by Frank James

Reporters received an e-mail today of a website posting from ALIPAC, a group that's part of Americans for Legal Immigration which opposes comprehensive immigration reform. The posting expressed outrage at Sen. Barack Obama's comments made earlier in the week at a Georgia campaign stop:

In case you missed it, Obama said the following:

"I don't understand when people are going around saying, 'We need to have English only.' They want to pass a law 'We want English only.' Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English. They'll learn English. You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language. It's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup, right?" (crowd applauds.)

Responding to Obama, the ALIPAC posting says in part:

Barrack (sic) Obama has stepped on a political land mine by stating Americans should be forced to learn to speak Spanish.

YouTube videos showing his speech have gone viral and the new media is quickly distributing his comments, which are opposed by approximately 4 out of 5 Americans according to Rasmussen Report polling from last month, which shows Eighty-three percent (83%) place a higher priority on encouraging immigrants to speak English as their primary language. Just 13% take the opposite view and say it is more important for Americans to learn other languages.

But what looks like a land mine to some is a stepping stone to others.

First off, it's not like Obama ever had much of a chance with voters who agree with ALIPAC in being completely opposed to any path that would provide legal status to illegal immigrants. Obama, after all, favors giving undocumented immigrants drivers licenses. At least that's what he said during a Democratic debate a few months back.

But his statement about the need for teaching children Spanish will be interpreted by many as showing respect for one of the world's great cultures. It will likely play very well with many Hispanic voters who are themselves bilingual and view bilingualism as positive, not an evil.

by Matthew Hay Brown

Growing up in the West African nation of Mali, Alima Traore assumed that girls everywhere had to undergo the procedure.

"In my country, it is usually an old lady" who performs the crude surgery, the 29-year-old woman said in her attorney's office. "They have a traditional knife for it. They cut your intimate parts. This knife is used for many girls."

It wasn't until Traore came to the United States eight years ago that she learned that female genital mutilation has been condemned the world over as a human rights abuse. Now that she's here - she has been living in Maryland since 2000 - she doesn't want to go back.

Traore's fight against deportation - her student visa expired in 2003 - has put her at the center of a growing dispute between rights groups and the Bush administration over whether victims of the practice also known as female circumcision, or female genital cutting, qualify for asylum here.

Read about the debate in today's Baltimore Sun.

In considering her case last fall, the Board of Immigrations Appeals described the "infliction of FGM" as "reprehensible." But the board, a tribunal within the Department of Justice, ruled that Traore does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution if she were to return to Mali, because the damage, though permanent, has already been done.

That interpretation, which now is binding on immigration judges, has drawn criticism from rights advocates, physicians and others, who say it defies federal case law and reverses the board's own reasoning in earlier, similar cases.

by Jim Tankersley

At a basic level, the art of presidential politics is knowing just how far you can drift from your "base" supporters and still win their votes. It's an art both John McCain and Barack Obama practiced heavily last week.

Fresh from securing the Democratic nomination, Obama rankled liberals with a series of policy announcements that seem targeted at moderate swing voters, including: supporting a compromise bill on federal government phone surveillance, opposing a Supreme Court decision barring the death penalty for child rapists and carefully phrasing his reaction to a Court decision striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban to express no judgment on whether he believes the ban was constitutional.

McCain, meanwhile, reopened a longtime feud with conservatives by slamming Obama for allegedly helping to kill a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate. McCain sponsored that bill, but charges from his rivals that it constituted "amnesty" for illegal immigrants forced the Arizona senator to back away from it during the GOP primaries.

It's easy to see which groups both men are courting. McCain is after Latinos, a voting bloc that could sway the election in states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida. In the parlance of the 2004 election, Obama appears to be after rural "NASCAR dads" who favor gun rights and suburban "security moms" who worry about crime and terrorist attacks.

Tacking to the center for a general election is a time-honored tradition in presidential politics. But the strategy could carry particular risk for both these candidates.

by Rick Pearson

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is going after Republican rival Sen. John McCain, questioning whether the Arizona senator is offering contradictory language on the hot-button issue of immigration reform following a closed-door meeting McCain held with activists during a recent trip to Chicago.

The criticism leveled by Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, marked a day of accusations between the Obama and McCain camps over which presumptive presidential nominee is more guilty of political doublespeak--a shorthand way to describe pandering versus truth telling. The Obama camp's move may be aimed at deflecting criticism the Democratic candidate said one thing--promising to negotiate a pact with McCain on public financing--and did another by rejecting it.

