Latino News and Opinion

... Arizona Governor Jan Brewer filed an expedited appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals July 29 following a preliminary injunction placed by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton halting most of the key components of the state’s immigration law SB1070. “Arizona has been suffering a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government,” the appeal stated.    An expedited appeal requires a motion panel of three judges from the 9th Circuit, selected at random from a pool of 45, to decide whether the injunction poses “irreparable harm.” If so, it would be lifted, allowing SB1070 to come into full effect. “I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona,” Brewer said a few hours after Bolton issued the injunction.      Bolton’s ruling halted major components of Arizona SB1070 from taking effect the following day — 90 days after Brewer signed it into law.    Her ruling came less than 24 hours before full enforcement would have gone into effect, just as police officials were making last-minute compliance preparations.    Bolton ruled that if Arizona were to implement SB1070, it would interfere with federal policy. The injunction allows the federal government to continue pursuing federal priorities in the public interest until a final judgment is reached, Bolton, a Philadelphia native and Bill Clinton appointee, ruled.   The injunction limits SB1070’s full bite by blocking police from questioning a person’s legal status during routine investigations and eliminating mandatory detention of individuals who cannot verify their legal status at the time of arrest.    In addition, it strikes the “show me your papers” provision that requires individuals to carry documentation at all times and keeps authorities from labeling someone “removable” from the United States or conducting a warrantless arrest.    The law retains two provisions which trouble Latino advocates: 1) It still prohibits hiring of undocumented immigrants. 2) It allows Arizona to block cities within the state from becoming sanctuaries to undocumented immigrants.     Alessandra Soler-Meetze, executive director of ACLU Arizona, told Hispanic Link that Bolton’s decision was important in defining limits of local jurisdictions’ authority. “States that are considering similar measures should definitely take note that they simply can’t hijack federal authority and create their own state immigration schemes which conflict with federal priorities and really do nothing to protect the residents of the state,” Soler-Meetze said.    Other voices, such as Arizona-based advocacy group Puente, weren’t as receptive. It claimed via Twitter, “We will not comply with the criminalization of our communities! Partial injunction is not victory.”      Reaction from those who favor the Arizona law was just as vibrant. Brewer called the injunction a “little bump on the road.” Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce, who authored the bill, told CNN he wrote the law with the Supreme Court in mind. He predicted it would be upheld in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.    William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, also voiced displeasure. “There’s a wave of anger sweeping the United States today,” Gheen said. “Between 60 and 80 percent of the American public supported the Arizona law, and Americans feel that President Obama and this judge have thwarted democracy, and we’re advising all illegal immigrants to exit the country as soon as possible due to the rising anger in the American public.”...

... U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday that halts major components of the Arizona SB1070 from taking effect Thursday — 90 days after Gov. Jan Brewer signed it into law. Her ruling came less than 24 hours before full-enforcement came into effect, just as police officials were making last-minute preparations. Bolton ruled on the grounds that if Arizona were to implement SB1070, it would infringe and interfere with federal policy.  “A preliminary injunction would allow the federal government to continue to pursue federal priorities which is inherently in the public interest, until a final judgment is reached in this case,” Bolton, a Philadelphia native and Clinton appointee ruled.  The injunction limits SB1070’s full bite by blocking the requirement for police to question a person’s legal status during routine investigations and prevents mandatory detentions of individuals who cannot verify their legal status when arrested. In addition, it strikes down the “show-me your papers,” aspect of the law saying individuals should not be penalized for not carrying their proper documents at all times and keeps authorities from labeling someone “removable” from the U.S. and affecting a warrantless arrest according to a press release from the ACLU. Alessandra Soler-Meetze, executive director of ACLU Arizona, told Hispanic Link that Bolton’s decision was “an important ruling from the federal courts about the limitations of local law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration laws. “Similar states that are considering similar measures should definitely take note that they simply can’t hijack federal authority and create their own state immigration schemes which conflict with federal priorities and really do nothing to protect the residents of the state of Arizona,” Soler-Meetze said. Other voices, such as Arizona-based advocacy group Puente, weren’t as receptive. Apart from publicly denouncing the injunction, they claimed via Twitter, “We will not comply with the criminalization of our communities! Partial injunction is not victory.”  Opposition from those who favor the Arizona law was just as vibrant. Brewer called the injunction a “little bump on the road,” and Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, who authored the bill, claimed to CNN that he wrote the law with the Supreme Court in mind. He predicted that SB1070 would be upheld in a 5-4 Supreme Court Ruling. William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, voiced displeasure concerning Bolton’s ruling. “There’s a wave of anger sweeping the United States today,” Bolton said. “Between 60 and 80 percent of the American public supported the Arizona law, and Americans feel that President Obama and this judge have thwarted democracy, and we’re advising all illegal immigrants to exit the country as soon as possible due to the rising anger in the American public.”...

