BUSH PLAN A MAGNET:Immigrants cite lure of border proposal

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | January 23, 2004 | Joe Cantlupe

[ckilmer]

BUSH PLAN A MAGNET

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Immigrants cite lure of border proposal

By Joe Cantlupe COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

and Gregory Alan Gross STAFF WRITER

January 23, 2004

WASHINGTON – More than half the people accused of using phony documents to sneak through the San Ysidro port of entry in recent days said they were trying to get into the United States because of President Bush's proposal to give temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

Of 162 people stopped for using phony documents at San Ysidro since Bush announced his plan on Jan. 7, 94 said they were trying to enter because of the proposed new work program, according to sources present at a Wednesday meeting of a border-security working group in San Diego.

Border Patrol officials have reported a 15 percent increase in the use of phony documents at the San Ysidro port compared with the same period a year ago.

Bush's plan, designed to match willing workers with willing employers, would provide temporary legal status to illegal immigrants working in the United States and to others outside the country if they can show they have a job offer.

His proposal has been widely publicized in Mexico. In some quarters, it is being characterized as an amnesty, despite Bush's contention that it is not.

Some U.S. border enforcement officers and immigration policy experts have predicted that just talking about the proposal would encourage more people to try to get into the country.

"We're getting a lot of people asking about this," said senior border agent Sean Moran, who works in Imperial Beach. "They're asking what they need to do to qualify."

Many of the immigrants are "first-timers," said Moran, who also serves as spokesman for Local 1613 of the agents' union, the National Border Patrol council.

"At the Imperial Beach station where I work, I've noticed a definite spike in apprehensions," he said. "We're also catching more women and children, which we haven't in awhile. We're catching a lot of the same people every day."

Department of Homeland Security officials said the increases began in October, well before Bush unveiled his proposal.

"We were starting to see increases in the beginning of the fiscal year," said Mario Villarreal, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.

The Border Patrol's San Diego sector headquarters reported 31,204 apprehensions of illegal immigrants between Oct. 1, 2003, which was the start of the fiscal year, and this week. For the same period a year ago, the number was 22,375.

Moran said he saw a surge last fall, but has seen another since Bush's announcement.

"There were a handful compared to several dozen now – an eightfold increase, and it all started with Bush's announcement," Moran said.

"These people are mostly volunteering the information. We are asking them, just out of curiosity, why they are here and they are asking how they qualify for this amnesty."

Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UCSD, said he isn't surprised by an upturn in illegal immigration.

"It's not huge, considering the saturation publicity this has gotten in Mexico," Cornelius said. "It's predictable. This will continue until the new rules of the game are crystal clear ... maybe once Congress gets around to acting on the Bush proposal a year or so from now. We're looking at a fairly long period."

Talk of any amnesty-type program "attracts more illegal immigrants and that's not surprising," said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

"The news doesn't necessarily spread accurately in Mexico or even among illegal aliens in the U.S.," Krikorian said. "They suspect there's an amnesty in effect. This is just attracting more illegal aliens and demoralizing our law enforcement personnel."

Immigration lawyers and immigrant rights groups say they, too, are getting inquiries from immigrants hoping to take advantage of Bush's proposal. "News travels quickly," said Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum, "and people are yearning for a better life."

Christian Ramirez, of the American Friends Service Committee in San Diego, said his group got at least 50 calls the day after Bush unveiled his proposal, "and it's been a constant flow ever since."

So far, Ramirez hasn't noticed any great influx, but as the immigration debate continues, he expects more people to head for the United States.

The confusion in Mexico about Bush's statements is understandable, Ramirez said, because of the differences between the way government works in Mexico and the way things are done in the United States.

Most Mexicans grew up under a government in which a proposed new policy from the president's office was treated as law.

"Bush made certain allusions, and some media outlets have characterized this as an amnesty, which plays on people's hopes, when in reality there's nothing there for them to grab onto," Ramirez said.

That has happened before, and not exclusively with Mexican migrants.

In the wake of Hurricane Mitch, which left thousands dead in Central America in late 1998, U.S. immigration officials announced that Hondurans and Nicaraguans already in the United States illegally would be granted a temporary legal status.

However, what was meant as a humanitarian gesture from Washington affecting immigrants already here was widely misinterpreted in Central America, especially in hurricane-ravaged Honduras, as a blanket amnesty for the hurricane victims.