In the aftermath of McCain's closed-door visit with more than 100 Hispanic leaders on Wednesday--sandwiched into a fundraising visit by the Republican contender--a conservative anti-illegal immigration activist who attended the meeting contended McCain was offering conservatives one view of immigration reform while telling Latinos another.

In the meeting, attendees said McCain promised that, if elected, Congress would pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. That's anathema to people like Rosanna Pulido, the director of the Illinois Minuteman Project, who attended the event. Pulido said McCain used the phrase "comprehensive immigration reform" three times. "To me, it's a code word for amnesty" for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, she said.

by Matthew Hay Brown

Maryland's highest court has rejected a Pakastani man's attempt to invoke talaq, the Islamic divorce that enables a man to dissolve his marriage by telling his wife "I divorce thee" three times.

Farah Aleem already had filed for divorce in Montgomery County Circuit Court in 2003 when her husband went to the Pakstiani Embassy in Washington to invoke the talaq.

By doing so, World Bank economist Irfan Aleem argued, he ended the marriage and did not owe his wife a share of his assets, valued at $2 million.

The state Court of Appeals disagreed.

"If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property," the judges ruled.

The talaq, they wrote, "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation."

Nick Madigan of The Baltimore Sun has the rest of the story, after the jump.

bv Matthew Hay Brown

An Idaho high school teacher put a student's Mexican flag in a garbage can this week, fueling a protest from the community's Latino popluation, according to news reports.

Froyland Camelo told The Times-News of Twin Falls that he was celebrating Cinco de Mayo on Monday at Minico High School in Rupert when a physical education teacher "grabbed" the flag from him. When the 16-year-old ninth-grader asked for the flag back, he said, teacher Clint Straatman taunted him.

"I said, 'What's the problem?'" Camelo told the newspaper. "He said, 'The problem is that we are in the United States and not in Mexico.' He grabbed it from me. He threw the flag in the garbage can."

Straatman acknowledged taking the flag and putting it in the garbage can, but said he was protecting Camelo from "white kids" who might have hurt him.

"I had to confiscate it so it wouldn't escalate any problems in class," Straatman told The Times-News. "We're worried about that stuff all the time. We always have kids saying stuff to each other, and we have a lot of fights between kids."

by Matthew Hay Brown

A day after Congressional Hispanic Caucus members blasted Democratic leaders for failing to take on comprehensive immigration reform, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she appreciates their frustration.

"I am frustrated, too," the California Democrat told reporters today. "And as I have said since the day we took over here, we're not going to have an immigration bill unless the president takes the lead on it. There is no way to have a partisan immigration bill. And we saw what happened in the Senate on it."

An immigration reform package collapsed last year in the face of Republican objections. Democrats this year have attempted to pass individual bills focusing on highly skilled and seasonal workers, but the all-Democratic Hispanic caucus has blocked what members call piecemeal legislation.

Rep. Joe Baca of Texas, the caucus chairman, called such efforts "nothing more than a Band-Aid being used to cover up a gaping wound," in comments reported by the Associated Press.

"My party wants to do what is easy, not exactly what is right," added Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois. "The leaders in our party who are arguing for consideration of helping just a few immigrants are risking the future of all immigrants."

Rep. Raul Grijalva called fellow Democrats "spineless."

by Josh Drobnyk

Hillary Clinton’s campaign today abruptly cancelled a meeting that some of her volunteers scheduled with Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, calling the matter a “mistake” brewed by over-eager supporters of the New York senator.

The meeting would have been striking because Barletta is a Republican running against Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Clinton supporter. Also, the mayor is at odds with Clinton over immigration policy. He has gained national attention for introducing an ordinance to crack down on businesses that employ illegal aliens and landlords that rent to them. Clinton supported a Senate measure last year to give illegal aliens a path to citizenship.

“The campaign has volunteers who go to primary states on their own and discuss Sen. Clinton’s record on different issues,” said Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson. “In this instance they made a mistake. As soon as we found out about it, of course the meeting was cancelled. … There is no way that the campaign would authorize a meeting with Mayor Barletta.”

Barletta’s camp didn’t take news of the cancelled meeting lightly.

“A half-hour before they were supposed to be in Hazleton, Sheila Menz, Senator Clinton’s economic development aide, told Campaign Manager Vince Galko they were unable to attend the meeting they arranged,” said Shawn Kelly, a Barletta campaign spokesman. “What happened? Why did they set the meeting then cancel it?”