...In  “The Little Prince ( Le Petit Prince)”, a  1943 novel by the French writer  Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, the author explains how sometimes adults don’t quite get it the way children do. He writes: One sees clearly only with the heart. Anything essential is invisible to the eyes....

...It’s tiring to hear the repetitious ongoing immigration debate, which is fraught with misinformation. The typical conversation goes like this: illegal aliens are taking away jobs from decent, hardworking, unemployed Americans who would jump at these jobs if only we could get rid of these intruders--all of them. The U.S. government needs to wake up and do its job-- deport all 11 million of them. If ICE did that all unemployment in the U.S. would vanish forever, making us a very happy country indeed. There’s a big problem with this analysis: it’s not true and comedian Stephen Colbert is using his comedic skills to point this out. He’s teamed up with The United Farm Workers, challenging unemployed Americans to “Come on, take our jobs”, to apply for the thousands of agricultural jobs that our country cannot fill. In fact, according to the Department of Labor, over half of the nation’s farm workers are (shockingly) illegal immigrants. Arturo Rodriguez, President of the United Farm Workers, says his members are fed up with being blamed for taking American jobs and welcomes Colbert’s intervention. The problem is that there are no takers. Who wants to pick fruits and vegetables in the 102 degree heat that we’ve had in the Delaware Valley this past week? Quite frankly, living without air conditioning seems punishment enough to most of us. Even the thought of planting and harvesting mushrooms in climate controlled environments does not appeal to most Americans. Do you know anyone who is willing to wake up at 2:00 every morning, crawl in a tiny, dark space filled with damp, smelly fertilizer and cut mushrooms with a sharp knife? Are your kids willing to take this as even a summer job? I know that mine aren’t. My very own hard-working, highly motivated 17 year old daughter is the prime example. Desperate for a summer job in order to assure that she had spending money as she enters college this fall, she scoured the malls and on-line ads. Unfortunately, no one was hiring adorable 17 year olds with impressive high school transcripts but no true job skills. Still, she knew that she had to start somewhere. She was thrilled when she found a job with a local pizza parlor. After all, how hard could it be to work in a restaurant and take pizza orders over the phone? Very hard, she’s learned. The first day, a customer from California yelled at her because she had forgotten his order of fries. Although her first impulse was to tell him that he was overweight enough and didn’t really need them, she recognized that such response did not appear in the employee handbook that she had memorized and hence could not be given. Now well versed in remembering to add orders of fries, she has progressed to other more important jobs: she cleans bathrooms, tables, and salt and pepper shakers and fills little plastic cups with salad dressing (she apparently did it wrong last week). As she goes about her daily tasks, she hears the guys in the back, snickering and laughing in Spanish at how slow and inept she is. They don’t know that she understands them because she hasn’t wanted to share that fact with them. Instead, each night she returns home near tears, berating herself for being so slow and so stupid, all the while vowing to try harder and improve the next day. If she were not so desperate to earn her own money, albeit at minimum wage (with constant cuts in hours because business is slow), so concerned about proving herself, she’d already have quit. In fact, if she were the typical American worker she would have been out the door on day 2. Instead, she remains, awed at the fact that the Spanish speaking workers in the back are organized, fast and still pleasant to customers as they stand sweating over a hot stove and oven. She, like the kitchen staff but for different reasons, is determined to prove that she can succeed in a demanding, tough and often unrewarding business, where servers and cooks are often invisible servants. When my daughter and the other high school kids leave for school come fall, their jobs will be open. So far, no one’s stepped in to ask for them (which is why the restaurant hired these summer kids in the first place, figuring that any legal worker, even on a short term basis, was better than none at all). Perhaps Stephen Colbert should add these jobs to his agricultural campaign, making sure that the header reads: “Undesirable, backbreaking restaurant jobs in desperate need of being filled.  If picking fruit in the hot California sun is not your thing, hurry up and apply within”. ...