Thousands poured across the border through Mexico, heading for the United States, only to be told at the U.S.-Mexico border that they had made the long, dangerous journey in vain.

Members of Mexico's Grupo Beta, which patrols the Mexican side of the border, said it's too early to tell if Bush's announcement is having a major impact on crossings in the Tecate and Mexicali regions.

"These are typically months when a lot of people are crossing," said Marco Antonio Caballero, an agent who works out of the Mexicali region.

Caballero said he recently ran into a migrant who mentioned that he was hoping to work under whatever plan Bush came up with.

But after being caught three times trying to cross the border, being robbed and losing weight, the migrant decided to go home and wait until the plan takes effect.

Dmitri Papademetriou, an analyst with the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., said that by making a public announcement of its intended plans, the United States created "all sorts of expectations across the board."

"The U.S. and Mexico should engage in a public service announcement," he suggested, "explaining there's no advantage to coming across the border illegally."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Gross: (619) 498-6632; greg.gross@uniontrib.com

Staff writer Anna Cearley contributed to this report.

[janetgreen]

Mr. BushRoveFox had to know they would be massing at the Mexican border the minute he opened his mouth. The three amigos want this, most Americans are outraged about it. The amigos don't care, the bill will be paid by us.

The other states won't feel the invasion as much because most of them will end up in Mexifornia, the welfare state. Republicans who support this have a shock coming at election time.

[Wolfstar]

With all due respect, South40, for many of the folks who most actively have been harping on this issue recently, it IS about not only withdrawing support for the President, but about trying to defeat him in November. I simply will never be part of such an effort. Won't happen.

The overall record of President George W. Bush is remarkable. I admire him. I respect him. I'm loyal to him. All of the naysayers really are wasting their time where I'm concerned.

[PRND21]

Bump

[South40]

Calling us trolls and saying we belong at DU seems to be the standard for those in favor of ILLEGALS obtaining legal status. What it says, really, is they have no rational argument to defend this faulty proposal.

[South40]

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone here and I haven't. But I've been a part of every thread on this subject (I think) and I've seen no one say they are for defeating Bush. I've seen them say they wanted to write-in Tancredo's name in the primary but vote for Bush in November. Perhaps you've seen something I've missed. If so, I disagree with that thought 100%. Bush has the only chance of preventing the likes of Kerry from becoming our next president. Regardless how betrayed I feel on the immigration issue, he'll get my vote for that reason.

[fatso]

bump

[Wolfstar]

Good, South40. Your's is a very reasonable position. Just remember that the immigration proposal is not likely to even come up for a vote this year, if ever. It has a long, tough slog ahead of it in Congress. It's one of those proposals which both the Left and the Right are strongly opposed to, even though for different reasons. But those of us who are opposed to it must keep an eye on Congress.

[South40]

Why, the day I get ZOTTED off Free Republic will be the day you finally post something of intrinsic value that resonates, with even the slightest traceable essence, of reason, logic and orginality.

Touché! lol!

[South40]

I agree. But it's just plain wrong...regardless when it comes up for a vote. And I've already written to my congressman, the president, and both senators. I also "tried" to voice my objection at a recent Homeland Security Townhall Meeting here in San Diego. It was last week and Secretary Ridge was the guest speaker. Questions from the audience were written down and submitted in advance. Not a single one ASKED touched on the issue of our porous borders. I find that extremely suspect since I know for fact I wasn't the only one who had a question on the subject. Also, with its close proximity to the Mexican border, this is a big issue here in San Diego. Yet not a single question touched on the border issue. It is my opinion that Ridge didn't want to try to defend Bush's faulty proposal...so he eliminated any embarrassing questions in advance.

And...as I said, I'll still vote for Bush and I don't beleive anyone here, regardles what degree their opposition to his proposal, wants to see him defeated as that would mean John Kerry is our next president. But I will voice my objections both here and with my elected officials, even if it invokes tantrums in his supporters. Obviously, as we have seen, it is has had that effect.

Oh well. -SoFo

[luvbach1]

I was not the first to refer to "real conservative," my2cents did, and it was he/she to whom I was responding. Have him/her define it. And it was extremely petty to refer to a typo as a grammatical error. I happen to have a degree in English.