Barletta's campaign has invited all of the presidential candidates to meet with the mayor to discuss immigration policy. Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain's campaign has said he's far too busy -- all the way through November.

by Matthew Hay Brown

A leading Latino civil rights group is calling on the Bush administration to suspend local law enforcement of federal immigration law after an undocumented immigrant was left in an Arkansas jail cell for four days without food, water or a toilet.

Adriana Torres-Flores, 38, was arrested for selling pirated CDs at a Washington County flea market and ordered held March 6 when authorities discovered she was in the country illegally, according to news reports. A bailiff took her to a holding cell and then forgot about her.

That was a Thursday. A snowstorm hit the region, and a reduced staff at the courthouse did not hear her cries for help that night, or any of the next three days.

According to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Torres-Flores was trapped in a cell measuring nine feet by 10 feet, where she drank her own urine and used a shoe for a pillow. She finally was discovered on Monday, March 11.

Washington County is one of several local jurisdictions that have entered into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security. In a letter to the department, MALDEF President John Trasviña is asking Secretary Michael Chertoff to suspend all such agreements pending a “thorough examination” of their impacts on “the civil rights of all individuals” – citizen and immigrant, legal and illegal.

by Frank James

What could stir up illegal immigration hardliners as much as the word amnesty? Try the idea that Illegal immigrants could get rebate checks through the economic stimulus plan now being considered in Congress.

Conservative bloggers and others who want more cracking down on illegal immigration have been riled up in recent days by the notion that people illegally in the U.S. could receive some of those rebate checks President Bush and most in Congress are determined to send out to get consumers spending again in order to keep the economy from slowing any further.

Illegal immigration hardliners have accused the House legislation which was passed earlier this week of containing a loophole that would allow the undocumented to receive rebate checks. That's because the House bill doesn't require a valid Social Security number for someone to receive a rebate.

The Senate, which is now working on its own economic-stimulus package, has included a requirement for valid Social Security numbers.

To quell the controversy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a joint statement this morning meant to reassure illegal immigration hardliners that the federal government won't be sending free money to illegal immigrants:

“The legislation that we authored, and which passed the House Tuesday with overwhelming bipartisan support, would not allow any taxpayer funds to be distributed to illegal immigrants. In fact, the bill includes language similar to the provisions included in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving any benefits. We will take legislative action to clarify and underscore this prohibition so we can expedite the rebates to millions of eligible Americans.”

by Frank James

Arizona's get-tough approach on illegal immigration is being watched closely around the nation, and here in Washington, by federal immigration enforcement officials, policymakers, lawmakers immigration advocates and opponents, just about anyone with any interest in the issue.

What they're seeing so far is that in advance of a new Arizona law cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants that is set to take effect Jan. 1, employers are firing undocumented workers and illegal residents are also leaving the state, some saying they're departing for good.

The Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press and others, have all produced stories recently looking at what's occuring in Arizona.

The Republic story, by reporter Daniel González, which ran earlier this week, starts this way:

NOGALES, Sonora - It's a common scene this time of year: streams of overloaded cars, pickups and vans with U.S. license plates crossing into Mexico for the holidays.

Most are filled with Hispanic families from Arizona and other states on their way to visit relatives south of the border for a few weeks before heading back to the U.S. But this year, the holiday travelers are being joined by scores of families such as Jorge and Liliana Franco, who are driving to Mexico not to visit but to stay - permanently.

Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, immigration crackdowns, Arizona's new employer-sanctions law and a sluggish economy have combined to create a climate that undocumented families such as the Francos no longer find hospitable.

The number returning to Mexico is difficult to calculate, but there is no question that many families are leaving, according to Mexican government officials, local community leaders and immigrants themselves.

"The situation in Arizona has become very tough," Jorge said minutes after driving into a Mexican immigration and customs checkpoint south of the border on Mexico 15.

by Frank James

We reported back in September about a lawsuit the Homeland Security Department filed against Illinois to stop the state from interfering with the use by employers in Illinois of the E-Verify system to check workers' legal status to work in the U.S.

Homeland Security and the state have reached an agreement that will permit employers in Illinois to use the Internet-linked federal database to check to see if their workers are legally in the U.S. and allowed by law to work.

Here's a press release from the federal agency.

Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on the E-VERIFY LAWSUIT WITH ILLINOIS

In September, we filed a lawsuit in federal court to declare invalid an Illinois statute that effectively forbids Illinois employers from enrolling in the department’s E-Verify system. The statute was to become effective on January 1, 2008, but in papers filed with the court yesterday, the state agreed not to enforce it until the department’s lawsuit against the state is resolved. It also disclosed that the Illinois legislature is considering a bill to address the legal issues raised in the suit.

The department will communicate with each of the Illinois employers enrolled in E-Verify to let them know that they may continue using E-Verify without fear of a state enforcement action on January 1. The state’s decision also allows employers planning to enroll in E-Verify to do so without the threat of state enforcement against them. Illinois employers will now have the ability to verify the legality of their workforce without interruption or fear of reprisal by the state.

by Frank James

If a candidate wants to potentially lose a lot of Hispanic votes, then he or she should focus on cracking down on illegal immigrants.

That's one important take-away message from a new Pew Hispanic Center poll released today. The survey suggests that when politicians, particularly Republicans, try to outcompete each other on immigration enforcement, many Hispanics take such talk personally.

This is from the center's summary of the poll's results:

...Just over half of all Hispanic adults in the U.S. worry that they, a family member or a close friend could be deported, a new nationwide survey of Latinos by the Pew Hispanic Center has found. Nearly two-thirds say the failure of Congress to enact an immigration reform bill has made life more difficult for all Latinos. Smaller numbers (ranging from about one-in-eight to one-in-four) say the heightened attention to immigration issues has had a specific negative effect on them personally. These effects include more difficulty finding work or housing; less likelihood of using government services or traveling abroad; and more likelihood of being asked to produce documents to prove their immigration status...

by Frank James

Gov. Mike Huckabee's increasingly hawkish view on immigration is drawing the ire of immigration advocates who criticize the Republican presidential candidate for going from a relatively humane position on dealing with illegal immigrants to a get-tough approach that would give the undocumented four months to exit the U.S., period.

Huckabee recently introduced his "Secure America" plan which includes a proposal that, if enacted, would require the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants in the country to immediately register with the Customs and Immigration Enforcement agency, then give them 120 days to voluntarily leave the country. His plan suggests this approach is the only way to prevent an amnesty.

Those who failed to leave would be face deportation if arrested and would be barred from re-entering the U.S. for 10 years. The dislocation the sudden "voluntary' exit of 12 million to 20 million people would cause to communities across the U.S. isn't dealt with in Huckabee's proposal.

The position is clearly an attempt by Huckabee to accomplish two things. The mood is such in much of the nation, particularly among many Republicans who will vote in the Iowa caucuses and early primaries, to crack down on illegal immigration, and Huckabee is trying to synchronize his view with those voters.

by Frank James

You may have heard of the E-Verify system the federal government wants employers to use to establish that workers are in the U.S. legally and thus eligible to work.

The Homeland Security Department is so serious about employers using it, it's suing Illinois because the state has thrown up a roadblock to keep employers in the state from using the system which, Illinois says, is flawed.

Given how determined the federal government is about employers using the Internet-based system, you would think the federal government would itself be uniformly relying on it to make sure the contractors it hires aren't using illegal workers. You would be wrong.

This irony hasn't escaped the attention of Sen. Charles Grassley who is calling on the federal goverment to practice what it preaches.

Grassley sent letters today asking the relevant officials to change this curious lack of urgency on the federal government's part to make comprehensive use of its own E-Verify system.

Here are letters he sent today to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Jean Manning, Chief Cousel for Employment in the Senate's Office of the Secretary:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, center, walks with fellow Democatic New Yorkers Rep. Nita Lowey, l, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, r, to a drivers-license news conference on Capitol Hill. Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2007 (AP Photos/Susan Walsh)

by Glenn Thrush, Carol Eisenberg and James Madore

A humbled New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer — facing a near-insurrection from New York Democrats — is ditching his controversial plan to grant drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants that provoked a massive national backlash.

Spitzer will announce he’s “scrapping the plan” after a meeting of the state’s congressional delegation on Capitol Hill this morning, according to his spokeswoman, Christine Anderson.

The license proposal had proven to be a political albatross for Democratic supporters, especially Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was grilled on the issue during a debate in Philadelphia late last month.

Democrats and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had pressured the governor to drop the proposal, which garnered the support of only one-third of New Yorkers, according to polls.

“The heat was rising on Eliot, and he reacted,” said one Spitzer ally, among a handful of Democrats the governor reached out to last night