...With an audience of 250 people at American University July 1, President Barack Obama addressed the need for fixing the broken immigration system. “The politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious.  And that remains true today.  And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system,” Obama said. Political leaders such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Rev. Al Sharpton, National Council of La Raza president Janet Murguia, selected members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter were on hand to listen to Obama delineate a plan to move forward on immigration issues; with Obama citing examples such as passing the Dream Act, a bill that would allow undocumented students to attend post-secondary institutions and provide a pathway to citizenship. “We need to stop punishing young people for their parent’s mistakes,” Obama said. Though his half-hour speech called for poetic justice—sighting Emma Lazarus’ The New Colossus, his attempt to sell the need for immigration reform remained vague in providing specific details. He gave no dates or any such indication of when the Federal government will challenge the Arizona immigration law SB1070 that is set to come to effect later this month. Following his speech, Nutter said that it was crucial for the administration to move forward on the issue. “The President gave an excellent outline of the kinds of things that need to take place at the federal level,” Nutter said. “When the Federal government does not do what needs to be done, the challenges fall on cities like Philadelphia.” Nutter expressed his concerns about the shaky system sighting the mass exodus of Wharton students from the University of Pennsylvania sighting, “Think of how the United States would benefit from having all those people here in our country.” Another mayor at hand was Bloomberg, a long-time advocate of immigration reform. Bloomberg made a strong political statement by addressing the crowd in Spanish before speaking English—“Lo mas importante es que el presidente esta sacando este tema adelante, reforma inmigratoria es crucial para reanimar la economia de este pais,” Following his statement, in broken but cheerful Spanish he told the crowd, “For those of you who don’t speak Spanish, this is the future of America.” ...

...It’s easy to hate; it doesn’t take much, just a desire to think that you’re better than someone else. Understanding and compassion is much harder; you need to be able to put yourself in another’s shoes, to know that even if they appear different on the outside they are very much like you on the inside. They love, they feel, they hurt, they have dreams, disappointments and struggle, on different levels, each day to survive and attempt to thrive in an increasingly complex world. This is the lesson that I learned 30 years ago in thesummer of 1980 while living in Chicago. Twenty four years old and newly minted from law school, with no real skills but for fluency in Spanish and a desire to change the world, I  joined Traveler’s Aid Society, a non-profit agency that offered immigration legal services to those individuals who could not afford to pay for private immigration counsel (Traveler’s Aid was much like our wonderful Philadelphia non-profits—HIAS, Nationalities Service Center and Catholic Social Services which add so much to our at- risk immigrant communities). The U.S. Embassy in Tehran had just been taken over by irate Iranian students (one of whom is rumored to be the current President of Iran today) as the Islamic Revolution began and the pro-democratic, pro-American Shah was ousted. Like every American I was stunned and horrified. I didn’t know much about Iran, didn’t know any Iranians but knew that I hated them all. Against this background of pure hatred, in walked my first client, Soraya, an absolutely beautiful, westernizedyoung Iranian foreign student barely two weeks older than I. She had been studying at a university in Chicago and living with an American family in the area. However, similar to INS actions post 9-11, Soraya, like all Iranian students, had been ordered to report toImmigration after the fall of the U.S. Embassy so that our government could see and know where all Iranianstudents were and thus somehow assess which ones, like the students who had overthrown the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, were a danger living among us. It sounded reasonable, just like it did post 9-11. After all, it is good to keep track of who we let into our country and allow to remain. However, in Soraya’s case there was one major wrinkle: Soraya and several others hadmisunderstood the government’s directive and did what they were trained to do: they immediately reported to their Foreign student advisor, believing that he would tell them how to properly register and report.Unfortunately, he totally misunderstood the law and told Soraya and the others that reporting to him was sufficient. It was not and the INS responded quickly by placing Soraya under deportation proceedings. They froze all monies coming from Iran to the U.S., thus cutting off Soraya’s entire income and ability tofinancially survive. With no money and carrying an Iranian passport,Soraya’s previously friendly U.S. host family became hostile and literally threw her out into the street. This is how Soraya arrived at my office that summer day and how she taught me lessons that I will never forget. I stared at her, thinking: This could be me. How can I hate “me”?  How can I hate her just because I don’t understand? I represented Soraya, securing her status in the U.S and gaining, as a result, a special friend who helped to make my years in Chicago equally special. It is now 2010 and although I have lost touch with Soraya I have not lost touch with the lessons that she taught me. Unfortunately, others have not been lucky enough to have had a Soraya in their lives and thus have not yet learned that hating those who appear to be different on the surface is not constructive at all. In response to one column in which I described Paula, a“Dream Act” child who had been in the U.S. for 17 of her 18 years of life, since infancy, and could not attend college because her parents had violated the law by overstaying their tourist visas, one reader responded: “Paula should pursue the opportunities available to her in their home country and stop whining about theinconveniences caused by her illegal status”. To this reader and to the others who feel like him/her I say: Yes, there is great anger over our broken immigration laws but sometimes we need to pause, to put aside our first reactions, those that make us hate and resent, and understand that there are Paulas and Sorayasout there who are the innocent victims of our laws and our poorly thought out immigration system. Remember: You, too, could have been a Paula or a Soraya and you would have wanted, have needed, the compassion and understanding of others rather than their anger, hatred and scorn. ...