[luvbach1]

Addendum for you: my use of the term "true conservative" was sarcasm.

[luvbach1]

Whoops, "real conservative." Now jump on that.

[Old Fud]

I suppose Bush could increase the INS and Border Patrol's resources to absolutely stop the flow entirely. But then the "real conservatives" here would complain that he's spending too much federal money.

Nope. Border security is legitmate function of government, and all the more so when the only delivery systems terrorists have are people.

[luvbach1]

Any suggestion that all who come here are contributing to the economies of their (our) communities is fatuous. And after all, they are here illegally. Doesn't that mean anything any more? Of course they should be sent back from whence they came if possible. But I am well aware that it is not possible to deport them all; however, those that can be, of course, should be returned to their countries (mainly Mexico, of course). Those of you not living near the border obviously are not aware of the crime rate of illegal aliens. They compise a significant portion of the CA prison and jail population. They account for 30% of car thefts in SoCA. Many of these vehicles end up in Mexico being driven by Federales. They also commit burglaries, kill pets, start fires on private property, defacate on sidewalks and in garages, and assault property owners if confronted. Since not all of them do this, and many parts of the US are unaffected (so far), I suppose we should not object. I could go on, but why do so for closed minds? This is fact, not racism. Posters from the San Diego area can vouch for what I say.

[janetgreen]

Posters from the San Diego area can vouch for what I say.

This L.A. area poster can also vouch for what you say, it's true. Many people just don't understand it because it hasn't come to their state yet in a tidal wave like it has in California.

[jpsb]

So which of the followint isn't it

\Am"nes*ty\, n. [L. amnestia, Gr. ?, a forgetting, fr. ? forgotten, forgetful; 'a priv. + ? to remember: cf. F. amnistie, earlier amnestie. See {Mean}, v.]

1. Forgetfulness; cessation of remembrance of wrong; oblivion.

2. An act of the sovereign power granting oblivion, or a general pardon, for a past offense, as to subjects concerned in an insurrection.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Despite your defeatist straw man argument of "roundups", you ideally and rationally approach the problem by enacting pilot projects, enforceable by law, of denying all social services to those who are not citizens or are not legal aliens in the United States sovereign territory. No drivers licenses, no SSN cards, no food stamps, no AFDC, no State SSI, no low interest government loans, no education, period, nada. I have seen repatriation plans work in other countries, I have seen whole neighborhoods full of illegal aliens from Iran, for example, in one of the largest economies of the world, traced and deported. It can be done. The problem is, lack of will and ingenuity, under this Administration nor under any subsequent Democrat Administration. Regardless. The system is rigged by both major parties, for two very starkly differing political reasons. I suggest we solve the problem now, before it escalates and we have a Balkan Chaos situation which will only play into the hands of a tyrant who will take measures that we long could have avoided if we only enforced our borders and facilitated the departure of unauthorized persons back to their countries. To say this cannot be done, means there will be no end to illegal immigration and swarming numbers of individuals here without authorization, which is precisely the point, where do we draw the line, and if we do not draw the line, we are giving up America so that it can change, before our very eyes, over the next 10-20-30 years, into something we vaguely can recognize. I oppose politicians who refuse to draw the line and show a desire to reverse throttle. And, well, quite frankly, I don't give a G.G.D if they have a (D) or a (G) or an (I) or an (R) after their name on the ballot.

[AmericanInTokyo]

And furthermore, you render null and void the legal power of an of the notorious, so-called *matricula tarjeta consulada* I.D. cards in the United States, issued by consulates here from Latin American countries who are encouraging massive population shifts out of their own nations into our country, and backing it up by these administrative documents which, as I said, as interfering documents designed to subvert the law of the Host Nation, should be rendered NULL and VOID before any taxpayer funded representative of any US local, state or federal government.

[dagnabbit]

...if we do not draw the line, we are giving up America so that it can change, before our very eyes, over the next 10-20-30 years, into something we vaguely can recognize. I oppose politicians who refuse to draw the line and show a desire to reverse throttle. And, well, quite frankly, I don't give a G.G.D if they have a (D) or a (G) or an (I) or an (R) after their name on the ballot.

Great Post. Bears repeating.

[Texasforever]

I assume by your screen name that you are an ex-pat. What job are you doing that a Japanese citizen can't or won't do?