far, it's off target. As the actions of 19 foreign nationals made clear in September 2001, even this nation of immigrants can't afford to let people traipse willy-nilly across its borders and then disappear.

Much of the article "Some Immigrants Meet Harsh Face of Justice" (Feb. 12) details the behavior of certain immigration judges. U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales' recently announced review of the nation's immigration courts will examine this type of conduct, and I expect that many positive recommendations will be forthcoming. Although some criticism of our court system is legitimate, The Times accused the immigration judge corps of "racial bias and lack of cultural sensitivity." Such a statement is irresponsible.

Re "A Federal Responsibility--Period," editorial, Feb. 13: The Times argues that our local police have no role in immigration law enforcement. In the 1998 Vasquez case, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court decision that there was a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." Under Section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Congress sought to formalize cooperation between local law enforcement and the INS. Only a recalcitrant Atty.

It sounds counterintuitive, but since the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the prevailing wisdom in Washington has been that the way to earn public support for allowing this country's approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship is for the federal government to vigorously prosecute violations of immigration law. Tough enforcement, in other words, will convince Americans that reform is warranted. To that end, the Obama administration picked up where its predecessor left off -- adding miles of new fencing and hundreds of new agents to the border and deporting undocumented immigrants at a record-breaking pace.

Re "Teen Is Snared in Post- 9/11 Security Net," Feb. 9: The poignant story of Alfredo Salas is all too common in the United States, particularly in California today. Indeed, Salas' circumstances are an indictment of the poorly crafted and enforced U.S. immigration laws, but it does not stand to reason that the most equitable mechanism for addressing the young man's situation is deportation. Salas knows no home other than the U.S., and finds himself caught in a quandary whose origins he had little to do with.

The Reagan Administration will issue preliminary regulations for the new immigration law today, which for the first time will require U.S. citizens to prove their legal residence in this country, an Administration source, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said. The rules also would require aliens to show they have been authorized to work in the United States and order employers to make a good faith effort to determine the validity of the authorization papers.

The U.S. has deported more than 160,000 immigrants, the vast majority of whom had no legal representation — and signed documents they may not have understood — under a program that carries severe penalties should they reenter the country, a report released Thursday said. According to the National Immigration Law Center and professors at Stanford Law School and Western State University College of Law, immigrants often signed the so-called stipulated removals because they believed it was the only way to avoid prolonged detention.

A Chicago group has filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the Department of Homeland Security, charging that its practice of asking local police to detain immigrants when there's no evidence of illegal activity is unconstitutional. At issue is the use of an immigration detainer, a key component of Homeland Security's Secure Communities program. It is a request from the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement to another law enforcement agency to hold people so that ICE can investigate their immigration status and potentially take over custody.

Utah won national attention this year for promoting a gentler approach to immigration when it passed a law essentially allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the state if they work and don't commit crimes. Yet on Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center filed a federal lawsuit to stop the implementation next week of another Utah immigration law, one modeled on a controversial Arizona law that enlists local police to help root out illegal immigrants.

Federal policy on immigration has tilted toward enforcement in recent years, and the number of deportation proceedings has risen sharply. As a result, the nation's detention centers, where immigrants often are held while their cases are adjudicated, have become increasingly overburdened. One of the many negative consequences of the 60% increase in the number of people held since 2004 is detainees' dwindling access to legal counsel. Having a lawyer makes a difference. A 2005 Migration Policy Institute study found that the odds of success double when detainees seeking to become lawful permanent citizens have attorneys.

It sounds counterintuitive, but since the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the prevailing wisdom in Washington has been that the way to earn public support for allowing this country's approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship is for the federal government to vigorously prosecute violations of immigration law. Tough enforcement, in other words, will convince Americans that reform is warranted. To that end, the Obama administration picked up where its predecessor left off -- adding miles of new fencing and hundreds of new agents to the border and deporting undocumented immigrants at a record-breaking pace.

Retiree Sam Jones wakes up each day and puts his graying hair in a ponytail, a .45-caliber automatic on his right hip and the U.S. Constitution in his back pocket. He is a man who knows how to make a statement. So for Jones, and others like him in this desert outpost, it was a no-brainer when town leaders wanted to send a message to its growing immigrant community.

ATLANTA Marching for 'Great Impact' Feliciano Tavira was set to build a front porch on an $800,000 home Monday. Tavira would have earned $180, but he turned it down. Instead, he ate ham sandwiches with his girlfriend and two daughters before they drove to Georgia's Capitol to march with thousands of countrymen. The decision weighed on him.

Do you know anyone who came here from another country? Aaron Copland did. He was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., in the year 1900, but his parents came here from different villages in Russia. Copland became one of our best-known American composers. He wrote music for piano, orchestra, ballet and even the movies. He is famous for a ballet composition titled "Appalachian Spring." The music tells the story of a springtime celebration by a group of American pioneers.