...On May 11, 2010, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it has redesigned the Permanent Resident Card—commonly known as the “Green Card”—to incorporate several major new security features.  ...

...On April 1st, employers and immigration attorneys alike will again be the subject of the biggest reoccurring  April Fool’s joke( which truly is no laughing matter): The ability to “capture” one of the very limited 85,000 cap subject H-1B visas( 20,000 of which are reserved for professionals with U.S. Masters’ degrees) for the period beginning October 1, 2010. ...

...Parenthood is perhaps the hardest job in the world. Parents raise their kids, teach them values, what is important in life and how they are expected to treat their family and the world at large. They then send them off, hoping that this initial molding has imparted to them all of the values and skills that will allow them to be happy, contributing members of society and that they will find a caring soul mate as they reach adulthood, for parents, we know too well to our great sorrow, do not live forever.  In the blink of an eye, that child, we’ll call him “Matthew”, is an adult. He comes to his parents and informs them that he is in love and has met “the one”. This one, he assures them, is the woman who makes him beyond happy and is everything he has ever dreamed of as a soul mate. He tells his parents that they, too, will be equally enthralled and happy with his choice of a future wife. Finally, the day of the big introduction comes. Angela, the “intended”, a young woman from Spain with a pretty exterior—dark hair and big blue eyes-- and sugary sweet on the surface, appears at the first family dinner. Unfortunately, it does not take long for Mom, Dad and even several of Matthew’s siblings to pick up on the fact that Angela, while very much in love with Matthew, is an extremely immature, spoiled young woman whose dream was to live in America. Matthew’s parents are quite concerned and tread carefully, knowing that adult children must and do make their own decisions. Besides, they weren’t perfect at that age. Months go by. One day Matthew appears, proudly informing his parents that he and Angela are now officially engaged. He has a small request: will they sign some “immigration papers” to allow Angela remain in the U.S.? Matthew already has a lawyer, Scott, his best friend from childhood (who doesn’t like Angela either but hey, friendship is friendship among guys). As a wedding gift, Scott has agreed to process the immigration papers for free. He explains to Matthew’s parents that they must file Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, on behalf of Angela because their son, who is in medical school, doesn’t earn enough income to support her according to the Immigration laws. Scott asks his friends’ parents to provide him with a copy of their last federal tax returns, their W-2s, current job letters stating their salaries and proof of their legal status in the U.S. He tells them to just sign the papers where he has indicated in the packet and all will be well. Matthew’s father is a retired government worker and a bit skeptical. He asks Scott what he and his wife are signing on to if they place their signatures on the dotted line. Scott assures them that it’s really “just a paper and means nothing”. Scott, who owes an ethical duty to both Matthew and his parents, the Joint Sponsors of Angela’s Affidavit of Support, is dead wrong and is treading in horribly unethical territory. An I-864 is not just a piece of paper; it is an official contract to support Angela at 125% above the poverty level essentially forever, even if she and Matthew get divorced, unless Angela becomes a U.S. citizen, works full time, 40 qualifying quarters (10 years), dies (even if Matthew were to die his parents’ obligation would live on) or   returns permanently to Spain. Matthew’s father learns even more after further digging: his and his wife’s legal obligations as the financial sponsors are to notify USCIS of any change of address and if Angela collects public benefits while a Lawful Permanent Resident, they, by signing such form, are agreeing to reimburse the local, state and federal governments for these benefits, if requested. Matthew’s parents now face a great dilemma: to protect themselves financially by refusing to sign because of their distrust of Angela’s motives (she can’t stay in the U.S. without marrying their son) and thus risk losing Matthew or to risk losing their income and savings for their “golden years” (and go against the instincts they have always relied on in their 70 plus years of life). They are sleepless and stressed. Ultimately, they decide to sign on the dotted line, hoping for a “happy- forever -after” for their grown child. What can they do to make sure that their new daughter-in-law doesn’t pull the financial trigger on their Affidavit of Support? For starters, be very nice to her and hope that this one time their protective parental instincts were off. Next, make sure that she learns English quickly, well enough to have her naturalize within the permitted three year period and thus allow them to escape from their unintentional “forever” legal promise, occasioned by their signing of the I-864 Affidavit of Support on behalf of Angela!  ...

...A friend and colleague, Richard Costa, an excellent immigration attorney in Boston, sent the following letter to his clients. Because of its importance at this time of the year, as so many travel, this letter, with full deference and attribution to its author, appears below: During the post-holiday period, many foreign nationals will be returning to the States from international travel.  We wish to underscore the importance of ensuring that a properly endorsed Form I-94* is issued by the Customs & Border Protection Officer at the port of entry.  This is particularly important for foreign nationals entering the U.S. for employment on the basis of an approved petition for H-1, L-1, or O-1 nonimmigrant status. These foreign nationals, with few exceptions**, must present a valid passport, a valid nonimmigrant visa issued by an American Consul, and a current, original approval notice issued by the Immigration Service on Form I-797. There are many situations where the expiration date of the Consular-issued visa is earlier than the expiration date of the most recent I-797 Approval Notice.  The applicant is entitled to be admitted to the expiration date of the Form I-797 Approval Notice provided the passport is valid for at least six months beyond the requested date.  This is the date that should be entered by the Customs Officer on the new Form I-94 that is issued and stapled into the applicant’s passport. If the nonimmigrant worker remains in the U.S. beyond the period of time indicated on the Form I-94 issued at the time of last entry, he/she will be illegally in the U.S. with all the attendant consequences.  This is true even if they possess a valid Form I-797 with a later expiration date. Here are a two of the most common examples where this is likely to occur - there are others: Example 1:  The H-1 applicant has a Consular-issued visa valid only until February, 2010. Because he and his employer filed for and were granted an extension of stay prior to his departure, he has a new Form I-797 Approval Notice valid until December, 2011.  However, at Customs he presents the old approval notice with a February, 2010 expiration date.  He will only be admitted to that date. If he does not plan to travel abroad again prior to the expiration of this Form I-94, he and his employer must file a new H-1 petition and request for extension of stay right away in order to maintain legal status. If he does plan to travel abroad again prior to the February, 2010 expiration of this Form I-94, he can seek reentry during the limited period of time that the Consular visa remains valid, being sure to present the correct Approval Notice upon his return. If he does travel abroad again prior to the expiration of this Form I-94, but will not return until after the Consular visa has expired, he must make arrangements to apply for a new entry visa at an American Consulate abroad before returning.  Example 2: The H-1 applicant has a Consular-issued visa valid until July, 2010.  Because he changed jobs recently, he presents a new Form I-797 Approval Notice from his new employer valid until December, 2011.  He should be admitted until December 2011.  If his Form I-94 is mistakenly issued with an expiration date of July, 2010, he must have his employer apply for an extension of stay by filing a new H-1 Petition prior to July, 2010, unless, as above, he will be traveling abroad again before the Form I-94 expires.  If he remains in the U.S. beyond July, 2010 in reliance on the Form I-797, he will be in the U.S. illegally.  It matters not whether the mistake is made by the applicant (by presenting the wrong approval notice) or the Customs Officer (in failing to grant the proper period of time).  In either case, the applicant is bound by the date on the Form I-94 issued at the time of last arrival-and must take corrective action  in order to maintain legal status.  *Form I-94: this is the Arrival-Departure Record which is filled out by the traveler en route to the U.S. and then presented to the Customs Officer with their passport and Form I-797 Approval Notice.  Once the decision is made to admit the applicant to the U.S., the Customs Officer will write the Class of Admission (e.g. H-1B or L-1A) and the date to which admitted on the document and staple a portion in the passport. Remaining in the U.S. beyond this date is a violation of law.   **Special rules govern brief travel to Canada or Mexico only. ...

...In what is not a great surprise in our current economy, on April 8, 2009, USCIS indicated that its fiscal year 2010 H-1B petition cap had not been met and employers could continue to file H-1B petitions. ...

...While health professionals and authorities scramble to contain a new strain of influenza, the workings of industrial greed and hatred surface. ...

... A sharp increase in federal enforcement of immigration laws in response to the wave of illegal immigration over the past two decades has led to a significant rise in the share of all convicted and sentenced federal offenders who are Latino, according to a report to be released tomorrow by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. ...

...Many discussions over the past year have centered on whether an employer could successfully “sponsor” an employee who is in the U.S. illegally for a green card.  Few of such discussions, however, have focused on those who are here legally in valid immigration status such as those with F-1 student visas, H-1B visas, J-1 visas or L-1s. In fact, it was always the understanding that these individuals could be sponsored with success, especially if they were professionals in areas such as IT, engineering and even in the social services. Indeed, in a good economy, individuals holding the above legal statuses were great candidates for green cards and an immigration attorney’s dream. Not so, however, in 2009. In this new era, cases which were previously readily approvable are now being carefully reviewed and ultimately denied. Why?  Most employment cases requirement that an employer utilize the PERM system, a system in which the availability of qualified U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident workers is tested by the placement of advertisements in local newspapers, on web sites and in other sources generally used to recruit qualified workers. In the good old days, few, if any qualified applicants responded to these advertisements and hence the Department of Labor, the agency charged with these applications, generally was able to approve a large portion of these applications and “certify” the same. Enter eight years of economic downturn and the recent six months of lay off after layoff and very few jobs are now capable of being certified by the Department of Labor. Indeed, the Department of Labor is now auditing at least one third of all PERM applications filed and heavily scrutinizing those applications filed by companies whose names appear in the news as having laid off U.S. workers. Moreover, companies who advertise pursuant to PERM are now being swamped by hundreds of applications, many of which are being submitted by qualified U.S. workers who are willing to fly in, at their own expense, for a job interview and if offered the job, to relocate, again at their own expense. In this climate it is the duty of every responsible and ethical immigration lawyer to have a heart to heart discussion with the employer (who, by the way, is responsible for the payment of the PERM fees), to alert him to such changed circumstances and to advise both the employer and the employee of the wisdom of pursing a PERM application in this economic market. Unfortunately, many legally present nonimmigrants who seek permanent resident status will and are being harmed by this economy (as are so many of our unemployed U.S. citizens and permanent residents). Certainly, our futures are invariably intertwined for once America recovers only then will those who wish to become lawful permanent residents succeed in an economy driven immigration system.  ...

...Whether Hitler personally ever murdered someone with his own hands might remain unclear.  That his rhetoric was murderous is a fact. ...

...In the last few weeks U.S. government control over our lives has become an expanding issue as the government seeks to buy shares in failing banks to attempt to rescue our economy.  ...

...The immigration issue will get resolved until Americans recover the trust in its economy. ...

...Hispanic immigrants in the US pay much higher interest rates than the rest of US citizens when it comes to purchasing automobiles, especially used ones, according to the Consumer Federation of America (CFA). ...

...Some 70 workers, members of the Local 32 BJ union, met outside the Montgomery County Courthouse, in Norristown (PA) to denounce the tactics used by the ICE in a raid that took place last July 31 at ABM a cleaning company, in which 50 workers were detained among them 20 undocumented individuals. ...

...Least you think that the Agriprocessor saga in Iowa has ended, think again. On July 3, 2008, ICE issued the following statement... ...